The Army Crew Team case is a classic example of a team that was not performing up to its potential. The team was made up of talented individuals, but they were not working together effectively.
There are several factors that contributed to the team’s poor performance. First, the team members were not clear about their roles and responsibilities. Second, the team lacked cohesiveness and trust. Third, the team members were not communicating effectively with each other.
If the team had been more effective, it is likely that they would have been able to achieve their goal of winning the National Championship. However, the factors mentioned above prevented them from reaching their full potential.
Personally, I have found that team-related questions are the most common in job interviews. Companies want to know about an interviewee’s experience working with diversified teams because they give insight into what kind of team player an individual is. With more and more companies relying on teamwork for success, it is essential for employees and managers alike to understand how a team functions and how to transition smoothly between different stages.
In my previous organization, I was in a team of 8 and we were responsible for the project of redesigning the company’s website. Through this project, I learned how to better communicate with people from different backgrounds and opinions, as well as how to manage conflict within the team.
The Army Crew Team Case Analysis is a perfect case study on how a team functions, starting from the formation stage until the adjourning stage. The case study provides great insights on what factors make a team successful, and how to transition through different stages of team development.
As highlighted in the case study, one of the key factors that makes a team successful is effective communication. In order to communicate effectively, members of the team need to be able to understand each other’s perspectives and be respectful of different opinions. In my experience, effective communication is essential in managing conflict within the team.
Another key factor that makes a team successful is trust. Trust is built when members of the team are able to rely on each other to fulfill their responsibilities. In my experience, trust is essential in maintaining team cohesion and motivation.
Overall, the Army Crew Team Case Analysis is a great case study on how a team functions and what makes a team successful. The case study provides valuable insights that can be applied to real-world situations.
The Army Crew Team affair exposes the aggravation caused by a decline in varsity boat performance at the United States Military Academy. The symptoms are obvious, but the underlying causes may be found beneath them. Multiple elements from various people were involved in the problem. In the conclusion, I’ll discuss how to resolve the issue’s fundamental roots.
The varsity boat’s decline in performance was caused by several factors. The first is that the team lacked a clear leader. The previous captain graduated, and the new captain was not yet assertive enough to take charge. This led to confusion and lack of direction among the team members.
The second factor is that the team did not have a dedicated coach. The assistant coach was also serving as the head coach of the JV team. This meant that he could not give the varsity team the attention it needed.
The third factor is that the team members were not working together cohesively. There was a lot of individualism and little teamwork. This made it difficult for the team to row together effectively.
In this case, Colonel Stas Preczewski (Coach P) was presented with a problem he had never before encountered. After conducting numerous tests to measure various objective factors, Coach P chose the eight members who exhibited excellent strength, conditioning and rowing technique to form the Varsity team that would represent the Military Academy in the national championship race.
However, the night before the race was to take place one of the team members, James Dietz, came to Coach P and told him that he had been having chest pains and felt very tired. Dietz had been a key member of the team all season and his absence would be a significant loss.
Coach P was now faced with a difficult decision. He could either start Dietz in the race and hope that he could make it through or he could put in one of the other team members who had not been performing as well but was healthy. If Dietz started the race and could not finish, it would not only cost the team points but also put his health at risk. On the other hand, if one of the other team members started in Dietz’s place, the team may not perform as well but at least everyone would be healthy.
Coach P decided to start Dietz in the race and he ended up finishing it. The team went on to win the national championship.
After the race, Coach P was faced with another decision. One of the team members, Brian Lewis, came to him and said that he had been having trouble breathing during the race. Lewis told Coach P that he thought he might have asthma.
Coach P now had to decide whether or not to tell Lewis that he had asthma. If he did not tell Lewis, then Lewis would not be able to get the proper treatment and his condition could worsen. On the other hand, if he did tell Lewis, then Lewis would have to be taken out of the race and the team would lose a key member.
Coach P decided to tell Lewis that he had asthma and Lewis was able to get the proper treatment. The team went on to win the national championship.
In this case, Coach P made two difficult decisions. First, he had to decide whether or not to start Dietz in the race even though Dietz was not feeling well. Second, he had to decide whether or not to tell Lewis that he had asthma. In both cases, Coach P made the decision that was best for the team and as a result, the team won the national championship.
