Deck 18: Introduction to Controlling

Question 1

Are We a team
Hi. My name is Jenny McConnell. I am the newly appointed CIO of a medium-sized technology company. Our company recruits top graduates from schools of business and engineering. Talent, intellect, creativity-it's all there. If you lined up this crowd for a group photo, credentials in hand, the "wow" factor would be there.
Our company is spread over a dozen states, mostly in the Northwest. The talent pool is amazing across the board, both in information technology (IT) and the rest of the company. But when the CEO hired me, he said that we are performing nowhere near our potential. On the surface, the company is doing fine. But we should be a Fortune 500 organization. With this much talent, we should be growing at a much faster rate. The CEO also said that I was inheriting "a super team with disappointing performance." His task for me was to pull the IT stars into a cohesive team that would meet company needs for new IT systems and services much faster and more effectively.
Without making our superstars feel that they were being critiqued and second-guessed, or indicating "there's a real problem here," I wanted to gather as much information and feedback as possible from the 14 team members (regional CIOs and department heads) who report to me. I held one-on-one meetings in order to give a voice to each person, allowing each individual to provide an honest assessment of the team as well as areas for improvement and a vision for the future of team efforts.
I was surprised by the consistency of remarks and opinions. For example, a picture emerged of the previous CIO, who was obviously awed by the talent level of team members. Comments such as, "Bob pretty much let us do what we wanted," and "Bob would start the meeting and then just fade into the background, as if he found us intimidating" were typical. The most disturbing comment, "Bob always agreed with me," was expressed by most of the team members at some point in our conversation. It was as if the regional heads believed that the CIO wanted them to succeed by doing as they thought best for themselves.
I queried members about the level of cooperation during meetings and uncovered areas of concern, including the complaint that others at the table were constantly checking their iPads and Blackberrys during meetings. One department head told me, "You could turn off the sound while watching one of our meetings and just by the body language and level of attention tell who is aligned with whom and who wishes the speaker would just shut up. It would be comical if it weren't so distressing."
Such remarks were indicative of a lack of trust and respect and a breakdown of genuine communication. One team member told me, "I recently encountered a problem that a department head from another region had successfully solved, but the information was never shared, so here I am reinventing the wheel and wasting valuable time." It was apparent that these so-called high performers were territorial, and that the "each division for itself " attitude was becoming a cultural norm, which, unchecked, was slowing our response to line departments and customers.
I was also struck by the similarity of the regional IT leaders in their backgrounds, comments, and attitudes, which presented a whole new dilemma: How do we create diversity, jump-start ideas, and reignite passion This looks like a group of individualists who don't know how to play as a team. I don't want to diminish the individual talent, but I am concerned by the lack of cohesion. I need to find a way to help people think less about themselves and more about sharing work and information and achieving collective results for the good of the company.
Team building is an art, anchored by trust and communication, and committed to mutual success. What I'm seeing looks like team dysfunction to me. Now, I have to determine the steps necessary to build a cohesive, visionary team.
How do you think the team evolved to this low level of cooperation and cohesiveness

Answer 1

The team mentioned in the case evolved to such low level of cooperation and cohesiveness primarily due to a lack of vision.
A vision should have been positioned in their minds at the first stage of their orientation. A common vision would have coordinated the actions and decisions of the team members that could have resulted in fulfilling the goals.
Also, failed leadership was a big reason towards the failure of the team members. His zero involvement in the decision making process, never gave his subordinates an impression of working in a team. They all were following there individualistic approach to complete their personal goals and not accomplishing the team task.
The team also exhibited lack of trust and respect for each other. Within the same team people were not open to discuss their solutions and achievements which if disclosed would have saved the organisations' time and resources.
Wrong precedents were being set, everyone followed their own style. There was no cohesion and coordination amongst the members.
The communication was faulty. The team lacked to and fro communication. Proper feedback system was not established.
Thus, it wasn't one team but a set of individuals working as per their own whims and fancies. Such a disjointed approach caused the failure of the group.

Question 2

Have you experienced any of the five contributions of teams shown in Exhibit 18.2 with a team you have participated in Describe your experience and why you think the team was able to make that specific contribution.
Exhibit 18.2:

Answer 2

This team was able to make such an excellent contribution because all the team members were dedicated towards the work. The team had a wide knowledge base due to the presence of diverse background members. Finally, the team was led by an effective leader.

