Waltrip Racing & Group Communication

Michael Waltrip Racing: A Look at Small Group Communication March, 2011 Davida Jackson Kenyon Stanley Kristen Bostedo-Conway Leah Beth Parsons

Waltrip Racing & Small Group Communication

Introduction NASCAR is a sport that developed from running moonshine to becoming one of the highest grossing sporting organizations in America. The success of the NASCAR industry can be attributed to the millions of devoted fans, the billions of dollars companies spend on sponsorships, and the hard working dedicated employees that can be found throughout the industry. One of the most unique things about NASCAR is that it consists of family owned and operated teams. There are twenty-six teams with fifty-one drivers in the Sprint Cup Series (NASCAR operates 4 series). Each driver and team member puts his or her life on the line each Sunday hoping to bring home that the next big win. Dedication to the race team is vital in this sport and industry, because of the high risks that are involved. In order to achieve their goals NASCAR uses small groups to make up their organizational structure. To explore NASCARs highly efficient use of groups, Michael Waltrip Racing- a consistent top ten team was chosen. The organizations value of transparency allowed us to study the industries use of small groups. Using Systems Theory as a theoretical grounding, an ethnographic observation was conducted to determine how the engineering group of Michael Waltrip Racing functions using the following small group concepts: phases of group development, cohesion, diversity, stereotypes and group think.

Waltrip Racing & Small Group Communication

A Systems Theory Approach to NASCAR At a glance, NASCAR may appear to be a sport where the skills of the driver solely determine the success of a particular race team. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, NASCAR race teams exist in increasingly turbulent and dynamic environments. For this reason, Michael Waltrip Racing is an organization that is best viewed when looking through a systems theory lens. According to Eisenberg, E. & Goodall H.L. (2010), a system can be defined as a complex set of relationships among interdependent components or parts (p.79). To study the interdependent relationships of Michael Waltrip Racings engineering group, this paper will explore how small group concepts are exhibited in the following Systems Theory components: Interdependence When small groups are mutually dependent on each other to complete tasks and develop solutions to an overall outcome (Eisenberg & Goodall, 2010). Open to the Environment how the system is affected by contexts outside of the system (Eisengberg & Goodall, 2010). Equifinality the idea that an end state can be reached in many ways or through different means (Bertalanffy, 1968). Feedback is a monitoring signal which provides the system with relevant information regarding performance (Eisenberg & Goodall, 2010). Input, Throughput and Output o o o Input--receiving information from outside. Throughput-- the process of creating a product. Output--releasing the product back to the environment (Eisenberg & Goodall, 2010).

Synergy two or more people working together to obtain a result that would not be obtainable interdependently (Eisenberg & Goodall, 2010).

At Michael Waltrip Racing, the complexity of their system is evident by the fact that the organizational goal is to build the fastest car against other teams who are equipped with the same tools. Furthermore, with the demand that a new race car needs to be produced every week, and delivered to a new location by Sunday, the time constraints that Michael Waltrip Racing are under increases the complexity of achieving organizational goals

Waltrip Racing & Small Group Communication

(Adams, 2011). These constraints highlight the importance of a cohesive, interdependent small group structure at Michael Waltrip Racing.

Michael Waltrip Racing: The Function of the Engineering Group Michael Waltrip Racing is a team that prides themselves on tradition, dedication and good ole fashion hard work. With three drivers, multiple pit crews, and teams of engineers, Michael Waltrip Racing is an organization that accomplishes tasks and goals by using small groups. Their operation is driven by efficiency created using input, throughput and output systems. Every Monday, after the last big race, each group within the organization attends a company meeting where they discuss how they can improve input, throughput and output. This meeting is essential to each organization groups process. Additionally, by involving the entire company, feedback can be received by all groups allowing the organization to create synergy (Waltrip, 2011). On Tuesday, they get back to work. Cars have to be built, painted, inspected, and tested. Each car is built from scratch. There are close to 250 employees dedicated to the three teams that make up Waltrip Racing. One of the most vital groups within this organization is the engineering groups for each race team. The engineering groups actually make the race cars. Within each race team there are 50 people dedicated to the engineering group. These 50 people are broken down into 5 groups: painters, administration, maintenance, travel, and collaboration. Each group plays an important role in making sure their team reaches success. If the car is not functioning properly then the driver will surely fail. The first people to meet are the administrators. This group of 15 determines how the car will look, what parts will be used, how it will be assembled and the time frame it should take (Waltrip, 2011). The next step is to send the car on to the maintenance team. There are 15 people responsible for the actual hard work. 5 people will start with the body. This process starts from scratch. The metal is cut, shaped and then assembled into the body of the car. Once they finish the car moves to the 5 people who make up the engine team. This team will put together the engine, test the engines durability, and make any adjustments to help ensure a fair and clean win. Once the body is complete and the engine is added, the remaining 5 people put the shocks in place, and add all other car components. If just one bolt is loose, then a life is in danger (Waltrip, 2011). The next group to take over is the travel group. This team consists of 5 people; 2 drivers in the truck and then 3 people who follow behind. They make sure that the car, spare parts, and anything else that may be needed on race day arrives to the track safe and sound. While this sounds like an easy task, it is one of the most meticulous tasks. This group must make sure that there are enough spare parts, the parts are in great condition, they are located in specific areas, and that the truck does not reach maximum weight allowance (Waltrip, 2011).

