The Vigilance

The Vigilance

            The operation of a team is subject to conflicts in decision-making especially when the team members share different ideologies and are only brought together by fate. The system of behaviors and psychological processes that happen within a group are referred to as group dynamics. The group dynamics affect the effectiveness of decision-making since the effects of egoism and pride frequently surface. After the merger of PharmCO and ValMed, some team members felt that it was more of acquisition rather than a merger. The validity of the claim appears to have some reality since decision-making seems to be dictated by the former PharmCO officials in the core team. The case of Vigilance project is about team conflict with team cooperation being at a test, and the team may fail to solve the communication problem since the vast distance is hindering face-to-face interactions.

The Vigilance project is a case of team conflict since there is lack of understanding and sacrifice. Successful teamwork is based on understanding and sacrifice (Livonia, 2016). The conflict could have started initially at the merger of the two companies when one party felt that the whole thing was an acquisition rather than the said merger. Also, the new alliance seemed to give little attention to the already started Perspective project, and the former ValMed officials felt that they were being unsubordinated. The initial expectation was that the pioneers of the Perspective project would sell their idea to the merger to come up with a larger but similar to accommodate the needs of the larger company.

To the surprise of the Perspective pioneers; however, the core team members decided to scrap off the perspective project and start an entirely new project, the Vigilance. The US-based officials kept silent concerning their take on the scrapping off of the project, but the France-based members appeared to be interested in creating more conflicts. For example, the presentation of ideas did not seem productive. Instead, the France-based Didier controlled the way meetings were being held, and this could have been worsened by the fact that meetings were teleconferenced and the Didier only allowed the meetings to go on as long as he was being listened. The agenda for the teleconference meetings would be drafted by Didier alone, and no input from the other group members was considered. The case of meeting agendas would have been understandable if the team members were given enough time to air issues not covered in the agendas, but that would not be the case.

Distance played a significant role in the conflicts that hit the performance of the Vigilance project. First, the US-based team members always concluded that the members in France were comfortable with the way the process was being implemented. The misuse of power by Didier could have changed the perception of the US-based members towards the France-based members, and this could have adversely affected the attempts of solving conflicts. It could be true that the leadership favored opinions of the France-based team members at the expense of the US-based members, but distance prevented frequent interactions, which could otherwise have worked to clear the doubt. It is due to the issue of separation distance that meetings were held through teleconferencing, an issue that prevented team members from getting involved actively in decision making. The meetings through teleconferencing had major setbacks in that it gave strength in the autocratic leadership of Didier and would end the session anytime he wanted. The selection of team selection was the first sign that the team members were aware of the existence of conflicts. The leadership in the US took action as an indirect method of communicating to the leadership in France about the discomfort in the way things were being controlled. The strategy to pass information to the entire organization would attract the attention of the leadership in France would be compelled to clear the atmosphere concerning the information.

The appointment of sponsors was an attempt to solve several problems in the team. First, the sponsors would act as a mediator in the event of a conflict (Dominick, 2008). For example, the problem of relying on decisions made by specific individuals in times of conflict would be solved. Also, the sponsors would solve the problem of disrespecting the majority’s opinions. However, the guarantee to offer solutions to the existing problems is uncertain. The leadership in the US is not sure whether the leadership in France will accept the existence of conflicts and the need for sponsors. Besides, the decision to appoint the sponsors does not involve the leadership in France, which has been making significant decisions initially. The problem of tied votes may not be solved as expected. The fact that the team is not given a chance to contribute to a face-to-face consultative meeting limits the chance that the stage of voting will ever be reached. The decision is the best the leadership can do since ethics would not go well with confrontation.

The merger of PharmCO and ValMed is welcomed by the conflict that some team members felt it was more of acquisition rather than a merger. The decision-making process seemed to be dictated by the former PharmCO officials in the core team. The case of Vigilance project is about team conflict with team cooperation being at a test, and the team may fail to solve the communication problem since the vast distance is hindering face-to-face interactions.