MGMT 527 Week 6 Organizational Team Assessment Example

Organizational Team Assessment: The Capital Projects Division of a Regional Water Authority

Part 1: Team Assessment

Purpose and Scope

This assessment was prepared for the director of the Capital Projects Division of a regional water authority serving four counties in the Carolinas. The division plans and manages the authority's construction projects, including water main replacements, pump station upgrades and an ongoing expansion of its largest treatment plant. Its fourteen staff members include five project managers, four engineers, three construction inspectors, a contracts specialist and an administrative coordinator. The director requested the assessment after two experienced project managers resigned within a year and a pump station project finished seven months late. The purpose was to determine the current state of the division's team development and to report on its team culture in four areas: empowerment, engagement, communication and motivation. The authority's name and staff identities are withheld at the director's request.

Method

Three sources of evidence were used over four weeks. First, all fourteen staff completed an anonymous 24-item survey, with six items for each of the four areas, each rated from 1, meaning the statement was not true of the division at all, to 5, meaning it was entirely true. Second, nine staff members were interviewed for about forty-five minutes each, including at least one person from every role. Third, two weekly project coordination meetings were observed, and the division's project charters, schedules and lessons-learned files for the past three years were reviewed. Interview comments are reported without names, and quotations are used with the speakers' permission.

The method has limits that the director should keep in mind. Fourteen responses are too few for statistical comparison between roles, so the survey averages are reported for the whole division only. Survey answers are self-reports and may be shaped by the recent resignations, which several staff mentioned unprompted. The director attended both observed meetings, which may have made some staff less willing to raise problems in front of him. For these reasons, the findings below rely on agreement among the three sources rather than on any one of them, and a finding is reported as firm only where the survey, the interviews and the documents point the same way.

Survey Results

Team Empowerment

Empowerment was the division's most uneven area. Staff were nearly unanimous that their work matters: one inspector said, "When a main breaks, people lose water, and we are the ones who fix that for good." Confidence in the team's ability was also high. Autonomy, however, was low. Project managers described needing the director's approval for change orders above $5,000, schedule changes of more than one week and any contact with the authority's board, which several said slowed decisions on active construction sites. One example came up in three separate interviews: during a water main replacement last fall, a contractor found an undocumented gas line and proposed a $7,400 reroute, and the change order waited nine days for the director's signature while the crew worked around the open trench. The project manager said she knew the right answer on the first day and spent the next eight explaining it. Engineers reported that design decisions were often revisited at the director's level after a project manager had settled them. The team believes in its mission and its skill, but it does not believe it is trusted to run its own projects.

Team Engagement

Engagement was strong in effort but showed signs of strain. Staff described giving full effort and caring about outcomes, and the observed meetings were focused and serious. At the same time, more than half the staff disagreed that they had energy left at the end of the week, and four of the nine interviewees described working evenings to keep up with paperwork. The two resignations were attributed by colleagues to workload rather than to dissatisfaction with the work itself. The division appears to be drawing on a reserve of commitment that may not last. Staff were also specific about where the extra hours went: monthly progress reports to the board, change order memos written for the director and contractor pay applications that each project manager reconciles by hand. Little of the overtime was spent on the engineering and construction work that staff described as the reason they joined the division.

Communication

Communication worked well vertically and poorly across roles. Staff rated the director and project managers highly on keeping them informed, and the weekly coordination meeting reliably shared schedule updates. Communication between the office and the field was weaker. Inspectors said that design problems they found on site often reached engineers only after the contractor had filed a change order, and engineers said they rarely visited active sites. In both observed meetings, inspectors spoke for a combined total of less than five minutes. Two contractors' superintendents, interviewed informally on site with the director's permission, described the same gap from the outside: they said they often learned of design changes from the inspector days before the engineer called, and that they had learned to wait for written direction before acting on anything said in the field. The lessons-learned files showed that the late pump station project had a foundation design issue an inspector had noticed six weeks before it became a claim.