Waltrip Racing & Small Group Communication

The last group that is responsible for the make-up of the car is the collaboration group. Communication is vital to any teams success, but is particularly important for the collaboration group because their role is to coordinate all of the tasks among each of the engineering subgroups to ensure everything is completed with precision. If the group members do not know what is going on and who is responsible for each task/role then chaos could occur, people could lose faith in one another, distrust may arise, and this could ultimately lead to a loss. By having this group in place a sense of accountably is created, because everyone within each engineering subgroup is informed about what is going on around them. It is so easy to get caught up in small tasks. The collaboration groups ultimate goal is to coordinate all of the engineering subgroups efforts and to keep people focused on the end goal; a win. Within each group every small detail must be inspected, because of rules, regulations, and the safety of others. If one bolt is not screwed to the exact point, or miscommunication from one group to another occurs, then there is a greater chance the car will wreck, the team will lose the race, or worse injury or death could occur. Trust and clear communication is vital and the collaboration group is responsible for its maintenance. (Adams, 2011). To help build trust, in addition to the collaboration group, Michael Waltrip Racing created a transparent environment within his organization. Everyone from the tour guide to the drivers are respected and treated as equals. There are windows and open spaces throughout the entire factory so that spectators, fans, and other employees are able to see what is occurring at any given point in time. Even the tour guide was able to break the cost of each car, how much the company would make if they won, and how winnings were divided amongst the employees. This organization is a family, where they all understand the goal and receive rewards if the goal is reached (Adams, 2011). Another unique feature of Waltrip racing is the lack of diversity. This is a boys club and not many women can be found. Out of the multiple engineering groups there were only 2 women employees and all of them were Caucasian. Most people who work for Waltrip Racing have a family member or knew someone in the racing world, making it a very exclusive, cohesive group (Waltrip, 2011).

Small Group Concepts Applied to Michael Waltrip Racing Teams Phases of Group Development: Forming, Storming and Norming Due to the exclusivity of the NASCAR industry, the group development phase is short-circuited. The norming phase has occurred long before any small group has been formed. One crucial norm that is required in

Waltrip Racing & Small Group Communication

NASCAR is the time commitment necessary by each team member during the NASCAR season. The engineering employees and their families are well aware of the extensive time commitment that they are required to provide, specifically Monday through Thursday. There is very little room for lack of conformity because the norms are already established prior to a person joining the engineering teams. Despite these restrictions, NASCAR positions are coveted and team members gladly sacrifice in order to participate on this team (Harris & Sherblom, 2011, p. 56-62). Storming rarely occurs in the engineering group because of the relationships that have been established outside of the group environment. An example of this occurred on our tour of the facility. Our engineering tour guide, Dale, explained how he received his job. He started visiting the facility when they first opened it to the public. He was retired and he would hang out at the Waltrip Racing Facility all day several times a week. Occasionally, he would talk to the engineering group when they took their breaks, but mostly he watched them work. Sometimes, members of the different teams would explain processes to him and ask him if he had any questions. After he had been visiting the shop for over a year, they decided to start actually giving tours of the facility. The engineering group suggested that they ask Dale if he was interested in being a tour guide. Once he accepted the position and was officially a member of the Waltrip Family, very little storming occurred because he had already established a relationship with the engineering group prior to being hired (Harris & Sherblom, 2011, p. 59-60). Short circuiting the group phase cycle places enormous pressure on individuals in the group to conform (Harris & Sherblom, 2011, p. 84). There is very little hostility or discomfort that occurs inside the small group teams because of this pressure. It is easy to see Critical Theory at play here as the norms are reified through the employees families, peer groups and then again within their engineering small group. Additionally, Systems Theory provides us and understanding about how the engineering group functions within a complex NASCAR industry. If it were not for the interdependency of the engineering subgroups the intensity necessary on each task (building of the chase, testing of the engine, shaping of the body, development of the materials, etc.) could not occur. Furthermore, interdependency is evident in the design of the facility. It is a wide open warehouse with small areas set up for each engineering subgroup. The open space allows everyone access to see what each group is doing or working on at any given moment. Finally, specialization is another example of interdependence. The workers within the engineering group have very specialized duties to perform. The painting engineers do not work with the maintenance engineers. Instead the maintenance group relies on the painting group to have their product complete before their task can begin. It is the interdependence of the engineering group that allows milliseconds to be trimmed from overall finish times.

