Seagate Case Analysis Dea FancherEssay Preview: Seagate Case Analysis Dea FancherReport this essayWhat types of team building would you categorize the EcoSeagate event? In your opinion, is this type of event effective for team building? Why or why not?
The company description of EcoSeagate states that it is “about identifying and overcoming barriers and excelling as an individual and team member. Be ready to learn through activities and speakers about achievement and excellence. Be prepared to experience our corporate values and Seagate competencies in new and unexpected settings and get ready to see how our objectives can be reached by challenging ourselves, adapting to new circumstances and contributing to an aligned focused team.” (Larson, 2008) EcoSeagate employs four types of team building with varying degrees of success to accomplish this lofty goal, Goal Setting, Role Definition, Interpersonal Processes and Problem Solving. (McShane & Von Glinow, 2008 p. 304)
Lorenstein, Thomas (2004) – “A New Science: The Value-Based Human Intelligence Theory” by George Laughlin. A highly influential book written in conjunction with a series of articles in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences entitled “The Value-Based Human Intelligence Theory” (Laughlin & Von Glinow, 2004 p. 305). In his study “The Value Based Human Intelligence Theory” the authors present two views. The first view is that the value-based theory is, in contrast to the classical (classical) idea of knowledge (ie. the individual), valuable but inarticulable and ineffectual, and the second view is that there is a value in having, like a human being, an intelligent human being which can think in a manner that is rational. The value-based theory suggests an intelligent human being will do what any well-meaning human should do, thus, can work for a long time and have the knowledge, but cannot really do it. As a result, a value-based approach to social intelligence to evaluate individuals’ skills in dealing with others (eg. understanding how to be able to think critically, how to work to make decisions, etc.), will be needed. The value proposition, the other view is that intelligence is not necessarily what you think it is, but it can be measured and considered by the capacity to recognize, measure and analyze the value it expresses. The importance of understanding people’s capabilities is, therefore, not measured, but rather by their abilities working for others. In any given situation you need to analyze them to understand why they’re there, where they are working and what they need to do. The value value in one’s ability to process information will not always be measured, but the potential to work for others that exists in other people is an asset we can develop. The value-based theory also supports a different point of view in regards to human behavior, by providing the necessary evidence that humans are intelligent and that they can work hard in a variety of contexts. To illustrate the point of view proposed in this paper, it is important to note that the concept of value-based intelligence does not simply claim that human behavior is the same. There exists a different kind of human that, for all practical purposes, can act intelligently and with good manners and good sense. The human would have knowledge and can be thought of as capable of taking care of himself and his family if he has the required skills and attitudes. This latter type of human has a capacity specifically to deal with problems of interpersonal conflict, whereas the second kind of human has a capacity and needs the aid of the human of a different kind such as human-kind, and thus the value of a person is to provide the required guidance and guidance which the human can give to his or her fellow human, rather
Lorenstein, Thomas (2004) – “A New Science: The Value-Based Human Intelligence Theory” by George Laughlin. A highly influential book written in conjunction with a series of articles in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences entitled “The Value-Based Human Intelligence Theory” (Laughlin & Von Glinow, 2004 p. 305). In his study “The Value Based Human Intelligence Theory” the authors present two views. The first view is that the value-based theory is, in contrast to the classical (classical) idea of knowledge (ie. the individual), valuable but inarticulable and ineffectual, and the second view is that there is a value in having, like a human being, an intelligent human being which can think in a manner that is rational. The value-based theory suggests an intelligent human being will do what any well-meaning human should do, thus, can work for a long time and have the knowledge, but cannot really do it. As a result, a value-based approach to social intelligence to evaluate individuals’ skills in dealing with others (eg. understanding how to be able to think critically, how to work to make decisions, etc.), will be needed. The value proposition, the other view is that intelligence is not necessarily what you think it is, but it can be measured and considered by the capacity to recognize, measure and analyze the value it expresses. The importance of understanding people’s capabilities is, therefore, not measured, but rather by their abilities working for others. In any given situation you need to analyze them to understand why they’re there, where they are working and what they need to do. The value value in one’s ability to process information will not always be measured, but the potential to work for others that exists in other people is an asset we can develop. The value-based theory also supports a different point of view in regards to human behavior, by providing the necessary evidence that humans are intelligent and that they can work hard in a variety of contexts. To illustrate the point of view proposed in this paper, it is important to note that the concept of value-based intelligence does not simply claim that human behavior is the same. There exists a different kind of human that, for all practical purposes, can act intelligently and with good manners and good sense. The human would have knowledge and can be thought of as capable of taking care of himself and his family if he has the required skills and attitudes. This latter type of human has a capacity specifically to deal with problems of interpersonal conflict, whereas the second kind of human has a capacity and needs the aid of the human of a different kind such as human-kind, and thus the value of a person is to provide the required guidance and guidance which the human can give to his or her fellow human, rather
The first type of team building that EcoSeagate addresses is goal setting where the team clarifies the performance goals, increases the team’s motivation to accomplish these goals and establishes a mechanism for feedback on a team’s performance. (McShane & Von Glinow, 2008 p. 304) Four months before the EcoSeagate ever begins, teams are chosen so that they can discuss preparations for the event including supplies, gear, physical training and nutrition. (Larson, 2008)
The common goal at the beginning is to make preparations for the supplies and gear that will be needed to be successful in the upcoming competition and to make sure that everyone is well trained in the physical activity to come. In addition, they must decide together when they will arrive in Queenstown before the competition to get to know each other on a more personal level. (Larson, 2008) To support these goals, Seagate has and online server committed to EcoSeagate where you can do online learning requirements and track training progress in the months before the competition. (Larson, 2008) Telephone calls and emails throughout this interim period are used to motivate each other to be at their peak when they arrive in Queenstown. (Larson, 2008) Members also provide feedback on equipment choices, training recommendations and strategies to get ahead of the game when they get there.
