Adel Fahoum-Midterm Assignment

Evaluation of Jons perspective: Team formation despite having mentioned

the importance of
having a metamorphosis, the author has not recommended a course of
action which would
facilitate its occurrence, an alternative for dealing with the problematic
history amongst the team
members could be administered through having personalized initiation
conversations that are
followed by structured understanding conversations. Structure and process the accountability
principle which the author lists, can indeed enhance the collaboration
amongst the team
members, provided that routine and accurate performance conversations are
conducted . Team
communication- the ground rules according to which, the commutations
ought to be performed
have not been set , this limitation could obstruct the formation of trust
among the team members
, because the existing animosities amongst the team members cannot be
regulated without proper
conveyance of the personal view points .
Evaluation of Richards perspective: The author recommends placing Randy
on the pedestal and
allowing him to present his recommendations in a unique manner, this
element would greatly
hinder the formation of a team-spirit. The conduct, communication protocol
and operational
structure within team should be clearly defined and applicable to all. The
dual-structured
preferential approach which aims at controlling the debilitating effects of
Randys conduct, will

create a sense of dissatisfaction amongst the remaining team members,

hence preventing the
ascendance into an effective team status. On the other hand, the
understanding conversation that
the author suggests having with Randy, may align the objectives of the team
with those of randy.
Since the clarifications would be provided discreetly, Randy would not be
forced to respond in
his usually defensive manner and might be susceptible to internalizing the
conversation.
Evaluation of Genevieves perspective: The three problems that arise from
this recommendation
are: the preferential treatment problem and its repercussions ( mentioned
above ) , the advice
for Eric to assume the helm and implement a course of action ( without
having conducted an
understanding conversation with the CEO ) , and lastly the expedient call to
advance to the
performing stage without having conducted any of the forming , storming
and norming stages
in a satisfactory manner . On the other hand, the affirmative leadership
styled conduct that the
author recommends for Eric to adopt, could inforce structure and facilitate an
enhanced level of
collaboration amongst the team members.
Evaluation of Pauls perspective: The author has suggested the optimal
methodology to deal
with the destructive fusion /influence that Randy exerts on his peers.
Through implementing
Pauls perspective, we would be able to harness the analytical horse power of
Randy, whilst
enforcing the rules of engagement within the team. By administering this
system, we would

insure that all members interact in a professional, respectful and supportive

manner. While the
formation of an effective team depends on a large number of elements, this
approach constitutes
a crucial step for both the formation of trust and effective communication.
Evaluation of Eds perspective: The authors suggestion to immediately
remedy the faulty team
formation stage that has already occurred (through both involving the CEO,
and actively training
the team members on how to interact with one another), and to promote
cross-functionality and
cooperation amongst the team members, is well aligned with our objective to
create structure,
generate respect and facilitate effective communication. However, the
special consultant
status that Randy assumes through this perspective , is bound to hinder
Erics efforts to formulate
an effective team . Since the formulated agreement with Randy will likely be
confidential, a
violation of the Managing agreements aspect of team creation will be
incurred . Hence both the
structure and communication mediums within the team will be affected .
Evaluation of Michaels perspective: The intensive team facilitating workshops, accompanied
by the understandings conversations that will be conducted by the CEO, will
greatly remedy the
faulty dynamics of the team. The members would have a better
understanding of both the scope
of the project, and the practices that ought to be used for sharing insights
and information.
The unique strength of this perspective, is clearly realized through the
pursuit to demote

Randys Superstar status , to that of a contributing team player ( facilitated

through personalized
understanding conversations with the CEO ) .
Final conclusion: Due to pressing time limitation, the team has not evolved
according to the
forming-storming-norming-performing stages. This fact has substantially
debilitated the team
leaders attempt to control a rouge team member, and a dysfunctional team
had emerged.