Brief of Calgary Oil Shale Technologies Inc(COST) Case Study

Question: A Case Study on Calgary Oil Shale Technologies Inc. Answer: Fireside chats: Fireside chats indicate the self-directed teams in the organization called Calgary Oil Shale Technologies (COST). COST is a subsidiary of an international oilfield service company. The organization supplies the data management and technology for enhancing oil recovery process in Alberta, Colorado and Utah. The main issue of the business is that there is a clash between labors and scientists. Hence, the organization has hired Algoma Howard for re-aligning the teamwork program in an effective manner. With the engagement of the enhanced teamwork plan, the organization has tried to resolve those management issues from the business (Ohtani et al. 2012). In this context, the fireside chats consist of operational meetings on the recent business issues. In the Fireside chats, the organization invited all employees for participating in the process. The higher management of the company believes that such meeting would facilitate them in diminishing the management issues from the business (Goetsch and Davis 2014). Algoma Howard has selected cafeteria for conducting the meeting with the employees. The meeting has been conducting at the late afternoon. The primary objective of the meeting was to provide a relaxed environment to employees for discussing their problems and unsolved issues in the work design. The discussion has been conducted through three stages such as follows: 1st Stage: At the initial stage, employees discuss their issues while dealing with other groups in the business. The prime issue of the organization is that the employees face challenges in cooperating with other groups (Beecham, Carroll and Noll 2012). 2nd Stage: In the second stage, the meeting focuses on the issues of the business. However, the team would not focus on any individual in the business. Rules of the engagement or the guideline have been provided at the 2nd stage of meeting in the business. 3rd Stage: At the final stage, the meeting has discussed the issues involved in all level. The problem solving discussion has facilitated the organization to identify the key developing issues in the business. Moreover, the Fireside chats have involved employees for obtaining information about their daily work challenges (Turner 2014). Problem busting teams: Problem busting teams was another team dealing with the business related issues in an effective manner. It was the next process to Fireside chats, and it had engaged the temporary teams. It was dependent on the problem identified in fireside chats in the business. The organization has recruited the special purpose team to conduct the process in an effective manner (Grunig 2013). COST engages the team members of the 3 functional areas and different hierarchies. In the problem busting teams, one leader has been assigned for better team building. In this segment, the teams were disbanded when the problem was resolved. It also consists of three primary stages as follows: 4th stage: In the 4th stage, the problem-Busting teams discontent while sharing decision-making and the responsibility with the ground level employees in the business. 5th Stage: In the 5th stage, the leader needed to evaluate the issues and challenges to enhance commitment within the group. With the involvement of the leaders engagement, the problem busting teams evaluate the challenges out of the business to enhance the work design in the organization (Kerzner 2013). 6th Stage: In this stage, the team came together to focus on some chronic issues in the business. With the involvement of introducing this team effort, the problem-busting team has experienced the success in the work process. 7th stage: In the final stage, problem-busting teams have been organized in permanent cross-functional teams. Several cross-functional teams organized the entire workforce. Through the engagement of the cross-functional team, the organization includes the different expertise from several fields such as finance, marketing, human resources and operations (Menz 2012). It involves the employees from all level of the business. With the involvement of the cross-functional teamwork, the organization has identified the key issues in the business. The prime problem is that there was a clashing between the scientist and the labors in the business process. Hence, the cross-functional team efforts have tried to diminish the clashing between the upper management team and labors (Majchrzak, More and Faraj 2012). It can be assessed that the fireside chats are the informal teams consists of employees from the same hierarchical level. On the other hand, the problem-busting team has been a special project team designed outside of the formal organizational structure. The problem-busting team has taken up the case of special or urgent projects for facilitating the operational department to uphold a healthy work design at the workplace. The fireside chat teams developed through several stages including storming, forming and performing stages. The fireside teams conduct the informal meetings for resolving the personal matters of group members (Ghobadi and D'Ambra 2012). On the other hand, the problem-busting teams have conducted same stages more quickly, as the team consists of skilled professionals of the business. Cross-functional team efforts have facilitated the organization with some competitive advantages. For example, the organization experiences the enhanced productivity in the business thro ugh the implementing of the cross-functional team effectiveness. By analyzing the Tuckmans model of teamwork, it can be assessed that the no team starts off fully formed and functioning (Goetsch and Davis 