17010057

Henry Tam and the MGI Team

Organizational Behavior WAC

Janjua
 17010057
Organizational Behavior
WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team

Introduction

Music Games International (MGI) was a small entity with three co-founders, two of them were
accomplished composers and the other one was a HBS alumnus (MBA 87). MGI business plan
team consisted of seven members. (See Exhibit 1 for team member bios). Henry Tam and MGI
Team faced difficult and challenging group dynamics as deadline for submission of business plan
for the HBS business plan contest approached. Even though the group had couple of meetings but
as a whole the group was not cohesive. This seriously affected the efficiency and productivity of
the team. Furthermore they were not able to conduct organized meetings and there was lack of
direction which added to inefficiency. Roles of the members were not concisely defined and there
existed a conflict between role perception and role expectation.

Evaluation of MGI Teams Process

MGI team was a diverse team, both in terms of culture and professional background. (See Exhibit
1 for team member bios). This caused sub grouping among the team members. It seemed like co-
founders were cohesive one team and Dana, Henry and Alex were on the other side while Dav was
neutral. This process problem of sub grouping divided the team into majorly two groups (HBS vs
Russians) contesting against each other. In terms of professional grouping there was a clear line
between the business people and the creative people. The founders kept on raising many ideas and
all they wanted was to pursue all possible avenues but Henry and Dana tried to choose one
alternative out of all the ideas. The never-ending brainstorming sessions were good for creative
people because they lead to nothing but discussion. On the other hand the business people wanted
to go ahead with one the best idea and to write the business plan. Due to this divide MGI Team
was struck in the storming stage of group development.

The participation process was often dominated by the verbal argument between Sasha and Dana.
Their chemistry was way too different and they disagreed on every single point. This diverted the
team focus and it suppressed the creative ideas of low participators. Alex and Dav were low
participators among the rest. (See Exhibit 2 for level of participation of members). This conflict
between the high participators caused the ideas by low participators underrepresented.

Another process problem was role definition. None of the members role was clearly defined. HBS
students thought that they were leaders whereas Sasha and Alex saw their role only as business

Page 1 of 8
 17010057
Organizational Behavior
WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team

plan writers specifically for the contest. There was a major gap between role perception and role
expectation. Sasha considered himself as the CEO of the company but Dana considered him as a
mere sales person with narrow and short term vision. Due to no presence of role definition Dana
and Henry assumed the role of leadership and directed people to do different tasks and doing
management. This caused cause role conflict and they faced divergent role expectations causing it
difficult for adhere to one role requirement. Moreover Dana and Henry saw their future in the
company whereas Sasha was not really sure about it.

Root Causes of Teams Process Problems

The lack of direction, lack of leadership and not defining process, procedures and roles thoroughly
caused the problems.

The lack of direction and leadership diverted the focus of the team in every meeting and every
meeting turned out to be a brainstorming session only without moving ahead. There existed no
statement of purpose for the team. Apparently it seemed from the case study that co-founders
wanted students as a bridge to participate in the business plan contest to attract investors. The
inclusion of Dav made this hidden intention clear. Furthermore when Sasha brought out long list
of HBS alumni for Henry and Dana to contact, this hidden agenda came to the surface. On contrast
HBS students were looking for long term partnership with MGI. These different private agendas
of the members caused friction in the team.

Secondly there were no procedure defined for running the team. Properly defined procedures are
important for group members to clear expectations concerning their projected activities and
working relationship. As mentioned in the case study there were ideas from all over the place and
the team was not able to focus on any idea. If procedures and roles were clearly defined it could
have served the purpose and team meetings could have been fruitful.

MGI Team On Paper

MGI team was multi-talented and they had the right skills and balance to develop a great business
plan. Igor had an impressive resume. He had a good reputation in music industry across Europe
and US. Similarly Roman was well recognized composer and respected in Europe and US. He had
strong connections in Russian music industry. Sasha had a several start-up experiences and was
HBS MBA. Sasha and Igor had a working relation of more than 20 years and their bond was very

Page 2 of 8
 17010057
Organizational Behavior
WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team

resilient. Co-founders had same ethnic background and this made them cohesive as a team. All
team members were very passionate about working on this project. Individual motivation was very
high. Henry in particular was very calm and composed. He was very good with collecting
information and organizing it in a presentable way. He played with numbers well and always
brought something concrete to the discussion. Alex has a substantial experience in both music and
business industry and his education supported his experience. Dav on the other hand was a software
genius. His skills were necessary for technical aspect of product design and on patent application.

On a holistic picture the MIG team was technically very sound. Each member had the required
skill set necessary to deliver.

Team Conflict- A liability or an Asset

According to J. Richard Hackman team effectiveness is measured by three factors 1) Task

accomplishment 2) Members Satisfaction 3) Capacity building of members for future.

