Jackie Jordan is the regional manager of a state human services agency that provides job training and rehabilitation programs for the hearing impaired. Her duties include supervising counselors as well as developing special programs. One of the difficulties that Jackie has had was with a project supervisor, Kathleen O’Shean. Kathleen is the coordinator of a three-year federal grant for a special project for the hearing impaired. Kathleen has direct responsibility for the funds and the goals of the project. The federal agency that made the grant made continuance of the three-year grant conditional on some “demonstrated progress” toward fulfilling the purpose of the grant. Jackie’s problem with Kathleen was directly related to this proviso. She repeatedly requested that Kathleen develop some concrete goals for the grant project. Jackie wanted these goals written in a specific, observable, and measurable fashion. Kathleen continually gave Jackie very vague, nonmeasurable platitudes. Jackie, in turn, kept requesting greater clarification, but Kathleen’s response was that the work that was being done was meaningful enough and took all her time. To take away from the work itself by writing these specific goals would only defeat the purpose of the grant. Jackie finally gave up and didn’t push the issue further. One year later the grant was not renewed by the federal government because the program lacked “demonstrated progress.” 

Question

1. Do you think Jackie was right in requesting more specific goals from Kathleen? Why or why not? 

2. Do you think the federal government would have been satisfied with the goal-setting approach that Jackie was pushing as a way to demonstrate progress? 3. Would you have handled the situation differently if you were Jackie? How?