Action Learning Review

The Longwall incision is responsible for the majority of char return at the mine and hence, revenue for the business. The instruction root word in this division consist of five stave pieces, with the super as the major(postnominal) person reporting to the Mine coach. As Technical Services Manager I am a member of the senior management convention for the mine, and a peer to the Mine Manager. However, I have no remove authority all all over the Longwall incision. Although it is suit to the attack, the Longwall department does non tend to graze effectively as a aggroup.Whilst there is a clear yearly surgery goat garb by senior management, there allow for often be confusion amongst the chemical collection when they attend the mines planning meetings as to what the specialised ill-judged end point earlierities for the department should be and the best(p) way to achieve them. This confusion invariably plays to affair in these meetings in the midst of t hrong members, with soulfulnesss attempting to ensure that their specific argona of responsibility is non affected by the other(a)s unmarried priorities.There has been a mellowed disorder of staff in the past year and the overall mathematical process of the Longwall has been despic subject, with outturn results 40% below budget impactinging significantly on the advantageousness of the business. Analysis The Longwall mining process is complex and to be triumphful requires multiplicative inverse interdependence of tasks (Thompson, 1967). The engineers must work closely with the operations staff in the department by means of the planning and implementation stages to ensure safe and racy operations with minimal unplanned delays.This requirement of interdependence makes the Longwall process ideally suited to a police squad approach for management. Although it is a elflike assemblage comprised of five staff with complementary skills, and a common production target for t he year, the Longwall department does not currently satisfy the requirements of Katzenbach and Smiths (1993) definition of a police squad up. They fail to define rook stipulation goals and work processes which would lead to achievement of the annual production target and, in addition, the group does not hold themselves mutually accountable for their instruction execution.The neglect of group approach towards these super interdependent tasks leads to competing short term priorities within the group and results in poor overall cognitive process. One of the key reasons that the Longwall department has failed to come together as a aggroup is a overleap of group viscidness (Shaw, 1981). The members of the group argon heterogeneous (Managing People & Organisations, 2006), with different expertise and experience and as a result there is often competition and conflict (Raelin, 1985) with regards to the best approach to various tasks.This is possiblely joined to the lack of sp ecific short term goal put completed within the group as they research to avoid conflict because they lack the interpersonal skill of conflict resolution (Managing People & Organisations, 2006). However, this conflict inevitably occurs when the group attends the mines planning meetings, as the individuals promote different priorities and ideas. If the group was more cohesive and co-operative, individuals would not feel threatened by other members and the heterogeneity of the group could be harnessed in a positive way through and through creative and flexible solutions to problems.For example one of the mining staff whitethorn have a different solution to an engineering problem which was not considered by the engineers. The lack of cohesiveness has led to a high turnover of staff over the past year. This means that Tuckman and Jensens (1977) life cycles/second of the group has had to return to the forming stage of the on a number of do and this in turn has hindered the developme nt of group norms (norming stage) which would enhance co-operation within the group and is natural to achieve the required performance.This lack of progress through the group life cycle is as well as linked to the level of competition between heterogeneous group members as they battle for power and influence in the group. The required short term goal setting and work approaches would be more easily achieved by a cohesive group. If the group was able to achieve the latter stages of the life cycle it is likely that group cohesiveness would be high and there would be significantly less staff turnover.The management processes at the mine currently manage individuals rather than team ups (Hackman, 1990). This is linked to the Longwall departments reluctance to embrace mutual accountability for performance and also the reluctance of the Superintendent to effectively lead the group as a team, as discussed below. Remuneration and bonuses are reviewed on the basis of individual performan ce, with little accountability for performance as part of a team. This leads individuals to protect themselves by making excuses and blaming others for poor performance.It also encourages individuals to focus on the specific tasks and priorities that are linked to their individual performance rather than those best suited to the overall departments performance, resulting in conflict and a lack of co-operation in the planning and implementation of tasks. On the basis of Thompsons (2000) ensample, the Longwall department achieves two out of three essential conditions to be an effective team. The group has the requisite knowledge, skills and ability to complete the required tasks and their motivation to do so is evidenced by the long hours that each individual spends at work focussing on those tasks.However, as mentioned earlier, the group lacks co-ordination strategies such(prenominal) as short term goal setting and work method development which prevents them from ontogenesis into a real team. In addition, Thompsons team effectiveness model also requires an appropriate environment in which the team can operate. As discussed earlier, the design of the team is appropriate however the requisite corpseal context and team culture are currently absent.As can be seen from the earlier analysis, the management of the Longwall mining process is well suited to a team approach, provided that the force out are managed effectively as a team rather than as individuals in a group. On the basis of Katzenbach and Smiths team performance curve (1992) the Longwall department is currently at the dominance team stage. The individuals in the department have a clear annual production target and are all working hard to achieve it, however, they lack specific short term goals, a common working approach and an attitude of mutual accountability.To achieve the desired performance and meet the annual production targets, the team will request to move from the potential team stage to th e real team stage. Improvement Planning From my analysis of the Longwall department I have identified three specific improvement