In this case team conflict was a liability on a bigger picture as it was causing meaningless delays.
Only three weeks were left for the final submission of the business plan and even the first draft
was nowhere near completion. Due to team conflict every meeting did not produced desired results
but it also shifted the focus of the team and caused delay.

Frustration in members was growing. Dana was not satisfied with the progress and was getting
frustrated every passing day. In general members were not satisfied with the desired progress and
team direction. With respect to capacity building of members the team was doing well. Students
were exposed to real business problems and decision making whereas non business people were
learning the art of start-up and business plan development.

Before the First Meeting

Before the first meeting Henry inquired Igor about the product, business and marketing plan, but
Henry should have also asked about the group members so that it might not have been a surprise
when two new members were introduced later on. Furthermore Henry should have questioned
about the role and expectation explicitly, this would have cleared the gap between role expectation
and role perception. Henry should have asked team members to define team operating procedures
and how will group make task related decisions. This process of reaching agreement on procedural

Page 3 of 8
 17010057
Organizational Behavior
WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team

issue could have become model of how the team would resolve other problems. Another important
action that Henry should have done is meeting all the team members. This could have led to build
a productive relationship with the members. Moreover, Henry should have sought clear
understanding of the objective and the picture that co-founders had in their mind and should have
tried to develop a statement of purpose. This could have cleared many conflicts regarding target
market and vision of the MGI team.

Actions to Increase Teams Effectiveness

With just three weeks to go before the submission, Henry should have asked and asserted team
members for bi-weekly meetings. This would increase the focus on the task and each member
would have been forced to complete weeks work in just three days. Furthermore Henry should
have taken the lead in developing agendas for the meetings. This would have resulted in more
focused and outcome oriented meetings. A very important step in monitoring the process is the
process feedback form. Henry should have developed a form so that process related problems can
be solved and avoided. (See Exhibit 3 for sample process feedback form). For example if the
feedback form indicates influence issues, then a simple method to solve influence related issues is
to support or reinforce views of minority members. In this particular case there was participation
related issue. This could have been addressed by encouraging the low participating members and
bringing the discussion back to their point.

As the deadline is approaching and team lags behind, to speed up the team Henry should have tried
to set interim dead line for the final draft of business plan. After discussion with team members
and after their approval interim deadline should have been set a week before the official deadline.
Furthermore it is important that group should agree on target market for the launch. For this
agreement a focused meeting should have been called with target market as agenda item. Pros and
cons of both target markets should have been tabled before the team and concrete discussion should
have been carried out. Here it would have been important for Henry to discuss this issue in person
with Sasha and should have tried to reach at some common ground. Moreover Henry should not
align himself with Dana. It is very evident from the case that HBS students are one team. This
sends negative vibes to rest of the team members and is does not help in developing a cohesive
group. Therefore Henry should have explained this to Dana and should have taken on more neutral
role from now on.

Page 4 of 8
 17010057
Organizational Behavior
WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team

General Recommendations

In any team or group there are following two major areas to work on

1. Task accomplishment
2. Teams Processes

It is equally important to focus on the team process. In general if team is not performing well, time
should be taken out to focus on the team process apart from just focusing on the task. Focusing
and monitoring the process can be helpful in solving the deadlocks and can be very beneficial for
teams efficiency as it can regroup ideas and direct the team towards task accomplishment .

Page 5 of 8
 17010057
Organizational Behavior
WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team

Exhibit 1: Team Members Bios

Name Ethnicity Background

Alexander [Sasha] Gimpelson Russian HBS MBA 87.
(co-founder) Expertise in sales, marketing
Igor Tkachenko Russian Award winning composer and pianist
(co-founder) with international reputation
Roman Yakub Russian Internationally acclaimed composer
(co-founder)

Dav Clark American Graduate student in the Brain and

Cognitive Sciences department at
MIT
Alexander Jan Sartakov Russian Student at Berklee College of Music
Dual major in Music Business
Management and Music Production
and Engineering
Dana Soiman Russian HBS MBA Final semester student

Henry Tam Jr. American HBS MBA Final semester student

Page 6 of 8
 17010057
Organizational Behavior
WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team

Exhibit 2: Level of participation of members

Name Participation Level

Alexander [Sasha] Gimpelson High

(co-founder)
Igor Tkachenko High
(co-founder)
Roman Yakub Moderate
(co-founder)
Dav Clark Low

Alexander Jan Sartakov Low

Dana Soiman High

Henry Tam Jr. High

Page 7 of 8
 17010057
Organizational Behavior
WAC: Henry Tam and MGI Team

Exhibit 3: Sample Process Feedback Form

Process Variables Rating

1 2 3 4 5

Influence

Group Climate

Membership

Feelings

Task Functions

Maintenance Functions

Participation

Comments

* Each member anonymously rate each variable on the sale from 1 to 5.

Page 8 of 8