Aston-blair inc. case study essay

WRITE-UP ASSIGNMENT TWO CRITIQUES FOR EACH STAGE GIVEN BELOW: 1) Starting up the task force i) Inadequate Team Structure – Wrong Selection Procedure Both Trott and Casey had concluded that the major area for task force to study should be the Marketing Division. In that case at least one of the market managers should have been in the team. Only product managers were included in the task force which was not a good decision on Trott, Casey, and Bacon’s part.

As head of the task force, Bacon remained ineffective regarding brainstorming to understand what should be the required resources and operating guidelines. (It was seen later on during presentation on August 4, how market managers rebuked Meir and disapproved any of the recommendations given by the team) ii) Improper Decision Making – No Forming Done It was Trott, Casey, and Bacon who decided on the date of presentation without taking the team members in the loop.

Bacon as head of the task force should have held a meeting with his team members, understood agenda, set up goals, and then decided on the presentation date. Further, Bacon didn’t ask the Trott and Casey to attend at least the first meeting. This is poor management and ineffective planning on Bacon’s part as in this way Trott and Casey remained unaware of the task force’s setting up of goals, objectives, what resources they might need, inability of Bodin to present his report on August 4th. (In the first meeting Emile Bodin told Bacon that his report would robably not be ready before the August 4 presentation. ) 2) Conducting the first meeting i) Process not in sync with Task Design – Bacon remained ineffective in initiating active member participation; inadequate forming. The product managers mostly remained silent and Bacon didn’t encourage them to participate. In fact Bacon didn’t get the members to introduce themselves thereby letting others know about one’s relevant skill and experience. ii) Consensus was reached too early – Premature Consensus in the first meeting itself.

Working procedures were not defined effectively, Bacon agreed to Holt’s suggestion without brainstorming whether in the first meeting itself team should be divided into sub-groups. Bacon didn’t formulate working procedures, set up norms, or ways to monitor group’s progress, even how many times the team should meet that was also not discussed. 3) Running the task force i) Inadequate Collaborating – Team Interests were not given adequate importance, ineffective attention to process, handling of relationships.

Bacon didn’t manage his conflict with Meir effectively. Based on his previous “ less than satisfying” work experience with Meir he kept his exchanges with Meir brief and infrequent and occasionally strained, not a good leadership criteria on Bacon’s part. Also, Bacon lacked transparency in his leadership. He didn’t ask Bodin to share his data with Meir which would have facilitated the latter’s task. ii) Inability to manage up – couldn’t play the influence card While running the task force Bacon didn’t keep Trott and Casey nformed, also few other important personnel such as Dr. Cornelius, maybe the market managers too. He should have kept them in loop so that they could give recommendations and valuable suggestions. In that way perhaps the market managers wouldn’t have been so critical of the task force on August 4th. 4) Completing the task force assignment i) Lack of transparency – Concealing of important information at the presentation Bacon together with Bodin and Reiss decided not to report any of Bodin’s findings at the presentation which is not the right thing to do.

Lack of credibility and accountability on Bacon’s part on account of this decision taken by him. ii) Inability to Lead from Front – Not defending his team in hours of need When Meir was rebuked by one of the market manager Bacon didn’t defend him strongly. Rather he took a soft approach. Bacon therefore lacked the abilities of a strong-minded Leader. He also couldn’t defend his team’s intentions strongly when the market managers dominated during the presentation and rejected the team’s proposal. This lead to further negative consequences damaging team morale at the end.