Fireart, Inc. Management

Gabriella Budimuljono

Professor Sophie Leroy Avila

Case 1: The Team That Wasn’t

BBUS 472

11 January 2017

Case 1: The Team That Wasn’t

FireArt, Inc. is a successful company which manufactures glass novelties at a high price and high quality for their Midwestern customers. However, the company’s sales are threatened by the large traditional glass companies who are making money through mass production. Thus, FireArt, Inc. has assigned a team of managers to decide a new strategic plan for the company to survive in the market.

Question 1. What is the nature of the problems experienced by the team? Why are these problems occurring?

• Individual factor. One of the main problems is the uneven group dynamic due to Randy Louderback’s self-centered personality. During the meeting with the team, he’s very disruptive. He doesn’t want to show respect for others by not paying attention and shooting down others’ opinions. His extraordinary knowledge and insightful ideas have helped the company’s success and brought him to be trusted by Jack Derry, the CEO. However, this also affects his attitude towards the team. His pride of knowing that his role is important for the company makes him feel that he has the authority and power to control the meeting and underestimate the team.
• Team factor. There is unclear or uninformed shared goal. This can be because of lack of communication or the team culture which consists of “I” rather than “We.” It’s quite obvious that each member seems to focus on their own objectives. Ray LaPierre, Maureen Turner, and Carl Simmons have planned to present cost-cutting proposals. However, during the meeting, they seem to talk about different things. Ray wants to cut the cost and Carl suggests the company to increase its delivery speed. Meanwhile, Maureen Turner tends to involve her personal matter and emotion while ambitiously explaining that artists’ creativity should also be respected in the company. They don’t communicate the shared goal very well, and none of their ideas reaches a meeting point.
• Team factor. There is also a trust issue between the team members. The fact that each member comes from different divisions increases the likelihood that they rarely or never work with each other before. Randy is a director of sales and marketing, Ray is from manufacturing division, Maureen is from design division, and Carl is from distribution division. The length of time each team member has been working in the company also varies. For instance, Carl has just joined the company for 6 months. In fact, it is also mentioned that FireArt managers are unaccustomed to a team process. All of these factors support the idea that none of the team members has developed or maintained a meaningful relationship with the members in the team.  

Question 2. What recommendations would you make to Eric, not just for dealing with Randy, but also for more effectively managing the team?  

• Regarding Randy’s personality, Eric and all managers should try to discuss it with Randy. If it doesn’t work, Eric and the other managers should inform the CEO about Randy’s problem working in a team. The CEO with higher position and closer relationship with Randy perhaps can communicate more easily with Randy and mediate the conflict.
• Both Eric and the CEO should also show the same degree of respect and fairness in treating the managers, so no one has the power to discriminate others. Acknowledging that other managers also have capabilities and inputs for the company, credit and trust should not be given to one person (Randy) but to the whole managers in the team. Therefore, managers will be more willing and committed to work in a team, and it will make the decision-making process a lot easier.
• Eric can also try creating a self-managing team. Since hierarchy will be less relevant when the team is cross-functional, self-managing team may be more appropriate for the managers. Each manager seems knowledgeable enough to be working on their own division. Thus, Eric and the CEO can discuss the overall purpose and shared goal and let the team members to manage their methods to achieve the goal. This will also reduce the conflict as each manager can work responsibly with their divisions.
• The case mentions that Eric has prepared the structure and guidelines for the group’s discussions, disagreements, and decisions. However, it doesn’t sound like it’s informed well across the managers. Thus, it’s suggested that Eric holds a pre-meeting session with all of the team members to give him a chance to explain the meeting and the expected outcomes. Furthermore, managers who come from different divisions but have to work together may not have time in the office to communicate about the meeting smoothly. The pre-meeting session is to provide an opportunity for the managers to share their ideas. It will allow open communication that can address different opinions and disputes that may appear in the actual meeting. Managers will be able to better understand the shared goals. Consequently, they will act towards the shared goals more consistently during the meeting.
• Consulting with the CEO, Eric should start a continual team-building session that is required for all managers during their first two years of working in the company. It can help the managers to become more accustomed to a team-structured environment since a team works better when they are bounded over time. The team-building session will be conducted in the nature of a workplace setting that allows interaction between managers from different divisions. This will help the managers to develop a relationship and gain trust before working as a team. Therefore, no one will think that others will take credit for themselves.