2014). Consequently, teams grow through clearly identified stages. In this context, Debrito had tried to build cross-functional teams through a continuous development process for obtaining enhanced performance from the business. Moreover, the Truckmans teamwork theory indicates that the teamwork must be executed by considering a different aspect of the businesss situation (Belbin 2012). In this context, Debrito has played the socio-emotional role in the success of the team-based activities. Debrito was a long-time COST employee who was highly respected at the Alberta office. Moreover, Carlos Debrito was looking forward to making changes in the business before his retirement. Carlos has been engaged in the business for more than 26 years, and he has worked in every department in the organization. With the huge experiences in the business, Debrito has utilized his vast knowledge to encourage team members in an effective manner. In this context, Carlos has facilitated to resolve the disagreement in the business process management. Moreover, Carlos Debrito has facilitated the organization to harmonize the group by reducing tensions, support, and follow teams best ideas (Shin et al. 2012). Debrito has focused on the Socio-emotional development in the business. Consequently, the team members of COST have successfully understood the importance of team management on the org anizational success. Debritos role had indicated the contingency leadership approaches. As per the contingency leadership theory, the leadership style should be based on some particular situations that identify certain people performing at their maximum level (Klarner et al. 2013). As Carlos Debrito had multi-skilled, he played a dual role at Alberta. The prime objective of Carlos was to accumulate the ideas from the team members for implementing changes in the business. Moreover, he motivated the team members by influencing them in a different manner. He performed the socio-emotional role in the business, and he has supported the team members emotional requirements by participating with them in several recreational activities and sports activity such as hockey games (Scarborough 2012). Hence, it can be assessed that Debrito has balanced the teams technical requirement with human interaction challenges, meeting both socio-emotional needs and task. Debrito has employed interactive leadership and utilized the participating style contingency approach. The leadership style of Debrito is characterized by several values including inclusion, collaboration, and relationship building and caring. In this form of leadership style, Debrito has motivated the employees in the business. Most of the time, Debrito has provided adequate opportunities to the leaders of the individual team for sharing their ideas. Consequently, different business ideas have facilitated Debrito to resolve the business issues in an effective manner. Debrito has believed in the participative leadership where employees obtain opportunity to share their feedbacks and ideas to enhance the work design in an appropriate manner. Under his leadership trait, leaders have shared their suggestions to the subordinates for enhancing the business opportunities (Weske 2012). Moreover, it has provided adequate opportunity to the group several chances to participate and facilitate in the decision-making process. On the other hand, Debrito has employed a collaborating style for reducing conflict between professionals and labors. Debrito has utilized the combination of high degree of cooperativeness and a higher degree of assertiveness. It was required to obtain success and commitment in the business. Yes, I agree with the fact if Algoma Howard just had a Debrito in Colorado, the project would be succeeded in an effective manner. Debrito was one of the key people for structuring the horizontal team in the business. Moreover, he was responsible for building up the horizontal team that made up of employees from same hierarchical level (Jeston and Nelis 2014). However, he built up the team with a different level of expertise who has provided adequate supports for enhancing the business in an effective manner. By collaborating with Debrito, Algoma Howard has implemented the required changes in the business. Although Carlos Debrito might help in obtaining the team success, there was no guarantee that presence of Debrito would surely bring success in the business. Debrito had 26 years of experience that has helped the organization to enhance the productivity in an appropriate manner. Huge experiences have facilitated Debrito in dealing with laborers and the professionals. On the other h and, Debrito had earned trust through working several years in the business. Hence, it can be assessed if Howard could identify such a person like Colorado, she would be able to proceed further in the process. Nevertheless, the organization may consist of several factors that might create difficulties for the company to execute the teamwork in an effective manner (Hooper and Newlands 2012). The prime difference between Alberta and Colorado were that the process of Alberta was imposed on the people in Colorado, whereas in Alberta, the team possesses naturally guidance from Howard and Debrito. The imposition of others success indicated the significant cause of resentment among staffs and workers at the Colorado facility. Hence, it can be assessed that Algoma Howard will need to establish cooperation and a renewal of trust among Colorado facility. On the other hand, Algoma Howard will need to establish its methods for addressing and solving different business challenges. Changes in the organization do not indicate the process of forcible execution. Changes can be executed in the following manner. 