Group2_CIS550_GroupAssignment1

7/27/2019 Group2_CIS550_GroupAssignment1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/group2cis550groupassignment1 1/7

Group 2: David Gates, Balaji Krishnamurthy, Juan Quiroz

CIS550

Group Case #1

Case: The Army Crew Team

Introduction:

The case of Army Crew Team and the conflict between the Varsity (hereinafter

“Varsity”) and Junior Varsity (hereinafter “JV”) team is an interesting one in that it illustrates

the initially surprising discrepancy in the results achieved by the JV team when competing

directly with the Varsity team. The case could easily be seen as an example of how the power

of teamwork and the belief in others can become a catalyst in highly competitive arena of

athletics and the world as a whole. The success of the JV team exemplifies the success that can

be achieved when individuals all work in tandem to achieve a simple goal. It also shows how a

lack of unity can sabotage even the best unit. The true issue in this case is that all of the best

components of unit do not mean that they will coalesce and create the desired result, however

it also means that individuals that commit to a team can make incredible results happen.

Situation:

The situation with the Army Crew Team Case is that Head Coach Preczewski (“Coach P”)

has been faced with a conundrum in that his JV team is consistently defeating his Varsity team

in head-to-head races. Initially, the case itself outlines the grueling physical and mental

punishment that is meted out by the sport of crew racing. It describes the intense physical

demands of rowing but then spends a significant amount of time outlining how the team must

work in perfect unison in order to be successful. This sport is a uniquely challenging one in that

individual strength or any other unique aspect of individual skill that is exhibiting during a race




CIS550

Group Case #1

Questions:

Coach conducted series of ‘seat races’ and selected top eight candidates for rowing based on

his selection method during the Atlanta retreat. The rest of the eight people formed the JV

team. With Varsity rowing team performing below the JV team it raised questions in Coach’s

mind why “the whole is less than sum of the parts”. The situation calls for answers to other

questions as well. Why selection processes failed to identify a better Varsity team? What are

the attributes that led to JV team outperforming Varsity team? Did Coach P provide strong

leadership in improving Varsity team’s performance? There is one week left to compete in

National Championship race. Which option should Coach P take? Option#1: Switch V and JV

boats? Option #2: Switch individual boat members Option #3: Intervene to improve V boat’s

performance?

Hypothesis:

In order to address the issue of Varsity team losing to JV team repeatedly one should

understand the cause of the issue. Rowing is a sport that requires perfect synchronization of

participants’ rowing. Hence, there is an inherent understanding among members and high

sense of collaboration required. This was present in ‘nothing to lose’ positive attitude from JV

team. In contrast Varsity team started to exhibit disruptive behavior which led the team

performance to spiral downwards. Coach P did not take enough steps to encourage the Varsity

team to build into a stronger team. There is also coaching, mentoring and at times disciplining

when team is failing to work as a team is required. Coach P did not intervene when Varsity




CIS550

Group Case #1

team members commented of him ‘carrying the boat alone’. Coach P did not exhibit these

leadership qualities when the Varsity team desperately needed it.

In summary, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that the Varsity team’s failure to improve

performance can be attributed to lack of trust, confidence and team spirit among team

members. In addition, Coach P’s lack of leadership contributed to the failure of Varsity team to

perform better than the JV team.

Proof and Action:

The varsity team suffered as a result of a lack of team members that put the team first

before individual goals and statistics. This is most evidenced by the aftermath of the Hudson

River group meeting only a few days away from the National Championship Races. Instead of

discussing ways on how the performance of the team could improve as a whole, the meeting

turned to finger pointing, blaming individuals for the failure of the team, and individuals

boasting that the team is barely staying afloat due to their own individual efforts.

On the other hand, the JV team showed signs of a true team effort from the start. Even

though Coach P.’s team selection technique had placed the strongest individual rowers on the

Varsity team, this technique didn’t place enough weight on the factor of team -oriented

attitude. The JV team’s self -appointed motto became “nothing to lose”, and indeed they played

like this no matter the circumstance or the opponent. The JV team also did not have any team

disrupters, whereas the Varsity team did. The optimistic and team-focused emails that the JV

team shared further proved that their mentality was a team-first mentality, regardless of the




CIS550

Group Case #1

outcome the race. By having this mentality at the start, the JV team guaranteed success for

itself at the end.

