Business proposal for case study

8B13C022

Teaching Note

SKILLSFORTOMORROW: A MANAGEMENT TEAM IN CRISIS

Steven D. Charlier and Martin M. Brennan wrote this teaching note as an aid to instructors in the classroom use of the case SkillsForTomorrow: A Management Team in Crisis, No. 9B13C022. This teaching note should not be used in any way that would prejudice the future use of the case. This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without the permission of the copyright holder. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights organization. Copyright © 2013, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation Version: 2013-06-26

SYNOPSIS The SkillsForTomorrow (SFT) case presents a common scenario in management consulting — a client/sponsor who may be unwilling to hear what you (the consultant) have to say! The student is placed in the role of Martina Jones, a management consultant who has been hired to fix the “morale” issues at an SFT location in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. SFT is a government-sponsored organization tasked with helping at-risk young adults gain vocational training toward preparing them for a successful career in one of several areas, including automotive and machine repair, construction, health care and information technology. The program provides support to students beyond technical training, including the development of interpersonal skills, problem-solving skills and skills in effectively conducting a job search and interview — all towards the goal of graduating individuals that are prepared to live independently and become productive citizens (and taxpayers). The case provides detailed information on the performance of the location relative to benchmarks and peers. Notes from a series of interviews with SFT management, along with some brief survey results, are also provided at the end of the case. From this information, it should become evident that there are several factors influencing the morale of the SFT management team, some of which point directly at the sponsor of the consulting project: Ted Alvarez, the executive director at SFT Harrisburg. The primary tasks for students are to discern what the root causes are for the management discord, and to derive a solution that can help solve these various issues. The context for the scenario — a management consulting engagement — is also an important and unique aspect of the case, as the student will need to consider the political and interpersonal aspects of the consulting relationship between Jones and Alvarez in their analysis and solution development.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES There are two central learning objectives for the case study:

Page 2 8B13C022 1. To analyze and diagnose task and interpersonal conflict that is detrimental to team/organizational

performance, and then develop solutions. 2. To understand the unique aspects of the client-consultant relationship, and how these can impact the

formulation and delivery of consulting recommendations. Beyond these main objectives, there are several auxiliary learning objectives for the case. While any discussion of the case will focus on the two central learning objectives, the level of emphasis on any of the following sub-objectives can vary based on the course, instructor and student population: 1. To analyze the management structure of an organization and develop recommendations for change

that allow for better coordination and communication among management teams. 2. To explore the issues related to in-groups and out-groups within a team, along with perceived

favoritism on the part of influential individuals. 3. To understand the complexities of data analysis and interpretation within organizations. 4. To explore the potential problems that can be caused by “inter-office romances” and to discuss how

HR policies can best be implemented to handle these situations. USE OF THE CASE The case was initially designed for a graduate-level course in management consulting, within an overall program focused on organizational leadership. However, the case can also potentially be used in both upper-end undergraduate-level and graduate-level courses in management, organizational behavior or teams. The issues and context for the case align well with the general topic areas of teams, leadership, conflict, collaboration and communication. In terms of timing within a given course, this will vary based on the level of the students. At a minimum, students will need to have a basic understanding of consulting processes and methodologies prior to engaging in the case study — an overview of a general consulting process is provided in Exhibit TN-1. For undergraduate students, the case study may best be used as a capstone-type case study within a course on teams or organizational behavior, as the issues covered in the case span a variety of topic areas. For graduate students, use of the case earlier in the course schedule may be appropriate, if students generally have sufficient work experience that relates to the issues at hand. Again, the case may also serve as a capstone for courses in general organizational behavior or with a focus on teams or leadership. RECOMMENDED READINGS Below are a number of outside readings that are pertinent to the context and issues featured in the case study, some of which are referenced within this teaching note: K.M. Eisenhardt, J.L. Kahwajy and L.J. Bourgeois, “How management teams can have a good fight,” Harvard Business Review, 75, 1997, pp. 77-86. J.R. Katzenbach, “The myth of the top management team,” Harvard Business Review, 75, 1997, pp. 82- 92. P. Lencioni, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, 2002.

