Background Data: The Bonner case concerns a large manufacturing organization. It deals with the efforts of David Bell, an internal staff person, in responding to a request for assistance from Alan Kane, the manager of the companys engineering laboratory. Alan is one of six engineering managers who report to Tom Bonner, vice president for engineering. The telephone rang. It was Alan Kane. The conversation went something like this. Alan: Ive got a problem, Dave. I think you can help me with this one. Dave: What happened, Alan? Is Bonner boiling over again? Alan: Something like that. Ive just come from Bonners staff meeting. He is very unhappy about our quarterly staff meetings. Bonner holds weekly meetings with his staff (six unit managers who report to him). Every three months, he also holds an expanded staff meeting which is at tended by all engineering management down to the first-line supervisors (about forty people). He has been using this expanded staff meeting to present general information concerning the companys financial health: the current business picture, new business plans, status of major programs, etc. Dave: Whats the matter with them? Alan: Bonner feels they are dull and unproductive. He feels that first-line supervisors have information needs that are not being met and that the current meeting format is off target. Dave: Do you agree? Alan: Yes, they are on the dull side. I think what started this flap was that at the last meeting Bonner scheduled some time for a question-and-answer period. The staff has discussed a number of things that are bugging people, such as arbitrary cuts in labor estimates that cause cost overruns, differences in pay levels between this and other divisions, rumors about impending layoffs, and so on. Bonner feels they may have a lot of misinformation on these subjects, and he felt a question-and-answer period would help to straighten things out. Well, a few questions were askednothing of any significance then there was an awkward silence. Bonner is unhappy about this. He wants something done. Dave: Did he tell you what he wanted? Alan: Not exactly. We discussed several ideas. None were acceptable. We ran out of time so it ended with my getting the job to present a proposal at the next meeting. Dave: Why you? Alan: Bonner knows Ive been working with you to revise my staff meeting format. He questioned me about what we have done. To make a long story short, I got the jobIm now a meeting expert. Dave: Your staff meeting and the quarterly meeting are not the same thing at all. Alan: Right. Thats why I want to get you on thistoday. Dave, Ive given you all the information I have. I want you to put together a proposal on this for me. Im really bogged down right now, but I can see you Wednesday. Dave: Hold it, Alan. I cant write a proposal in the dark. Ill need some data. Look, I dont think we can work this on the phone. Why dont I come over and well talk. Alan: Dave, Im really tied up for time. Ive told you all I know. This will be an easy one for you. Dave: Alan, if this were easy, you wouldnt have called me. Ill be glad to help, but we need to talk. Alan: OK. If you insist. Come over after lunch. Dave: How about 4:30? Ill need at least an hourmaybe morewith no phone calls, side meetings, or other interruptions. OK? Alan: OK. See you at 4:30. Dave met with Alan as agreed. He began by summarizing their telephone conversation. Alan has a flip chart in his office, so at the end of Daves brief summary, he walked up to the flip chart and wrote: OBJECTIVE: Create a meeting format that will speak to the information needs of our first-line supervisors. Dave: This is a one sentence summary of what I heard, right? Alan: Right. Thats about it. Dave: OK. Lets brainstorm some ways to do this. As they talked, Dave listed each item on the flip chart. They quickly came up with a dozen ideas. Then they went back over each item to test for feasibility. Time was the toughest factor to deal with. The quarterly staff meeting was two weeks off, leaving them little time for any data gathering from the first-line supervisors. One item, however, had possibilities. Dave underlined it on the flip chart: Ask first-line supervisors for agenda items that Bonner would speak to. Dave: With the time constraints we have, this is the only one we can work with. Do you agree? Alan: Yes. I think we can work with it. I like the logic. Its simple: If you want to speak to their information needs, a good place to start is to ask them what their information needs are. We learned something like this working with my staffremember? Dave and Alan discussed the pros and cons awhile and decided they would give this idea a try for several reasons. 1. It would ensure that they would be speaking to the information needs of the first-line supervisors (Bonners criterion). 2. It would provide a good test for Bonners notion that they have information needs we are not dealing with. 3. It wouldnt eat up a lot of the supervisors time. 4. It could be done in the time available. Dave: OK. This is a start. But I think we should consider some of the conditions Bonner and the staff will have to accept to give this approach a chance. Alan: Meaning what? Dave: Meaning we better spell out some ground rules. For example, answering questions takes time. Bonner will have to agree to spend the time required. Alan and Dave talked along these lines awhile. As they talked, Dave made notes on a flip chart. Their final list was as follows: 1. Staff must agree to spend time required. 