The Army Crew Team Case Analysis

Submitted by-
Malika Bajpai, 01
Krutika Mahajan, 15

As a part of Case Based Analysis Assignment for Group and Organizational Dynamics, trimester II,
MBA- Law, SBM NMIMS.
 INDEX

Sr. No. Particulars Page No.

1. Executive Summary ……………………………………………... 3

2. Introduction ……………………………………………………… 4

3. Background……………………………………………………….. 5-7

4. Alternatives ………………………………………………………. 8-10

5. Proposed Solution ………………………………………………... 11-12

6. Recommendations………………………………………………… 13-15

2
 Executive Summary

The coach of the varsity Army crew team at West Point assembled his top eight rowers into the
Varsity Army Crew team and the bottom eight rowers into the Junior Varsity (JV) team using
objective data on individual performance. As the JV boat continually beat the first boat in races,
the coach attempted to discern the team dynamics causing these aberrant results.

The Varsity Army Crew team did not know how to work well together as a team albeit they were
great performers individually. They were not able to beat the JV team, who exhibited a great
amount of teamwork even though they were not as strong performers individually. The Varsity
team was too critical of one another and had no personal connection.

After evaluating several options as to what Coach P. should do days before the National
Championships, it was determined that he should try to work things out with the Varsity team so
that they could work together more cohesively. If they are able to work together as a team, their
outstanding strength, endurance and technique should translate to success as a winning team.

By using very clean, objective performance data, the case makes clear that a team can be more
(or less) than the sum of its individual parts, but allows one to analyze the factors that make this
true.

3
 Introduction

From the Analysis of the Army Crew Team Case following key problems and issues can be
identified ;

 Lack of Leadership:

The team had best technical skills but no leaders and several team disrupters. The players
and positions were selected strictly based on physical strength and capabilities, not on
psychological factors.

 Lack of Goal:

The team had individual performers, but their functioning was such that the whole was less than
the sum of the parts. They did not know how to work well as a team and had no team spirit. They
did not have clear direction. They all wanted to win the race but they were not clear about how to
work together to accomplish this. They were more focused on individual goals of person success
rather than team’s success.

 Lack of Communication:

The rowers worked as an individual rather than a team. There was no proper communication
during the conflicts. The team members critique each other individually. The team was not able
to state their problems directly to each other and were encouraged to write an email to the coach.

 Lack of trust:

They were merely eight members with no cohesion. There was no sense of trust amongst the
rowers. They felt that they were not supported by their team and were the only member working
hard. The sense of one for all, all for one had not been instilled yet in this team. Rivalry and rift
were also present between the two groups due to forced competition by the Coach.

From the analysis of the case we can summarize that, a set of great individual performers do not
guarantee a high performing, successful team. Also, competition between groups can provide
motivation, but if competition becomes too strong, it can inhibit cooperation and lead to
dysfunction.
4
 Background

Coach Colonel Stas Preczewski , also known as Coach P., was the coach of the Army Crew team
for the United States Military Academy at West Point. He was responsible for managing two
teams namely Varsity and Junior Varsity, for the 2000 meter race. The top eight rowers were a
part of the Varsity team and bottom 8 rowers were a part of the Junior Varsity team. The
selection was done by the coach after a long series of objective tests measuring their speed,
strength and coordination.

The 2000 meter races are considered to be very rigorous and psychologists compares it to
playing two back to back basketball games. Because rowing can be so exhausting, the sport
requires a lot of endurance and strength to be successful. It is also important to focus on the
physiological aspects. A research project by the U.S. Olympic Committee stated that four
variables were important for a team’s success 1. strength and conditioning, 2. Rowing technique
,3. Psychological dimensions, and 4. program organization. Master coaches, who had over four
years of experience, pointed psychological variables as the most important ingredient of a
successful crew. Teamwork was considered essential for all the rowers. If a rower only thought
about his technique, it could potentially slow the entire boat down because the team would no
longer be synchronized. All crew members must also have trust in one another.

