Case Study Analysis: Arctic Mining Consultants essay

The effective team management is extremely important for the effective accomplishment of projects because the team management defines the work of each team members and can accelerate the team performance and complete projects successfully. In this regard, it is possible to refer to the case of Arctic Mining Consultants and the work of the team headed by Parker. In fact, the team has proved to be not very efficient because of internal conflicts, which prevented the team from the successful accomplishment of the project, although the team had the potential to complete the project I time. However, internal conflicts had become an unsurpassable barrier on the way of the team to the successful accomplishment of the project. Therefore, the effective team and project management is essential for the efficient work of teams but managers should be able to maintain positive interpersonal relations within the team, positive atmosphere within the team, and unite the team to reach positive outcomes in their performance.

Structure

On analyzing the project Parker’s team worked on, it is important to dwell upon the structure of the team. First of all, Parker works as a project manager and heads the team. He invited professionals, whom he knew pretty well because he had the experience of work with Boyce, Talbot and Millar. As a result, the project team consisted of professionals, who were efficient enough and ready to complete the project within seven days. In such a way, the team faced a challenge because the project has to be completed in very limited timeline.

The team working on the project was divided into four units working on stakes, Parker, Talbot, Boyce and Millar. At the same time, Parker was the project manager and the head of the team. Each team was supposed to reach the same goal and the number of stakes was divided equally between each team member. In such a situation, the team should reach positive results but team members had to work as a team and did their best to reach positive results.

Culture and values

In actuality, the team had the potential to achieve positive results in their performance because Talbot, Boyce, and Millar worked as field assistants of Parker. In such a way, the team could have completed the project successfully, if Parker had managed to unite the team and to make team members to work effectively. In this respect, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that Parker has already worked with each team member. Therefore, he knew them well. In such a situation, he should use his knowledge of each team member to elaborate an effective strategy of team work and develop and implement the plan, which could allow the team to maximize its performance within seven days.

At this point, it is worth mentioning the fact that the team worked on one and the same project, have common goals and motivation, and eager to complete the project. Therefore, it was the responsibility of the project manager to unite his subordinates and to make them working as a team. Basically, they share the same values and have common goals. Therefore, they had the factors that united them. The project manager attempted to focus on the implementation of the project and completing the project successfully.

Leadership

Parker, being the project manager, was the team leader. However, he failed to perform his functions of the leader successfully. Instead of leading the team toward the successful accomplishment of the project, he provoked conflicts within the team and discouraged Millar to work better. He did not support him, when Millar needed the leader’s support and recognition. Instead, he pushed on him and considered him just too lazy to work harder.

Motivation

In such a situation, it is possible to speak about the poor motivation of team members. In fact, the bonus team members were supposed to receive upon the accomplishment of the project was the only motivation. However, this motivation has proved to be absolutely ineffective, taking into consideration the strong desire of Millar to quit the project and he would, if he was not in the remote area. In this regard, Parker, as the leader, should use non-material motivation. For instance, he could give Millar positive feedback as he improved his performance. Instead, Parker had done nothing.

Group Dynamic

In such a context, the group dynamic was very negative because from a united team, the group just fell apart as Millar and Boyce dropped behind Talbort and Parker from the beginning of their team work, whereas Millar totally dropped out of the group by the end of the project.

Problem

However, as the team worked on the project, a number of problems emerged within the team that prevented the team to complete the project successfully. The main problem was that Millar and Boyce had poor performance compared to Talbot and Parker. They failed to do seven stakes a day as the team agreed upon before launching the work on the project. In such a situation, Parker and Talbot worked more effectively than Millar and Boyce, although bonuses were supposed to be equal for each team members. In addition, Talbot and Parker had to do the larger volume of work to complete the project in time because Millar and Boyce failed to do their part of work properly.

As a result, Parker attacked Millar, although Boyce’s performance is not any better than that of Millar. In such a way, Millar became the subject to severe criticism from the part of the project manager and the team leader. In such a situation, Parker felt being oppressed and unmotivated because he could not do better than he actually did. Remarkably, he worked more than others but he just failed to perform as well as his more experienced colleagues, especially Parker. The permanent pressure and abuse from the part of Parker leads to the apathy of Millar and unwillingness to work better because, even when he improves his performance, Parker fails to encourage and support him. As soon as Millar performs beyond the target level, Parker attacks him immideately. In such a way, internal conflicts within the team between Parker and Millar became the major reason for the failure of the team to complete the project successfully.

Recommendations

In such a situation, it is important to suggest some recommendations Parker could use to improve the effectiveness of the work of the team. In fact, it was Parker, who was responsible for the successful accomplishment of the project and he as the project manager and the team leader should organize the work of the team and lead the team to success.

First of all, Parker should attempt to develop equal approaches to each team member. In this regard, the use of steward leadership style could be helpful because he should work as a guide for his subordinates and help them in their work. For instance, he could give a piece of advice for less successful team members, instead of criticizing Millar and shouting him down. Using the steward leadership style, Parker could make the work of the team more effective and productive, whereas his criticism should be more specific and he should suggest some options to improve Millar’s and Boyce’s performance, instead of suggesting  to work harder.

Furthermore, Parker should try to accept the suggestion of Millar and to change the area where Millar work moving him to the area, where Talbot worked. In such a way, Parker would show Millar that he was ready to provide his subordinates with wide autonomy and stimulate initiatives. Obviously, the team needed the close cooperation and Parker should meet initiatives of Millar as well as other team members, instead of oppressing them and depriving them of any initiative. For instance, if Parker agreed to change the areas of Millar and Talbot, nothing would change, in the worst case, or Millar would improve his performance consistently, in the best case.

In addition, Parker could attempt to encourage Millar instead of discouraging him. In fact, what Parker did just criticized Millar and oppressed him, although Boyce did not perform better than Millar. In fact, Parker chose Millar as a victim to his anger because of the poor performance of both Millar and Boyce. At the same time, he did not notice efforts Millar did to improve his performance.

At the same time, Parker should criticize Boyce as well as he did in relation to Millar. Obviously, it was unjust to criticize Millar only, while Boyce’s performance was not any better. Anyway, the criticism should be productive. What is meant here is the fact that Parker should justify his criticism and suggest concrete steps Millar as well as Boyce should make to improve their performance. Obviously, the suggestion to work harder would have never worked. Instead, if Parker suggested changing the style of work of Millar somehow to increase the speed of his work, this would be more effective.

Parker should discuss reasons why each team member worked worse or better compared to other team members. In fact, the team should discuss what the problem was. The team should share knowledge and experience to tackle the problem and to help Millar and Boyce work better. Through the communication of each team member at the end of each day, they could solve their problems and improve their performance to complete the project successfully. Finally, bonuses should be diversified respectively to the progress each team member made in the course of the implementation of the project.