Question 3

Part Five: Leading
Range Resources: Leading
Ethically, Communicating Openly
"Natural gas has been a godsend to this area. It has helped farmers see a return on all the hard work they have put into their land just to keep it," says Bev Romanetti, a Pennsylvania cattle farmer. "I have found that Range Resources wants to be responsible; they want to do the right things, they want to protect our environment, and they want to do right by us," remarks Albie Rinehart, a retired schoolteacher from Greene County, Pennsylvania. "I personally know a lot of the people who work for Range Resources-it's like dealing with your neighbors," states Buzz Meddings, a firefighter from Washington County, Pennsylvania.
Citizens of rural Pennsylvania are the people most affected by natural gas exploration in the eastern region of the United States. They are farmers, firefighters, teachers, single moms, restaurant owners, and volunteers. They are hardy. They are the salt of the earth. More important, they are the face of natural gas development in the Keystone State, and they provide the voices through which Texas-based energy company Range Resources communicates its message of good corporate citizenship to the public. At the company's public outreach site, MyRangeResources.com, everyday people offer video testimonials about the economic and social benefits that Range brings to local communities, whether in terms of jobs, new development, or concern for the natural environment. The site, which functions as part of Range's communications strategy, is an information clearinghouse for all things related to natural gas exploration.
Since discovering the second-largest natural gas field in the world in 2004, Range has used open communication to build trust among the stakeholders most affected by the development of natural gas resources. While natural gas is recognized as a clean energy solution to America's energy needs, citizens still want to know that natural gas exploration is safe for communities and good for the environment.
As explained at MyRangeResources.com, Range makes safety a central component of its natural gas production. To extract methane from rock formations deep down in the Earth, engineers guide a 5-inchdiameter drill straight down more than a mile and then turn it horizontally to penetrate shale rock thousands of feet in all directions. This horizontal drilling method is a groundbreaking advancement that allows drillers to capture far more methane than the old vertical- only method, which requires many more wells to get a fraction of the output. Once Range's drill arrives at its destination 6,500 feet below the Earth's surface, electric charges produce cracks in the rock from which methane gas escapes. To enlarge these fractures for maximum gas recovery, millions of gallons of water and sand are pumped to the area under extreme pressure, expanding the cracks and freeing even more gas to flow back up to the well head at the surface. For environmental safety, Range houses its drill in a 24-inchdiameter casing comprised of five layers of steel and concrete, isolating the entire production process from contact with surrounding land and water.
In its desire to leave as small an environmental footprint as possible, Range has pioneered a way to recycle the millions of gallons of water used in the drilling process. "One thing we've done from an environmental point of view is we now recycle 100 percent of our water in our development areas in Pennsylvania. In fact, we're recycling nearly all of our fluid, which is a real breakthrough for the industry," says Jeffrey Ventura, president and CEO of Range Resources. "Back when we began that process, a lot of people felt that it couldn't be done, that it was physically impossible. Lo and behold, not only did we do it successfully, but now we're doing it large-scale." Ventura, the leader credited with Range's decision to explore the Marcellus Shale gas formation in Pennsylvania, says water recycling is a major innovation in natural gas production. "Just like the Marcellus Shale was a breakthrough," Ventura says, "on the environmental side, water recycling was a real breakthrough."
To keep stakeholders informed about safety, Range has also led the industry in the disclosure of core production processes, especially the use of liquids for drilling and fracturing. "In the middle of 2010, there was a lot of concern nationwide about what's in frack fluid, and Range was the first company in the industry to say exactly what's in our frack fluid," Ventura says. "We post it on our website and we supply it to the state for every Marcellus Shale well that we're drilling. It's 99.9 percent water, and the 0.1 percent are common everyday household chemicals." Range's open communication with the public has earned the respect of environmental groups and also the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which in 2012 announced that natural gas production was safe for drinking water at its test site in Dimock Township, Pennsylvania.
Safety, open communication, and leadership- these are the qualities that have made Range Resources a vanguard of America's natural gas boom and a pioneer of sustainable energy development. "I'm proud of what our technical team has done on the environmental side and the communications side," says Ventura of his company's contribution to America's clean energy future.
Managers at Range Resources use communication to develop a climate of trust and openness. Why is this especially important for energy companies, and what specific actions can managers take to enhance this communication approach