The Army Crew Team of 2001-2002 had gone through extensive training year-round to prepare
for the National Championships, held in spring. In winter they spend time building strength by
lifting weights and perfecting technique by practicing on the Ergometer, or ‘erg’ , which is a
measuring tool for rowers to determine individual technique and endurance. In the spring they
went on a retreat to Atlanta where ultimately Coach P. determined the members of Varsity and
Junior Varsity team. He selected the members by using a system referred to as ‘seat racing’, the
same method that is used in selecting rowers for the Olympics. The top eight scorers in terms of
individual strength and seat racing went into the Varsity team with an exception of two men. One
was self-absorbed and only concerned with his own success and the other lacked in technique.
After the teams were chosen, they raced for the first time and as expected the Varsity boat

5
defeated the JV boat handily, which confirmed his evaluation. When they got back to training on
the Hudson River, the Varsity team was unhappy because they did not beat the JV team by a
greater margin, which the Coach took as a good sign , that they were striving for excellence.
However, during the first practice and subsequent practices the JV team was consistently beating
the Varsity team. And it wasn’t that the JV team was getting faster, the Varsity team had
appeared to be slowing down . Coach tried to find the problem by making the JV and Varsity
members compete with each other in twos , fours and sixes , where he found that Varsity
members won , they only lost when they were all eight rowed together.
This led to the conclusion that Varsity boat had better individual members , but there was
something about the way they functioned as a team of eight rowers that made “the whole less
than the sum of the parts”.
He then constructed a matrix of 16 rowers listing their strengths and weaknesses on various
dimensions such as weight lifting strength , rowing technique , leader or follower, optimist or
pessimist, team builder or team disrupter and other related factors. The pattern that emerged was
that Varsity team had best technical skills but no one classified as leader and several were
labeled as team disrupters, whereas JV team had no team disrupter.

To maximize individual and team performance, they brought in a person from Centre for
Enhanced Performance (CEP). The JV team took well to this and employed the techniques for
building new attitudes and confidence, but the Varsity team received it skeptically and labelled it
“touchy-feely”.

Additionally the members of Varsity team were not encouraged to communicate their grievances
with each other, but were asked to mail the criticism to the coach , which led to a lot of finger
pointing but no true grievance addressal.

Cultivation of rivalry and increasing rift between the groups due to forced competition between
them by the coach was unnerving to the members. As the JV team had nothing to lose and
Varsity team was embarrassed to compete against them.

The Varsity members also felt that they did not have any team support and they were the only
one working hard, this was because of lack of clear direction and leadership. Embarrassing losses
to the JVs had the crew members dispirited and complaining about one another.

6
Because a crucial element in the sport of rowing is the performance of the team as a whole, there
must be a high level of trust and confidence among the team members in order to enhanced
personal and group confidence. A tremendous amount of harmonized collaboration of individual
efforts is required to reach synchronization in rowing. Therefore, winning teams are those
thatare the most synchronized, exhibiting exemplary collaboration amongst their rowers.

The Varsity boat consistently loses to JV because its members don’t work together as a
team. Coach P. did not sufficiently facilitate the kind of team building necessary for success i.e.
discussing team goals, establishing a sense of trust and leadership, and recognizing the potential
for disruptive behavior and conflict.

According to the Five Stage Team development model, groups develop into effective teams
through a sequence of stages i.e. forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.
Applying this model to the progress of the Army Crew makes clear that while the
Varsity team is still storming and has yet to create structure or
norms, the JV team demonstrates the clear communication and mature problem solving
associated with a team in the performing stage. Contrary to expectations, JV members would
rather remain with their teammates than be promoted to the Varsity boat evidence of a truly
cohesive team. The Varsity boat is suffering from internal and external attribution problems and
members blame themselves and others for the teams poor performance. Some expressed
resentment towards the coach for making them compete against the JV boat while others
blamed. The negative attitude of the team members is evidenced by accusatory emails and
behavior during team meetings. Analysis of the Varsity team indicates that none of its members
possessed leadership abilities instead, they accused each other for the team’s failure. It is evident
that while monitoring the performance of the two teams Coach &should have intervened
earlier to improve the group dynamics.

7
 Alternatives

Coach P. must determine what to do with the Varsity team and is faced with three options. Each
option will be evaluated based on several criteria. The goal is to develop a winning team.

 Switch the Varsity and Junior Varsity boats

The most extreme option that Coach P. considered was to acknowledge that the JV boat was a
stronger performer than the Varsity boat and to simply switch their titles. There was a precedent
for switching boats also, in mid 1990s , the Cornell Coach faced a similar situation, made the
switch and both the Varsity and JV won the Eastern Championships that year.

Reasons for rejecting and Constraints

All the data collected by the coach before and after the boat assignments strongly indicated that
the Varsity boat had strongest rowers. The team members on the JV team were assigned to that
boat because their performance, individually were not as good as the members who were initially
chosen for the Varsity team. With the exception of two members on the JV team , the team
consisted of members who were not nearly as strong , had less endurance and were also
technically not as good as the Varsity team members.