Motivation

Staff were motivated by the work itself and by pride in finished projects, and most described the authority as a stable employer with a public purpose. The weakest item in the survey concerned recognition. The division's only formal recognition is a note in the authority's newsletter when a project finishes on time, which staff said rewards schedules that were set realistically and overlooks people who rescue difficult projects. Several engineers said they would value opportunities to develop, such as earning licensure hours on more complex projects, more than any bonus. The contracts specialist and the administrative coordinator described a different concern: they felt their work was visible only when something went wrong, such as a late invoice or a missing insurance certificate. Both said they would like to attend project kickoff meetings so that they understood each project well enough to anticipate its needs.

Stage of Team Development

The division shows the characteristics of a team in late norming. Members share clear standards, respect one another and support each other under pressure, which suggests that the storming of earlier years has largely passed. But the team has not reached performing, because decisions remain centralized, field knowledge does not reliably reach design decisions, and recognition does not reward the behaviors the division most needs. The evidence for this placement is consistent across sources. Staff described open disagreements in the division's past, especially during a reorganization four years ago, but none in the past year, and the observed meetings showed settled routines and courteous discussion. What was missing was the self-direction of a performing team: in both meetings, every decision of consequence was referred to the director, even where the project manager present had the information needed to decide.

Summary for Management

The division's strengths are a shared sense of purpose, high effort and strong mutual respect. Its concerns are limited autonomy, strain on staff, a gap between field and office, and recognition that rewards only on-time finishes. Five actions are recommended. First, raise project managers' approval limits for change orders and schedule changes, with monthly review by the director. Second, add a standing ten-minute field report from inspectors to the weekly meeting. Third, require engineers to visit each active site at least twice a month. Fourth, hold a structured debrief at the close of every project and at major milestones. Fifth, broaden recognition to include problem-solving and development, such as assigning complex projects to staff seeking licensure.

Part 2: Summary and Conclusion

Summary of Findings

The assessment found a capital projects team with a strong mission and mutual respect but limited authority, signs of overwork, weak communication between field and office staff and a recognition system that rewards a single outcome. The team appears to be in late norming. The sections that follow compare these findings with current research, the course textbooks and Scripture.

Comparison With Research

The empowerment findings closely match Kirkman and Rosen's (1999) four-part view of team empowerment, which includes potency, meaningfulness, autonomy and impact. Across the 111 teams they examined, higher empowerment went with more output, more initiative and better customer service, as well as with members who liked their jobs and felt bound to their teams. The division scored high on meaningfulness and potency but low on autonomy, which suggests that the team's empowerment is incomplete in precisely the dimension a director controls. Pooling many studies, Seibert et al. (2011) linked empowered teams with stronger team results and showed that leadership and work design were among its antecedents, supporting the recommendation to raise approval limits.

The engagement findings fit the distinction drawn by Rich et al. (2010), who described engagement as investing one's physical, cognitive and emotional energy in work and found, among firefighters, that engagement explained links between their work context and job performance. The division's staff are investing all three forms of energy, but the low score for energy at the end of the week indicates that the investment is not being replenished. Engagement that depends on evenings and weekends is likely to erode.

The communication findings are explained by Marlow et al. (2018), whose meta-analysis found that the quality of team communication was more strongly related to team performance than its frequency. The division communicates frequently, through weekly meetings and regular updates, but the quality of information shared between inspectors and engineers is poor. The foundation issue on the pump station project illustrates the cost: the information existed but did not reach the decision in time.

The motivation findings are consistent with self-determination theory. Deci et al. (2017), reviewing that theory's evidence in work organizations, conclude that support for employees' autonomy, competence and relatedness fosters autonomous motivation and better performance and well-being. The division's staff are motivated by meaningful work and relationships, but their autonomy is limited and their competence is recognized only through a schedule metric. The engineers' interest in licensure opportunities is a request for competence support.

