Henry Tam And The Mgi Team 4y1l1h
This document was ed by and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this report form. Report r6l17
Overview 4q3b3c
& View Henry Tam And The Mgi Team as PDF for free.
More details 26j3b
- Words: 2,011
- Pages: 9
17010057
Henry Tam and the MGI Team Organizational Behavior WAC
Janjua
17010057 Organizational Behavior WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team
Introduction Music Games International (MGI) was a small entity with three co-founders, two of them were accomplished composers and the other one was a HBS alumnus (MBA 87). MGI business plan team consisted of seven . (See Exhibit 1 for team member bios). Henry Tam and MGI Team faced difficult and challenging group dynamics as deadline for submission of business plan for the HBS business plan contest approached. Even though the group had couple of meetings but as a whole the group was not cohesive. This seriously affected the efficiency and productivity of the team. Furthermore they were not able to conduct organized meetings and there was lack of direction which added to inefficiency. Roles of the were not concisely defined and there existed a conflict between role perception and role expectation. Evaluation of MGI Team’s Process MGI team was a diverse team, both in of culture and professional background. (See Exhibit 1 for team member bios). This caused sub grouping among the team . It seemed like cofounders were cohesive one team and Dana, Henry and Alex were on the other side while Dav was neutral. This process problem of sub grouping divided the team into majorly two groups (HBS vs Russians) contesting against each other. In of professional grouping there was a clear line between the business people and the creative people. The founders kept on raising many ideas and all they wanted was to pursue all possible avenues but Henry and Dana tried to choose one alternative out of all the ideas. The never-ending brainstorming sessions were good for creative people because they lead to nothing but discussion. On the other hand the business people wanted to go ahead with one the best idea and to write the business plan. Due to this divide MGI Team was struck in the storming stage of group development. The participation process was often dominated by the verbal argument between Sasha and Dana. Their chemistry was way too different and they disagreed on every single point. This diverted the team focus and it suppressed the creative ideas of low participators. Alex and Dav were low participators among the rest. (See Exhibit 2 for level of participation of ). This conflict between the high participators caused the ideas by low participators underrepresented. Another process problem was role definition. None of the member’s role was clearly defined. HBS students thought that they were leaders whereas Sasha and Alex saw their role only as business
Page 1 of 8
17010057 Organizational Behavior WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team
plan writers specifically for the contest. There was a major gap between role perception and role expectation. Sasha considered himself as the CEO of the company but Dana considered him as a mere sales person with narrow and short term vision. Due to no presence of role definition Dana and Henry assumed the role of leadership and directed people to do different tasks and doing management. This caused cause role conflict and they faced divergent role expectations causing it difficult for adhere to one role requirement. Moreover Dana and Henry saw their future in the company whereas Sasha was not really sure about it. Root Causes of Team’s Process Problems The lack of direction, lack of leadership and not defining process, procedures and roles thoroughly caused the problems. The lack of direction and leadership diverted the focus of the team in every meeting and every meeting turned out to be a brainstorming session only without moving ahead. There existed no statement of purpose for the team. Apparently it seemed from the case study that co-founders wanted students as a bridge to participate in the business plan contest to attract investors. The inclusion of Dav made this hidden intention clear. Furthermore when Sasha brought out long list of HBS alumni for Henry and Dana to , this hidden agenda came to the surface. On contrast HBS students were looking for long term partnership with MGI. These different private agendas of the caused friction in the team. Secondly there were no procedure defined for running the team. Properly defined procedures are important for group to clear expectations concerning their projected activities and working relationship. As mentioned in the case study there were ideas from all over the place and the team was not able to focus on any idea. If procedures and roles were clearly defined it could have served the purpose and team meetings could have been fruitful. MGI Team On Paper MGI team was multi-talented and they had the right skills and balance to develop a great business plan. Igor had an impressive resume. He had a good reputation in music industry across Europe and US. Similarly Roman was well recognized composer and respected in Europe and US. He had strong connections in Russian music industry. Sasha had a several start-up experiences and was HBS MBA. Sasha and Igor had a working relation of more than 20 years and their bond was very
Page 2 of 8
17010057 Organizational Behavior WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team
