ii

Table of Contents
Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
The Team ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
Team Characteristics ................................................................................................................................. 1
Teams within the team ............................................................................................................................. 1
Interdependence........................................................................................................................................... 2
Individual Performance ................................................................................................................................. 3
Sara ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
Rishi ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
Philly .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Jeremy Bates

Preface
The scope of this report will include erroneous procedure performed by the FIS project
team, headed by Pete Philly, with provided recommendations based on the cited actions and
behaviors of FIS employees. The team will be assessed through an organizational behavior
paradigm, that is, both individual and team mechanics will serve as the basis for criticism and
promotion. Organizational behavior is based on the interaction of peoples within an organization,
and its chief outcomes include job performance and organizational commitment.
The Team
Team Characteristics
As Mr. Fernandez notes the individuals that comprised this particular FIS team were ably
qualified with the technical skills required for such an undertaking. Ability is indeed only one of
five characteristics that help determine team success. Negative member roles, counter-productive
behavior personalities, and diversity issues all mount to extrude poor team performance and low
team viability. Teams with low viability can, perhaps, work well together in the near-term, but
over time deep-level diversities will, if not managed properly, drive teammates apart.
There are five stages of team development. The FIS project team never made it to the
third, or norming, stage; this is evidently displayed by uncooperative behavior. Where the team
should have been pulling together to complete a shared goal, certain teammates behaved
competitively out of self-interest.
Teams within the team
Within the FIS project team, members who were already familiar with each other began
the formation of fault lines, or subgroups. These subgroups hindered the teams ability to

OBHR 3310.002

Dr. Kyle Edgington

Jeremy Bates

perform with synergy because members were not sharing critical information with their other
project teammates. When Nirmal Sara, asked a more-senior teammate, Abey Sidharth, for critical
information regarding a deadline, Sidharth lacked the courtesy to share it with Sara and instead
chose to refuse to share it. The subgroups also began speaking on behalf of the entire project
team. Known as the similarity attraction approach, it is common in large diverse teams for
members to branch off into subgroups. The damages of subgroup formulation can be mitigated
through increased interdependence.
Interdependence
It is clear that the project requires a degree of task-interdependence. In other words, the
ability for team members to complete the project depended on other team members completing
their assigned tasks. The model FIS used was largely one of pooled-interdependence; each
member of the team was assigned certain materials to design. Then, the various components
would be integrated and combined.
It appears that most of, with a couple of exceptions, each team member did wish to create
a quality report. Because the team never truly got passed the storming stage, no crystal clear
mission was ever defined or agreed to by all members involved. Without a defined mission, the
team shared weak goal-interdependence. Sara clearly wanted to create a quality training manual,
to please the client, and to promote a positive representation of FIS. Philly seemed apathetic to
the clients wishes, and even damaged the FIS outcome by allowing Rishi to present an
unfinished product to the client. Rishi directly damaged FIS reputation by presenting the
premature materials, in an attempt to boost his own image by volunteering to fix Saras
mistakes.

OBHR 3310.002

Dr. Kyle Edgington

Jeremy Bates

The FIS team exhibited critically low levels of outcome-interdependence. Because the
team did not share potential rewards, the team did not perform cohesively and there was
information hoarding among the members. There was a stark absence of synergy within in the
team, which resulted in gross process-loss; the existence of sub-optimal performance among
teammates, resulting from poor cohesion and counter-productive behavior.
Individual Performance
Sara
Nirmal Sara, a junior member, exhibits high levels of self-determination and is an
outstanding employee of FIS, as indicated by her glowing evaluations. She represents the
qualities of a star; that is, she is both technically capable and committed to FIS as an
organization. She shows her genuine concern for FIS, when Rishi disobeys company protocol
and presents Saras first-draft report to the client. Even though her personal reputation is stake,
she is equally disgusted at the effect Rishis unprofessionalism will have on FIS image.
Apart from technical prowess, Sara is also reported as working well with her clients,
coworkers, and superiors, indicating strong citizenship behaviors. Sara possesses decorated
experience in digital publishing and with FIS offshore projects. Saras unique experience serves
as inimitable history with FIS that no new hire could share.
Sara was consistently plagued with work-related hindrance stressors throughout the
project. Rather than serving to improve her performance, the stressors that Sara faced hindered
her ability to complete quality task-work. Examples of these stressors include when Rishi
presented Saras unfinished work to the client, when Sidharth refused to share critical
information with her, and when Philly publically criticized Saras ideas. These aggressive and
production-blocking behaviors drove Sara toward depleted levels of supervision satisfaction.
OBHR 3310.002

Dr. Kyle Edgington

Jeremy Bates

Fortunately, Sara was able to channel that stress, and respond through behaviorally problemfocused actions, such as working harder to overcome her obstacles.

