Which characteristics of excellence were evidently lacking in this task force essay

Question 1. Which characteristics of excellence were evidently lacking in this task force?

According to Northouse (2009), there are eight characteristics of excellence: clear elevating goals, results-driven structure, competent team members, unified commitment, collaborative climate, standards of excellence, external support and recognition, and principled leadership. The task force of the committee of Northcoast University clearly lacked some of these characteristics. First of all, the task force did not have clear, elevating goals: in fact, the goal was very wage – to plan the mission of the university for the next 20 years. This is a large period of time, and a team of 11 individuals is unlikely to manage such an abstract task. The team lacked competent members: although the task force had remarkable technical knowledge and (most likely) administrative power, this does not mean that team members had the necessary interpersonal skills for effective collaboration.

The team also did not have unified commitment, because this was simply a collection of individual faculty members and administrators, and no one bothered about forming the team spirit. The stages of team formation were not considered as well (2 months will only be enough for the team with weekly meetings to pass the conflict stage and to arrive to the effective state).

Northcoast University team also lacked the standards of excellence. Indeed, there were no clear and concrete standards, and the members of the team did not have a means for evaluating their performance. The team lacked external support and recognition, as Mr. Sulgrave, President of the University, did not pay attention to the project after the initial claims on utmost importance of this project. It is very indicative that the President never called for the committee report. Even though he was involved in the university crisis, there is a possibility that the findings of the committee would be useful to the university leaders. The sense of uselessness should have significantly impaired team performance. Finally, the team clearly lacked principled leadership: Kim Green did not possess the qualities and principles of a leader, and failed to fulfill her functions as a leader (both task and maintenance functions of leadership were lacking in the course of this project).

Question 2. Which characteristics of excellence were evident in this task force?

Despite the absence of many crucial characteristics of team excellence, the Northcoast University still possessed two of importance excellence characteristics. The team clearly had a results-driven structure from the start. Indeed, this team can be clearly identified as a problem-solving team (the problem in this case was the development of the university for 20 years), and all members of the team were enthusiastic, willing and able to contribute. The trust could also be witnessed among team members, because they actively engaged in the research and shared their findings. Another characteristics of excellence was the existence of the collaborative climate at the initial stage of the project: openness, respect and consistency were witnessed during the first several meetings of the group. Unfortunately, these advantage were affected by the lack of proper leadership.

Question 3. How would you assess Kim as a leader?

Kim’s leadership style can be characterized as laissez-faire. She either did not have proper experience with team management (with recently shaped teams), or did not possess key leadership qualities. Her interpersonal skills were also weak, because she did not manage to reach an agreements with the members of the team, and did not inform the university president about the poor state of the project.

Team leaders need to have behavioral flexibility, problem-solving skills and ability to determine when the project requires the leader’s intervention. Unfortunately, Kim Green did not possess any of these qualities.

Kim was not effective with regard to choices between monitoring the project and taking action (in fact, there is no evidence that she took any action as a leader); both relational and task needs of the project were neglected because Kim did not choose to intervene, and due to the same reason both internal and external environment of the project were affected. Most likely, Kim had neither will nor the set of qualities to become a leader, and the university leaders made an incorrect decision inviting Kim to this position.

Question 4. What actions would you take (internally or externally) if you were the leader of this task force?

If I were the leader of the task force, I would first of all take actions with regard to external environment. Networking would be the most important external action: as the project started with a large a vague goal, it would be necessary to establish clear criteria and goals for the project. The importance of the project as such should also be discussed with the President (no team will be effective, if the project is being done just for show.

I would also make emphasis on sharing information: perhaps, the findings of the committee would already be useful to the President. Also, it is recommended to establish meetings with President (or his representative) once in two weeks, and to outline the scope and findings of the project. Advocating activities would also be important with regard to increased focus on the project, and it would be necessary to negotiate for work redistribution for the committee members (as they felt overwhelmed by the project later).

Internal actions would be the following. With regard to the task, goal-focusing, structuring for results and maintaining standards leadership actions should take place. More precisely, it would be necessary to communicate the updated goal to the committee, to assign team roles and responsibilities and to establish clear standards of performance for every role. Relational actions would be the following: collaborating, managing conflict, satisfying needs and building commitment. It would be necessary to restore the trust within the team, to regenerate commitment, to satisfy the needs of team members for recognition by the President and reduce work overload on them, and to manage possible conflicts within the team. In this way, both performance and development of the team would be improved.