resilient. Co-founders had same ethnic background and this made them cohesive as a team. All team were very ionate about working on this project. Individual motivation was very high. Henry in particular was very calm and composed. He was very good with collecting information and organizing it in a presentable way. He played with numbers well and always brought something concrete to the discussion. Alex has a substantial experience in both music and business industry and his education ed his experience. Dav on the other hand was a software genius. His skills were necessary for technical aspect of product design and on patent application. On a holistic picture the MIG team was technically very sound. Each member had the required skill set necessary to deliver. Team Conflict- A liability or an Asset According to J. Richard Hackman team effectiveness is measured by three factors 1) Task accomplishment 2) Member’s Satisfaction 3) Capacity building of for future. In this case team conflict was a liability on a bigger picture as it was causing meaningless delays. Only three weeks were left for the final submission of the business plan and even the first draft was nowhere near completion. Due to team conflict every meeting did not produced desired results but it also shifted the focus of the team and caused delay. Frustration in was growing. Dana was not satisfied with the progress and was getting frustrated every ing day. In general were not satisfied with the desired progress and team direction. With respect to capacity building of the team was doing well. Students were exposed to real business problems and decision making whereas non business people were learning the art of start-up and business plan development. Before the First Meeting Before the first meeting Henry inquired Igor about the product, business and marketing plan, but Henry should have also asked about the group so that it might not have been a surprise when two new were introduced later on. Furthermore Henry should have questioned about the role and expectation explicitly, this would have cleared the gap between role expectation and role perception. Henry should have asked team to define team operating procedures and how will group make task related decisions. This process of reaching agreement on procedural
Page 3 of 8
17010057 Organizational Behavior WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team
issue could have become model of how the team would resolve other problems. Another important action that Henry should have done is meeting all the team . This could have led to build a productive relationship with the . Moreover, Henry should have sought clear understanding of the objective and the picture that co-founders had in their mind and should have tried to develop a statement of purpose. This could have cleared many conflicts regarding target market and vision of the MGI team. Actions to Increase Team’s Effectiveness With just three weeks to go before the submission, Henry should have asked and asserted team for bi-weekly meetings. This would increase the focus on the task and each member would have been forced to complete week’s work in just three days. Furthermore Henry should have taken the lead in developing agenda’s for the meetings. This would have resulted in more focused and outcome oriented meetings. A very important step in monitoring the process is the process form. Henry should have developed a form so that process related problems can be solved and avoided. (See Exhibit 3 for sample process form). For example if the form indicates influence issues, then a simple method to solve influence related issues is to or reinforce views of minority . In this particular case there was participation related issue. This could have been addressed by encouraging the low participating and bringing the discussion back to their point. As the deadline is approaching and team lags behind, to speed up the team Henry should have tried to set interim dead line for the final draft of business plan. After discussion with team and after their approval interim deadline should have been set a week before the official deadline. Furthermore it is important that group should agree on target market for the launch. For this agreement a focused meeting should have been called with target market as agenda item. Pros and cons of both target markets should have been tabled before the team and concrete discussion should have been carried out. Here it would have been important for Henry to discuss this issue in person with Sasha and should have tried to reach at some common ground. Moreover Henry should not align himself with Dana. It is very evident from the case that HBS students are one team. This sends negative vibes to rest of the team and is does not help in developing a cohesive group. Therefore Henry should have explained this to Dana and should have taken on more neutral role from now on.
Page 4 of 8
17010057 Organizational Behavior WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team
General Recommendations In any team or group there are following two major areas to work on 1. Task accomplishment 2. Team’s Processes It is equally important to focus on the team process. In general if team is not performing well, time should be taken out to focus on the team process apart from just focusing on the task. Focusing and monitoring the process can be helpful in solving the deadlocks and can be very beneficial for team’s efficiency as it can regroup ideas and direct the team towards task accomplishment .
