Teams Assigned - case study

Students are often tempted to "buddy up" with their roommates, significant other, or best friend. In most cases this can cause problems. When you find yourself in a new situation where you need to get to know your new teammates, you may not be as outgoing, if you already have one friend in the group.

If your spouse or best friend is also enrolled in the course, I recommend you serve on separate teams. Here is a case study which illustrates how a couple can be a problem.

Lucy and Desi (not their real names) were a young couple who insisted that they be placed on the same team, as content developers. As the project progressed the Project Manager and Designer grew concerned about the lack of communication between them and the CDs.

When I mentioned this concern to the CDs they were surprised since they had been communicating with each other and felt things were going well. There were several misunderstandings regarding meetings and deadlines. Tensions were running high and the feeling was that the CDs were on one team and the PM, Des, and Prg, were ganging up on them and complaining to the teacher.

Another problem that emerged was that since the CDs were a couple one would speak for the other, and when a task was assigned to Desi, Lucy would complete it. I asked the team to treat the 2 CDs as unique individuals, to speak to the the person involved not the partner. I also expected Lucy and Desi to perform the jobs they were assigned and not just do the work as a couple.

Finally I was forced to step in and set a standard for communication. I required the CDs to send at least 3 e-mail messages per week to the PM. If this was not done the CDs would have points deducted from their score. I sent this note out to the CDs and PM.

A meeting was scheduled 2 days later between the PM, Des, and the 2 CDs. The CDs did not attend and did not tell anyone that they would be absent. The Des and PM had driven 45 minutes to the meeting and waited 1.5 hours for the CDs to show up. When I spoke to Desi the next day he stated that they had not attended because they were mad about the way the team had treated them and the way I had treated them.

I told the CDs that they needed to apologize to the Des and PM, meet with them ASAP, and conform to the 3 e-mail rule. If they were not willing to do this they needed to drop the class. Unfortunately the CDs decided to drop.

What lessons can be learned from this situation.

1. Everyone has their own definition of "adequate communication". When members of a team define this term differently, you need to follow the standard of the PM. They run the team and you need to adjust your e-mail style to match theirs. Silence is often interpreted as inactivity. It takes just a moment to send a note updating your teammates on your progress.

2. If a student has a problem with a decision I have made (such as the 3 e-mail rule), the appropriate response is to contact me through e-mail, phone or a personal visit. It is not appropriate to site home and "pout" because your feelings are hurt.

By missing the meeting Lucy and Desi were wasting their teammates time and causing unnecessary worry.

3. The PM and Designer had consistently reported that the CDs were not communicating and were not behaving maturely. I had defended Lucy and Desi encouraging the team to work with them to help them understand what was expected of them.

When the CDs choose to stay home and nurse their hurt feelings without even bothering to contact their teammates, I stopped defending them and began to set ultimatums. Problems are never solved by sulking in silence. Talk over the problems with your teammates and your instructor. I will defend you until you show me that my defense it unwarranted.

4. The" them vs us" mentality could have been avoided if Lucy and Desi had sat on separate teams. They would have been able to have unique identities and be treated as individuals. They would also have had 2 PMs expecting them to communicate regularly.