1st Step: employees should have to make the realistic discussion with the top management in the business. The particular process ensures them that Howards team will make their best possible business approaches to resolving the team management issues. Employees do not need to be time-pressured. The realistic discussion facilitates employees in sharing their individual feedback to the higher management of the business. 2nd Step: There was a need of worker like Debrito to diminish the team collision at Colorado. With the involvement of worker like Debrito, Howard could ensure healthy work environment at the organization. Debrito had 26 years of work experience in the same organizations, and he had utilized his knowledge on improving employees perception towards different types of business challenges. Hence, it can be assessed that the Howards team could gain recognition in an effective manner through the involvement of the worker like Debrito. Debrito has accumulated several feedback and ideas from leaders in the business. Consequently, it has contributed in identifying the key development areas at the organization. 3rd Step: Howard could employ the new process where employee obtains several opportunity for making irregular attendance at the fire chats. Compulsory attendance could refuse the purpose of collaborative problem solving and voluntary. Collaborative problem solving is one of the major factors for diminishing the business issues in an effective manner. With the involvement of the collaborative team efforts, organization could able to understand the key challenges in the business. Voluntary method and collaborative problem solving approaches could facilitate Howard to diminish the managerial issues from the business. 4th step: Howard could include the enhanced monitoring system in order to identify the key issues in the business in an effective manner. With the involvement of the enhanced monitoring system, COST could evaluate the key areas for development. Howard could gather information from the higher management about the challenges in daily work life. Implementation of Cross-functional teams- Cross-functional team effort was majorly success in the Alberta it has facilitated Debrito to understand the work-life challenges at the organization. With the involvement of the cross-functional teams effort, Algoma Howard could obtain positive outcome from the business. In this context, Howards team felt extreme pressure from the top management and they were unable to provide enhanced performance in the business. The top executives thought that implementation of the cross-functional teams would become the less costly and time-consuming process. Consequently, it would be a greater solution for obtaining a positive solution out of the business. Building problem-busting team: Howard thought that the employees should have the opportunity to select their leaders for teams. Problem busting team would solve the issues quickly, and it would make easier for the business enhancement in a particular process. Although the problem-busting team had shown quick responses for solving business challenges, they showed less commitment and enthusiasm in diminishing the team managing issues. Through the engagement of the problem-busting team leaders, the employees could be able to share their individual feedbacks and ideas on business process enhancement. On the other hand, the problem-busting team resolved the business challenges with the quick effect that ensured the enhancement of the productivity. References: Beecham, S., Carroll, N. and Noll, J., 2012, August. A decision support system for global team management: Expert evaluation. InGlobal Software Engineering Workshops (ICGSEW), 2012 IEEE Seventh International Conference on(pp. 12-17). IEEE. Belbin, R.M., 2012.Team roles at work. Routledge. Ghobadi, S. and D'Ambra, J., 2012. Knowledge sharing in cross-functional teams: a coopetitive model.Journal of Knowledge Management,16(2), pp.285-301. Goetsch, D.L. and Davis, S.B., 2014.Quality management for organizational excellence. pearson. Goetsch, D.L. and Davis, S.B., 2014.Quality management for organizational excellence. pearson. Grunig, J.E., 2013.Excellence in public relations and communication management. Routledge. Hooper, M.J. and Newlands, D. eds., 2012.The global business handbook: The eight dimensions of international management. Gower Publishing, Ltd.. Jeston, J. and Nelis, J., 2014.Business process management. Routledge. Kerzner, H.R., 2013.Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley Sons. Klarner, P., Sarstedt, M., Hoeck, M. and Ringle, C.M., 2013. Disentangling the effects of team competences, team adaptability, and client communication on the performance of management consulting teams.Long Range Planning,46(3), pp.258-286. Majchrzak, A., More, P.H. and Faraj, S., 2012. Transcending knowledge differences in cross-functional teams.Organization Science,23(4), pp.951-970. Menz, M., 2012. Functional Top Management Team Members A Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda.Journal of Management,38(1), pp.45-80. Ohtani, J., Hoffman, W.Y., Vargervik, K. and Oberoi, S., 2012. Team management and treatment outcomes for patients with hemifacial microsomia.American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,141(4), pp.S74-S81. Scarborough, N.M., 2012. Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management.Instructor. Shin, S.J., Kim, T.Y., Lee, J.Y. and Bian, L., 2012. Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: A cross-level interaction.Academy of Management Journal,55(1), pp.197-212. Turner, J.R., 2014.The handbook of project-based management(Vol. 92). McGraw-hill. Weske, M., 2012.Business process management: concepts, languages, architectures. Springer Science Business Media.