Question 1
Having the chance to work for the Leo Burnett Company is a great opportunity. I feel many employees come to realize and appreciate this as they work in its fast pace environment that promotes comradery and team work. The company itself is well established and has a vision that drives it to continue to expand and grow, in spite of an environment that is continuously changing with the desire of the consumer. The vision given to the marketing teams is one of building ‘brand belief’, in which each individual and team strives to not only create new and innovative ideas, but also connect with and create a customer who believes in the brand and becomes loyal to the product or company being represented. (O’Neil, Dietz, & Olivera, 2003) …show more content…
They desired building a product that promotes customer loyalty and belief. It was established with the same individuals who had a working relationship as discussed above in which team work, psychological safety, and accountability where seen as not only the norm but the foundation. Additionally they knew that they could not create all three of these important aspects of the company, without launching that first important kick off meeting. Each team was given the vision of the customer, OBC. They also were presented with the goals and responsibilities of each team, in order to achieve the vision set at the beginning. The problem arose in the communication of the London and Toronto teams. Where before, each team was used to having face to face interactions on a daily basis with all those involved with the project; now effective and efficient communication proved difficult, as not everyone was involved with the initial meeting. From the beginning each team took their responsibilities and saw them as separate parts instead of a piece of a whole. Instead of confronting and discussing the differences of opinion each team had on the creative work of the project each team assumed that the other would change to incorporate the ideas of the other. When this did not occur, an attitude of complacency and discouragement entered. Instead of direct communication taking place, the communication between teams deteriorated, until there was little to no communication except through the account director, Janet Carmichael. Thus, a loss of communication led to a loss in psychological safety. The lack of team work, as we see with this case, created a loss of productivity and efficiency allowing the relationships between the teams, the client, and the customer to deteriorate. (O’Neil, Dietz, & Olivera,
Having the chance to work for the Leo Burnett Company is a great opportunity. I feel many employees come to realize and appreciate this as they work in its fast pace environment that promotes comradery and team work. The company itself is well established and has a vision that drives it to continue to expand and grow, in spite of an environment that is continuously changing with the desire of the consumer. The vision given to the marketing teams is one of building ‘brand belief’, in which each individual and team strives to not only create new and innovative ideas, but also connect with and create a customer who believes in the brand and becomes loyal to the product or company being represented. (O’Neil, Dietz, & Olivera, 2003) …show more content…
They desired building a product that promotes customer loyalty and belief. It was established with the same individuals who had a working relationship as discussed above in which team work, psychological safety, and accountability where seen as not only the norm but the foundation. Additionally they knew that they could not create all three of these important aspects of the company, without launching that first important kick off meeting. Each team was given the vision of the customer, OBC. They also were presented with the goals and responsibilities of each team, in order to achieve the vision set at the beginning. The problem arose in the communication of the London and Toronto teams. Where before, each team was used to having face to face interactions on a daily basis with all those involved with the project; now effective and efficient communication proved difficult, as not everyone was involved with the initial meeting. From the beginning each team took their responsibilities and saw them as separate parts instead of a piece of a whole. Instead of confronting and discussing the differences of opinion each team had on the creative work of the project each team assumed that the other would change to incorporate the ideas of the other. When this did not occur, an attitude of complacency and discouragement entered. Instead of direct communication taking place, the communication between teams deteriorated, until there was little to no communication except through the account director, Janet Carmichael. Thus, a loss of communication led to a loss in psychological safety. The lack of team work, as we see with this case, created a loss of productivity and efficiency allowing the relationships between the teams, the client, and the customer to deteriorate. (O’Neil, Dietz, & Olivera,