Answer 3

Energy companies have a lot of stake in the community as their actions affect many sectors of the society directly or indirectly. For an energy company, it is very important to ensure proper safety of the people as well as environment. Furthermore, it is also very crucial for them to maintain open communication with the stakeholders.
Managers at Company RR use open communication for creating a climate of trust and openness. Importance of using open communication for the energy companies are elaborated below:
• Earlier when Company RR started its operations in the place, the local citizens were concerned regarding the consequences of gas exploration. Furthermore, they were also concerned regarding its negative impact on the environment. To address the problem, RR has disclosed its core production processes to the shareholders. It helped the energy company to create an environment of trust and openness.
Over the course of time, the local residents who mostly get affected by the exploration communicated the good corporate citizenship of the company to the public. Hence, open communication helps in generating goodwill and reputation of the energy companies in the market.
• Furthermore, the company has informed its shareholders regarding the frack fluid that contains 99.9 percent of water and 0.1 percent of common household chemicals. It was the first energy company to do so. Hence, it has also helped the company is building trust among the stakeholders. This step adopted by the company helped to increase its customer base and revenues.
To enhance this communication approach the companies should resort to the following techniques:
• Companies should invite public suggestions on issues like treatment of waste material etc. It will improve the image of the company in the eyes of the local population.
• For raising awareness amongst the stake holders, they should ensure that everyone is noticing their efforts and publications. They should try to use every medium of communication like print media, electronic media, social networking sites, radio, etc. This will ensure maximum visibility to their endeavours.
• Transparency should be maintained at each and every level. Concealment of facts necessary for public welfare can attract positive publicity to the company.

Question 4

Are We a team
Hi. My name is Jenny McConnell. I am the newly appointed CIO of a medium-sized technology company. Our company recruits top graduates from schools of business and engineering. Talent, intellect, creativity-it's all there. If you lined up this crowd for a group photo, credentials in hand, the "wow" factor would be there.
Our company is spread over a dozen states, mostly in the Northwest. The talent pool is amazing across the board, both in information technology (IT) and the rest of the company. But when the CEO hired me, he said that we are performing nowhere near our potential. On the surface, the company is doing fine. But we should be a Fortune 500 organization. With this much talent, we should be growing at a much faster rate. The CEO also said that I was inheriting "a super team with disappointing performance." His task for me was to pull the IT stars into a cohesive team that would meet company needs for new IT systems and services much faster and more effectively.
Without making our superstars feel that they were being critiqued and second-guessed, or indicating "there's a real problem here," I wanted to gather as much information and feedback as possible from the 14 team members (regional CIOs and department heads) who report to me. I held one-on-one meetings in order to give a voice to each person, allowing each individual to provide an honest assessment of the team as well as areas for improvement and a vision for the future of team efforts.
I was surprised by the consistency of remarks and opinions. For example, a picture emerged of the previous CIO, who was obviously awed by the talent level of team members. Comments such as, "Bob pretty much let us do what we wanted," and "Bob would start the meeting and then just fade into the background, as if he found us intimidating" were typical. The most disturbing comment, "Bob always agreed with me," was expressed by most of the team members at some point in our conversation. It was as if the regional heads believed that the CIO wanted them to succeed by doing as they thought best for themselves.
I queried members about the level of cooperation during meetings and uncovered areas of concern, including the complaint that others at the table were constantly checking their iPads and Blackberrys during meetings. One department head told me, "You could turn off the sound while watching one of our meetings and just by the body language and level of attention tell who is aligned with whom and who wishes the speaker would just shut up. It would be comical if it weren't so distressing."
Such remarks were indicative of a lack of trust and respect and a breakdown of genuine communication. One team member told me, "I recently encountered a problem that a department head from another region had successfully solved, but the information was never shared, so here I am reinventing the wheel and wasting valuable time." It was apparent that these so-called high performers were territorial, and that the "each division for itself " attitude was becoming a cultural norm, which, unchecked, was slowing our response to line departments and customers.
I was also struck by the similarity of the regional IT leaders in their backgrounds, comments, and attitudes, which presented a whole new dilemma: How do we create diversity, jump-start ideas, and reignite passion This looks like a group of individualists who don't know how to play as a team. I don't want to diminish the individual talent, but I am concerned by the lack of cohesion. I need to find a way to help people think less about themselves and more about sharing work and information and achieving collective results for the good of the company.
Team building is an art, anchored by trust and communication, and committed to mutual success. What I'm seeing looks like team dysfunction to me. Now, I have to determine the steps necessary to build a cohesive, visionary team.
What suggestions do you have for the CIO to help her turn this collection of individual regional and department heads into a top-performing team Explain.