opportunities that I would pursue if I was the Mine Manager to move the team from the potential team stage to the real team stage. Firstly I would air to improve the groups specific competencies essential for effective teamwork through formal training and improve group cohesiveness through team come alonging activities.Secondly I would implement a process to facilitate the setting of short term goals and work methods to achieve them. Finally I would substitute the performance management system and remuneration packages for the individuals in the department to meditate a team based approach rather than individual management. However, prior to beginning the improvement processes I would begin calling the department the Longwall team so that they begin to identify themselves as a team rather than a workgroup or department.To improve the groups task-relate d and interpersonal competencies, which are pregnant for effective teamwork, I would organise for the group to go despatch site together for one week of formal training and team construct exercises (Managing People & Organisations, 2006). This training may need to be ongoing. It is important that the group attends this training together so that they can begin to build mutual trust and respect and develop social capital (Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall, 2004).It is also essential that the training is held off site to ensure there are no distractions. One possible obstacle to carrying out this training is that fetching the whole group offsite at the same time leaves the workforce with a lack of supervision or direction. To overcome this I would arrange the Superintendent of another area of the mine who has significant Longwall experience to cover the absence of Longwall Superintendent. I would also arrange for the mechanical and electrical engineers from the engineering departmen t to provide coverage from an engineering perspective.The success of this training can be footstepd through an assessment process conducted by the training organisation at the end of the training program to examine the understanding and finishing of the concepts by the individuals in the group. A questionnaire completed by each member of the group would also be implemented to determine their perception of the applicability and success of the training. To facilitate the groups setting of short term goals and work methods to achieve them, I would send them off site over again for two days with an remote facilitator.This forum would also include team building activities to break up the workshop and continue to promote team bonding. They would utilise the task-related competencies gained in the formal training process to develop and enumeration short term goals based on achieving the annual production targets set by senior management. They would also be required to assess the pote ntial obstacles and risks to achieving their short term goals and develop and document adventure plans to overcome those obstacles. It is essential that the team develops the goals together so that they have ownership and commitment to achieving them.They need to ensure that the goals and work methods focus on performance not provided togetherness (Katzenbach and Smith, 1992). Again, a potential obstacle to this process is taking the group offsite together leaving the workforce with a lack of supervision and direction. This would be address in the same manner as previously for the formal training. A second potential obstacle/risk to this process is the quality of the external facilitator. If this person does not have the appropriate skills to keep the workshop on track and the understanding of the desired outcomes, it is likely that the workshop will not be successful.To overcome this obstacle I would interview potential facilitators and seek references from others who have used t hem in the past. Once selected, I would ensure that the facilitator is rattling clear about the purpose of the workshop and the required documented outcomes. To measure the success of this workshop I would review the documented short term goals to ensure that they will allow the team to meet the annual production target and I would also assess the adequacy and relevance of the contingency plans to overcome the identified obstacles and risks.A second measure will be whether or not the group achieves its self developed short term goals over the following weeks. To modify the performance management review system I would change it from an individual performance review by the Superintendent to a 360 degree review process. This review would be based on individual contribution to the team performance as viewed by other members of the team and will provide valuable feedback for individuals.I would also change the remuneration system for the individuals in the team to incorporate a bonus re lated to Longwall performance as a team measured on the basis of char produced against targets (Gross 1995). This would encourage the team culture to develop with individuals supporting each other and keeping each other on track rather than act individual priorities. One obstacle to this could be the feeling that some things which could impact Longwall production are out of the management teams control, such as geological conditions.To overcome this I would document the potential influences on performance which are not controllable by the team and pioneer to discount the production targets by a proportional amount to both performance impacts suffered to ensure that the bonus arrangement is not compromised. The measure of the success of this improvement strategy will be the achievement of production targets over the short and long term. References Gross, S. E. 1995, Compensation for teams how to design and implement team-based reward programs, American Management Association, New York.Hackman, J. R. 1990, pigeonholings that work (and those that dont), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Katzenbach, J. & Smith, D. K. 1993, The wisdom of teams creating the high performance organization, McGraw-Hill, London. Katzenbach, J. & Smith, D. 1992, Why teams matter, extract from The wisdom of teams creating the high performance organization, in The McKinsey Quarterly, no. 3 of 1992, pp. 3-27. Lengnick-Hall, M. L. & Lengnick-Hall, C. A. 2004, HRs role in building relationship networks, Academy of Management Review, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 53-63.Managing People and Organisations, 2006, Unit 5, pp. 1-56, AGSM MBA (Executive) Program. Raelin, J. 1985, The clash of cultures, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Shaw, M. E. 1981, Group dynamics the social psychology of small group behaviour, McGraw-Hill, New York Thompson, J. D. 1967, Organizations in action, McGraw-Hill, New York. Thompson, L. 2000, Making the team a guide for managers, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River. Tuckman, B . & Jensen, M. 1977, Stages of small group development Group and organisational studies, vol. 2.