Reference no: EM133473112

CASE STUDY:THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY ACCOUNTING TEAM

For the past five years, I have been working at McKay, Sanderson, and Smith Associates, a mid-sizedaccounting firm in Boston that specializes in commercial accounting and audits. My particular specialty is accounting practices for shipping companies, ranging from small fishing fleets to a couple of the bigfirms with ships along the East Coast. About 18 months ago, McKay, Sanderson, and Smith Associates became part of a large merger involvingtwo other accounting firms. These firms have offices in Miami, Seattle, Baton Rouge, and Los Angeles.Although the other two accounting firms were much larger than McKay, all three firms agreed to avoidcentralizing the business around one office in Los Angeles. Instead, the new firm-called Goldberg,Choo, and McKay Associates-would rely on teams across the country to "leverage the synergies of ourcollective knowledge" (an often-cited statement from the managing partner soon after the merger).The effect of the merger affected me a year ago when my boss (a senior partner and vice president ofthe merged firm) announced that I would be working more closely with three people from the other twofirms to become the firm's new shipping industry accounting team. The other "team members" wereElias in Miami, Susan in Seattle, and Brad in Los Angeles. I had met Elias briefly at a meeting in New YorkCity during the merger, but have never met Susan or Brad, although knew that they were shippingaccounting professionals at the other firms.Initially, the shipping "team" activities involved emailing each other about new contracts andprospective clients. Later, we were asked to submit joint monthly reports on accounting statements andissues. Normally, I submitted my own monthly reports which summarize activities involving my ownclients.Coordinating the monthly report with three other people took much more time, particularly sincedifferent accounting documentation procedures across the three firms were still being resolved. It tooknumerous emails and a few telephone calls to work out a reasonable monthly report style.During this aggravating process, it became apparent to me at least - that this "teams" business wascosting me more time than it was worth. Moreover, Brad in Los Angeles didn't have a clue as to how tocommunicate with the rest of us. He rarely replied to emails. Instead, he often used the telephone voicemail system, which resulted in numerous irritating episodes of telephone tag. Brad arrives at work at9:30 a.m. in Los Angeles (and is often late!), which is early afternoon in Boston. I typically have a flexiblework schedule from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. so I can chauffeur my kids after school to sports and musiclessons. So Brad and I have a window of less than three hours to share information.The biggest nuisance with the shipping specialist accounting team started two weeks ago when the firmasked the four of us to develop a new strategy for attracting more shipping firm business. This newstrategic plan is a messy business. Somehow, we have to share our thoughts on various approaches,agree on a new plan, and write a unified submission to the managing partner. Already, the project istaking most of my time just writing and responding to emails, and talking in conference calls (whichnone of us did much before the team formed).Susan and Brad have already had two or three "misunderstandings" via email about their differentperspectives on delicate matters in the strategic plan. The worst of these disagreements required aconference call with all of us to resolve. Except for the most basic matters, it seems that we can'tunderstand each other, let alone agree on key issues. I have come to the conclusion that I would neverwant Brad to work in my Boston office (thank goodness, he's on the other side of the country). WhileElias and I seem to agree on most points, the overall team can't form a common vision or strategy. Idon't know how Elias, Susan, or Brad feel, but I would be quite happy to work somewhere that did notrequire any of these long-distance team headaches.

Discussion Questions:

Question 1. What type of team was formed here? Was it necessary, in your opinion?

Question 2. Use the team effectiveness model and related information in this chapter to identify the strengthsand weaknesses of this team's environment, design, and processes.

Question 3. Assuming that these four people must continue to work as a team, recommend ways to improve theteam's effectiveness.