Reference no: EM132828670

For 7 years Mathew has been a salaried account manager with Atkins Inc., a respected Advertising and Branding Agency headquartered in Victoria, BC and active across North America. Most recently his role has been to focus on government and the not- for- profit sector accounts primarily in Canada. He has been successful and generated a number of new accounts.

Atkins Inc. is privately owned by the Atkins family who have a long and distinguished business history. A number of third generation family members act as senior executives and sit on the firm's "Strategic and Operations Committee". The family throughout their history have been active supporters of charitable organizations and are known for their philanthropy in the support of worthy causes. Many of Mathew's accounts have received Atkin's Inc. services at much reduced prices, in fact free in certain instances. As a consequence, Mathew has had unfettered access to the family to discuss their altruism and support for specific charities.

Around 2008 as a result of the general economic slowdown in North America the company's earnings began to steadily decrease to the point in the last fiscal year the company actually lost money. The family were very concerned and through the "Strategic and Operations Committee" formed a team to research the root causes of the losses and recommend a specific action plan to improve results. The team was comprised of a number of senior managers, account managers including Mathew and given 60 days to report. Family members decided not to participate to avoid any family bias in recommendations.

The team held a number of meetings. Atkin's CFO, a man well respected and trusted throughout the company, assumed a leadership role and Mathew's boss the General Sales Manager, ran the meetings. All went well. A number of good ideas were generated including a couple of Mathew's own ideas. Toward the end of the project a participant suggested that no government or not-for-profit organizations should be given discounts for Atkin's services. In fact, during the discussion some participants suggested this sector be dropped completely as it would never be profitable. Mathew had to agree the sector was a financial drain but protested elimination suggesting that the company's involvement in this sector had created a lot of goodwill over the years and enhanced the family's image. He went on to say this activity also facilitated access to decision makers in other sectors. His boss and the CFO scoffed at this and insisted that good work gets the accounts and times are tough! After a lengthy discussion all agreed a recommendation to review these accounts and reduce support gradually made good sense. Mathew reluctantly agreed but knew the family would not be happy with the recommendation. He knew this decision could spell the demise of some key local charities accustomed to Atkin's support. Mathew was also concerned that his boss and the CFO may be a little sensitive, perhaps jealous over of his access and friendliness with the family. He had no real proof of this but the occasional and critical off the cuff remark by his boss had been made. A few weeks ago he remembered his boss being displeased that he could not attend an important client's conference call because he was asked to brief the family on a charitable account matter.

The project finished on time and the team were asked to present their conclusions at a meeting of the Strategic and Operations Committee. All family members, some of whom were not active in the Company, attended. Clearly they were eager to hear the results of the project. The presentation went well. Lots of good discussion and Mathew's ideas were very well received. He was pleased and quite proud of himself! As the meeting was winding down the CFO broached the subject of "dropping" not-for-profits accounts. The room went quiet and family members sat up in their chairs. Other team members appeared unconcerned! Mathew stiffened and avoided eye contact with family members. The family patriarch and founder of the company who was now over 90years of age lowered his glasses and glared at Mathew. "Do you agree Mathew?" he said in a determined voice. Mathew stood ........

Multiple Choice Questions?

1. Which of the following conditions necessary for a group to become a team was lacking in Mathew's case?

a) Effectiveness
b) Shared leadership
c) Continuous problem solving
d) Accountability
e) Common purpose

2. Which of the following best describes the nature of Mathew's team?

a) Cross-functional
b) Virtual
c) Problem-solving
d) Self-managed

3. Which of following best describes Mathew's conflict when the CFO abruptly announced dropping not-for-profit accounts?

a) role conflict
b) role ambiguity
c) role overload
d) role expectations

4. In developing a final set of recommendations which of the following actions made the team ineffective?

a) Failed conflict resolution
b) Failure to follow through
c) Over dependence on the leader
d) Refusal to share
e) Failure to resolve conflicts

5. The CFO violated Mathew's trust. On future teams which of the following elements should Mathew ignore when deciding who to trust?

a) Competence
b) Openness
c) Good judgement
d) Culture
e) Integrity

6. In point form list as many mistakes as you can outlining what mistakes were made in the forming of this problem solving team?