Question 5

Suppose that you are the leader of a team that has just been created to develop a new registration process at your college or university. How can you use an understanding of the stages of team development to improve your team's effectiveness

Question 6

Part Five: Leading
Range Resources: Leading
Ethically, Communicating Openly
"Natural gas has been a godsend to this area. It has helped farmers see a return on all the hard work they have put into their land just to keep it," says Bev Romanetti, a Pennsylvania cattle farmer. "I have found that Range Resources wants to be responsible; they want to do the right things, they want to protect our environment, and they want to do right by us," remarks Albie Rinehart, a retired schoolteacher from Greene County, Pennsylvania. "I personally know a lot of the people who work for Range Resources-it's like dealing with your neighbors," states Buzz Meddings, a firefighter from Washington County, Pennsylvania.
Citizens of rural Pennsylvania are the people most affected by natural gas exploration in the eastern region of the United States. They are farmers, firefighters, teachers, single moms, restaurant owners, and volunteers. They are hardy. They are the salt of the earth. More important, they are the face of natural gas development in the Keystone State, and they provide the voices through which Texas-based energy company Range Resources communicates its message of good corporate citizenship to the public. At the company's public outreach site, MyRangeResources.com, everyday people offer video testimonials about the economic and social benefits that Range brings to local communities, whether in terms of jobs, new development, or concern for the natural environment. The site, which functions as part of Range's communications strategy, is an information clearinghouse for all things related to natural gas exploration.
Since discovering the second-largest natural gas field in the world in 2004, Range has used open communication to build trust among the stakeholders most affected by the development of natural gas resources. While natural gas is recognized as a clean energy solution to America's energy needs, citizens still want to know that natural gas exploration is safe for communities and good for the environment.
As explained at MyRangeResources.com, Range makes safety a central component of its natural gas production. To extract methane from rock formations deep down in the Earth, engineers guide a 5-inchdiameter drill straight down more than a mile and then turn it horizontally to penetrate shale rock thousands of feet in all directions. This horizontal drilling method is a groundbreaking advancement that allows drillers to capture far more methane than the old vertical- only method, which requires many more wells to get a fraction of the output. Once Range's drill arrives at its destination 6,500 feet below the Earth's surface, electric charges produce cracks in the rock from which methane gas escapes. To enlarge these fractures for maximum gas recovery, millions of gallons of water and sand are pumped to the area under extreme pressure, expanding the cracks and freeing even more gas to flow back up to the well head at the surface. For environmental safety, Range houses its drill in a 24-inchdiameter casing comprised of five layers of steel and concrete, isolating the entire production process from contact with surrounding land and water.
In its desire to leave as small an environmental footprint as possible, Range has pioneered a way to recycle the millions of gallons of water used in the drilling process. "One thing we've done from an environmental point of view is we now recycle 100 percent of our water in our development areas in Pennsylvania. In fact, we're recycling nearly all of our fluid, which is a real breakthrough for the industry," says Jeffrey Ventura, president and CEO of Range Resources. "Back when we began that process, a lot of people felt that it couldn't be done, that it was physically impossible. Lo and behold, not only did we do it successfully, but now we're doing it large-scale." Ventura, the leader credited with Range's decision to explore the Marcellus Shale gas formation in Pennsylvania, says water recycling is a major innovation in natural gas production. "Just like the Marcellus Shale was a breakthrough," Ventura says, "on the environmental side, water recycling was a real breakthrough."
To keep stakeholders informed about safety, Range has also led the industry in the disclosure of core production processes, especially the use of liquids for drilling and fracturing. "In the middle of 2010, there was a lot of concern nationwide about what's in frack fluid, and Range was the first company in the industry to say exactly what's in our frack fluid," Ventura says. "We post it on our website and we supply it to the state for every Marcellus Shale well that we're drilling. It's 99.9 percent water, and the 0.1 percent are common everyday household chemicals." Range's open communication with the public has earned the respect of environmental groups and also the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which in 2012 announced that natural gas production was safe for drinking water at its test site in Dimock Township, Pennsylvania.
Safety, open communication, and leadership- these are the qualities that have made Range Resources a vanguard of America's natural gas boom and a pioneer of sustainable energy development. "I'm proud of what our technical team has done on the environmental side and the communications side," says Ventura of his company's contribution to America's clean energy future.
How might Range's leadership, communication, and values affect employees' organizational commitment Explain.

