Leo Burnett Case

Leo Burnett Case

1. Based on all of the information provided in this case, analyze the Leo Burnett team(s) according to the Team Effectiveness Model in the textbook (portrayed in Exhibit 10.3 and discussed on pp. 164-170). That is, discuss each of these components of the model as they apply to the team at Leo Burnett, and indicate whether each one is likely to facilitate or hinder team effectiveness in this case. (6 points)

There are three big part of the team effectiveness: context, composition and process. First, LB and OBC are big companies. The resource should be well enough. Moreover, the launch product is their primary mission. There is no reason that they would limit their resource distribution in this case. However, I think there is an issue in the structure. The teams are assigned by different locations (London, Taiwan and Toronto). The large distance and time gap would result in communication issue. Every office would create a different viewpoint of marketing because of the local exploration. Since the opinions might be not the same, the climate of trust would be heart. The performance evaluation and reward system aren’t used in this mission, which would decrease the teams to give feedback. The different instruction for Taiwan and Canada might also hurt the leadership of the headquarters. For the second part, the composition is also a big issue. Since people or members are the determined factors in this part. The personnel changes in Canadian office and UK office definitely influence the level of the abilities and personality of members. The dual reporting line in this case would also reduce the member flexibility for operation. For the last part, time zone gap and relationship between different locations would decrease the team efficacy and increase the conflict levels.

2. Why was the Taiwan team more “successful” than the Toronto team? What, if any, part of the poor decision(s) can be traced to team dynamics? (5 points)

For this assignment, the global team produced creative templates such as design of the advertisement and communication materials for this brand, and then they send to satellite teams so that they adapt them for the local market. This happened with the Taipei team because they received templates and adapted them to the local market, but this did not happened with Toronto team. The London team send the actual design of the ad and the communication materials, and did not let Toronto team change it, but in response gave them only to produce below the line materials such as the website. I think there’s a simple and straightforward instruction in Taiwan team. They don’t have the other collaborator that has different opinions, which means the communication could be conducted well at most of the moment. Moreover, the idea of pluralism of cultures vs. cultural pluralism needs to be considered seriously. As being a Taiwanese, I think of my people as a flexible and simple race. The advertisement and marketing are much more easier to be implied. However, the diverse cultures within Canada could become a difficulty that marketing would need to include many perspectives.  The pre-launch in Canada couldn’t represent the exact success in the future. The Taiwan team also got exercise autonomy, they successfully incorporated local and global thinking. However, advertisement in Canada featured a blond Caucasian actress as the lead in television and print advertisements. The Toronto team wasn’t able to adapt the advertisements as they best see fit. The culture difference between London and Canada may not accept it. Consumers in Canada might consider it as violent. Those factors above attributed to the poor communication. It would enhance the conflict level day by day. There are so many examples showing that it wouldn’t perform well for both LB Toronto and London. The frustration would lead to low team dynamic when both sides didn’t receive the actual meaning from each other.