The Army Crew casestudy

the Army Crew case study is answering tree questions:
1. Why does the Varsity (V) team lose to the JV Team? (critically analyze and be specific)
2. What should Coach P do on Tuesday? Why do you recommend this action? How should he implement this action? Be specific.
3. How would you compare the Army Crew team to other types of organizational teams? What are the similarities and differences?

1. The Army Crew
Case Study
Prepared by Group #1
The Chartered Institute of Marketing
Kiev

2. BACKGROUNG
•The Junior Varsity (JV) crew boat frequently beat
the Varsity (V) boat during practice
•One week left to culmination of season –
National Championship race
•Coach P. coaching the Army Crew Team needs
to make a decision

3. ONE: Why is it happen?
Coach P. lack a leadership, thus he:
•Caused a rift between JV and V teams
•Established a higher status for V boat. They had nothing to gain through competition,
whether JV has nothing to lose
•Considered solely physical performance of individuals, not psychological while team
selection
•Strived to recruit top talent for V boat with a blind eye toward team performance
•Did not sufficiently facilitate the kind of team building necessary for success
V boat:
•V boat is rather group of individuals then team - “the whole less than sum of the parts”
•No sense of trust
•No leader in team but several team disrupters.
•No team spirit
•Communication barrier: most individuals do not want to admit to their mistakes (“I’m the
one who is carrying the boat.”)
JV boat:
•JV members would rather remain with their JV teammates than be promoted to the varsity
boat; evidence of a truly cohesive team. Has no team disrupters.

4. ONE: Why is it happen?
V boat
•Slowing down because of placing
individuals in the boats (“the whole less
than the sum of the parts”).
•No one was a leader while several were
team disrupters.
•Sceptical perception of CEP training (don’t
want to change anything).
•Disrupters: “I never thought I would be
the weak link, but on this race, I am sure
of it.”
•V members critique each other
individually.
•Neutral slogans: “row hard,” “never die,”
and “finish clean.”
•Members feel themselves alone: “I’m the
one carrying the boat”
JV boat
•Better team result than individual.
•Had no team disrupters.
•Positive perception of CEP training
(tendency to improvement, study)
•One for all: “we’re rowing for every guy in
that boat because we don’t want to let
him down”.
•JV members made global comments about
details that everyone needed to practice.
•Positive slogan: “nothing to lose”.
•Team spirit: nobody wants to V boat.

5. Option #1
Switch V and JV boats?
Option #2
Switch individual boat members?
Option #3
Intervene to improve V boat’s performance ?
TWO: What to do?

6. TWO: What to do?
No! Since the Varsity team had a clear and
documented physical advantage over
the Junior Varsity boat, and could still
beat the JV boat.
No! Since JV team members do not want to
switch.
Yes! Because V boat has objectively better
physical competencies and P. should try
to build a team.
Implementation could be following….
Option #1
Switch V and JV boats?
Option #2
Switch individual boat members?
Option #3
Intervene to improve V boat’s performance ?

7. STEP #1: WRESTLING
At the moment there is an unsolved conflict which has been revealed within
(1) e-mail correspondence (2) latest V boat conversation .
Coach P. need to help the team to splash out its aggression via physical
activities such as wrestling, paintball, other team games.
STEP #2: SPEAKING
After anger is gone the conflict can be resolved via discussion, negotiation,
brain-storming of ways of improvement and finally common agreement
as a result.
STEP #3: TRUST BUILDING
Next task is to give V boat team spirit: set common goal and values.
Team building session with focus trust building exercises.
STEP #4: ROWING
Final step - Rowing on the water as a team!
TWO: What to do? Implementation

8. THREE: the Army Crew team =organizational
teams?
Yes?
Seats Placement of Rowers in a Crew Boat - Description
Elements of
Organization Structure
1 & 2 Bow seats. “Place kickers” who are removed from the action.
Described as “self-motivated” and “loners.” They rarely speak.
Techno structure,
Support function
3 & 4 Similar to 5 and 6 but better technique, less strength. Good
transition to the bow pair. With 5 and 6, they comprise the “Engine
Room” for the boat.
Middle Line (and rarely
support function)
5 & 6 Strongest members with generally poorer technique. The team
captain sits in the 6 seat.
Operating Core
7 & 8 (7) Good follower of 8, almost a perfect pair with him. 7 leads the
starboard side of the boat.
(8) Stroke seat. Crucial for setting the rhythm. Not as strong, but
most consistent with solid technique. Should possess a “never quit”
attitude.
Strategic Apex
The Army Crew team structure could be compared with Mintzberg’s five organizational
components

9. Boat Seats Organization
Inability for quick substitution of each team
member. High risk of failure.
Ability for quick substitution of each team member
with no risk to final result
Mistakes are crucial & lead to whole team loose –
no chance for recover
Mistakes are not crucial & could be easily corrected
One task is done by all team members at onceEach team member responsible for its own task – all
tasks are done one by another
THREE: the Army Crew team =organizational
teams?
No?

10. THANK YOU!

11. Notes for Oral Presentation:
Coach P. should pay his attention on the main problem: the fact is that V team members are
acting as individuals, rather than as a team.
•He need to originate a team building session: discussing team goals, establishing a sense of
trust or leadership, and recognizing the potential for disruptive behavior and conflict.
•Creation an environment for effective group development
•Individual competencies should not be ignored, but rather, need to be assessed against the
type of “team personality” that individual possess.
•Recognizing that each individual will only truly succeed by working with, and relying on one
another is a key milestone for any team.
•The teams’ context needs to be changed from blame to responsibility.
•The type of honest, straight dialogue that took place that last meeting, must continue. All of
the issues that every crew member has must be shared with the group.
•Trust building exercises
•May be switch positioning of V boat members