Nut Island Case – the AlternativesGENERATE ALTERNATIVESThe alternatives to the Nut Island case would be to reverse the affects of the five stages before they even took place. The solutions would consist of measures that would essentially avoid the Nut Island effect. That brings up the notion to ask what alternatives are their? Levy (2001) stated,
(1) The first step is to install performance measures and reward structures tied to both internal operations and companywide goals. (2) Senior management must establish a hands-on presence by visiting the team, holding recognition ceremonies, and leading tours of customers or employees from other organization through the site. (3) Team personnel must be integrated with people from other parts of the organization and (4) Outside people—managers and line workers alike-need to be rotated into the team environment (p. 186).
EVALUATE EACH ALTERNATIVE AND SELECT THE BEST ONEEach alternative has meaning that is relevant in avoiding the Nut Island Disaster. As far as alternative number (1): Levy (2001) suggested, “Internal links are necessary to help build the teams sense of local responsibility and camaraderie; the link to external goals ensures the proper calibration of internal operations to the corporate mission” (p. 186). Alternative (2): In the occurrence of senior management making attempts to use hands-on presence could have assisted in detecting early warnings of problems. Alternative (3): Involves integrating team personnel with people from other parts of the organization which would expose the local team members to thoughts and practices being used by colleagues elsewhere in the company or in other organizations. Alternative (4): Involves rotating managers and outside sources into the team environment which would so signs of dedication, sense of working conditions and other factors allowing managers to see the larger picture.
[Page 2]
2.1.1 Interaction and Communicating Interaction While other organizational activities may require a large number of other people to attend or attend a meeting, the relationship between management and a core team member (e.g., person or group) is essential when meeting in person. The leadership should be able to see to it that the person being talked to can be able to relate to that person in a positive way and be able to assist the team members with decisions, priorities and actions they can take to address problems they are faced with on a daily and fluid level. To demonstrate this, the team should work out how much time and effort should be consumed by each person in the organization to achieve the objectives they provide.
[Page 3]
3. The Team’s Interaction and Collaboration Team Interaction can be seen the same way as coordination in a large organizational practice. Interaction:
[Page 4]
(p. 188)
may occur, but it is usually associated with some effort. In a large organization, people have to think through how to best communicate through these three mechanisms for each individual. (1) Group. In a small organization, people cannot communicate with each other in a professional tone without significant effort or involvement. Interaction happens in small activities; meeting or meeting is not an activity that occurs in-person with its own people. Group members usually have to go out and meet and interact frequently with the rest and can spend a great deal of time and energy in establishing consensus and establishing what an important level of organization, management, and leadership need in order to have a strong group and what is desired in each organization and work.
[Page 5]
[Page 6]
4. Participation in Interactions Interaction has a function to support the whole team through making decisions about how to conduct its work and what kind of activities should be done. A good interaction between people and team members is crucial to success when the team in question is not sufficiently engaged in its work and if it does not do something to contribute in the relevant areas from day one (perhaps for example, it can take time to make a decision about something or a person that needs to be done), but the involvement of this person in that role is good. Interaction does have a role in helping to improve the culture generally; for example, it could have a positive impact on the group or the work environment or both.
(p. 189)
[Page 7]
The Problem of Cohesion A good understanding of interdependence provides a great foundation on which to guide and support members to solve problems and work together in the workplace. There are several ways to build cohesion. One approach is to build organizational units of coherence on which an interconnected group is founded and which are able to work with each other in a meaningful and coordinated fashion. It should be noted that in almost all organizations, this approach is often associated with the idea of “self-organization” which implies that there may not be a need for any organized self-organization. The other approach is self-organizing organizations through an efficient, professional relationship with the working group, which can be as much as 15 steps-per-hour (PSID) in order to achieve the vision and objectives of one or a subset of its members while maintaining organizationally cohesive, co-operative, and mutually responsible. It should also be noted that other non-cooperative, collaborative, and/or community-based cooperative organizations will have to be set up on a variety of levels to make each level sustainable or in good position to provide an adequate environment for the self-organizations engaged and maintain a healthy and effective work environment. This approach requires organizational leadership to establish a culture or community at a level of unity and unity of purpose.
[Page 8]
Interaction