Endowment Chair: Team Decision-Making Process (Case Study Sample)
Your overall objectives should be to provide an integrated explanation of why your team made the selection you did, and to identify actions you would want to take to ensure effective team decision making in the future.
In your final paper, you should
● Describe the process your team used to make a decision. (When did you use advocacy,
and when did you use inquiry? why?)
● Explain how your process affected your ability to uncover the unique information known
to only a single team member, or the partially shared information.
● Consider how you developed norms as a team (give specific examples).
● Identify the roles played by different team members (again, give specific examples).
Was there an adequate balance between task and relationship (maintenance) roles?
● Evaluate your own behavior in terms of the five exemplary leadership practices. Which
practices did you engage in during the team discussion? What opportunities were missed to employ the five practices? What else could you have done to enhance the team's effectiveness? How can you be more consistent in the future?
I will give you more details on the process and what each person (names) did and his or her responsibilities in the team. Please see the attachments.
I will take pictures and upload the portion I got in 12 hours.
Decision-making is a complex process, particularly when the alternatives are competing. Our team was tasked with selecting the best candidate to fill the endowed chair position. The final three candidates for the position are serious contenders and this further made the decision-making process complex. Our team was comprised of five members from all the departments in the School of Business except Accounting and Information Systems Department. I represented the Finance Department, Gabriel represented Management and Strategy Department, Ellene represented Managerial Economics and Decisions Department, Jennifer represented Marketing department, and finally, Vu represented Organizational Behavior Department. While it significant to have members from other departments, working with them in the decision-making process is more challenging compared to working with members from my department. However, this did not stop the team from selecting the best candidate for the position. The team examined the qualifications of the three candidates and settled on Pat Stone. This was not an easy undertaking and this paper explains how the team arrived at the decision.
Team Decision-Making Process
The task for the team was to select the best candidate from the three to fill the endowed chair position. The inclusion of members from other departments meant that different skills and experience in the School of Business were brought together. As such, with members from the different departments, we were in a better position to select the best candidate to meet the interests of the school. Understanding the key task for the team was essential in order for the members to be on the same page. The group used the combination of both advocacy and inquiry in the decision-making process. Inquiry may seem like an accurate and ideal method of arriving at decisions, however, it was difficult for team members to discuss the issue at hand without voicing their opinions and trying to convince others why a certain candidate is better compared to another. As such, a combination of both inquiry and advocacy helped the group in arriving at the decision. In this section, I elaborate on how the team came to settle on Pat Stone as the best candidate for the position.
After we were acquainted with one another, we began by sharing the information. While each one of us had information about the three candidates, the information was different. Therefore, sharing the information by each person was a significant first step towards selecting the candidate that would meet the interests of the school. As such, one by one everyone shared the information they had on the candidates. This was an engaging process and at the end of it all, we had made major progress towards selecting the candidate for the position. We had begun feeling comfortable in the team. As informed by Kouzes & Posner (2012), when members feel part of the team, the quality of the decision-making process and the quality and accuracy of communication are increased. After sharing the information we had, we were more acquainted with one another and this was good for the team as it helped towards moving to the next activity.
We used inquiry to examine the qualifications and experience of the candidates in order to find the candidate that is best suited for the position. In this regard, we resorted to creating a chart in order to compare the candidates and how they fit the position. Before the creation of the chart, we revisited the key considerations that would guide the process. The considerations were teaching ability, scholarly excellence, and administrative experience. The chart would help in coming with an unbiased comparison of the can...
- Traditional Risk Workshops: Strategic RiskDescription: Strategic risks can be defined as the uncertainties and untapped opportunities embedded in your strategic intent and how well they are executed....2 pages/≈550 words | 1 Source | APA | Management | Case Study |
- Obvious Risks And Steps To Quantify The RisksDescription: To construct the Demeter, The canoe team may face some risks; therefore, they need to develop innovative approaches to mitigate these risks....2 pages/≈550 words | 2 Sources | APA | Management | Case Study |
- Panera Bread Company: Implementation, Evaluation, ControlDescription: The Panera Bread Company will have to develop some significant growth oriented elements especially given that the company has been focusing on the local market...1 page/≈275 words | No Sources | APA | Management | Case Study |