Page 5 of 8
17010057 Organizational Behavior WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team
Exhibit 1: Team Bios
Name
Ethnicity
Background
Alexander [Sasha] Gimpelson
Russian
HBS MBA 87.
(co-founder) Igor Tkachenko
Expertise in sales, marketing Russian
(co-founder) Roman Yakub
Award winning composer and pianist with international reputation
Russian
Internationally acclaimed composer
American
Graduate student in the Brain and
(co-founder) Dav Clark
Cognitive Sciences department at MIT Alexander Jan Sartakov
Russian
Student at Berklee College of Music Dual major in Music Business Management and Music Production and Engineering
Dana Soiman
Russian
HBS MBA Final semester student
Henry Tam Jr.
American
HBS MBA Final semester student
Page 6 of 8
17010057 Organizational Behavior WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team
Exhibit 2: Level of participation of
Name
Participation Level
Alexander [Sasha] Gimpelson
High
(co-founder) Igor Tkachenko
High
(co-founder) Roman Yakub
Moderate
(co-founder) Dav Clark
Low
Alexander Jan Sartakov
Low
Dana Soiman
High
Henry Tam Jr.
High
Page 7 of 8
17010057 Organizational Behavior WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team
Exhibit 3: Sample Process Form
Process Variables
Rating
1
2
3
4
5
Influence Group Climate hip Feelings Task Functions Maintenance Functions Participation Comments
* Each member anonymously rate each variable on the sale from 1 to 5.
Page 8 of 8
Henry Tam and the MGI Team Organizational Behavior WAC
Janjua
17010057 Organizational Behavior WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team
Introduction Music Games International (MGI) was a small entity with three co-founders, two of them were accomplished composers and the other one was a HBS alumnus (MBA 87). MGI business plan team consisted of seven . (See Exhibit 1 for team member bios). Henry Tam and MGI Team faced difficult and challenging group dynamics as deadline for submission of business plan for the HBS business plan contest approached. Even though the group had couple of meetings but as a whole the group was not cohesive. This seriously affected the efficiency and productivity of the team. Furthermore they were not able to conduct organized meetings and there was lack of direction which added to inefficiency. Roles of the were not concisely defined and there existed a conflict between role perception and role expectation. Evaluation of MGI Team’s Process MGI team was a diverse team, both in of culture and professional background. (See Exhibit 1 for team member bios). This caused sub grouping among the team . It seemed like cofounders were cohesive one team and Dana, Henry and Alex were on the other side while Dav was neutral. This process problem of sub grouping divided the team into majorly two groups (HBS vs Russians) contesting against each other. In of professional grouping there was a clear line between the business people and the creative people. The founders kept on raising many ideas and all they wanted was to pursue all possible avenues but Henry and Dana tried to choose one alternative out of all the ideas. The never-ending brainstorming sessions were good for creative people because they lead to nothing but discussion. On the other hand the business people wanted to go ahead with one the best idea and to write the business plan. Due to this divide MGI Team was struck in the storming stage of group development. The participation process was often dominated by the verbal argument between Sasha and Dana. Their chemistry was way too different and they disagreed on every single point. This diverted the team focus and it suppressed the creative ideas of low participators. Alex and Dav were low participators among the rest. (See Exhibit 2 for level of participation of ). This conflict between the high participators caused the ideas by low participators underrepresented. Another process problem was role definition. None of the member’s role was clearly defined. HBS students thought that they were leaders whereas Sasha and Alex saw their role only as business
Page 1 of 8
17010057 Organizational Behavior WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team
