I have to say, I found the title of one of this week's readings rather amusing given recent events. I can't really think of a better way to describe the situation in MGMT 300 right now other than 'Leadership Run Amok'. Bearing this in mind as I sat down to write this week's entry, I was cautious to create a learning journal that was constructive instead of a heat-of-the-moment vent, for as Peter has aptly reminded us, once something is on the internet you never know where it will end up.
So instead I focused my energies on Spreier, Fontaine, and Malloy's (2009) article and explored what I hard learnt this week. One aspect of this reading that stuck out at me was the section regarding the six elements which create a strong work climate, particularly team commitment. The authors dictated that 'team commitment is the extent to which people are proud to belong to a team or organization' and seek the same goals as each other (Spreier, Fontaine, and Malloy's, 2009). Upon reflecting on my own perceptions of the class climate and their feelings over recent days, I couldn't help but notice an issue with this definition. What happened when one felt a strong sense of commitment to a team, but not an organization? Or vice versa? And perhaps more importantly, what effect would this have on overall performance?
In the past week I realised a significant split had occurred in the levels of commitment that I and my team felt as one rose and the other fell - much like the respective shareholder values of my competitor and I after my first MikesBikes rollover. The disappointing lack of ethical judgement shown by a select few had led to my team becoming surprisingly closer, united by a fiery passion and a solid objective. Our team, now aware that we had been purposefully placed at a disadvantage, was now more determined than ever to fight our odds and perform to the best of our abilities to prove to ourselves and to our classmates that despite our origins, no one could hold us back. This desire led to a synchronisation of goals - an element which should have been the original factor behind our team's formulation - for where we once had differing agendas we were now fighting what you could call a 'common enemy' (I refer here to the situation, not specifically those involved).
At the same time our commitment to the what you might call the 'organization', MGMT 300, had significantly declined, as we felt we had been let down and betrayed by the organization we were working for. Trust, once broken, is a hard thing to mend, and though you could easily say that it was not the entire 'company' but rather only a few whom have let us down, in the real world the blame would be placed squarely on the organization as a whole, regardless of the specific individuals a fault. No one remembers the names of the employees responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, yet everyone remembers that BP was behind it.
It seems only time will tell how long it takes for our trust and commitment to be rebuilt.