Rishi
Sai Rishi exhibited many counter-productive behaviors. Like many on the project team,
Rishi was reluctant to be cordial with those outside of his inner-circle. His refusal to integrate
socially and professionally is exacerbated by the fact that Rishi is the team leader. Rishi is guilty
of many a political deviance. For instance, he could often be found gossiping about Sara and
other team members outside of his inner-circle. Though he had never privately questioned Saras
quality of work in her presence, Rishi was once heard publicly criticizing Saras skills and
capability to produce a course curriculum.
Rishi was seemingly never far from North America FIS leader, Pete Philly. Rishi would
follow Philly around, asking Philly to join him for lunch, providing him with books and other
gifts, acting as a yes-man. In the face of Phillys apparent detachment, Rishi would offer
instrumental support, completing tasks for Philly and establishing his indispensability to Philly.
This favor-currying behavior led to Philly becoming dependent on Rishi.
Being his first offshore project, this particular project was essential to Rishis career, in
terms of future pay increases and offshore projects. These positively-valenced outcomes served
as extrinsic motivation for Rishi, but also become a source of stress for him. In the face of this
performance-based stressor, Rishi chose to respond with counter-productive office politics. Rishi
viewed the project as a zero-sum game; in order for him to get the outcome that he desired, he
felt the need to resort to sabotage and collusion tactics. The irony is that Rishis counter-

OBHR 3310.002

Dr. Kyle Edgington

Jeremy Bates

productive behaviors were a direct result of his desire to reach certain personal goals, and yet his
behavior is arguably most responsible for the unmitigated failure of this FIS project.
Philly
Pete Philly was a project manager in FIS North American division. Philly was known to
display citizenship behaviors, was proficient in designing training material, and was versed in
executing huge projects for FIS. It is clear that Philly possesses experience and skills worthy of
reverence. Contrarily, he was apparently facing a pending divorce which served as a non-work
hindrance stressor that seemed to result in behavioral strain. He responded to this stressor by
becoming physically-withdrawn and detached from his work life, almost to the point of being
apathetic to the projects success.
At times Philly even appeared to lack goal commitment. Philly was consistently slow in
responding to urgent emails. His inability to complete work in a timely fashion suggests the
qualities of a slacker and his approach toward disciplining Sara, unfairly, for her incomplete
work displayed aggressor behavior. It would not inaccurate to describe Phillys leadership style
for this project as being laissez faire. He acted at the whim of Rishi.
Recommendations
Based on the significance of his counter-productive behavior, tendency for exclusivity
and collusion, and the net process-loss he is personally responsible for, this consultant
recommends that Sai Rishi be relieved of all FIS duties. A message must be sent to his cohort,
including Sidhart, that these counter-productive behaviors will not be tolerated.
Similarly, Pete Philly should be terminated as well. Had Philly merely been apathetic and
detached from his work, his grievances could be excused in lieu of the external stress he was

OBHR 3310.002

Dr. Kyle Edgington

Jeremy Bates

facing. However, Philly should not be forgiven for his willingness to be manipulated by Rishi,
his ignorance of FIS protocol, and his aggressive behavior toward Sara, an FIS star.
Sara should promptly be promoted, with increased pay and responsibility. She showed
the characteristics befitting senior management, including the grit to work effectively in spite of
unwarranted aggression.
FIS should consider a system of hybrid outcome-interdependence. Meaning employees
compensation should be based both on individual performance and combined team performance.
This would eliminate counter-productive behaviors like those of Sidharth and Rishi, who
sacrificed team performance in attempt to boost personal gains.
Finally, FIS should work toward increasing task-interdependence. The issue of sub-group
formation would have been mitigated, had the employees been required to interact regularly in
their task-work. If consistent interaction is not required between all members, the project team
should probably be broken into several smaller teams.

OBHR 3310.002

Dr. Kyle Edgington