The Varsity team, although comprised of statistically better rowers, was not built while

keeping factors such as team mentality, positive attitude, and leadership in mind. The Varsity

team lacked team “chemistry”, and no matter the skill level of each of their individual players,

they did not possess a cohesive bond that the JV team preached and practiced. Even when

Coach P. switched players between the JV and Varsity team, the JV team kept winning because

a team first mentality was already in place in the JV team. This mentality was imposed on any

player that joined the JV team, and this guaranteed that the team first way of doing things

would continue on the JV team no matter who joined the team.

Alternatives :

The JV team continuously beat the Varsity team due to faulty team building and a lack of

a team first attitude on the Varsity team. However, there are alternative explanations as to why

the JV team continuously beat the Varsity team.

The first alternative is that the Varsity team simply did not take the JV team seriously.

Given the fact that Coach P. had chosen the Varsity team based on individual rower results, the

Varsity players felt that they were overall better players. Since they were overall better rowers

given the statistics, they had no need to prove their worth again with the JV team. They instead

would decide to compete seriously when competing against other schools. Since Coach P.

insisted on them competing seriously against the JV team, this caused a disturbance within the

Varsity team since they had all agreed to compete seriously against rival schools rather than the

JV team.




CIS550

Group Case #1

A second alternative to the reason why the JV team continuously beat the Varsity team

is that Coach P.’s methods for having chosen both teams were simply flawed. In reality, the

methodology that Coach P. chose was applied in reverse, thereby putting the stronger players

on the JV team rather than the Varsity team. Without regards to ability to work as a team,

Coach P.’s methodology worked backwards and provided the stronger team to the JV team

rather than the Varsity team.

Recommendations:

The JV Army Crew Team exemplifies the maxim that a great team is more than the sum

of it parts. Coach Preczewski paid close attention to all of the component parts of his Varsity

team. His focus was entirely based on the physical aspects of all of his team members. He paid

attention to all of the physical elements of success that the case outlines. He even bought in a

strength coach nicknamed “Satan”. However he did not address what the so-called Master

Coaches emphasized: a spotlight on psychological variables. This spotlight took away from the

minutiae of the physical actions and brought more of an emphasis on the group mentality of

the team. The main issue that has arisen is that Coach P seems to think that he can fix the

Varsity squad. The coach has made a fundamental error in that he is simply trying to fix the

Varsity squad when he has a far superior alternative right in front of him.

A true recommendation for the Army Crew Team would be for the coach to remove

himself from the situation. He consistently is attempting to fix the smallest, least significant

aspect of the team while all the while ignoring the fact that his team does not like each other.

Coach P is consistently tinkering with the men who make up the team and what they are doing




CIS550

Group Case #1

physically. The case states that Coach P derived his team from: “the eight objectively best

rowers”. He did not pick the best “team”. Later, Coach P was “puzzled” when the JV team

consistently beat the Varsity squad. What Coach P consistently missed was the very fact that

the JV group was a better team and this one component was the main characteristic necessary

for success.

Given all of the aforementioned circumstances, there truly is only one recommendation

to be made: switch the Varsity team with the JV team. The most telling example of why he

should make a direct change was the final meeting he had with his “Varsity”. The Varsity squad

was supposed to work in perfect synchronicity. The very fact that the men did not speak to

each other, would not sit together and not even look at each other is the most telling aspect of

how poorly the team functioned as a unit. It should be a given that all of these young men

were about equal in terms of physical acumen. Therefore they can physically achieve the same

ends. However, there is only one group that is acting as a cohesive unit, further there is only

one group that is consistently victorious. Coach P has only one alternative: make the JV team

the Varsity squad, they have earned it.

Group2_CIS550_GroupAssignment1

Documents

Transcript of Group2_CIS550_GroupAssignment1