Causes of Poor Team Performance
"In your experience, what are the causes of poor team performance in the simulation?"
In my experience, the principal causes of poor team performance in the simulation are a combination of the following factors:
1. not really meeting customer requirements for vaporware (i.e., failure to establish any meaningful differential advantage, particularly regarding product formulation);
2. lack of focus, by trying to be all things to all markets (capacity, reformulation, time, and human resource constraints combine to favor concentrated effort in fewer than "all" market regions);
3. failure to have a complete and coordinated marketing program, managing all elements that influence perceived performance and perceived convenience (after all, the only real value that customers derive from vaporware is based on the perceived performance and the perceived convenience that accrues from the vaporware that they purchase);
4. limited marketing research and/or limited efforts to interpret the marketing research that is available;
5. limited attention to competitive developments (i.e., lack of in-depth competitor analysis to discover the underlying drivers of vaporware market behavior); 6. financial mismanagement related to cost structure management (variable and
fixed costs management, covering corporate-wide overheads, etc.), smoothing costs, production and inventory levels, and capacity management;
7. not really understanding the game structure and environment (i.e., treating the manual in a cursory fashion rather than something to be studied in detail and referenced regularly);
8. poor work ethic (not spending enough time on the game); and,
9. team mismanagement (not spending enough time thinking about and discussing team management issues and related human resource deployment strategies and tactics).
Predatory Pricing For Money -Losing Firms
"One of my undergraduate teams sent me the following message: 'After viewing the results for Q#7 and analyzing firm 8's performance (especially its stock price and ROI), I believe that this firm should be either sold at bargain basement prices or be liquidated. In the real world, the stockholders would sue the board of directors for mismanagement or the Federal Government would step in to stop their predatory pricing. And the firm would either fold or be subject to federal restrictions. Why isn't that happening in the simulation? Can we sue them for predatory pricing?' What, if anything, should I do here?"
Lawsuits are a fact of real life too, so I would not arbitrarily rule them out. But, the instructor needs to think through exactly how the lawsuit process would be managed (and what its goals are).
If the offending firm is not making money and has low prices, then the instructor normally needs to be very forceful with them. For example, perhaps such a firm would be limited to no new introductions or reformulations or plant capacity orders until positive profits return. In addition, the instructor might force prices to be raised by at least 50% immediately. Don't allow a team to be unprofitable for long, especially if they have substantial market share but little, no, or negative profits. Such performance is unacceptable in the real world, and so too should it be unacceptable in the simulation. In short, the instructor needs to be proactive, call the team in, and read them the riot act regarding responsible business behavior. No profits means failure in real life, and so too should that be the case in the simulation.
If necessary, declare them bankrupt and sell off the firm to others (through open bidding). The bankrupt team would, of course, would need to be assigned alternative work to make up for their absence from the game.
Teams
Managing the Non-Performing Group Member
"What hints do you have for managing a non-performing group member?"
Here are some suggestions from Ginger Howerton (University of Texas at Dallas, Masters in International Management Studies program) for managing a non-performing "lazy" team member. This advice appears to be useful for all situations involving student groups. It would appear to be especially valuable reading for students in team- based simulations where the group-work nature of the simulation may extend throughout a course.
Working with others is often challenging, whether within a family unit or a group at work. However, in those situations, working together is rarely an option and almost always a requirement. In today's educational system, students are often required to work together in groups to simulate the work setting, thereby gaining skills that assist them to function better in the 'real world.'
Group participation is often a tremendous source of frustration among students. Frequently, one student in the group fails to carry his own weight in the course, but receives a high grade as a result of his group members' hard work, discipline, and dedication to delivering the required project. This frustration leaves students feeling as though they have been used and that the 'lazy' student has not learned the skills required to receive a passing grade. The team fears reporting the student to the professor because they don't want to jeopardize the student's career, but resent the student for his lack of participation.
A key to leading the team to success is participation by all members. The first challenge is to identify the person who has the potential for being 'lazy.' Signs of a potential 'lazy' team member include: (1) a person who sits back in his chair and offers no sign of active participation in the groups discussion; (2) a person who has a conflict with all attempts to identify group meeting time; (3) a person who can not understand the objective or assignments in the course and generally sees no value to the course; (4) a
person who monopolizes team meetings with personal accounts of his active social life; (5) a person who fails complete assigned work on time or ever; and, (5) a person who frequently calls other team members to get guidance on how to complete his portion of the assignment.
Once the 'lazy' team member has been identified, immediate and decisive intervention must be taken to save the team from frustration and resentment. To engage the 'lazy' team member will require patience and consistency of the entire team, but ultimately, one person will need to continually pressure the potentially 'lazy' team member into participation.
Some useful techniques include the following:
• Identify the 'lazy' person's strengths and weaknesses. Stroke the strengths and supplement his weaknesses by another team member's strengths.
• Pair the 'lazy' person with another team member whose strengths include motivation, persuasion, and accountability skills.
• Set very specific expectations and offer to demonstrate how to carry out the project or map out an approach to complete the project.
• This type of person may suffer from low self esteem, so frequent praise and encouragement by the team may stimulate performance.
• Contact the 'lazy' person frequently to keep him on track and encourage success.
• Allow the person to identify one meeting time that meets his needs only and then require him to attend meetings that meet the scheduling needs of the other team members.
• Allow the 'lazy' member to share his portion of the project first, since often a short attention span precludes the person's participation after a long meeting.
• Engage the 'lazy' person in participation by requiring each team member to identify strengths and weaknesses of other team members contributions to the project.
• Often, when the 'lazy' team member feels successful early in the group sessions, participation in future projects will come more naturally.
In the event engaging the 'lazy' team member fails to gain the required results, disciplinary action should be taken. Disciplinary action is often difficult in the student setting because students feel they lack the authority to hold others at their same level accountable. However, just as in a healthy work environment, peer accountability often gains the best results.
Disciplinary action should begin with the first offense of 'laziness.' Failure to show up prepared or failure to show up at all should invoke a coaching session from the team. The coaching session should include the specific issue or problem, specific expectations for next assignment or meeting, impact of not meeting expectations on the group and consequences of the failure to meet the expectations.
The second level of disciplinary action should be at the written level. Failure to meet the expectations of the team a second time should prompt a written response to the team member with a copy forwarded to the professor. The written response should be a joint effort by the rest of the team and signed by all. The written response should include the date of the first coaching session and it's outcome, the specific issue or problem, expectations, impact on the team and consequences should the student continue to fail to meet his obligation to the team.
grow together. Finally, as a group, the team must confront the 'lazy' team member and request that they voluntarily drop the course or request a transfer to another team. Again, this should be documented in writing to the student with a copy forwarded to the professor. The same information should be documented with the student's response. The team may prefer to ask the professor to participate in the confrontation session with the 'lazy' student so he may see first-hand group dynamics and facilitate the group through any conflict that may arise.
Many reasons for 'laziness' among students exist. Unfortunately, many times the student truly isn't lazy, but paralyzed by the amount of work, fear of failure, or true lack of understanding. Although understandable, these explanations for lack of participation can not be tolerated because they only lead to frustration by all involved. Encouragement and role modeling are the best motivators. If the 'lazy' student can not engage and participate with group members offering support and guidance, then most likely they are too 'lazy' to take the course and they should be required to drop or suffer the consequences of the grade they earned (an 'F')."