The case we read this week, “The Team That Wasn’t,” presented a multitude of issues that Eric Holt’s team faced when working together on strategic repositioning of Fire Art Inc. These issues, while specific to the case, are often faced by leaders in organizations. As a team, we believe there are certain aspects of Eric’s actions that directly affected the progress of the team. In addition, we recommend a series of steps that Eric should take to improve their progress.
To give a little background information, Fire Art Inc. is in trouble and the CEO, Jack Derry, has hired Eric Holt with the solitary task of “strategic repositioning”. Eric Holt goes full speed ahead with this directive and forms a team. This, as the reader can identify, is where the first issue arises. To begin with, as the team began working, there was no clear goal(s) set for them. Instead of clearly defining the actions that the team must take to reach success, a vague task of “strategic repositioning” is identified as the plan. Furthermore, no timeline for intermediate deliverables seems to have been set. Setting a clear schedule of what the team must accomplish would have helped with timely decision making.
The first problem we identified is the lack of clear group identity, definition and accountability. A team that doesn’t live by a sense of collective accountability in actively solving problems is only a group of individuals, not a team. One can draw an analogy to a football team or an ox-drawn plow when defining the characteristics of a team. A team is like the ox or football players. They are equally yoked toward one goal and must perform their function correctly in order to make progress.
An important criteria that distinguishes strong teams from their inferiors is the ability for the team members to hold itself accountable as a team rather than as a group of individuals. A Katzenbach notes, “No group ever becomes a team until it can hold itself accountable as a team. Like common purpose and approach, mutual accountability is a stiff test” (Katzenbach, 168). Thus, a key recommendation would be the adoption of measures to ensure such common purpose is clearly understood by all members. Eric Holt can achieve this by making several measures including creating a team charter, mandatory team building seminar enrollment, and holding all members of the team accountable for the final product.
The case analysis of Eric Peterson also can provide other clues into why this team is not working. This is because there are many similarities between Eric Holt and Eric Peterson. These include the fact that: Priorities have not been set, conflicts have not been confronted, the agenda has not been clearly established, goals have not been defined, trust has not been built, and Eric’s credibility has not been established with the team.
As Erik Peterson’s failure at GMCT showed, this is not a good way to lead a group of people. Therefore, it would be wise for Eric Holt to consider what his members, especially Randy, could bring to the table in order to function successfully as a team. In addition, Eric Holt, like Erik Peterson, is fairly new to his role as team leader and his diminished authority directly affects the success of the team. Consequently, his “consultant” mode behavior and his aversion to conflict seem to be additional sources of the problem.

As mentioned before, timelines for deliverables are an integral component to helping an organization succeed. In this case scenario, Eric has not set any intermediate deliverables that would have helped with timely decision making. It would have also served to foster a sense of success among the new team members, something that would have helped build morale and team spirit. Katzenbach’s article advises that teams that set specific performance goals separate themselves from the rest of the company far more successfully. Thus, the team can begin to set clear goals with clear timelines from the onset.
Although focusing solely on one-on-one relationships is not recommended, it is nonetheless critical to the team’s success for Eric to meet with the team members individually. This is a vital recommendation that we would give to Eric. This is so important because it will not only prepare them for when they meet again as a group, but also allows them the opportunity to relay any issues to Eric that they may not feel comfortable doing so in front of the others. In addition, this is a great way for Eric to define the roles the person should have as well as establish expectations.
Consequently, another problem we saw was that Eric failed to set clear expectations and consequences early on to both Randy and the other team members. This lead to noncommittal on the part of the team, lack of initiative from Randy, and an inability of Eric to delegate effectively. As Peter Isenberg and Winona Finch both did, Eric could start establishing his credibility by asking simple questions to his team members, especially Randy. Isenberg notes that as he did this, the team members became more engaged and eager to contribute. Finch’s subordinates were committed to the team’s goals because they were empowered, not ordered, to achieve them. This process could lead to Randy becoming more of an inside participant instead of the outside renegade he now is, allow the team to become more cohesive, and definitely improve their chances of success. The more power managers can share, the more influence they command.
Eric needs to realize that being passive and hoping Randy will come around may very well be a lost cause. It would be wise of him to address the incongruity of Randy’s belief system and the team spirit and mentality needed to run Fire Art Inc. As the John Delhorne story indicates, Eric must, if necessary, involve the CEO in his efforts, since at the end of the day, the team’s success or failure are his responsibility. Establishing a good relationship with his superior is often a great help for a leader that is struggling. For instance, Eric could speak to Derry about some of the ideas the team has already come up with and get his input. It’s possible that Derry could propose related or other good ideas, and in addition, could talk with Randy and secure his alignment with the mission.
Eric now needs to redefine his role in the group and assume the responsibility to act as the team’s leader. He needs to first develop and understand his “art” and “threshold capabilities” and then define and develop his five components of emotional intelligence). With the skills of self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill, Eric will have the foundation to better understand himself, his true charge and what the group and mission truly needs from him.