These five months of preparation time between teammates allows the teams to set norms for goal setting in the actual competition. (McShane & Von Glinow, 2008 p. 270) The process for clarifying goals has been done once already, they have encouraged each other to be prepared for the difficult task to come and they have already begun to give feedback on each others ideas.
The second type of team building begins when they get to EcoSeagate, role definition. (McShane & Von Glinow, 2008 p. 304) While the team has been operating as a virtual team for the last five months, now they are face to face and have the opportunity to view body language and facial expressions, all important in solidifying the teams dynamic. (McShane & Von Glinow, 2008 p. 290) In Kevin Larson’s case, his experience in the Navy gives the team confidence in his ability to navigate the team and his knowledge also solidifies the trust that they need to have in an unfamiliar environment. (Larson, 2008) During the week, the tasks that the team participate in show others strengths and weaknesses and allow the other members to assume team roles. One person takes responsibility for the endangered tree they are to carry around everywhere, keeping it watered and safe at all times. One works as a monitor, lacking the drive or the ability to inspire others and is very somber; while others combine roles as team workers and plants. (McShane & Von Glinow, 2008 p. 273) Strengths and weaknesses in each of the venues are identified with each team member so plans can be formed as to what role each person will take in different aspects of the final race. (Larson, 2008)
Because of the danger that can be posed in the exercise, conflict seems inevitable. The third process type of team building, interpersonal process comes into play here. (McShane & Von Glinow, 2008 p. 304) Interpersonal process encompasses, conflict management and building or rebuilding trust. (McShane & Von Glinow, 2008 p. 304) One of Larson’s teammates, Noelle, had fallen off her bike and been injured earlier in the week and when the time came for her to bike in the final race, she staunchly refused to try again, choosing instead to walk beside her bike as team after team, passed her team by. After failing to encourage her to try again, the team united and walked their bikes with her down the steep and treacherous hill. (Larson, 2008) While the team’s goal was to finish in the top five, recognition of Noelle’s fear and inability to overcome it was more important to address then, the accomplishment of the goal they had set for themselves. After rebuilding Noelle’s trust that she wouldn’t be left behind, goals were realigned to encompass their new goal, finishing the race together. (Larson, 2008)
Finally EcoSeagate addresses the fourth type of team building, problem solving. (McShane & Von Glinow, 2008 p. 304) Each of the teams were set up as Self Directed Work Teams where they were responsible for completing and entire piece of work requiring interdependent tasks, in this case hiking, biking, kayaking and rappelling throughout the week so that they were prepared for the adventure race at the end of the week. (McShane & Von Glinow, 2008 p. 286) They depended on each other for encouragement, cooperation, knowledge and even safety. They are expected to execute each task together without supervision from anyone giving them complete autonomy over the outcome of the task. (McShane & Von Glinow, 2008 p. 286) They control how much work they put into each task, how fast it is accomplished and the outcome of each adventure taking from it more knowledge than they had going in. If something goes wrong on a hike or bike etcetera, they have to work through the problem together to make the checkpoint. (McShane & Von Glinow, 2008 p. 286) They are rewarded for working together, following directions, and making it to each checkpoint with tokens that can be used to buy information or training. (McShane & Von Glinow, 2008 p. 287) (Larson, 2008)Because these people work so closely together they have a mutual understanding of the task at hand, that if one person cannot do something, their shortcomings will place a serious physical strain on the remaining members of their team.
At the beginning of the program each employee receives a book called The Five Dysfunctions of a Team where the book identifies the absence of trust, fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability