The team’s failure was a direct result of several detrimental factors. These included excess autonomy given to the team from Advert’s management, conformity within the team, and losing focus of the original goal. The complete autonomy that the team was given did not act as a beneficial asset, but as more of a slippery slope towards failure. Without any given guidelines or ideas of the client’s needs, they were unable to envision the right image that the client wanted to portray with their product.
In addition to the lack of information, the team also lacked knowledge about the final goal of the project due to the shortage of explicit implementation and goal setting by Advert’s management. Furthermore, the team also suffered from internal problems in the early stages of forming and storming. Usually in these stages, members of a team determine their purpose, structure, and leadership; however, Conner immediately assumed that he was the leader and exerted his idea on the rest of the team without the formal consent of his colleagues.
His aggressive actions made other team members reluctant to openly express their opinions or even introduce their own ideas, thus leaving them no choice but to conform to his ideas. The most glaring example of this was Derek, who had an idea that was exactly what the clients were looking for, yet he was too intimidated by Conner’s aggressive leadership style that he decided not to share it with the group. As the team started to acknowledge Conner’s concept, they were too concentrated on portraying their vision instead of focusing on selling the product and portraying its image.
Though these factors seem obvious, they had a large impact on the team’s ultimate failure. Looking further into these factors, it is apparent that there were several personal biases and perceptions that served as the root of the team’s failure. For example, the anchoring bias is evident as Conner immediately presented his concept to the team and refused to acknowledge any other. The team looked and brainstormed no further, forcing them to resort to Conner’s first idea. In addition to the anchoring bias, the team suffered from selective perception as well.
Conner immediately becomes victim of this, as he believed that his plan was the best. As for the rest of the team, they started to see the idea as the best one as well and ignored all other doubts and thoughts that might have suggested otherwise. This selective perception eventually brought about an overconfidence bias. Instead of correcting their mistakes or trying to improve upon the idea, they continued to see it as seemingly flawless. With this narrow mindset, the team unknowingly engaged in the escalation of their commitment.
Having too much at stake for both Advert and themselves, the team refused to acknowledge the potential problems of the plan, which led them to commit more time and effort into strengthening their concept. This is epitomized by the transition from their original idea—a college boy and a group of attractive girls—to their final product, which ended up having sexy girls in provocative clothing. The team’s personal biases and perceptions contributed to the group’s poor decision making. As a solution to the stated problem, the manager could have reduced the amount of autonomy given to the team.
In order to avoid excessive autonomy, one action the manager may have taken is to develop a system that would require the team to check in at regular intervals, perhaps once a week, to explain their ideas and receive feedback from the upper division authorities. This would allow the managers to examine if the marketing campaign fits the client’s needs and give specific directions for the team to develop a stronger advertisement. This would allow the team to stay on task but ensure that they are operating within the confines set by management.
On the other hand, the team would feel less independent, knowing that they were not given the full responsibility to take on the task at hand. The team could also be less motivated for the same reason, perhaps creating lower creativity levels, lower employee satisfaction, higher absenteeism, and greater apathy by the team members. Also, such approach could be bothersome to the upper division and require the manager to allocate time for constant check ups. Another possible solution requires the team selection to be more diversified.
It is stated that all five employees were “the same age, had worked for the company for about the same time, and … their personalities seemed to mesh as well. ” By diversifying the team members, the manager could have prevented the anchoring bias, the confirmation bias, selective perception, and group polarization. With different viewpoints, experiences, and personalities, the anchoring bias could have been avoided since each member would contribute with different ideas instead of relying on a single member to lead them.
A diverse group would have given less possibility of a group polarization, as the members wouldn’t feel compelled to all move the advertisement toward the same direction. Because most of the members were alike, they shared common ideas and believed Conner’s idea was satisfactory. Thus, the advertisement produced would not have swayed more attention to trivial details such as escalating the girls to seem “racier” and not relating to the matter at hand. On the other hand, with a heterogeneous group of individuals, reaching an agreement could cause conflict.
With the different ideas that are brought to the table, it may have been hard to sacrifice an individual’s idea and compromise with others in the group. Furthermore, this could have prolonged the duration of the project. One last possible resolution to prevent this complication permits the individuals in the group to brainstorm their own ideas before the initial group meeting. This would allow each member to come up with his or her own ideas and see the different possibilities each had to offer.
This would give individual team members the opportunity to voice their suggestions, and prevent the domination of the group with one person’s plan. Since no other suggestions were made, the members were anchored to the initial idea presented by Conner. Despite the benefits of giving each member time to come up with their own ideas, this may have caused major time consumption. Since each person would share their ideas, take time to compromise, and make a final decision to satisfy each member in the group, coming to a conclusion might be more complicated.
Nevertheless, such attempts from the manager could have avoided the oversimplifications and biases that led to client’s discontent. Looking at all of the possible solutions to resolve this problem, the best option is to reduce the amount of autonomy that was given to the team by assigning a manager that would oversee the project. Even though the other two solutions might have been beneficial to improve the efficiency of the group, having more diversity does not eliminate the lack of supervision that can lead to the current problem being faced. In addition, having the ndividuals brainstorm before meeting can still lead to anchoring bias, which a manager could prevent from happening. The team was given complete autonomy in which they were able to make creative decisions for the commercial without having to consult with a superior. As previously stated, this large amount of freedom was not beneficial for the team or their end result, since Conner took advantage of this independence and forcefully brought the group in a wrong direction with his ideas. Because there was no manager to supervise this process, Conner was able to assert his “authority” without any challenges.
In a group with less autonomy and with an overseer, the manager could monitor the group better, ensuring more ideas would be heard as well as making sure that Advert’s vision for the commercial would be accurately portrayed. To implement this solution, the company will need to choose a manager to monitor the group and the group’s activities. The manager would meet with the group weekly to make sure that they are producing a commercial that fits with Advert’s needs, and to make sure that the group is working cohesively.
The manager would also conduct individual meetings with each member bi-weekly to see if everyone’s opinions are being heard and if each member is satisfied within the group. Once the final idea is reached and the final product is completed, the manager will be able to review the final product and ensure that it is what Advert’s clients are seeking. Despite all the benefits of reducing autonomy and assigning a manager, a few potential issues exist. One problem with this solution is that the processes of monitoring the group with collective and individual meetings to reach a consensus will pose as a major time consumer.
Furthermore, having a superior figure present may cause some members to feel intimidated and therefore causing them to hold back any potential ideas for fear that the manager will disapprove. Finally, the independence of the group will be limited, which could lead to a lack of motivation because the individual may not feel trusted by their superiors. Even though these problems could exist, the benefits of hiring a manager and limiting autonomy will give Advert a final product that they can trust will fill their client’s needs.
