Running head: UNIT V CASE STUDY 1
UNIT V CASE STUDY 2
Case One: ElectriGov
Donnie Lewis
Team Building
Waldorf College
The Abilene Paradox
1. Why is it important for an organization to have a mission?
2. Why is it important for team members to know their roles on a team?
3. Is competition within a team a good or bad thing? Explain your response.
4. Why is it important to set short- and long-term goals when planning a meeting regarding conflicts? Provide examples.
5. Why is it significant for leaders to understand how to resolve conflict and avoid unhealthy agreements?
Case One: ElectriGov
ElectriGov is a government agency whose mission is to supply electric power to various locations within the United States. The organization has three “line crews” whose job it is to install high-voltage power lines.
The work is hard, dirty, and dangerous. Almost all of the men have had a friend who has been
seriously injured or killed while on the job. The crews typically work independently, but when there are large projects to complete, the crews must work together. This can create serious conflicts, since the crews often don’t agree with each other’s approaches to organizing and managing a particular job, and none of the three foremen want to be subservient to the others. Thus when doing large projects together, the line crews tend to compete with one another, rather
than cooperate.
On one project, the conflict became so nasty that one crew failed to inform another crew that the wires were “hot” at a certain section of the project. This serious safety breach was reported to senior management, who immediately launched an investigation. We, as consultants, initially were asked to serve as part of the team investigating the causes of the safety violations. After the initial investigation, we were asked by ElectriGov’s senior management to “clean up the conflicts” between the crews.
The approach we used to help the crews reduce their conflicts was a variation on design A. All three crews were brought together in one room, and the need for an interteam-development program was discussed. Each crew was asked to commit to solving the conflicts between themselves and the other crews and to agree to give the program a chance. Once this agreement was achieved, each crew was then asked to meet separately to list their perceptions of the
other crews and the specific problems that they had in working with the other crews. After meeting separately, the teams were brought back together and each crew reported its perceptions of the other crews.
In our consulting role, we facilitated the discussion, making sure that each crew’s perceptions were made clear and that each crew described the problematic behaviors of the other crews in concrete, specific terms. As a ground rule, crews were asked to be descriptive and to avoid using emotionally laden language when critiquing the other crews. After each crew presented its perceptions of the other ...
Running head UNIT V CASE STUDY1UNIT V CASE STUDY2.docx
1. Running head: UNIT V CASE STUDY 1
UNIT V CASE STUDY 2
Case One: ElectriGov
Donnie Lewis
Team Building
Waldorf College
The Abilene Paradox
1. Why is it important for an organization to have a mission?
2. Why is it important for team members to know their roles on
a team?
3. Is competition within a team a good or bad thing? Explain
your response.
4. Why is it important to set short- and long-term goals when
planning a meeting regarding conflicts? Provide examples.
5. Why is it significant for leaders to understand how to resolve
conflict and avoid unhealthy agreements?
2. Case One: ElectriGov
ElectriGov is a government agency whose mission is to supply
electric power to various locations within the United States. The
organization has three “line crews” whose job it is to install
high-voltage power lines.
The work is hard, dirty, and dangerous. Almost all of the men
have had a friend who has been
seriously injured or killed while on the job. The crews typically
work independently, but when there are large projects to
complete, the crews must work together. This can create serious
conflicts, since the crews often don’t agree with each other’s
approaches to organizing and managing a particular job, and
none of the three foremen want to be subservient to the others.
Thus when doing large projects together, the line crews tend to
compete with one another, rather
than cooperate.
On one project, the conflict became so nasty that one crew
failed to inform another crew that the wires were “hot” at a
certain section of the project. This serious safety breach was
reported to senior management, who immediately launched an
investigation. We, as consultants, initially were asked to serve
as part of the team investigating the causes of the safety
violations. After the initial investigation, we were asked by
ElectriGov’s senior management to “clean up the conflicts”
between the crews.
The approach we used to help the crews reduce their conflicts
was a variation on design A. All three crews were brought
together in one room, and the need for an interteam-
development program was discussed. Each crew was asked to
commit to solving the conflicts between themselves and the
other crews and to agree to give the program a chance. Once
this agreement was achieved, each crew was then asked to meet
3. separately to list their perceptions of the
other crews and the specific problems that they had in working
with the other crews. After meeting separately, the teams were
brought back together and each crew reported its perceptions of
the other crews.
In our consulting role, we facilitated the discussion, making
sure that each crew’s perceptions were made clear and that each
crew described the problematic behaviors of the other crews in
concrete, specific terms. As a ground rule, crews were asked to
be descriptive and to avoid using emotionally laden language
when critiquing the other crews. After each crew presented its
perceptions of the other crews, the other crews could ask
questions to clarify points that were made, but the crews were
not allowed to debate the validity of the other crews’
perceptions.
After each crew aired their views, the crews were then asked to
come up with recommendations to improve the relationship
between crews. Their suggestions were listed on large poster
boards in the room. The crews discussed how they might do
more advanced planning on the larger projects to determine who
would do what and who would be in charge of the project. They
also considered rotating crew members to improve relationships
between rews. At the end of this interteam-building session,
each crew made a public commitment to change its behavior and
implement the recommendations that were made. As a result of
this intervention, the hostility between the crews decreased and
the crews now have a new approach to working with each other
on large projects that minimizes the conflicts that they had in
the past.
4. Reference
McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2013). Organizational
behavior (6th Ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
EECE 237 S15 - Lab 4. (XC).pdf
EECE 237 Spring 2015
Homework Assignment #4 – Display scrolling, button press
detection (Extra Credit)
Assignment:
Starting with the template file (on the BbLearn page), create a
program that uses the supplied
LCD_scroll() function to scroll a text message on the LCD
display both left and right. A single button
press should cause the display to scroll one position. A double
press (two button presses with 1
second) should cause the direction of the scrolling to change.
The first press will move the display
one position to the right, and every single press after that will
continue to move it to the right. When
a double press occurs, the direction of the text shift changes, so
every single press after that will shift
5. the text that direction. The LED circle should also move a
single lit LED clockwise each time the
display is shifted right, and counter-clockwise each time the
display is shifted left.
• Use the LCD_scroll() function to shift the display left or right
(do not rewrite it each time)
• The display should be shifting right at the start of execution
• Use the constants defined for the RIGHT and LEFT direction
settings (to call LCD_scroll() )
• Use the defined PRESS_TIME constant to define the maximum
number of ticks between the
two button presses for a double press (do not change the value)
• Do not worry about the display scrolling off the screen (if you
keep scrolling in the same
direction for about 10 steps, it will wrap back onto the screen)
• The time measurement should be based on SysTickInterrupts.
• All delays should be based on this Timer (No count delay
loops)
• The button press must be interrupt based (not polled)
Deliverables:
1) Source code for solution program: C source file - submitted
via BbLearn page. (Do not submit other project
files). The file MUST be named as follows:
<first initial>_<last name>_hw4.c
for example, mine would be d_word_hw4.c
6. The source code file must contain your name and student ID in
the header block at the top of the page, and
should be commented enough to be easy to read
Due Date:
Friday, May 15th – Assignment must be submitted to BbLearn
by 8pm.
__MACOSX/._EECE 237 S15 - Lab 4. (XC).pdf
EECE 237 S15 Lab4 Template.c
//
// EECE 237 S15
// Lab 4 (XC) template
//
//includes for the project
#include "stm32F30x.h"
#include "STM32f3_discovery.h"
#include "stm32f30x_gpio.h"