Page 3 8B13C022 S.J. Mantel, Jr., J.R. Meredith, S.M. Shafer and M.M. Sutton, Project Management in Practice, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2011. J.G. Michel and D.C. Hambrick, “Diversification posture and top management team characteristics,” Academy of Management Journal, 35, 1992, pp. 9-37. E.H. Schein, Process Consultation, Vol. II, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1987. P. Wickham and L. Wickham, Management Consulting: Delivering an Effective Project, 3rd ed., Financial Times/Prentice Hall, Essex, England, 2008. PREPARATION FOR CLASS DISCUSSION Prior to class discussion, there are several questions related to the central learning objectives of the case that may be posed to students. These align with the proposed organization of the classroom discussion in the following section: 1. How does management consulting work? What is the role of the management consultant in this

particular situation? 2. What are the main issues facing the SFT Harrisburg team of directors? What are the root causes of

these issues? 3. How would you characterize Alvarez as a leader? 4. What recommendations would you make to help improve the situation? 5. If you were Martina Jones, specifically how would you approach the Monday-afternoon meeting with

the directors? What would you do before, during and after the briefing with the directors? 6. Is an off-site retreat advisable at this time? If so, what would be the focus of the retreat? Specifically,

how would you organize the retreat? Additional questions that can be asked of students (either prior to the discussion or within the classroom discussion) are as follows: 1. What is your interpretation of the performance data for SFT Harrisburg in case Exhibits 1 and 2? Is

SFT Harrisburg doing a “good job” or not? 2. Is the current management structure at SFT Harrisburg effective? Why or why not? 3. Are there in-groups and out-groups within the team of directors at SFT Harrisburg? If so, what are

they? Is the relationship between Alvarez and Nelson an issue? Again, the level of emphasis on the second group of questions will vary from class to class. While these aspects of the case should not be completely ignored, the instructor may choose to emphasize some areas over others based on the goals of the discussion and/or the placement of the case within the overall course. Potential answers to these questions are also discussed within the following section on the organization of the classroom discussion.

Page 4 8B13C022 ORGANIZATION OF CLASS DISCUSSION The following is one potential means of organizing the in-class discussion of the case within a 90-minute class period. A recommended structure for the overall set of boards for the classroom discussion is provided in Exhibit TN-2. Overview of the case and the major players (5 minutes) It may be useful to have a list of the directors/roles (including Jones, the consultant) on a board prior to the start of class. This will be helpful later in the discussion, as the various in- and out-groups are discussed, along with the interpersonal conflicts that are evident among the directors. This time is perhaps best used to ensure that students are familiar with the central figures in the case, and the context in which Jones/Hancher Consulting was asked to provide consulting services. ANALYSIS 1. How does management consulting work? What is the role of the management consultant in

this particular situation? (10 minutes) Beyond the overview of the context for the case, it is important for students to understand the unique environment within which consultants apply their craft. If the consulting process has not been covered prior to class, this is an opportunity to review the process as described in Exhibit TN-1. It should be noted that at the time of the case, Jones/Hancher Consulting is approaching the eighth step in the process (delivery). But it is also worth mentioning that the addition of the off-site retreat to the statement of work would require a shift back to step three (preliminary analysis). Additionally, it is probably worthwhile to discuss the various roles that a consultant can assume on a given consulting project. Schein (1987) proposed three basic modes for consulting: Expert The consultant uses their expertise in a given area to propose solutions to a problem as

identified by the client. Doctor-Patient Akin to healthcare, this mode is similar to “expert” mode, except that the

consultant is also tasked with identifying and diagnosing the problem(s) for the client. Process Consulting This mode works under the assumption that the best people to solve an

organization’s problems are the individuals within the organization. Thus, the consultant’s role is as a facilitator of change, rather than as the owner of problem identification and solution development.