Also there is a possibility that JV teams relationship may change because they initially thought
that they had nothing to lose being on the JV team. If they were to be named the new Varsity
team , personalities could change because of increased stress level since they no longer would
have ‘nothing to lose’ feeling .

One must also remember that the JV team was winning against Varsity team not because they
were getting faster , but because Varsity was getting slower .

8
 Switch Individual Boat Members

Another option that Coach P. continued to consider was to switch individual members between
the two boats. Perhaps he still had not found the right combination for the Varsity boat , despite
all his best efforts to do so.

Reasons for rejecting and Constraints

The viability of this option was somewhat limited by the JV members preference to remain in the
JV boat. Some of them even expressed dread toward switching places.

Based on documented results, Coach P. specifically chose the Varsity boat due to their strength
and endurance. Since there were a few members that were also very strong on the JV team, the
switch could still keep the performance high . The rower that struggled with technique could
maybe improve on performance if he were with other members that were just as strong. Being in
synch is something that is extremely important in rowing, and if a team is not able to do this,
they will not be successful.

Timing could be an issue with this option since they only have four days to learn how to work
with one another.

Trust could be a problem as well since they have not worked with each other on a consistent
basis. Because of the short amount of time that they have to work with one another, it can also
have a negative effect on the relationship of the team. Psychological factors are important to the
success of any rowing team and they could be compromised, especially the original members of
the Varsity team. They will feel even more dispirited. Coach P. had already tested this option and
the JV team members had a difficult time getting along with the Varsity members.

9
 Intervene to improve the Varsity boat’s performance

Given that the Varsity boat contained the strongest rowers with high endurance, and best
technique, why is why they were chosen for the Varsity team in the first place, so the
performance potential is present in each of the Varsity team members. Coach P. ruminated how
he might intervene to improve their performance.

Timing is something that could be an issue because it might be questioned as to how the Varsity
team can learn to work with each other in four days if they were unable to work well as a team
up until then? Four days is a very short time frame to develop trust in one another. This is also
important in determining whether or not the relationship could be mended. Coach P. has already
tried to work on building a more positive relationship that would enhance performance when he
brought in a person from the Center for Enhanced Performance to specifically work on building
their confidence in one another.

When Coach P. initially selected the teams, he did not see that there were ‘team disrupters’ even
though he did see that in members that he did not select for the Varsity team and purposely put
them on the JV team. This shows that there may be potential in mending the relationships, if
Coach P.’s initial analyses were correct.

10
 Proposed Solution

Coach P. should keep the Varsity team as-is and try to build on the teamwork. The main reason
is because in his initial analysis at the Atlanta retreat, he had determined that they are in fact the
strongest, have the most endurance and technically are the best rowers out of the sixteen men. If
he were to switch the boats, it is almost like settling for second best since he knows that they are
not the best performers. The relationships are also something that could be of issue in the other
two options. It is unknown if the relationships will be maintain if the JV team boat were
switched, and it was clear that if individual team members were switched that they did not work
well with each other through the initial tests done by Coach P. He needs to realize that he needs
to stand in front of his team to help influence them to perform better and find ways so that they
can work well together.

He should help each member to find his own personal motivation as this would help in the long
run also. He should also focus on improving trust among the team members through various
team building activities. And, finally before the competition begins, he should give a highly
motivating speech that will automatically compel each member to give his best.

Open and honest communication is extremely important when building trust with one another
and asking his team to come to him with negative comments is not endorsing an open and honest
line of communication. So, the team should promote open and honest discussion where all the
grievances and thoughts are heard and allowed to be resolved. The team should encourage open,
communal discussion of team members’ thoughts and feelings so that unacknowledged
frustrations don’t boil over into angry emails to the coach. A ‘check in’ with each member at
post-practice critiques might open up such dialogue

The team also needs to implement standards of conduct that allow them to develop a sense of
camaraderie and hold each other accountable for the team’s common purpose. For instance, team
members should be required to treat each other equally regardless of rank. These norms reiterate
commitment not only to the group’s goals, but also to each other in pursuit of those goals.

11
Facilitating personal relationships, learning what one another has in common on a personal level
rather than just a competitive level could help with building trust and helping them learn to work
well together. The process of teamwork requires spending time together as a team and making
that time enjoyable. By coaching, training together, establishing common goals and having fun
together teams can accomplish a lot together. They need to find something that is fun to do rather
than just concentrate on the seriousness of competition. Personal connections can help develop
care for one another and create a free space to approach when there are more serious issues that
are needed to be discussed. They will develop trust and positive teamwork that will translate onto
the successful rowing where they can be more in synch.