Waltrip Racing & Small Group Communication

The lack of a true group development process ensures that the engineering group and subgroups continues to function efficiently on very strict timelines. However, by short circuiting this valuable process, Michael Waltrip Racing is preventing new ideas and group leaders from emerging.

Cohesion Cohesion is defined by Schwarz and Schwarz as the degree to which a person feels attracted to a group (Schwarz & Schwarz, 2007). Additional theorists defined cohesion as the degree a member is committed to the group and a force that binds members together in the group. (Griffin, 2005; Keyton & Springsteen, 1990). The greatest driving small group force that Michael Waltrip Racing has established is cohesion. The small groups that exist in the engineering group are very cohesive. It is easy to see this when you watch them working. There is very little discussion that occurs. Each member is keenly aware of the goal and they each conduct their task with little verbal communication. Instead the groups rely on nonverbal gestures such as pointing, and head nodding in agreement. To further understand cohesion and Michael Waltrip Racing the following four factors of cohesion will be explored: size, background, satisfaction, social aspects (Harris & Sherblom, 2011). The first factor is the size of the group (Harris & Sherblom, 2011). The engineering team subgroups are very small with approximately 5-15 people in each group. The small subgroups help to contribute to overall cohesion. The second factor is the background of the team members (Harris & Sherblom, 2011). Members typically know each other before they are assigned to a team. They grew up in similar areas, went to the same schools, and know each others families. The third factor is satisfaction with tasks performed (Harris & Sherblom, 2011). Due to the exclusivity of NASCAR, new race team members are excited to be a part of the group. For this reason, even menial tasks are completed with ease and satisfaction. As we observed the engineering group all members took turns sweeping the shop floor, sanding pieces of metal and stripping paper or glue from materials. All of the tasks were done with no discussion, griping or avoidance. Additionally, the trust that has been established in the engineering group increases satisfaction. Each member trusts that the other members are working with them toward a common goal. This trust has been built into the culture of Michael Waltrip Racing based on the transparent environment that the organization maintains. In addition to trust, the concept of equifinality is apparent within the satisfaction with tasks performed factor. Because of the groups cohesiveness, members trust that the end goal will be reached even though they

Waltrip Racing & Small Group Communication

might each accomplish it in different ways. For example, during our observation period two group members where stripping brown paper from a piece of sheet metal. One group member was neatly slicing and scraping the paper off of the metal in rows. The other team member was striping the paper by scrapping his tool in a diagonal pattern. Both had different approaches, but they both finished the task in roughly the same amount of time generating the same result. The fourth and final factor is contentment with social aspects of the group (Harris & Sherblom). Because the group works together closely, they have similar backgrounds they also have similar ideas of fun. Typical small groups spend a lot of social time together both in and outside of work. However, the social context of a small group can actually become a detriment to the groups work performance. When a group is too cohesive social loafing can occur. Additionally, cohesive groups can mask social loafing in order to prevent the group from being terminated or reformed (Harris & Sherblom, 2011, p. 57). While conducting the ethnographic analysis, it was apparent that social loafing was a concern. Although, it was the week before the Daytona 500, one of the subgroups was huddled together. The group appeared to be deep in discussion. However, after watching them for several minutes it became clear that the group was viewing something on another members cell phone. Once they realized they were being watching they dispersed, albeit slowly, laughing and joking about the content of the mystery video. Cohesion is an important factor for the engineering group to function successfully. Using interdependence they are able to speed up their process and achieve a meticulous input, throughput and output system. If they can keep social loafing in check this area will continue to be a strength for Michael Waltrip Racing.

Lack of Diversity Out of the 16 engineering teams at Waltrip Racing, there is very little if any diversity. There are only two women in the entire department and everyone is Caucasian. This lack of diversity is due largely to the exclusive nature of the NASCAR industry. Although, this allows for easy and quick group cohesion it can cultivate a culture without new ideas or different points of view. Diversity brings different perspectives to a group allowing the group to solve complex problems easier and more efficiently. Regardless of how intelligent the group members are, intelligence does not guarantee that different points of view, or frames of reference will be utilized when deciphering problems and issues (Surowiecki, 2004, p. 44) The lack of diversity within the Michael Waltrip Racing engineering teams creates a huge disadvantage for the company as a whole. Furthermore, it can hinder the companys ability to handle outside environmental contexts.