While it should be clear that Jones’s role at SFT does not easily fall into the third mode, students may debate whether the “expert” role or the “doctor-patient” role best characterizes the current situation. From the case, it appears that Alvarez views the role of Jones/Hancher Consulting as an “expert”; however, Jones may be perceived as viewing the engagement as more of a “doctor-patient” role, based on the information collected from the interviews. This notion will be revisited later in the discussion. 2. What are the main issues facing the SFT Harrisburg team of directors? What are the root

causes of these issues? (20 minutes)

Page 5 8B13C022 Again, two boards should be used to capture the issues and root causes from the ensuing discussion. In short, students should identify several areas of concern on the part of Alvarez and others at SFT Harrisburg. In turn, these identified issues can be tied to various root causes at multiple levels of the organization. One recommendation for discussing the potential issues to be identified and analyzed is to start at the organizational level, and work through the issues in a “big-to-small” fashion. If the class starts at the organizational level (related to “optional” question #1 from the prior section), a student will undoubtedly suggest that the organization’s performance is lacking — clearly, Alvarez would agree! But this perspective is not shared among the directors, as the interview notes suggest that several of the directors do not believe that the Harrisburg office is in danger of losing its charter. The data are purposefully vague in this regard, as well — while the location is clearly not a high performer relative to its peers, SFT Harrisburg is meeting most of its performance benchmarks (as shown in Exhibit 2 of the case). A review of the rankings data in Exhibit 1 of the case also seems to support the opinions of the directors — many of the locations that lost their charter in the prior six years were “repeat offenders” as very low-performing units, finishing in the bottom three for more than one year. Given this, while the mediocre past performance of SFT Harrisburg is still a valid point of debate for the classroom, this scenario allows for discussion along two points. The first is simple — managers do not always have all of the optimal information to make informed decisions. The second point is a bit more complex — if the location truly is not in danger of losing its charter, what then is Alvarez’s motivation in driving higher metrics? A brief discussion on goals and motivation could be had at this point — one potential explanation is that Alvarez (as a newly appointed executive director) is keen to “make a name” for himself within the overall SFT organization. Nevertheless, it may be suggested that more information should be gathered on this topic for further analysis — a “parking lot” board should be used for this and other aspects of the case that require more fact-finding. In regards to the second “optional” question listed in the prior section, some potential issues in regards to the organizational structure may also arise during this portion of the class discussion. First, most of the directors report directly to Alvarez, while others report to other directors within the top management team (TMT). Second, the size of the staff beneath each of the directors varies greatly (ranging from two to over 40). Both of these points may have implications for perceptions of power and influence within the TMT. Third, given the issues with teamwork and collaboration, a student may suggest that sub-groups be formed among directors with related job functions (e.g., business functions, educational/student service functions, etc.). There is no clear “right” answer in this regard, but a conversation around the potential benefits and costs of smaller working groups within this overall structure may be worthwhile. Related to the previous issue and per “optional” question #3, it seems clear that there are several troublesome relationships between individual directors (e.g., Fen and Rasmussen/Cummings, Coldwell and Steele, Wong and Johnson). Likewise, several directors suggested that Alvarez has created an in- group with the female directors on the TMT. It may be helpful to use the board in Exhibit TN-2 to outline the various relationships that seem to be problematic. It should also be noted during this discussion that two of the three female directors joined the Harrisburg office at the same time as Alvarez and had worked extensively with him during his previous tenure at the Tidewater office. While diving into the “problem dyads” within the TMT may not be the best use of time, it is indicative of a larger issue of a lack of collaboration and trust across the entire team. The notion of in-groups and out-groups should be fully explored during the class discussion. Finally, there is the potential issue of the relationship between Alvarez and Nelson (optional question #3). While this can be covered within the context of the overall discussion of problematic relationships at SFT

