Online Tutoring on Group Dynamics

The Core Issue

The core issue is the problem of Jane Epstein, the manger, with Andy Zimmerman, her team member. Andy Zimmerman is the best performer in the team. Yet, he is the problem, because he is a bully that destroys the team spirit for the rest of the team members. Andy even intimidates Jane who for this reason often abstains from controlling the situation which she should have. Despite this, Jane can’t take any action against him. This is because, Andy is bright, he is aggressive and most of the times he speaks intelligently and sometimes even like a visionary and most importantly he delivers the numbers. The debate that crops up is whether Jane’s policy of tolerating Andy’s mean behavior is in sync with the company policy and whether she is indirectly rewarding Andy with his bullying behavior towards his colleagues (Backstrom et al. 2006).

Unlock the power of emotional intelligence with MyAssignmentHelp. Our comprehensive Understanding and Managing Emotions Online Tutoring service offers expert guidance to help you navigate complex feelings and relationships. Elevate your emotional well-being and academic success with our tailored support.

Who are involved?

The people involved are Jane and her team. Jane is the supervisor of TechniCo. Her team consists of Caroline who has been in the team for the longest. Jane considers her pragmatic and very good with people. She is entrusted to manage Andy Zimmerman, the best performer, bright and aggressive member of the team. However, Andy is also a bully with all his coworkers including Caroline. Tom is a natural and steady sales person and he creates little trouble in the functioning of the team. Jack is an intense and an intellectual person whom Jane hasn’t been able to figure out yet (Backstrom et al. 2006).

When did the issue arise?

The issue arose, when Jane got a new job at Technico. As she settles down in her job, she found the problems related to the group dynamics of the team she supervises. She inherited a good team with strong performers and they are being nice as well. The biggest problem Jane got is how to deal with Andy who got her worried. She has the responsibility to drive the team properly and contributing to the bottom-line. The way Andy is behaving is a surety to destroy the moral of the team which is turn is likely to affect the productivity and the bottom-line. Jane is answerable too to her bosses. If the bottom line goes down for one person and Jane doesn’t takes any action, the honeymoon period for Jane can soon be over (Dion 2000).

The Impact

The Andy is being a rainmaker. He is a bully that is destroying the moral of everyone else’s in the team. The business performance and the moral of the group are entwined. The Andy is seriously harming the productivity by damaging the group moral. The lowering of the productivity means affecting the bottom-line. Andy is liable for a business case against him. There can be a cost up to ten times to hold on to the existing businesses as to bring in new businesses. Therefore, Andy might a rainmaker, but if he seriously endangering the bottom-line; all his good work comes to naught. He is affecting the turnover. Jane got to ensure that everybody is rowing in the same direction, if she wants to achieve a range of activities, such as, productivity, moral, employee retention, existing business retention, and new sales (Dion 2000).

Case study analysis

The reasons for the problem are related to the difficulty in the group dynamics. The group dynamics is made difficult due to the bad behavior of Andy and the corresponding fallout on the entire group.

The problems occurred with respect to the:

Moods and emotions
Perception
Conflict and negotiation
Communication

Moods and emotions

Emotions if managed properly can be driving, trust, loyalty and commitment and gains of productivity that are great as with accomplishments and innovations related to the individuals, organizations and the teams (Wageman 1995).

This proper driving of the emotions has not been possible in the Technico because of the disruptive behavior by Andy that has affected the productivity, innovations, commitment, loyalty and trust for the rest of the team. The gains that could have been achieved by the intellectual capital, organizational responsiveness, productivity, and attraction and retention have become limited because the intellectual capital of Andy has been used destructively (Wageman 1995).

The affect of emotions are directed towards someone or something. Andy’s negative emotions are directed against all his coworkers. Among the six major emotions, Andy had been carrying anger and disgust against his colleagues and the colleagues were fraught with fear and sadness because of him. Andy’s actions have high negative effect on his colleagues (Wageman 1995).

Perception

The observed behavior can be attributed to cause type:

Internal

The behavior is under the control of an individual

External

The individual has been under some force to behave in a particular way by the outside events/causes (Cohen et al. 1996).

Andy’s behavior is not under his control. It is difficult to ascertain whether this kind compulsive bullying is being caused by the outside events or causes.

The team members believe Andy as a bully because of the beliefs and motivations with regards to their perception of Andy. The consequences of the perceivers (the team members as against Andy) have resulted in their changed behaviors, feeling of anxiety and fear related to their expectations (Cohen et al. 1996).

Conflict and negotiation

The conflict can be termed as a process, where one party has perceived the opposition of its interest or being affected negatively by another party. The conflict in the Jane’s team is between Andy on one side and the rest of the team on the other.

The dysfunctional conflict outcomes were experienced in the Jane’s team with respect to:

Encouragement of organizational politics
Development of discontent
Reduction of effectiveness
Effectiveness barrier
Reduction in the group cohesiveness

The conflict in the team posed primarily by Andy has been both task conflict and relationship conflict. The task conflict has been affecting the team effectiveness for Jane, whereas, the relationship conflict has been affecting the performance and satisfaction of her team members (Cohen et al. 1996).

The process of conflict in case of Jane has been like the following.

Stage 1

Potential opposition or incompatibility that has resulted in faltered communication and personal variability.

Stage 2

Cognition and personalization resulted in perceived conflict and felt conflict from the colleagues of Andy.

Stage 3

Intentions of the coworkers of Andy in terms of handling conflict with collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating.

Stage 4

Andy’s behavior is deteriorating, although there has not been much counter reaction of the colleagues.

Stage 5

Decreased group performance (Cohen et al. 1996).

Negotiation can be termed as communication that is back and forth aiming of reaching an agreement when the party and the other side are having interests that are shared and the opposition on the others. However, Jane has not entered into any realistic negotiation with Andy yet.

Communication

The communication can be:

Downward communication

This communication has been flowing from one level of the organization to the lower level

Upward communication

This communication has been flowing from a lower level of the organization to the higher level

Lateral communication

This communication flows among the members of the same work group.

The communication of Jane to her team members, including Andy, has been a downward communication. The communication of the team members, including Andy, to Jane has been the upward communication and the Andy’s communication with his team mates has been the lateral communication (Spears et al. 2005).

The problem with Andy’s communication is because it is informal and largely not controlled by the management.

Case study solution and implementation

Jane should be entering into a negotiation with Andy. She should be applying integrative bargaining seeking a settlement with a creation of a win-win situation. The win for Andy is, he would be rewarded for his performance and in turn he won’t bother his teammates, which is a win for the organization. Andy, as mentioned, is a bright, energetic and high performance employee that any organization would seek. His problem is his intimidation and destructive criticism of his colleagues that is threatening to break the moral and performance of the team. However, if he stops that and concentrate on bringing revenues only, it will increase the productivity of the team and improve the bottom-line of the organization (Spears et al. 2005).

The negotiation has to be tabled and implemented by Jane. The focus of the negotiation is that the Jane will look into the Andy’s interests by rewarding him for his performance and in return Andy will leave his coworkers alone. Jane has to jump into action instead of being passive to Andy’s actions.

The evaluation method of the solution is the followings.

Stage 1

The goals of the negotiation are clear, agreed upon, and compatible.

Stage 2

The alternative that Andy won’t be bothering his team members and outcomes of increased productivity can be calculated.

Stage 3

Both the alternatives provided to Andy can be evaluated simultaneously.

Stage 4

The absolute standards are used in evaluating the alternatives.

Stage 5

Information should be gathered about Andy so right choices can be made.

Stage 6