What are some of the root causes of Varsity’s losses? Despite of selecting the best rowers for the team, Varsity team is frequently outperformed by the Junior Varsity team consisting of the bottom eight rowers. There are many reasons attributing to this abnormal result. Observing this unanticipated result, it is quite evident that just putting together the most skilled people in a group does not solely account for high performance. (The whole less than the sum of the parts). The Coach also plays an important role in the behavior of Varsity team. By separating rowers only on the basis of individual performance, and tagging one as the expected team to win obviously, caused a cleft between the Varsity and Junior Varsity teams. This could possibly rob Varsity team of their motivation to perform better, as they have nothing to gain by competing against a group which is lower in standards. Coach P did not emphasize on the psychological factors as much as he emphasized on the physical factors when putting a team together. He recruited the top individual performers and stringed them together without acknowledging the importance of the team to perform as a unit. Applying concepts from discipline of teams, we know that a team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, set of performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable. As we observe the behavior of the members of Varsity team, it can be noted that they a group of individuals but not a team. The crew depends heavily on the teamwork as it requires all its members to be in perfect sync and coordinate with each other to propel the boat. Especially, the members of the team need to trust one another to refrain for reacting in different ways to a mistake done by one of them, and instead trust that the person will retract from the mistake by himself/herself. These qualities were lacking in the Varsity team. They did not develop the sense of trust and team efficacy. As a team, there were no norms set for group behavior. This is evident from the remarks made by the team members, e.g.: “I never thought I would be the weak link, but on this race, I am sure of it.” They were also complaining against each other and got into disruptive team behaviors like verbal abuse and did not make use of constructive criticism. Their degree of cohesiveness is also very low, and this can be understood from the way they hold each other responsible for their failure instead of being committed to the purpose and goal. The team also lacked on shared leadership roles, Individual and mutual accountability and specific team purpose that the team itself delivers. From the hard data collected by the Coach, Varsity team did not have any member classified as leader but had several of them labeled as team disrupters. They were also skeptical in accepting the CEP training to improve their performance. This shows their rigidness towards change. Another reason for the failure of Varsity team is because they did not asses themselves and measure their performance upon their collective work products and encourage open-ended discussion and active problemsolving meetings. This is what takes possible performance levels greater than the sum of all the individual bests of team members.

What actions could Coach P. take on Tuesday? Why do you recommend these actions? Varsity team has the advantage in composition of team by having highly skilled team members. However, they lack all the other desired qualities required to perform their best as a team. On comparing both the teams on each aspect, both the teams are of the same size but they differ highly on the account of psychological factors and team. Though Varsity team has better rowers, it is unable to perform to its fullest. Whereas, the Junior Varsity team’s performance is greater than the sum of individual bests of its members. It would be a better course of action if the teams are switched as it would give us better chances of winning the race. The JV team has set up norms of behavior with in the team and it is evident from the global remarks they make and the mutual accountability for the task. On contrary, V team members got down to blaming each other which is a disruptive behavior and makes their team dysfunctional in achieving a common goal. Aslo, the JV team has high levels of cohesiveness and this can be observed from the comments in their email e.g.: “We are rowing for every guy in that boat because we don’t want to let him down”. The second option can be ruled out on the basis of the reluctance of the JV team members to move up to the V team. They would rather remain in the JV team than get promoted to the V team. This attributes to the congruence they have developed with each member of their team which is also an important factor to decide on switching the teams. The JV team has established norms in group behavior and is more committed to achieve the common goal. They are more cohesive which is one of the determining factors to perform better as a team as they would feel every stroke of each member and get in sync which propels them to outperform the V team which lacks this crucial quality. The third option would prove detrimental because, to get the V team to norming their group and get to perform, they must first be given feedback on the reasons why they are losing. The team must be able to understand the missing qualities and inculcate them in their practice to better their performance as a team. Though this is a feasible approach on a long run, it cannot be suggested as a course of action, given the time constraint of four days before the race.