Lisa, Steve, and Chen were feeling triumphant. Just 3 months ago, their company, Ryan Project Systems, had merged with Gierig Strategien AG, a consulting firm headquartered in Germany. At the time, they were optimistic about the merger; the two companies were equivalent in size and mission, and the merger would allow for a stronger global reach. Ryan was already one of the top project management firms in the United States and Asia, and the merger with Gierig added most of Europe to the mix.
However, shortly after the merger, they were a bit less enthusiastic. It seemed that there were a lot of people on the Ryan side that were being let go. Top management assured all employees that these personnel losses were simply a matter of reducing redundant positions—that the personnel changes that happened in the first month had “right-sized” the company and that the organization was now lean, competitive, and ready to become the premier project management organization in the world. Still, in their near daily conference calls, Steve (based in Charlotte, North Carolina) and Chen (based in Taiwan) frequently found time to catch up on the latest gossip of who was on the way out and who was on the way up. In one of their calls, Chen told Steve “Rumor has it Rajesh is being let go.”
“Wow! He was one of the people who actually led the integration! Do you think he knew he was actually planning for his . . . uh . . . ‘retirement’?,” Steve asked.
“Well, Rajesh is pretty smart,” Chen mused. “I can’t imagine he didn’t see this coming. He probably already has an exit plan. You know Rajesh, the next thing we know we’ll be getting a LinkedIn notification that he is now a VP at some tech firm.”
“I know we’re pretty low on the totem pole, but do you think we’re safe?” Steve asked.
“No one is safe,” Chen snorted. “But we have some pretty strong evidence of our return on investment. Plus, Lisa has all sorts of political connections on both sides of the merger. She’ll look out for us. We’re a strong team.”
Steve wanted to believe this, but his past experience had taught him to be wary. Just 5 years ago he had lost a position at a Fortune 500 company because of political maneuverings. One day he had a performance review that identified him as a high potential contributor, and the next day he was out of a job. He was lucky that he had strong networks, and Lisa created a position for him in her group because she knew what he was capable of.
Fast forward 3 months, and Lisa, Steve, and Chen had just completed a week-long consultation with a company in Barcelona. The Barcelona group was impressed with what the former Ryan employees could deliver, and the meeting concluded with a joint celebration that involved lots of cava and seafood. Lisa, Steve, and Chen were already planning their monthly visits as the project was completed, and they enthused that before the merger, their projects were more likely to bring them to boring cities in the American Midwest or polluted and povertystricken cities in India than the glittering cities of Europe.
After the trip, Steve returned to North Carolina, Chen returned to Taipei, and Lisa returned to New York. Just 3 days later, Steve received a phone call from Lisa. “We were wrong,” Lisa said.
“Uh, I’m not sure what you are talking about,” Steve replied.
“The decruitment is not over. More heads are rolling,” she said calmly.
“Is it finally some of the folks from the Gierig side?” Steve asked. “Seriously, I don’t know how they have such a large market share. So far I am not impressed with their processes.”
“Nope, not Gierig,” Lisa said. “Me.”
Steve was stunned. Their group had just brought in a six-figure contract, and Lisa had negotiated a great deal for the company. “What could they possibly be thinking?” he mused. He didn’t realize he had actually said it out oud until Lisa replied.
“They’re threatened. We just walked onto their turf and showed them up. They aren’t getting away with this,”
Lisa proclaimed. “I’m seeing a lawyer.”
Steve was on the phone with Chen 5 minutes later. Chen was ready to resign right then and there.
“We’re next,” she intoned morosely.
“Maybe,” Steve said, “But maybe not. We need to sit tight and see what happens next.”
What happened next was an announcement that their group would now report to Konrad Aulbach, who was the director of corporate Development and a long-term Gierig employee.
In their first conference call, Konrad asked Steve and Chen to create a report detailing their current projects. It seemed reasonable, so they had a quick conference call to plan their attack.
Chen asked, “Do you think he wants a formal report or just a PowerPoint presentation?”
“He said a report, so I guess we should take him on his word,” Steve replied.
“How much detail?”
“Well, he’s coming from corporate development, so he probably doesn’t know much about what we are doing on the ground. I’d rather give too much detail than too little,” Steve responded. Chen agreed. The two worked tirelessly on providing a detailed report for each project, specifying their processes and including timelines, budgets, and current status.