Two further studies support the recommendations. Morgeson et al. (2010) describe team leadership as a set of functions, from setting goals and structuring work to monitoring, managing the team's boundaries and supporting its social climate, and they note that these functions may be carried by several people inside the team as well as by its formal head. Raising approval limits shares some of those functions with project managers. Debriefs carry unusually strong evidence: across dozens of samples, Tannenbaum and Cerasoli (2013) reported that teams which reviewed their own performance in a structured way did markedly better afterward than comparable teams that did not. The division's lessons-learned files exist, but they are written by one project manager after closeout and are rarely read, which is not the facilitated, whole-team review the research describes. The stage model of Tuckman (1965), finally, frames the division's situation: having passed through storming, the team needs the structural changes that allow it to move from norming to performing.

Taken together, the studies suggest an order of action. Autonomy is the variable the director controls most directly and the one the research links to performance through several paths at once: empowerment, motivation and shared leadership. Communication quality and debriefing are next, because the pump station case shows their cost in money and schedule. Engagement will likely improve as a consequence of the first two changes, since much of the evening paperwork that drains staff comes from waiting on approvals and repairing problems that surfaced late.

Comparison With the Course Textbooks

For Starbird and Cavanagh (2011), a team becomes engaged when its processes and its people are brought into line with each other, so that each member grasps how a day's work moves the outcome and has a routine way to add to it. The division's processes are misaligned with its people in two places: approval rules that keep decisions at the top, and meetings that do not draw field knowledge into design. The recommended changes are process changes, consistent with the textbook's emphasis. The same logic applies to recognition. A team learns what its organization values from what the organization measures and celebrates, and the division currently measures one thing, the finish date. Adding recognition for early problem reports, for rescued projects and for staff development would align the division's signals with the behaviors its projects actually depend on, which is the kind of alignment between process and people that Starbird and Cavanagh treat as the foundation of engaged performance.

Blanchard et al. (2016) describe leadership in four domains, the heart, the head, the hands and the habits. The division's director shows the heart of a servant leader in staff descriptions, which consistently mention his fairness and care. The concern lies in the hands, in leadership behaviors that keep control rather than develop others, and in habits, such as the absence of regular reflection. Lead Like Jesus Revisited portrays the leader's role as moving followers toward greater capability and responsibility, which is what the empowerment recommendations ask the director to do.

Comparison With Scripture

Scripture speaks directly to two of the findings. In the wilderness, Moses told God he could not carry the whole people alone, and God answered by gathering seventy elders and placing on them some of the Spirit that was on Moses, so that they would bear the burden with him (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, Numbers 11:14-17). The division's centralized approvals and its overworked staff fit that account closely. In Numbers the burden is shared by equipping others, not by asking one leader to work harder. On recognition, Paul told the Thessalonians to respect those who labor among them and to esteem them highly in love because of their work (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13), a reminder that honoring people's labor is part of caring for them, not an optional extra.

Limitations and Next Steps

This assessment describes one division at one moment, through a small survey, nine interviews and two meetings, and its conclusions should be treated as a starting point for discussion with staff rather than a final verdict. The research it draws on was conducted mostly in private firms and in team settings that differ from a public utility, where board oversight and procurement rules legitimately constrain some decisions. A follow-up survey six months after the recommendations are adopted, using the same 24 items, would show whether the changes are working, and a short interview round with the inspectors in particular would test whether the field-to-office gap has narrowed.

Conclusion

The capital projects division has the foundations of a high-performing team: a meaningful mission, capable people and mutual respect. Research, the course textbooks and Scripture point to the same next steps. Sharing decisions will strengthen empowerment, protecting energy will sustain engagement, improving the quality of field-to-office communication will prevent costly late discoveries, and broader recognition will support motivation. If the director adopts the five recommendations, the division is well positioned to move from norming to performing and to keep the experienced staff it can least afford to lose.

References

Blanchard, K., Hodges, P., & Hendry, P. (2016). Lead like Jesus revisited: Lessons from the greatest leadership role model of all time. W Publishing Group.

Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19-43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108

English Standard Version Bible. (2016). Crossway. (Original work published 2001)

Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/256874

Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., Paoletti, J., Burke, C. S., & Salas, E. (2018). Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach? A meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 145-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.08.001

Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309347376

Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988

Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981-1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022676

Starbird, D., & Cavanagh, R. (2011). Building engaged team performance: Align your processes and people to achieve game-changing business results. McGraw-Hill.

Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812448394

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100