Evaluation of Mgi's Team Processes and the Root Causes of the Team's Process Problem

Evaluation of MGI's Team Processes and the Root Causes of the Team's Process Problem

The MGI's process was flawed from the beginning. The most poignant and glaring issue of the initial MGI team is their lack of both leadership and as a result, a defined business plan. The three co-founders had more than enough knowledge between them to run a very successful business but ultimately they lacked the ability to work together as a team and get the job done.

Strengths of the MGI Team and Evaluation of the Team Prior to the First Meeting

MGI team composed of members who had appropriate and required skills to take the project forward. Following are the key strengths that can be identified.

* Each team member was passionate about his or her field. Each had significant ideas and was ready to contribute.

* There was great diversity in their backgrounds. Team members were skilled in various but relevant topics such as music, business and software engineering. Each one was capable of playing a different role and a few of the team members could serve in more than one role.

* The team consisted of people from different ethnic backgrounds due and therefore had a different way of dealing with issues. This could have contributed to each other's significantly.

* The team members seemed to easily and successfully attract new team members with quality and varied skills into the team. This was a great strength many on the team possessed.

* All the members belong to prestigious colleges that might attract potential investors and had a large network of alumni.

"On paper" the team looked attractive from a business stand point. They had qualifications in different fields, which were needed to transform a business plan into a successful venture. From the backgrounds that the team members came from, each one of them could be believed to act in a certain way i.e. expectation for each one's role was set. The group was small in size. Since the goal of the group was definitely not just fact-finding, the small size of the group seemed productive for its progress. The team had a right blend of experience and skill to carry out a successful venture on the paper.

Something that did not look good, however, was the fact that the company had 3 co-founders.