Individual Characteristics
Motivation
The members of this team were driven by different needs. The employees of ACBID, namely Ben, Bryce and Ben were motivated by the financial compensation that they could receive provided that the purchase of Mighty-tech was successful. Secondly, they were driven by the need for achieve career growth. In contrast, Bill and Beatrice, who were the employees of Ander Arthurson were willing to preserve their professional reputation and the reputation of their firm. They attached more importance to their job security. Scholars believe that the differences in motivation usually adversely affect the performance of teams (Asproni, 2004, p. 4).
Attitudes
The employees of ACBID were very concerned about time-efficiency of the project. They needed to finish the take-over of Mighty-tech as quickly as possible because the competitors of ACBID were also willing to purchase this company. In contrast, Ander Arthurson accountants, especially Beatrice paid more attention to the accuracy of Mighty-tech financial reporting. This difference in individual preferences endangered this project.
Personality
The case does not tell much about the personality of every team member. Nevertheless, one can still mention some traits of people who were involved in this project. For example, Beatrice is a person who is very risk-averse and afraid of making even the slightest mistakes. This is why she tried to verify every line of Mighty-tech financial reports. In contrast, Bruce could accept some degree of risk. The researchers believe that the members of the team should have a relatively similar attitude toward risk (Jeffcott et al, 2006). This problem was not addressed at the very beginning.
Team Characteristics
Power distribution
Although, Bruce was supposed to be the leader of the team, one can say that the power of equally distributed. The thing is that each of the team members had to work on separate assignments. Furthermore, each of these people was an extremely skilled professional who could work independently. The problem is that the efforts of these professionals were not coordinated properly.
Homogeneity
The team cannot be called homogeneous. First, one should mention that it differed in terms of gender. Secondly, the participants represented two different organizations; one of them was an accounting firm, while the other was an investing bank. Thus, these people could have different perceptions of organizational goals or values. It should be noted that these differences were not reconciled before the start of the project. Bryce began to think about these issues only when specific problems emerged.
Climate
These people had to work in a very unfavorable climate. First of all, they had to meet very stringent deadlines that were set by their superiors. However, at the same time, they had to make sure that the takeover of Mighty-tech was successful. They had to work under circumstances, when the cost of mistake was very high, but at the same time they were strongly pressured by their superiors. Moreover, one should note that auditors such as Beatrice do not like the idea of such time limits because they want to ensure their accuracy of their results (DeZoort, 1998, unpaged). Besides, stringent deadlines often contribute to people’s nervousness (Gevers, Eerde, & Rutte, 2001).
Cohesiveness
This team was not cohesive for several reasons. As it has been said before, they represented companies with different cultures. Bill and Beatrice were more risk-averse in comparison with Bruce or Ben. No attempt was made to make the team members more unanimous. This is the main cause of the failure.
Reference List
Asproni, G. (2004). Motivation, Teamwork, and Agile Development. Agile Times, 4(1), 1-9. Web.
DeZoort, T. (1998). Time Pressure Research in Auditing: Implications for Practice. Web.
Gevers, J., Eerde, W. & Rutte, C. (2001). Time pressure, potency, and progress. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(2), 205-221. Web.
Jeffcott, S. Pidgeon, N., Weyman, A., & Walls, J. (2006). Risk, Trust, and Safety Culture in U.K. Train Operating Companies. Risk Analysis, 26(5), 1105-1121. Web.