MGI Group Case Study

1. What is your evaluation of the MGI team’s process?

The team is weak. While the makeup of the team is one that fashions an environment conducive for enhanced effectiveness, it has yet to approach the set mandate in a manner that ensures the realization of its goals. Errors can be identified during the initial stages of forming the group. There are five stages of group formation. During three of these phases, the forming, storming and norming, were characterized by significant errors (Polzer, Vargas & Elfenbein, 2003). The forming stage was spread through some meetings. The core rationale for this is the inability of all members to be included in the first initial meetings. Such a factor impeded on the development of the group dynamic.

The second stage, which is the storming phase, there were issues of frustrations, confusion, and conflicting expectations. Such feelings were quite detrimental to the harmony and tranquility to be generated in the group. The lack of a common focus coupled with the growing frustrations of the team members

For one, a leader could have been selected during the forming stages (Raelin, 2008). To some extent, Henry should have assumed this leadership role given his experience on the same. Henry could have also addressed the diversity of the team members. One of the most practical approaches towards this regard entails acknowledging the differences and implementing strategies to work around these differences (Kurtzberg, 2014). The third measure requires the setting up of norms and values to guide the actions of the team members. The absence of norms and values has contributed to the team’s failure. The fourth measure entails conflict management. No conflict resolution mechanisms were in place to guide in resolving the conflicts that were characteristic of the team. Therefore, Henry ought to have ensured that such mechanisms were in