DAVID FLETCHER - CASE 4
Submitted by – Group 2 [HRM – B 2014-16]
Aakash Parihar H14063, Avinash Upadhyay H14087, Ramanjeet Singh Sahai H14105, Shivani Bhatnagar H14114, Somraj Datta H14117, Tushar Prabhakar H14121
Q. Fletcher’s first attempt to build a research tram did not work out as intended.
A. What aspects of team design, should he handled differently?
B. What should he have done to facilitate the team’s process better?
Ans. David Hired a research team , with individuals handling particular sectors . However , as the team did not have cohesion , it broke apart .
A . Different approach to team design

Referring Leigh Thompson's 'Making The Team' , a different approach can be made towards team design -

People Dynamics - Interpersonal skills - David could have involved Stephanie and other office members who would be directly dealing with Brian in the office during the hiring process for Brian .
Alternatively , he could have had collaborative training(Gratton, L., & Erickson, T.J. (2007). 8 ways to build collaborative teams. Harvard Business Review) sessions conducted
Task Analysis - Team interdependence & common interest - In interdependent teams, it is important that team cohesion stay strong. Here , while initiated as a time saving high value team , it became a strain on David's time .
Task analysis - Focus on performance , learning - Both Brian and Stephanie should have been clearly explained their career paths , told about how their performances would be measured as they progressed and told about the learning aspect importance of sharing of information in the team , during their on the fly meetings .
The focus should be on the ultimate handoff (Katzenbach, J.R., & Smith, D.K. (2005). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review), which in this case was a Buy/sell/hold decisions on stocks and markets .
B . Facilitating the team's process better -
Clearly understanding and explaining expectations - Stephanie and Brian were very different in the work experience they brought to the table. The expectations of both were different as Stephanie was young , with lesser experience and mentored by David, and Brian had already been working at other firms for many years . She expected more involvement in her work which was not completely met by David .
Understanding the individual career goals - Without clearly understanding and communication the career path that Brian and Stephanie would be following , he may have led to some ambiguity about the individual career growth path for both .
Understanding Team Cohesion - David did not ask for or consider Stephanie's opinion while hiring Brian. Further , he did not see how David would fit in to the team at JFP
Understanding the Office Culture - The office information sharing was very informal with focus on quick sharing. By not explaining why both members to be present for the On the fly meetings, he alienated Stephanie who took it to be a waste of time.
Additionally , even though it was clear that Brian was leaving , Stephanie still decided to leave , meaning it was not just the interpersonal dynamics at work . As her mentor , David should have realised that she wanted more from her work and still expected David's guidance . Her switching to the new role may have required more mentoring and / or training . He should also have explained her career path to Stephanie more clearly.
Q. What should he do this time around?
This time , while putting together a new team , David should consider the following -
Overall changes -
Maintain team diversity and a good mix of expertise . As suggested by Gratton & Erickson, Having many experts on overlapping fields could lead to delayed decisions or decision paralysis. Hire specialists for sectors and use their expertise to make choices (as was the original intention )
Schedule regular meetings of both functional and collaborative nature where each team member has inputs which are implemented , if accepted .
Explain career paths and expectations at each role stage clearly to each employee . Have a robust performance management system for each team member , and clearly explain to them the criteria for the same . A proper incentive system clearly spelled out should also be in place , for the success of the performance management program
Offer Constructive feedback - David did not have a very structured style of management , and he can adopt regular review sessions on performance .
Individual corrections / changes
Ask Stephanie to stay with the firm and continue in a larger role with clarity on her career path towards eventual complete / part portfolio management.
Mary Robinson should be hired and other employees should be asked to consider Fiske as a office mate /team member / employee and their evaluation should be considered for the hiring decision.

Q . What advice would you give Mary Robinson?
Mary Should decide to join the firm , if given the opportunity. She has to realise that Stephanie's moving on was a difficult time or the firm, and she may not receive the same level of cooperation that Stephanie received. She should clarify this to David and ask for him to mentor her initially, as she gets around the office and its dynamics and politics .What matters more is that she gets along with Kindred and she can leverage this relationship to navigate the office interpersonal relationships till she establishes her own .