If they are able to work together as a team, their outstanding strength, endurance and technique
should translate to success as a winning team.

12
 Recommendations

The Varsity crew team is slowing down because they're not working synchronously—team
members feel dejected, are no longer engaged, and are expressing disdain for their experience
this season. No team members have emerged as leaders. At least several members feel that they
personally carry the boat's weight. Each rower is focused on his individual performance as
opposed to the team's performance. Rather than engaging in direct dialogue to resolve conflict
productively, the team has resorted to finger-pointing.

This indicates the critical issue is a lack of trust among the team members. By lack of trust, we
mean that each team member does not feel he can rely on his teammates to put forth their best
effort. The rowers are adrift because they lack the bonds best engendered by trust. No leadership
has emerged, because none of the rowers trusts his peers enough to follow them. The rowers are
focused on individual performance because they don't trust that their teammates are doing their
best. The rowers don't even trust their team to actively listen to their concerns.

Several factors contributed to this deterioration of trust. First, the dissatisfaction with the Varsity
team’s margin of victory in Atlanta indicates the absence of clear and specific goals. The coach
should have used that opportunity to have the team articulate and agree on specific objectives for
the season. Instead, he allowed the team to devolve into a structureless, directionless mess. Each
loss further demoralized the team and caused their trust to erode.

In addition, the coach downplayed the importance of constructive leadership and allowed
disrupters to lead the team into dysfunction. The absence of established group norms further
confused the team’s sense of purpose. Specifically, the team members’ failure to recognize and
value other members’ contributions prevented the team from developing a mutually supportive
environment. Lastly, the team did not hold each other accountable for their collective success or
failure, and instead pointed to individual performances in post-practice self-critiques and in
private comments to the coach. By discouraging open criticism of each other, the coach
exacerbated the problem and prevented the team from developing healthy conflict resolution
habits.

13
Coach Preczewski could have implemented the following solutions during the season, or should
do so prospectively for success next season. First, he needs to help the team establish a clear
common purpose and then articulate specific, attainable goals that will help them realize that
purpose. As the team achieves each goal, they will begin to gain confidence in one another and
their team’s ability to succeed. This confidence will foster trust and commitment among the team
members. Goals should include measurable objectives such as racing against the clock and
alternately forgetting about time in order to focus on near-perfect synchronicity.

In order to fulfill these small, attainable goals, the team needs to rely on a framework of specific
group norms to guide their interpersonal interactions. Most importantly, a norm that encourages
honest dialogue among team members must be established. The team should encourage open,
communal discussion of team members’ thoughts and feelings so that unacknowledged
frustrations don’t boil over into angry emails to the coach. A ‘check in’ with each member at
post-practice critiques might open up such dialogue

The team also needs to implement standards of conduct that allow them to develop a sense of
camaraderie and hold each other accountable for the team’s common purpose. For instance, team
members should be required to treat each other equally regardless of rank. These norms reiterate
commitment not only to the group’s goals, but also to each other in pursuit of those goals.

Group dinners and other off-boat activities should be organized to encourage bonding. To be
most effective, these norms should be developed by the team itself at the outset of the season so
they can take ownership of them. However, if no leader emerges to take charge of the process as
seems to have been the case this season, the coach needs to intervene. Directly or in the
background, he will have to watch for the poisonous influence of disrupters and take action if
positive group norm development goes askew.

He needs to take initiative and give the team direction. He should meet with each rower
individually to explain his expectations of them. By doing so, he clearly communicates
individual accountability and team goals. Each member should be told what it will take for him
to succeed as a member of the team. Each member will be able to discuss what he needs to
achieve that success. Through respectful discourse with the coach, each rower will understand
his role in the team’s success.

14
Next, the coach needs to seek the support of each team member to achieve the team’s goals.
They should be informed that if they are not prepared to think of the entire team’s success as
their own personal success, they should not be on the team. In crew, there are no stars; all are
rowers on a team in one boat. He will need to ask for support in order to obtain commitment to
the team and the goals he has set for them.

Finally, he should mentor suitable team members to take leadership roles. If no leader presents
himself during subjective evaluations, Coach must use his psychological expertise to identify
one. This will challenge him to avoid his usual remedies that address individual strength and
performance while shorting team dynamics.

Speaking frankly with crew athletes may not result in honest communication. They may state
buy-in to the team goals but act differently in practice. Some who are chosen to lead may simply
be bad choices or shirk the responsibility of the role. However, the steps we have outlined are
known to reverse the course of failing teams. If Coach Preczewski implements these solutions,
lack of trust among team members will no longer hinder the performance of the Varsity team.

15