Waltrip Racing & Small Group Communication

An example of an environmental context occurs each new season when NASCAR executives release new rules and vehicle specifications. A new rule put in place in 2011 was that drivers are allowed to push other race cars on the tracka technique known as bump drafting. The release of this information came only weeks away from the first race of the season, requiring race teams to strengthen the front and rear end of their vehicles while not exceeding the maximum weight mandated by NASCAR. If the race team is not equipped to handle this new context, because they are not diverse enough to recognize the openness of their individual system, then they become susceptible to environmental jolts which could have devastating consequences (e.g. fatal car crash, failing to qualify, losing miserably on race day).

Stereotypes Another aspect of diversity thats important to note are stereotypes (Harris & Sherblom). Unfortunately, each group in the Michael Waltrip Racing team fulfills the stereotypes of NASCAR. It is known that NASCAR is a Caucasian male dominated industry and some may even say the sport is filled with rednecks as fans and workers. As we all know, stereotyping can be very damaging to a group. Since, each group realizes the assumptions about NASCAR it is hard for Waltrip Racing to fulfill its mission statement: To be unique a organization driven by performance, rooted in tradition and focused on delivering to our partners a personal connection with fans through innovation and entertainment (Roenigk, 2010). In order for Michael Waltrip Racing to truly be a unique organization it needs to break down the barriers regarding stereotypes and diversity in the racing industry.

Group Think Lack of diversity can also create group think. Janis defines group think as the strong concurrent seeking tendency among group members that leads to a deterioration in their decision-making process (1972; 1982). If you review Michael Waltrips Racing record since the companys inception in 2002, they have won very few races and in 2007 the team was plagued with disaster when three teams did not qualify for the Winston Cup Race. Although they have come back and won several since then, their winning record is not consistent (Caraviello, 2008). Due to the lack of diversity and extremely cohesive group environments, group think is a plausible explanation as to the inconsistent performance that Michael Waltrip Racing has experienced. Time constraints are another factor which can create group think. Every group within the organization is under constant pressure to build the right car, for the right track to win each race. Typical days for engineers are

Waltrip Racing & Small Group Communication

10

filled with meetings, testing equipments/race cars, and deadlines. Again, group members may fill pressure to go along and to get along allowing the group to fulfill the task in a timely manner. The decision making process is also greatly impacted by group think because outside experts or new opinions are not consulted on a regular basis. Group think proves to be a major hurdle that the engineering groups in the Michael Waltrip Racing team needs to overcome in order to increase innovative solutions.

Conclusion Michael Waltrip Racing is an organization that is meticulous to their operational system. The engineering group pays specifically close attention to the efficiency and production quality during the input, throughput and output of the system. People are risking their lives on the track; therefore, the engineering group works extraordinarily hard to ensure that everything is done correctly. The engineering group has been able to achieve these efficiencies by being an extremely cohesive and heralding trust and synergy as key values. Despite these positive qualities, Michael Waltrip Racing is preventing innovation due to their lack of diversity and their willingness to conform to stereotypes. Furthermore, by short circuit the group development process, they unknowingly create a breeding ground for group think; ultimately hurt their goal of trimming milliseconds off their race times. In order to be a highly successful group which is able to achieve extraordinary results, Michael Waltrip Racing must embrace diversity in order to achieve their mission: To be unique a organization driven by performance, rooted in tradition and focused on delivering to our partners a personal connection with fans through innovation and entertainment. By embracing diveristy, the normal group development process will occur, different points of view will emerge and true innovation will carry them to the winners circle.

Waltrip Racing & Small Group Communication

11

References:

Adams, L. (February, 2011). Michael Waltrip Racing Staff, Personal Interview.

Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. (1968). General Systems Theory.

Caraviello, D. (May 28, 2009). Waltrip team evolves from laughingstock to winner. NASCAR.com. Retrieved: http://www.nascar.com/2009/news/headlines/cup/05/28/mwaltrip.finding.success.owner/index.html.

Eisenberg, E.M., Goodall, H.L., Jr., & Trethewey, A. (2010). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint (6th Edition). Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.

Waltrip Racing & Small Group Communication

12

Griffin, R. W. (2005). Management. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Harris, T. & Sherblom, J., (2011). Small group and team communication (5th Edition). Boston: Pearson.

Janis, I. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Keyton, J. & Springsteen, J. (1990). Redefining cohesiveness in groups. Small Group Research. 21(2), 234-254.

Roenigk, A. (Nov. 17, 2010). Big fish meets big pond. ESPN.com. Retrieved: http://espn.go.com/action/fmx/news/story?page=pastrana-on-nascar-roenigk-1011

Schwarz, A. &Shwarz, C. (2007). The role of latent beliefs and group cohesion in predicting group decision support systems success. Small Group Research, 38(1), 1955-229.

Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Doubleday.

Waltrip Facility Tour. Personal Interview. 8 Feb. 2011.