Team of Field Engineers in an Oilfield

Section I - Team of field engineers in an oilfield

For this analysis, I have selected the rotating team that I worked with during my stint as a field engineer in the oilfield service industry. I was employed at Baker Hughes on a project for Cairn Energy in Rajasthan, India delivering field and workshop support and operational services. All in all, my team experience was less than satisfactory for several reasons, even though the team managed to meet many of its primary objectives. I believe that the rotation of team members and the dynamic nature of the oilfield industry provides an interesting circumstance in which to analyze the way a team functions.

Critical Assessment

It is convenient to utilize the eight dimensions of team effectiveness described in the assigned Larson & LaFasto text both to describe as well as to analyze the effectiveness of the team. Below are each of the eight dimensions, a brief explanation of the contextual facts, and my opinion on how the team performed with respect to them.

Clear, Elevating Goal

The goal of the team was essentially "flawless execution" of the operation we were contracted to perform, from the preparation of equipment in the workshop, to the commissioning of the tools in the oil well. Flawless execution in its literal sense is to me an inherent requirement of the highly cost-efficient oil and gas industry, and therefore does not necessarily qualify as an elevating goal. Rather than challenging us or instilling a sense of urgency, it was an indication of the expectations that the organization had from its employees. In terms of clarity, the goal also fell short of indicating a distinct result that could be visualized and described by the team members. While it was evident that we were to involve ourselves in the processes of the operation, there was no direct evidence that improvement of any kind was a priority at all.

Results-driven Structure

I believe that this was a "tactical team" which innately requires clear definitions of the tasks and roles involved. Due to the rotational nature of the assignment, team members were routinely changing out, and each mix produced ambiguity in the roles and a lack of direction when it came to execution. A lot of the delegation was done on the fly, which was very inefficient and demotivating. Additionally, every team mentor and project coordinator had his/her own conception of how they preferred to communicate and measure individual performances. For example, one coordinator required daily phone updates whereas the other was hands-off and was fine with emails. This lack of standardization when it came to the structure of the team resulted in problems with accountability and decision-making.

Competent Team Members

The team on the field comprised primarily of two sets of employees - trainees, and their assigned mentors. Mentors were established field engineers with more than 5 years of experience while trainees were still getting their feet wet. Mentors were skilled at their job and were responsible for supervising the trainees as well as teaching them the practical aspects of the operation. These individuals were extremely competent in technical skills and were more than capable of standing their ground when it came to solving a problem onsite. However, there was a strange cynicism associated with any interpersonal skills. The mentors were tough-minded and believed in "baptism by fire" rather than proactively coaching the trainees. While they were excellent contributors, they were not quite as capable of collaborating effectively. This led to an overall diminishing of team competence.

Unified Commitment

There was considerable commitment at the individual level. Each mentor was paid a high day rate and therefore bore a large amount of accountability for the success of the operation. Trainees were eager to "break out" by proving their abilities by performing independently. The autonomous nature of the entire operation therefore took away from the unity piece of this dimension. There was no strong team identity and more focus on differentiation than integration. This led to selfish behavior on the part of some members who were looking out more for their own personal agendas than the team's goals.

Collaborative Climate

The lack of unity led to a dissolution of trust within the rotating teams. Each team member was insecure and became more opportunistic than cooperative. It led to situations in which a member would partake in "back biting" by calling out teammates to the client in the hopes of appearing to be a more significant contributor. This showed an egregious disregard for the welfare of the team and a self-serving attitude that eroded camaraderie.

Standards of Excellence

Individual standards varied, with some engineers keen on performing exceptionally well and others hoping to be free riders flying under the radar. Overall, the team relied on the cutthroat environment of insecurity and fear of failure to drive high performance. However, this put a wrench in any innovative enterprises and deterred team members from taking on additional responsibilities, making improvements to the process and being more efficient than was absolutely necessary. The standards were also conspicuously absent from the team's spoken goals, and were not emphasized by the coordinators who in their leadership role focused more on minimizing errors than driving excellence.

External support & recognition

This was one of the most obvious problems with the team. The mentors and trainees were located in the workshop or field and the supervisors were often miles away in a corporate office. Communication was limited and in fact, discouraged unless necessary. Support was provided in a reactionary manner rather than in a dynamic ongoing manner. This created a lack of real-time motivation for a project, and a disproportionate focus on results. Awards focused retrospectively on strikingly successful projects, and ignored continuous improvement.

Principled leadership

The distance between supervisors and the team members, coupled with the inherent autonomous nature of the field engineer profile created a huge gap between leaders and us. There was no engagement between our actions and efforts and leadership monitoring and feedback. Managers expected the field engineers to perform independently