The tension and friction among the group members of MGI will prove to be the breaking point for the company. If MGI has any hope of success, it will have to come under new management. The clashing of personalities, cultural differences and mindsets will result in too many problems causing MGI to not move forward. I recommend that MGI cut down the number of varying personalities which will allow them to center their focus on their structural organization, come up with a plan of action, and decide the role of each individual, which they were not able to do.
Throughout the entire case, various issues arose between individual members of the company. Right from the start, Dana and Sasha began to have problems regarding the future of MGI. Igor stated, “There was complete animosity between Sasha and Dana”. “The negative chemistry” between the two as Roman mentioned, definitely would have an impact on the company. In today’s society, chemistry is needed in a company to be a triumph, especially when it only has seven individuals to begin with.
…show more content…
As a result of the arguing and bickering between these two group members, one of the four villains of decision-making came about. The narrow thinking of the two group members developed into a narrow framing, signifying a need for change within the group management. Roman stated, “Whatever Dana said, Sasha didn’t agree, and whatever Sasha said, Dana dismissed”. The emotion of these two people involved resulted in two narrow mindsets. Something needs to change or else the potential of MGI will be held
One of the main issue was the lack of communication and understanding between the key decision makers and IT team. These two parties were very disconnected in
Some members and experts used skewed information. There were many points of views, most of which had some questionable moments. Though confusing arguments, they used their knowledge and skills to influence each other and had passion for their goals. The decision of the board will determine
Bob’s Meltdown In today’s workplace communication is key, collaboration crucial and teamwork a top management buzzword. These facets encourage knowledge sharing, co‐operation and a joint sense of purpose. However, such an increase in interpersonal relationships too often creates an unwanted side effect: conflict. (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/14777280310795784)
All members of the groups were on different levels of acceptance with who they are as a person and the process expectations. Although members on different levels and stages of steps, they all had the same commitment goal. They all accept who they are because prior to members speaking the have to state their names and admit their problems. For any member of the group to be able to handle the changes in their group, they must some knowledge about their group leading
Case Study #1 Andrew Gonzalez Saint Leo University MGT 417 Case Study #1 The Meridian water pump case is about a small company that produces small water pumps. There was a meeting held within the department managers that pertained to making medium size pumps for the next 6months. Arguments were recorded between the marketing and sales manager, production manager, HR manager and finance manager. It seems to me that all were pointing the finger at one another on why things couldn’t get done and each department was slowing the other down by not efficiently running their departments.
Symptoms of Groupthink (Janis, Group think ).” Former describes behaviour associate with the next indicator of group think, rationalization, which involves the in-group substantiating their line of reasoning. In the first act juror number three is the front runner of the men who voted guilty. Promptly after the first vote he gives what he feel is undeniable datum and reason for his vote he
Psychologist Irving Janis explained some alarmingly bad decisions made by governments and businesses coined the term "groupthink”, which he called "fiascoes.” He was particularly drawn to situations where group pressure seemed to result in a fundamental failure to think. Therefore, Janis further analyzed that it is a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members ' striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. According to Janis, groupthink is referred as the psychological drive for consensus at any cost that suppresses disagreement and prevents the appraisal of alternatives in cohesive decision-making groups.
In The Dangers of Groupthink, Naomi Karten provides the reader with a few of many examples on how they can avoid the dangerous phenomenon that is, Groupthink. Karten expresses her opinion by stating, “Diligently avoid a no-criticism culture and a no-criticism decision-making policy.” (The Danger of Groupthink, 2). Being able to avoid a nonconstructive environment is an extremely courageous step that can ultimately lead to one’s success. However, for one to achieve such a large task takes a tremendous effort, and requires one to place both their feelings and well being on the line.
It is a natural human instinct to want to be acknowledge by your peers, yet it is also important to be a critical thinker. Irving Janis in 1972 created the term groupthink. He believed groupthink occurs inside a group of similar people that want to keep from being different, resulting in incoherent decision-making. The 1957 film "12 Angry Men," uses groupthink, which influenced the verdict vote in the case of a teenager accused of murdering his father. The purpose of this essay is to examine groupthink and to represent Dr. Irving Janis’ symptoms of groupthink in the film.
However, through working together, they were able to pool physical and financial resources to benefit both groups. It is through series of behavioral actions the two groups realized they could accomplish the super ordinate goals set before them. Groups were also formed in the case study where it was found that Mary and brother’s formed two group and gathered allies, the superordinate goal could be for both groups to work towards finding a solution on care that is in the best interest of Ms Koulias. Whilst Realistic group conflict theory is a start to understanding this conflict , Social identity theory (SIT) that evolved from RGCT would provide a deeper understanding of the conflict.
Individual should be following under the overall group decision. Relying too heavily on a single employee to maintain the network was one of the reason to cause the collapse, because no discussion within a group, doing work all by themselves individually, meaning that they were only following what they thought, no other opinions were taken. Lesson 3: Keep your working knowledge current. Generally speaking, this lesson indicates that not only system need to be updated, people also need to.
Six Thinking Hats in Group Decision Making : When we take certain decision about important things in our life, it does not become easy to come to final and constructive conclusion. If we look into our usual (Indian) approach of communication and thinking, it is usually not lateral but opposing and does not involve co-operation. Especially when an individual or team decision needs to be taken- it should be collaborative, supportive, 360 degree thinking, understanding from all angles and then taking decision. In group, members assume different hats of thinking and put forward such kind of views which would be integrated into an effective
Throughout our daily lives at work, we can deal with and run into all types of people. We can deal with those who are perfectly fine to work with, as well as those who are quite difficult to work with. Co-workers, employees and even managers could come off as nasty and hard-hearted. In What a Star – What a Jerk (2001), a Harvard Business review case study, we see a problem that is exemplified by a real life situation. The case is about Jane, a manager who has recently joined the organization, TechniCo, and Andy, a top performer who comes off as a jerk in his behavior.
Introduction Conflict is unpleasant, but inevitable throughout life. In any situation involving two or people, conflict may arise. Conflict can be defined as, “any situation in which incompatible goals, cognitions, or emotions within or between individuals or groups lead to opposition or antagonistic interaction” (Learning Team Toolkit, 2004, pp 242-243). People come from different backgrounds and live through different life experiences therefore, even when working towards a common goal, they will not always agree. Major conflict that is not dealt with can devastate a team or organization (Make Conflict Work, 2008).
IDEO’s most significant weakness centres around the fact that IDEO is spread across many different sectors of the economy, as seen above through a partial list of clients, as well as across several continents, as seen above through the list of office locations. While there is strength in diversification, the lack of focus and extremely broad approach can also be a weakness if resources are spread too thin or the company branches out too far beyond its core competencies. While IDEO has done a remarkable job in scaling its culture of creativity and innovation and reframing its business strategies to support a significantly larger multinational company, there have been growing pains and leadership must be aware of the issues in order to continue to nurture a healthy