Question 7

Imagine yourself as a potential member of a team responsible for designing a new package for a breakfast cereal. Do you think interpersonal skills would be equally important if the team is organized face to face versus a virtual team Why or why not Might different types of interpersonal skills be required for the two types of teams Be specific.

Question 8

If you were the leader of a special-purpose team developing a new computer game and conflicts arose related to power and status differences among team members, what would you do How might you use the various conflict-resolution techniques described in the chapter

Question 9

Experts say that for teams to function well, members have to get to know one another in some depth. What specifically would you do to facilitate this in a colocated team What about in a global virtual team

Question 10

Think of your favorite sports team, or observe a sports team at your university. Can you identify which members seem to play task specialist roles and who might play a socioemotional role What behaviors did you observe for each type of role

Question 11

Some people argue that the presence of an outside threat correlates with a high degree of team cohesion. Would you agree or disagree Explain your answer.

Question 12

Are We a team
Hi. My name is Jenny McConnell. I am the newly appointed CIO of a medium-sized technology company. Our company recruits top graduates from schools of business and engineering. Talent, intellect, creativity-it's all there. If you lined up this crowd for a group photo, credentials in hand, the "wow" factor would be there.
Our company is spread over a dozen states, mostly in the Northwest. The talent pool is amazing across the board, both in information technology (IT) and the rest of the company. But when the CEO hired me, he said that we are performing nowhere near our potential. On the surface, the company is doing fine. But we should be a Fortune 500 organization. With this much talent, we should be growing at a much faster rate. The CEO also said that I was inheriting "a super team with disappointing performance." His task for me was to pull the IT stars into a cohesive team that would meet company needs for new IT systems and services much faster and more effectively.
Without making our superstars feel that they were being critiqued and second-guessed, or indicating "there's a real problem here," I wanted to gather as much information and feedback as possible from the 14 team members (regional CIOs and department heads) who report to me. I held one-on-one meetings in order to give a voice to each person, allowing each individual to provide an honest assessment of the team as well as areas for improvement and a vision for the future of team efforts.
I was surprised by the consistency of remarks and opinions. For example, a picture emerged of the previous CIO, who was obviously awed by the talent level of team members. Comments such as, "Bob pretty much let us do what we wanted," and "Bob would start the meeting and then just fade into the background, as if he found us intimidating" were typical. The most disturbing comment, "Bob always agreed with me," was expressed by most of the team members at some point in our conversation. It was as if the regional heads believed that the CIO wanted them to succeed by doing as they thought best for themselves.
I queried members about the level of cooperation during meetings and uncovered areas of concern, including the complaint that others at the table were constantly checking their iPads and Blackberrys during meetings. One department head told me, "You could turn off the sound while watching one of our meetings and just by the body language and level of attention tell who is aligned with whom and who wishes the speaker would just shut up. It would be comical if it weren't so distressing."
Such remarks were indicative of a lack of trust and respect and a breakdown of genuine communication. One team member told me, "I recently encountered a problem that a department head from another region had successfully solved, but the information was never shared, so here I am reinventing the wheel and wasting valuable time." It was apparent that these so-called high performers were territorial, and that the "each division for itself " attitude was becoming a cultural norm, which, unchecked, was slowing our response to line departments and customers.
I was also struck by the similarity of the regional IT leaders in their backgrounds, comments, and attitudes, which presented a whole new dilemma: How do we create diversity, jump-start ideas, and reignite passion This looks like a group of individualists who don't know how to play as a team. I don't want to diminish the individual talent, but I am concerned by the lack of cohesion. I need to find a way to help people think less about themselves and more about sharing work and information and achieving collective results for the good of the company.
Team building is an art, anchored by trust and communication, and committed to mutual success. What I'm seeing looks like team dysfunction to me. Now, I have to determine the steps necessary to build a cohesive, visionary team.
What type of team does the new CIO have What do you see as the key problem with the team

Question 13

Discuss how the dilemmas of teamwork might be intensified in a virtual team. What dilemmas do you encounter when you have to do class assignments as part of a team Discuss.

