The Army Crew Team Case Study Solution Leadership and Team Dynamics

Introduction

The Army Crew Team case study, authored by Scott A. useful source Snook and Jeffrey T. Polzer, is a well-regarded exploration of leadership, teamwork, and group dynamics within a high-pressure, competitive environment. It highlights the challenges faced by Coach P. of the Army Crew program at West Point as he manages two teams—the Varsity crew and the Junior Varsity (JV) crew. Despite having stronger individual rowers, the Varsity team underperforms compared to the JV team, creating a perplexing situation for the coach and raising critical questions about leadership, cohesion, and effective teamwork.

This case serves as a powerful teaching tool for managers, leaders, and students alike because it underscores the nuanced differences between individual performance and team performance. It illustrates that assembling top individual talent does not guarantee collective success. Instead, leadership and group dynamics often determine whether a team thrives or fails.

This article provides a comprehensive case solution, focusing on leadership approaches, team dynamics, and lessons for broader organizational management.

Problem Identification

The Army Crew Team’s central issue is that the Varsity team, composed of the “best” individual rowers, consistently loses to the JV team during practice. This paradox frustrates the coach, who is unable to reconcile why the stronger team fails against supposedly weaker competitors.

Key underlying problems include:

  1. Poor Team Cohesion – Varsity members do not trust each other, and interpersonal conflicts undermine collaboration.
  2. Individualism Over Collectivism – Rowers prioritize their personal rankings and reputations over team performance.
  3. Erosion of Confidence – Repeated losses damage morale, creating a vicious cycle of underperformance.
  4. Ineffective Leadership Approach – The coach struggles to foster unity and inadvertently emphasizes individual achievement by ranking rowers.

The problem, therefore, is not one of technical skills but of psychological and social dynamics that hinder the Varsity’s ability to operate as a cohesive unit.

Leadership Issues in the Case

Leadership plays a decisive role in this case. Several leadership-related concerns emerge:

1. Transactional vs. Transformational Leadership

Coach P. leans toward a transactional approach—measuring, ranking, and rewarding individuals based on their ergometer scores and performance. While effective for individual motivation, this system backfires when team synergy is essential. A transformational leadership approach, emphasizing shared goals, inspiration, and collaboration, might have built stronger unity.

2. Failure to Recognize Team Development Stages

According to Tuckman’s model of group development (forming, storming, norming, performing), the Varsity never successfully progresses to the “performing” stage. Instead, they remain stuck in conflict (“storming”), which prevents them from reaching high performance. A more proactive leadership intervention could have helped them resolve differences and move forward.

3. Misalignment of Leadership Style and Team Needs

Coach P.’s reliance on objective rankings did not address relational issues. try this site Varsity needed relationship-oriented leadership, focusing on communication, trust, and mutual accountability, rather than continued emphasis on technical superiority.

Team Dynamics Analysis

The case highlights the fragile nature of team dynamics, especially in competitive and hierarchical environments like West Point. Several factors shaped the Varsity’s dysfunction and the JV’s surprising success:

1. Cohesion and Trust

The JV team, although individually weaker, thrived due to stronger cohesion and trust. They enjoyed working together, encouraged one another, and demonstrated resilience. The Varsity lacked psychological safety, with members quick to blame each other for failures.

2. Role Clarity

In rowing, synchronization is critical. Even slight misalignments in rhythm or timing can drastically affect performance. The JV had greater alignment of roles and responsibilities, whereas Varsity members failed to integrate their efforts due to ego clashes and mistrust.

3. Motivation and Morale

Repeated wins boosted the JV’s confidence and created a reinforcing cycle of success. Conversely, Varsity’s repeated failures led to low morale, negative self-talk, and internal criticism. Motivation shifted from collective achievement to self-preservation.

4. Group Identity

The JV developed a shared identity as underdogs working together to prove themselves. Varsity members, however, focused on individual identities as top athletes, undermining their sense of collective responsibility.

Possible Solutions

To address these challenges, several solutions emerge:

1. Restructure Team Assignments

Coach P. could consider reshuffling the Varsity and JV teams, mixing rowers to create a balance of talent and chemistry. However, this may not be feasible before competition and could risk further destabilization.

2. Shift Leadership Approach

Coach P. must pivot from transactional leadership to transformational leadership. He should:

  • Inspire shared purpose (“winning as one Army team”).
  • Emphasize values such as loyalty, trust, and selfless service.
  • Facilitate open communication to resolve conflicts.

3. Team-Building Interventions

Structured activities to build trust, such as off-water exercises, feedback sessions, and discussions about shared goals, could enhance cohesion. Establishing rituals or traditions might also strengthen collective identity.

4. Focus on Process, Not Outcome

Rather than obsessing over beating the JV, Varsity should focus on process-oriented goals such as improving synchronization, communication, and rhythm. This shift reduces pressure and fosters incremental improvements.

5. Empower Peer Leadership

Appointing a team captain or encouraging informal leaders within Varsity could help regulate interpersonal dynamics. Peer-to-peer accountability often resonates more strongly than top-down directives.

Recommended Solution

The optimal solution combines a leadership shift with targeted team-building strategies. Coach P. should adopt a transformational leadership style, focusing on fostering trust, communication, and shared goals within the Varsity team. Simultaneously, he should implement short-term interventions that build cohesion and improve morale.

Practical steps include:

  1. Holding a team meeting to openly discuss challenges, allowing Varsity members to voice frustrations and commit to collective improvement.
  2. Establishing clear norms of behavior, including accountability, encouragement, and respect.
  3. Pairing Varsity rowers in joint exercises to build trust and highlight interdependence.
  4. Celebrating small wins in practice to rebuild confidence.

Through these steps, Varsity can transition from a collection of talented individuals into a high-performing team.

Lessons for Leadership and Organizations

The Army Crew Team case provides rich insights into leadership and organizational behavior that extend far beyond sports:

  1. Talent Alone is Insufficient – A team of superstars may fail if interpersonal dynamics and collaboration are ignored. Effective teams balance talent with trust and shared purpose.
  2. Leadership Must Adapt to Context – Technical excellence is not enough; leaders must recognize when relational and motivational factors are the real barriers.
  3. Psychological Safety is Key – Teams perform best when members feel safe to contribute, take risks, and support one another without fear of blame.
  4. Success Reinforces Success – Early wins and positive momentum build confidence. Leaders should create opportunities for small victories to strengthen morale.
  5. Shared Identity Drives Performance – Teams that define themselves around collective achievement outperform those fragmented by individualism.

Conclusion

The Army Crew Team case study underscores the profound impact of leadership and team dynamics on performance. While the Varsity team’s superior talent should have guaranteed success, their lack of cohesion, trust, and shared purpose led to repeated failures. In contrast, the JV team’s camaraderie and collective mindset propelled them to unexpected victories.

For leaders across domains—whether in sports, business, or the military—the lesson is clear: high performance stems not only from talent but from the strength of relationships, trust, and shared commitment. i thought about this Leaders who recognize this and adapt their style accordingly can transform underperforming groups into cohesive, winning teams.