Page 6 8B13C022 Harrisburg, instructors may wish to delve deeper into both the HR and OB ramifications of a romantic relationship between a supervisor and employee. It is not stated whether SFT has any regulations in place regarding these types of relationships (given that it is a government entity, the answer is assuredly “yes”). From an OB perspective, the relationship between Alvarez and Nelson is clearly having an impact on the directors’ perceptions of fairness and inclusivity. Thus, for both of these reasons, it is an issue that needs to be dealt with. 3. How would you characterize Alvarez as a leader? (10 minutes) Having gone through the previous discussion of issues at SFT, students will likely be quite negative towards Alvarez’s performance as executive director thus far. While Alvarez is certainly not the perfect manager, the instructor should facilitate the conversation to include positive attributes that Alvarez has displayed within the case (e.g., energy, determination, ability to make tough decisions). Among other things, it should be noted that Alvarez has replaced a beloved and long-standing executive director in Herbert Brooks — a hard act to follow! Some of the recommendations for change from students will likely point directly at Alvarez, but having the students reflect on how they would react to being in Alvarez’s situation should prove fruitful. 4. What recommendations would you make to help improve the situation? (15 minutes) Once all of the issues and root causes are documented on the boards, students should be asked to recommend solutions to these problem areas. Up to this point, the conversation has stayed at a somewhat clinical/diagnostic level, but this is where the aspects of the client-consultant relationship should start to enter the discussion. The reality of the situation is that Jones, as a consultant, must be mindful of preserving the relationship with Alvarez in providing her recommendations. There are two potential strategies for how to handle this part of the class discussion — both can be effective, and both should lead to the same result. One strategy is to remind the students at the start of this portion of the discussion that they should be mindful of Jones’s role within the case, and should consider how Alvarez will view the recommendations (or, for that matter, the issues uncovered in Hancher Consulting’s research). A second strategy is to remain silent on this issue, until either a student raises a concern or until all recommendations have been vetted by the class. In the latter case, student recommendations may take on a new light once students are reminded of the circumstances facing Jones. It may be that several recommendations will require some re-thinking, once this revelation is made. Because of the nature of the issues and the complexity of the situation, there is no single “right” answer to solving these issues at SFT (with the possible exception of the relationship between Alvarez and Nelson, although even this may be debated among students). It is suggested that the class develop a set of recommendations via dialogue and consensus, whereby the instructor remains somewhat in the background of the conversation. However, care should be taken to ensure that all identified issues/root causes are covered by the set of recommendations developed by the classroom participants. 5. If you were Martina Jones, specifically how would you approach the Monday-afternoon

meeting with the directors? What would you do before, during and after the briefing with the directors? (15 minutes)

Page 7 8B13C022 Armed with a set of issues and recommendations, students may immediately jump to planning for the afternoon briefing with the directors (including Alvarez). Two things should result from this portion of the discussion. First, a strategy for the presentation to the directors is clearly needed — how the results of the consulting work are portrayed to the directors is an important consideration. Jones should be careful not to alienate any of the directors during this presentation, and the discussion should remain at a reasonably high level (without pointing the finger directly at any individual director, including Alvarez). A discussion can be had at this point around the ethical requirements for a consultant — how forthright should Jones be in her divulging of the interview and survey data? Is it unethical for Jones to withhold some of her findings at this point? While it should be made clear that outright lying is not the proper course of action, it may be prudent for Jones to reserve some of her findings for a less public venue. The particular facets of the issues/recommendations outlined by the class that are worth scrutiny in this regard may vary from one class to another, and it will be up to the instructor to facilitate this aspect of the discussion as they deem appropriate. Nevertheless, a second important consideration for Jones at this point is meeting with Alvarez prior to the presentation to the directors. While Jones attempted to have a conversation with Alvarez on the prior Friday, she was not able to provide an overview of the findings to Alvarez at that time. Springing this information onto Alvarez in a meeting with all of the other directors present will be a recipe for disaster. According to Mantel, Jr., Meredith, Shaffer and Sutton,1 one should “never let the boss be surprised.” This is clearly a case where the manager (Alvarez) should be duly informed of the results of the consultants’ research prior to the afternoon briefing. This will not only help to preserve the relationship between Alvarez and Jones going forward, but Alvarez can also assist Jones in framing the presentation appropriately for the audience in the afternoon briefing. While Jones does run the risk of fracturing the relationship with Alvarez before the briefing is even held, that risk is much greater if Alvarez is caught unaware in the meeting with the directors. 6. Is an off-site retreat advisable at this time? If so, what would be the focus of the retreat?