Question 14

One company had 40 percent of its workers and 20 percent of its managers resign during the first year after reorganizing into teams. What might account for this dramatic turnover How might managers ensure a smooth transition to teams

Question 15

If you were the leader of a newly formed team, what might you do to make sure that the team developed norms of high performance

Question 16

One for All and All for One 82
Melinda Asbel watched as three of her classmates filed out of the conference room. Then she turned back to the large wooden table and faced her fellow members (a student and three faculty members) of the university's judiciary committee.
The three students-Joe Eastridge, Brad Hamil, and Lisa Baghetti-had just concluded their appeal against a plagiarism conviction stemming from a group project for an international marketing course. Melinda, who happened to be in the class with the students on trial, remembered the day that the professor, Hank Zierden, had asked Joe, Brad, and Lisa, along with the group's leader, Paul Colgan, to stay after class. She happened to walk by the classroom a half hour later to see four glum students emerge. Even though Paul had a chagrined expression on his face, Joe was the one who looked completely shattered. It didn't take long for word to spread along the ever-active grapevine that Paul had admitted to plagiarizing his part of the group paper.
At the hearing, the students recounted how they'd quickly and unanimously settled on Paul to lead the group. He was by far the most able student among them, someone who managed to maintain a stellar GPA even while handling a full course load and holding down a part-time job. After the group worked together for weeks analyzing the problem and devising a marketing plan, Paul assigned a section of the final paper to each member. With the pressure of all those end-of-the-semester deadlines bearing down on them, everyone was delighted when Paul volunteered to write the company and industry background, the section that typically took the most time to produce. Paul gathered in everyone's contributions, assembled them into a paper, and handed the final draft to the other members. They each gave it a quick read. They liked what they saw and thought they had a good chance for an A.
Unfortunately, as Paul readily admitted when Professor Zierden confronted them, he had pulled the section that he'd contributed directly off the Internet. Pointing out the written policy that he had distributed at the beginning of the semester, which stated that each group member was equally responsible for the final product, the professor gave all four students a zero for the project. The group project and presentation counted for 30 percent of the course grade.
Joe, Brad, and Lisa maintained that they were completely unaware that Paul had cheated. "It just never occurred to us Paul would ever need to cheat," Brad said. They were innocent bystanders, the students argued. Why should they be penalized Besides, the consequences weren't going to fall on each of them equally. Although Paul was suffering the embarrassment of public exposure, the failing group project grade would only put a dent in his solid GPA. Joe, on the other hand, was already on academic probation. A zero probably meant he wouldn't make the 2.5 GPA that he needed to stay in the business program.
At least one of the faculty members of the judiciary committee supported Professor Zierden's actions. "We're assigning more and more group projects because increasingly that's the way these students are going to find themselves working when they get real jobs in the real world," he said. "And the fact of the matter is that if someone obtains information illegally while on the job, it's going to put the whole corporation at risk for being sued, or worse."
Even though she could see merit to both sides, Melinda was going to have to choose. If you were Melinda, how would you vote
What Would You Do
1. Vote to exonerate the three group project members who didn't cheat. You're convinced that they had no reason to suspect Paul Colgan of dishonesty. Exonerating them is the right thing to do.
2. Vote in support of Hank Zierden's decision to hold each individual member accountable for the entire project. The professor clearly stated his policy at the beginning of the semester, and the students should have been more vigilant. The committee should not u ndercut a professor's explicit policy.
3. Vote to reduce each of the three students' penalties. Instead of a zero, each student will receive only half of the possible total points for the project, which would be an F. You're still holding students responsible for the group project, but not imposing catastrophic punishment. This compromise both undercuts the professor's policy and punishes "innocent" team members to some extent, but not as severely.