They sent their report 3 days later. They were pretty proud that they were able to pull together such a comprehensive report so quickly and also were impressed with all that they were juggling. They felt certain that Konrad would see them for the valuable employees that they were.
They heard nothing for 3 days, and then they received a blistering e-mail from Konrad:
I asked you to update me on your projects. I don’t have time to wade through all of this crap. I need you to tell me what you are actually working on right now.
Chen was annoyed, and Steve was frustrated. “If he just wanted an update, why did he ask for a report?” The two of them quickly conferred and sent back a joint e-mail that apologized for any misunderstanding and had bullet points for each of their current projects. Several days later they received another nasty e-mail:
I know what projects the company has under contract. What SPECIFICALLY are you doing? I don’t see much work coming from either of you.
“Well, that’s because we keep having to write reports for you,” Steve thought angrily. But again, he decided to take the high road. He prided himself on being a hard worker who was able to work with anyone. He reached out to Konrad to clarify what he meant by “not seeing much work” coming from them.
“I’m hearing complaints that you aren’t delivering on your promises,” Konrad told Steve.
Steve was stunned. He knew his clients were enthusiastic supporters of his work, and he had e-mails to prove it.
Who could possibly be saying that he wasn’t delivering on his promises? As tough as it was, Steve swallowed his pride.
“I’m very surprised to hear that. Can you please let me know who is unhappy so I can reach out to them and rectify the problem?” Steve asked.

“It’s not my job to babysit you,” Konrad said. “If you can’t even tell if your clients are dissatisfied, I’m not certain you have the skills to lead these sorts of projects.”
“What the . . . !” Steve silently thought. “This guy has no clue what he is talking about!”
Konrad continued, “Let me spell this out to you. I need you to tell me how you are spending your days so I can determine if our investment in you makes sense.”
Steve immediately called Chen after he got off the call with Konrad. He asked her if she had any intel on unhappy clients.
“I have no idea what he is talking about,” she concurred. They spent the rest of the phone call discussing each individual client they had worked with in the past 6 months, and could think of no one who could be interpreted as dissatisfied.
“Do you think it might be Marjie Adams?” Steve asked. Marjie had been one of his clients nearly a year before.
After the completion of the project, Marjie had a habit of calling Steve and Chen for answers to questions that they had already answered over and over again.
Steve decided that he would comply to Konrad’s request by creating a log of billable hours, but he also compiled all of the e-mails he had received from happy clients. He sent an email to Konrad:
I have attached an Excel file of billable hours. If this assists you in keeping track of my activities, I would be glad to continue to do so every week. I also have attached a series of e-mails from previous clients expressing their evaluation of my work. I would be happy to discuss with you any patterns you see that might indicate client dissatisfaction.
For several weeks, there was silence from Konrad, so Steve thought he may have finally put his boss’s misperceptions to rest. After all, in the tumultuous environment in which they worked, no news was good news, right? Nearly 2 months later, he received a request for a conference call with Konrad. They hadn’t talked since the call in which Konrad had accused him of not meeting client expectations. The call was scheduled for 9 a.m.
on a Friday.
Konrad said, “Steve, I want to let you know that human resources is on the phone with us right now. You are being terminated.”
Steve was both surprised and not surprised at the same time.
“Might you tell me the cause for my termination?” Steve asked.
Konrad ignored him. “Human resources will inform you about the paperwork for your termination,” he said and ended the call.
“What a gutmaggot,” Steve thought. “This company is going down the tubes if this is the way they are going to run it.”

Questions for Consideration
1. What attributions have Lisa, Steve, and Konrad made? Make sure to include information about consensus, consistency, and controllability.
2. What are the sources of uncertainty in the case? What strategies did Steve use to reduce his uncertainty?
3. Using examples for each of EVT’s core components (expectancy, violation valence, and communicator reward valence), how does EVT explain Steve’s response to Konrad?
4. Who experiences cognitive dissonance in the case, and why? Do you see any evidence that the characters have used selective exposure, selective attention, or selective interpretation?
5. What ethical issues arise in the case? Which theory or combination of theories might help to pinpoint or address any unethical behavior?
6. Which theory alone seems to provide the “best” explanation for the situation? Why do you believe this to be the case? What information might surface that would make a different theory or theories better at explaining the situation? How could you combine several theories to make for an even better explanation of the situation?