COURSE: LEADERSHIP, ENGAGEMENT, AND PEOPLE PERFORMANCE
CASE STUDY: THE TEAM THAT WASN’T
Project Submission Template
Student Name: REJITH RAJAN
Question I 1. A brief summary of the problems faced by FineArt (100- 150
words)
• Disruption of product meetings by a dominant executive
(Randy) belittling his peers, withholding information and
reinforcement to teamwork eroded psychological safety.
• Norms and structure are in place on paper, but
facilitation falls apart when pencil tapping, a sarcastic attitude
and ignoring arrival time break the concentration.
• The CEO’s favoritism ("best mind," future of this
company") builds informal power in one member of the team
that disregards a balanced opportunity to participate.
• Progress collapses when mocking ideas (e.g., Carl’s
distribution plan), then flailing around for accountability leads
to avoidance and team members walking out of meetings a
classical lack of accountability.
• Misalignment on strategic choices (cost, design, service)
continues when debate gets personal, which stalls the team from
reaching any shared commitments.
Question II 2. List and elaborate on two ways which Eric Holt and CEO Jack
Derry can take in order to intrinsically and extrinsically
motivate the team. (200 – 250 words)
a. Intrinsic motivators and its elaboration
• Autonomy with guardrails. Rotate who leads/facilitates
and whose decisions count by topic (e.g., Ray lead
internally focused operational discussions; Maureen
lead design decisions). This will build member
ownership while maintaining agreed norms (e.g., no
interruptions; evidence before opinions) to counter
Randy's domination, explicitly ask for voice from
quieter experts, and shift from a performance to a
problem-solving mindset in meetings.
• Purpose and mastery. Co-create and articulate a clear
"win" over the next six months (e.g., recover value from
fraternities; conduct a pilot of a small number of rapid
custom run orders) and pair each initiative with
individual/team skill building (e.g., sharing experiences
on customer insights; cross -training on glass
technology/design). Building daily tasks around an
articulated turnaround goal that everyone can see
restores a sense of meaning the team currently lacks
from derailed team sessions.
b. Extrinsic motivators and its elaboration
• Recognition linked to team behaviors. Conduct public
recognition of contributions toward the overall (Ray’s
throughput plan, Maureen’s design case) and include
respect for process as a performance review/bonus
consideration so if you’re ridiculed or hoarding, there’s
a personal cost. This action directly speaks to key
moments when mockery shuts peers down.
• Milestone incentives and resourcing. Fund two cross-
functional pilots (e.g., faster delivery re-routes;
premium design line) with measures that allow for
monetary payout on team milestones (time-to-quote,
margin lift) and not individual heroics. Making
milestones reward visible where the reward
acknowledges progress, removes immediacy of
disappointment from previous meeting explosions.
Question III 3. Evaluate the 'conflict' and 'commitment' dysfunction of the
FineArt team quoting two strong instances from the case study
(150-200 words)
a. 2 instances of conflict dysfunction and its evaluation
• Mocking vs. productive debate: Randy's loud groan and
"let's do everything" jab derail Carl's distribution
proposal, shutting down open discussion conflict
becomes personal not ideological. Evaluation: this
signals no healthy conflict norms exist: ideas aren’t
stress tested, they are silenced.
• Sarcasm and vagueness: From "leaders lead, followers
shut up" to vague non answers on key customers,
conflict is side stepped or scorched, never focused on
data. Evaluation: without issue focused challenge, the
team can’t integrate perspectives (cost, design, service).
b. 2 instances of commitment dysfunction and its
evaluation
• Performative agreement: Saying "Okay, look, I'll behave" with
a smirk indicates pretend buy in; there is no real closure nor
clarity on decision making. Evaluation: pretend agreement leads
to subsequent pull back and non-execution.
• Walk-outs and avoidance: After conflict escalates, members
sometimes actually leave the meeting, and sessions that are
conflict laden end without decisions. Evaluation: the absence of
commitment follows the absence of clarity and the absence of a
co-created choice, and people revert to their silos and the
momentum of the meeting dies.