Specifically, how would you organize the retreat? (10 minutes) Alvarez is clearly keen on holding an off-site retreat. While the retreat will likely not solve all of the issues exhibited at SFT, some benefits can be gained from a properly structured program of activities aimed at increasing the level of trust and communications within the TMT. The experience of the authors has been that most students will suggest that an off-site retreat be held. Thus, the focus of this aspect of the discussion will be on the last two questions listed above. Students can brainstorm the types of activities and the general structure/goals of the retreat — for graduate students, participants may be able to draw on prior experiences with team-building activities. In the end, students should derive some very clear goals/objectives for the retreat that tie directly to the issues outlined earlier in the discussion. Wrap-up (5 minutes) To conclude the discussion, the instructor can begin by recapping the issues and recommendations that were developed by the students over the course of the class period. Key points that should be addressed in the wrap-up include the following:

1 S.J. Mantel, Jr., J.R. Meredith, S.M. Shafer and M.M. Sutton, Project Management in Practice, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2011, p. 49.

Page 8 8B13C022 Dysfunction in teams can stem from a variety of sources — personality, organizational structure,

task-related conflict, misaligned goals and more. Leaders can have a particularly important role in team function, both positively and negatively. There are no quick fixes for poor team dynamics — issues with trust, communication and

collaboration take time to resolve. In regards to consulting, the client-consultant relationship is crucial to any engagement, and can

heavily influence how and what a consultant communicates to a client. The delivery of “bad news” to a client (or boss) requires careful consideration.

EPILOGUE Prior to the briefing with the directors, Jones was able to meet with Alvarez and provide an overview of Hancher Consulting’s findings. Alvarez was visibly shocked by some of the information, particularly around his perceived relationship with Nelson and the impressions of an “inner circle” with Alvarez. Alvarez did ask Jones to keep the comments on his relationship with Nelson out of the afternoon presentation, but otherwise gave the green light to report the other findings. In the afternoon briefing, Jones elected to focus her presentation on high-level issues with the team (lack of trust, communication and coordination, along with a lack of understanding on how all of the various components of the organization work together). Any individual issues or specific relationship issues between two directors were not openly discussed. During the meeting, it was agreed that an off-site weekend meeting would be held, with the focus being on the high-level issues listed previously. It was also agreed that Jones would facilitate the off-site meeting, and the contract with Hancher was amended accordingly. At the off-site meeting (held several weeks after the initial briefing), the directors went through a series of exercises focused on open communication, honest feedback and the Five Dysfunctions of a Team text (Lencioni, 2002). At the culmination of the two-day meeting, the directors were asked to sit in a circle and write answers to the following questions for each of their colleagues on the management team: What is the person’s single most important behavioral quality that contributes to the strength of the

team? What is the person’s single most important behavioral quality that detracts from the strength of the

team? Responses were collected anonymously and distributed to each of the directors. After reading their feedback, directors were asked to share their feedback with the group and discuss what they had learned from this process. The result was a surprisingly candid and honest appraisal of where each of the directors excelled, and where they could improve. At the time of writing the case, the long-term effects of this intervention were not fully known; however, the lingering effects of a perceived “in-group” with Alvarez remained, even after the off-site meeting. How Alvarez and the rest of the management team at SFT Harrisburg would fare in removing these impediments to team performance remained a work in progress. Nevertheless, the consulting engagement with SFT was completed to the satisfaction of Alvarez, and follow-on work between Hancher Consulting and SFT Harrisburg was commencing.

Page 9 8B13C022

EXHIBIT TN-1: CONSULTING PROCESS

Source: Adapted from P. Wickham and L. Wickham, Management Consulting: Delivering an Effective Project, 3rd edition, Pearson Education Limited, Essex, England, 2008.

Initial contact

Decision to work together

Preliminary analysis

Formal proposal

Project charter

In-depth analysis

Implementation

Delivery

Follow-up

Page 10 8B13C022

EXHIBIT TN-2: BOARD STRUCTURE FOR START OF CLASS DISCUSSION

Key Personnel Issues Root Causes Solutions Ted Alvarez – Executive Director

Lucinda Smith – HR

Jake Rasmussen – Outreach

Yu Fen – Bus Ops

Nancy Cummings – Career Services

Walter Blackmon – Dean

Sidney Johnson – Res Life

Ralph Coldwell – Security/Transportation

Andy Wong – Student Education

Melinda Nelson – General Education

Nora Steele – Health/Wellness Martina Jones – Hancher Consulting

Monday Morning Strategy

Off-site Retreat

Source: Created by author.