plan writers specifically for the contest. There was a major gap between role perception and role expectation. Sasha considered himself as the CEO of the company but Dana considered him as a mere sales person with narrow and short term vision. Due to no presence of role definition Dana and Henry assumed the role of leadership and directed people to do different tasks and doing management. This caused cause role conflict and they faced divergent role expectations causing it difficult for adhere to one role requirement. Moreover Dana and Henry saw their future in the company whereas Sasha was not really sure about it. Root Causes of Team’s Process Problems The lack of direction, lack of leadership and not defining process, procedures and roles thoroughly caused the problems. The lack of direction and leadership diverted the focus of the team in every meeting and every meeting turned out to be a brainstorming session only without moving ahead. There existed no statement of purpose for the team. Apparently it seemed from the case study that co-founders wanted students as a bridge to participate in the business plan contest to attract investors. The inclusion of Dav made this hidden intention clear. Furthermore when Sasha brought out long list of HBS alumni for Henry and Dana to , this hidden agenda came to the surface. On contrast HBS students were looking for long term partnership with MGI. These different private agendas of the caused friction in the team. Secondly there were no procedure defined for running the team. Properly defined procedures are important for group to clear expectations concerning their projected activities and working relationship. As mentioned in the case study there were ideas from all over the place and the team was not able to focus on any idea. If procedures and roles were clearly defined it could have served the purpose and team meetings could have been fruitful. MGI Team On Paper MGI team was multi-talented and they had the right skills and balance to develop a great business plan. Igor had an impressive resume. He had a good reputation in music industry across Europe and US. Similarly Roman was well recognized composer and respected in Europe and US. He had strong connections in Russian music industry. Sasha had a several start-up experiences and was HBS MBA. Sasha and Igor had a working relation of more than 20 years and their bond was very
Page 2 of 8
17010057 Organizational Behavior WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team
resilient. Co-founders had same ethnic background and this made them cohesive as a team. All team were very ionate about working on this project. Individual motivation was very high. Henry in particular was very calm and composed. He was very good with collecting information and organizing it in a presentable way. He played with numbers well and always brought something concrete to the discussion. Alex has a substantial experience in both music and business industry and his education ed his experience. Dav on the other hand was a software genius. His skills were necessary for technical aspect of product design and on patent application. On a holistic picture the MIG team was technically very sound. Each member had the required skill set necessary to deliver. Team Conflict- A liability or an Asset According to J. Richard Hackman team effectiveness is measured by three factors 1) Task accomplishment 2) Member’s Satisfaction 3) Capacity building of for future. In this case team conflict was a liability on a bigger picture as it was causing meaningless delays. Only three weeks were left for the final submission of the business plan and even the first draft was nowhere near completion. Due to team conflict every meeting did not produced desired results but it also shifted the focus of the team and caused delay. Frustration in was growing. Dana was not satisfied with the progress and was getting frustrated every ing day. In general were not satisfied with the desired progress and team direction. With respect to capacity building of the team was doing well. Students were exposed to real business problems and decision making whereas non business people were learning the art of start-up and business plan development. Before the First Meeting Before the first meeting Henry inquired Igor about the product, business and marketing plan, but Henry should have also asked about the group so that it might not have been a surprise when two new were introduced later on. Furthermore Henry should have questioned about the role and expectation explicitly, this would have cleared the gap between role expectation and role perception. Henry should have asked team to define team operating procedures and how will group make task related decisions. This process of reaching agreement on procedural
Page 3 of 8
17010057 Organizational Behavior WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team
