The Vigilance Project Case Study Analysis
Conflict can be broadly defined as a process when one party perceives its needs are unmet by another (Robbins & Judge, 2016). As Vijay K. Verma stated in his article for The PMI Project Management Handbook (1998), conflict is inevitable, thus effective conflict management skill is one of the most crucial skills for Project Managers.
Why is this case about team conflict? What conflicts do you see developing?
The Vigilance project case explores a database system development project, named Vigilance, that has been under development for the last two years by PharmCo, a France-based company before merging with ValMed, a Swiss-based company with extensive U.S. Operations and become PharMed (Dominick, 2008).
This case is an intergroup conflict that happened between groups or teams due to communication issues, lack of trust and team dynamics, micromanagement, bad authoritarian leadership, and team members’ opinions were undervalued.
Communication — In The Vigilance Project case, there is no follow-up meeting for an in-depth discussion on how France and US core team members could work together. In addition to that, the weekly online meetings to facilitate the interaction between the two core teams were frequently canceled by Didier Amrani, the Project Manager. The information sharing is restricted to the point that the subteams going to different paths resulting the one or both teams should rework their design. Furthermore, the inefficient use of communication channels and complicated chain of command slows down the communication process.
Trust and Team Dynamics — The US team started to distrust the France team because they feel alienated and undervalued by the negative response during the meeting. The team dynamics went downhill due to the segregation of the core-core team (France Team) and the US team.
Micromanagement — The meeting and flow of the information were strongly controlled by Didier limiting the collaboration across the teams.
Authoritarian leadership — Didier’s actions by limiting the interaction between the French and US groups including his action towards the US team ignites distrust within the team. His authoritarian leadership doesn’t encourage any collaboration between the US and French teams. The decision was made without any prior discussion, resulting in more problems happened.
Team members’ opinions were undervalued — If only the top management pay more attention to the hard work of the team members who developed the Perspective, and try to find a middle way to collaborate Vigilance and Perspective, the situation might be better. In addition, Didier’s action that not allowing the team members to speak up during the meeting and canceling the workshop without telling the top management leads to terrible outcomes.
How is distance affecting team dynamics and performance?
Even though technology can make it possible for the team members who work across the countries, still it is not as effective as a face-to-face meeting. The eight hours time differences between France and the US might result in difficulties to schedule and arrange the meetings. This could affect the team dynamics and performance.
What do you think about the decision to appoint sub-team sponsors? What problem can it solve? Which problems might it not solve?
In my personal opinion, this decision will not solve the core problem. However, the sub-team sponsors might be able to solve the problem related to communication by acting as a mediator for the US and French teams thus make the US team feel more relieved because they now can approach top management without fearing Didier’s intervention.
This decision might unable to address Didier’s authoritarian leadership style which is the core problem that causes distrust among the teams, no information transparency, slow communication, and low staff motivation.
In addition to technical skills, what does this case say about the kinds of skills that must be considered when staffing important projects?
Some of the important skills needed for handling projects are leadership, communication, conflict resolution (negotiation), and emotional intelligence (empathy). A project manager should accommodate the team members and motivating them to work on the collective goals. Communication plays a crucial part in making team collaboration going smoothly. Lastly, emotional intelligence will help the PM to connect with the team members that might lead to increasing the trust.
What conflict negotiation skills are most appropriate for this case?
Integrative bargaining (compromise) that leads to a win-win solution is the most appropriate skill for this case. The top management should be able to listen to the US team’s concerns and find a good middle way to solve the problem. (Robbins & Judge, 2016)
Conclusion
In this case, the authoritarian leadership style is the main problem that resulting conflicts among the Vigilance Project team members. To reach a win-win solution, the top management needs to mediate and resolve the conflict by compromising and find a good way to direct Didier’s to a more democratic leadership style or replace the Project Manager position with a more suitable person.
References
Dominick, P. G. (2008.). The vigilance project — case overview. Society for Human Resource Management. https://web.stevens.edu/ses/documents/fileadmin/documents/pdf/The_Vigilance_Project_Student_Workbook_Final.pdf
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2016). Organizational behavior.
Verma V.K, & Pinto, J. K., Project Management Institute, & Pinto. (1998). The project management institute project management handbook. Jossey-Bass.
12 essential project management skills. (2019, November 14). ProjectManager.com. https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/project-management-skills
Note:
This article is written based on University of The People Organizational Behavior (BUS 5113) written assignment by Fristy Tania in October 2021