Question 17

Part Five: Leading
Range Resources: Leading
Ethically, Communicating Openly
"Natural gas has been a godsend to this area. It has helped farmers see a return on all the hard work they have put into their land just to keep it," says Bev Romanetti, a Pennsylvania cattle farmer. "I have found that Range Resources wants to be responsible; they want to do the right things, they want to protect our environment, and they want to do right by us," remarks Albie Rinehart, a retired schoolteacher from Greene County, Pennsylvania. "I personally know a lot of the people who work for Range Resources-it's like dealing with your neighbors," states Buzz Meddings, a firefighter from Washington County, Pennsylvania.
Citizens of rural Pennsylvania are the people most affected by natural gas exploration in the eastern region of the United States. They are farmers, firefighters, teachers, single moms, restaurant owners, and volunteers. They are hardy. They are the salt of the earth. More important, they are the face of natural gas development in the Keystone State, and they provide the voices through which Texas-based energy company Range Resources communicates its message of good corporate citizenship to the public. At the company's public outreach site, MyRangeResources.com, everyday people offer video testimonials about the economic and social benefits that Range brings to local communities, whether in terms of jobs, new development, or concern for the natural environment. The site, which functions as part of Range's communications strategy, is an information clearinghouse for all things related to natural gas exploration.
Since discovering the second-largest natural gas field in the world in 2004, Range has used open communication to build trust among the stakeholders most affected by the development of natural gas resources. While natural gas is recognized as a clean energy solution to America's energy needs, citizens still want to know that natural gas exploration is safe for communities and good for the environment.
As explained at MyRangeResources.com, Range makes safety a central component of its natural gas production. To extract methane from rock formations deep down in the Earth, engineers guide a 5-inchdiameter drill straight down more than a mile and then turn it horizontally to penetrate shale rock thousands of feet in all directions. This horizontal drilling method is a groundbreaking advancement that allows drillers to capture far more methane than the old vertical- only method, which requires many more wells to get a fraction of the output. Once Range's drill arrives at its destination 6,500 feet below the Earth's surface, electric charges produce cracks in the rock from which methane gas escapes. To enlarge these fractures for maximum gas recovery, millions of gallons of water and sand are pumped to the area under extreme pressure, expanding the cracks and freeing even more gas to flow back up to the well head at the surface. For environmental safety, Range houses its drill in a 24-inchdiameter casing comprised of five layers of steel and concrete, isolating the entire production process from contact with surrounding land and water.
In its desire to leave as small an environmental footprint as possible, Range has pioneered a way to recycle the millions of gallons of water used in the drilling process. "One thing we've done from an environmental point of view is we now recycle 100 percent of our water in our development areas in Pennsylvania. In fact, we're recycling nearly all of our fluid, which is a real breakthrough for the industry," says Jeffrey Ventura, president and CEO of Range Resources. "Back when we began that process, a lot of people felt that it couldn't be done, that it was physically impossible. Lo and behold, not only did we do it successfully, but now we're doing it large-scale." Ventura, the leader credited with Range's decision to explore the Marcellus Shale gas formation in Pennsylvania, says water recycling is a major innovation in natural gas production. "Just like the Marcellus Shale was a breakthrough," Ventura says, "on the environmental side, water recycling was a real breakthrough."
To keep stakeholders informed about safety, Range has also led the industry in the disclosure of core production processes, especially the use of liquids for drilling and fracturing. "In the middle of 2010, there was a lot of concern nationwide about what's in frack fluid, and Range was the first company in the industry to say exactly what's in our frack fluid," Ventura says. "We post it on our website and we supply it to the state for every Marcellus Shale well that we're drilling. It's 99.9 percent water, and the 0.1 percent are common everyday household chemicals." Range's open communication with the public has earned the respect of environmental groups and also the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which in 2012 announced that natural gas production was safe for drinking water at its test site in Dimock Township, Pennsylvania.
Safety, open communication, and leadership- these are the qualities that have made Range Resources a vanguard of America's natural gas boom and a pioneer of sustainable energy development. "I'm proud of what our technical team has done on the environmental side and the communications side," says Ventura of his company's contribution to America's clean energy future.
Range Resources CEO Jeffrey Ventura emphasizes public safety, environmental concern, and open communication with stakeholders. Which of the four contemporary leadership approaches do you think best describes Ventura Explain.

Question 18

On the Job: holden Outerware: Leading teams
Questions
1. Is design manager Nikki Brush part of a group, or part of a team Explain the difference.
2. What type of team did Nikki Brush participate in when she was a freelancer What type of team does she participate in as a full-time employee at Holden
3. What are potential disadvantages of these teams for Holden's apparel designers What can managers do to help avoid these downsides