issue could have become model of how the team would resolve other problems. Another important action that Henry should have done is meeting all the team . This could have led to build a productive relationship with the . Moreover, Henry should have sought clear understanding of the objective and the picture that co-founders had in their mind and should have tried to develop a statement of purpose. This could have cleared many conflicts regarding target market and vision of the MGI team. Actions to Increase Team’s Effectiveness With just three weeks to go before the submission, Henry should have asked and asserted team for bi-weekly meetings. This would increase the focus on the task and each member would have been forced to complete week’s work in just three days. Furthermore Henry should have taken the lead in developing agenda’s for the meetings. This would have resulted in more focused and outcome oriented meetings. A very important step in monitoring the process is the process form. Henry should have developed a form so that process related problems can be solved and avoided. (See Exhibit 3 for sample process form). For example if the form indicates influence issues, then a simple method to solve influence related issues is to or reinforce views of minority . In this particular case there was participation related issue. This could have been addressed by encouraging the low participating and bringing the discussion back to their point. As the deadline is approaching and team lags behind, to speed up the team Henry should have tried to set interim dead line for the final draft of business plan. After discussion with team and after their approval interim deadline should have been set a week before the official deadline. Furthermore it is important that group should agree on target market for the launch. For this agreement a focused meeting should have been called with target market as agenda item. Pros and cons of both target markets should have been tabled before the team and concrete discussion should have been carried out. Here it would have been important for Henry to discuss this issue in person with Sasha and should have tried to reach at some common ground. Moreover Henry should not align himself with Dana. It is very evident from the case that HBS students are one team. This sends negative vibes to rest of the team and is does not help in developing a cohesive group. Therefore Henry should have explained this to Dana and should have taken on more neutral role from now on.
Page 4 of 8
17010057 Organizational Behavior WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team
General Recommendations In any team or group there are following two major areas to work on 1. Task accomplishment 2. Team’s Processes It is equally important to focus on the team process. In general if team is not performing well, time should be taken out to focus on the team process apart from just focusing on the task. Focusing and monitoring the process can be helpful in solving the deadlocks and can be very beneficial for team’s efficiency as it can regroup ideas and direct the team towards task accomplishment .
Page 5 of 8
17010057 Organizational Behavior WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team
Exhibit 1: Team Bios
Name
Ethnicity
Background
Alexander [Sasha] Gimpelson
Russian
HBS MBA 87.
(co-founder) Igor Tkachenko
Expertise in sales, marketing Russian
(co-founder) Roman Yakub
Award winning composer and pianist with international reputation
Russian
Internationally acclaimed composer
American
Graduate student in the Brain and
(co-founder) Dav Clark
Cognitive Sciences department at MIT Alexander Jan Sartakov
Russian
Student at Berklee College of Music Dual major in Music Business Management and Music Production and Engineering
Dana Soiman
Russian
HBS MBA Final semester student
Henry Tam Jr.
American
HBS MBA Final semester student
Page 6 of 8
17010057 Organizational Behavior WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team
Exhibit 2: Level of participation of
Name
Participation Level
Alexander [Sasha] Gimpelson
High
(co-founder) Igor Tkachenko
High
(co-founder) Roman Yakub
Moderate
(co-founder) Dav Clark
Low
Alexander Jan Sartakov
Low
Dana Soiman
High
Henry Tam Jr.
High
Page 7 of 8
17010057 Organizational Behavior WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team
Exhibit 3: Sample Process Form
Process Variables
Rating
1
2
3
4
5
Influence Group Climate hip Feelings Task Functions Maintenance Functions Participation Comments
* Each member anonymously rate each variable on the sale from 1 to 5.
Page 8 of 8
Related Documents 171j1w
Henry Tam And Mgi Team f3jy
April 2022 0
Henry Tam And The Mgi Team 4y1l1h
November 2021 0
Team Building And Team Work 204te
November 2021 0
Team Work And Team Building 3q6158
January 2023 0
Henry Ford And The Nazis 6i4o34
November 2019 64
Mgi 1 4g6n6
November 2019 158More Documents from "abdullah" 6kf3p
Ramadan Is The Ninth Month Of The Muslim Calendar.docx 221m1y
April 2023 0
2c82t
December 2019 115
Taberi Tarihi - 1 3g2520
December 2020 0
Wahiduddin Web 106p2t
November 2021 0
Henry Tam And The Mgi Team 4y1l1h
November 2021 0