2. There may be some tough questions. Bonner would have to agree to provide straightforward answers. 3.There would be no screening, editing, or elimination of any question submitted. 4. Each manager would have to agree to gather agenda items from his or her own people and turn them into Bonner one week before the meeting. This would have to be a firm deadline. At this point, they had been talking for about an hour and Alan suggested they call it a day. Alan: OK, Dave. I think we have it. There is enough here for you to write a proposal. Dave: Alan, we have a good start, but were not finished. We dont have time to go back and forth on this. More important, for me, is that this has to be your proposalnot mine. Alan: Look, Dave, you can take it from here. Write it up just the way we discussed it. We dont have to go back and forth with this. You can write it up and present it to the staff. Dave: Hold it. I thought I was working with you on this. If I present it, that puts me in the middle its a cant win position for me. Ill go to the staff meeting with you, if you like, but I think it would be a mistake for me to take the lead on this. Alan: Youre making a mountain out of a molehill. Dave: Maybe so, but my experience with Bonner tells me to be cautious. Look, we have an outline for a proposal. Lets do it now. Alan: We dont have a proposal. All we have is an outline. Dave: Right. I suggest you present it just as we developed it so you get some staff involvement. Alan: Wont that take a lot of time? Dave: The discussion will take a little time. But if this is as important as Bonner says it is, hell have to agree to spend some time with it. If he cant spend the time, lets put it off until he has the time. Alan: Youre playing with fire! Bonner expects a proposalin writing. Dave: We have a proposal. Lets write it down right now. Alan: OK. Lets get on with it. They wrote down their five-point proposal. 1. A general statement 2. Objectives (what they were trying to do) 3. Procedures (how they proposed to do it) 4. Ground rules (conditions that need to be understood and accepted) 5. Follow-up (how they would check on results). They agreed that Alan would present each of the items listed. They would be presented as points of departure for staff discussion, for a decision to be made after the discussion. Bonners staff meeting started on schedule. After the normal staff meeting agenda was completed, Alan started his presentation. Alan: At the last meeting, I was asked to come up with a new format for our quarterly staff meeting. Ive asked Dave to help me with this and we have a proposal for your consideration. It may be best to start with a statement of the goal we used to guide our thinking. Alan distributed the first sheet. OBJECTIVE: Create a meeting format that will speak to the information needs of our first- line supervisors. Alan: This is what I heard at our last meeting. We assumed that some time would be used to present general program information as in past meetingssay, forty-five minutes for thisand the remainder of the meetingone hour or morewould be used in a question-and-answer session. Jim: Im not convinced we need a new format. Dave, what evidence do you have that a question- and-answer session is needed? Dave: I have no evidence. Jim: Then why are you proposing this? Dave: There may be some misunderstanding about my role in this project. I was asked to help Alan develop a new meeting format using this objective as one the staff had agreed on. If this is not so, we need to find out before we go on. Jim, I dont know if you need a new format. I thought you had already decided this . Bonner: No. That would take too long. Jim, I dont have any hard data on this. What I have is a gut feeling based on some information discussions. I want to try this as a test. I thought I heard agreement on this at our last meeting. Several staff members nodded in agreement. Dave: It is important, to me, that I not be seen as pushing for a change. I am not. I think it would be out of line or me to do so. I am here to answer any questions about the ideas Alan and I put together, which were based on this objective as a given. I need to hear a clear signal on this from all of you. Is this your objective? Staff: Agreed. Alan: OK. Using this statement as our goal, we developed a procedure to get at questions of concern to the first-line supervisors. Alan distributed the second sheet. PROCEDURE 1. Inform first-line supervisors that the next meeting will be in two parts: a. General program and new business data, and b. A question-and-answer session. 2. Agenda for the question-and-answer session will consist of questions submitted by the first- line supervisors. 3. No restriction on type of question. 4. Questions submitted will not be edited and none deleted. They will be placed on the agenda as submitted. 5. Bonner will speak to all questions submitted. Alan: Concerning the first and second items, I think we should tell it like it is: Bonner feels they have questions that need discussion. The staff agrees. We want to provide an opportunity for two-way discussion on questions of concern to them. Concerning the remaining items, are there any questions? Jim: Item 4 could cause all kinds of problems. If each person asked only two questions, this could add up to a hundred questions. Dave, did you think of that? Dave: Yes. We discussed it at length. The fact is discussion takes time. There is no way around it. We need to be clear on this. Unless the staff is prepared to spend the time needed, I would recommend against a question-and-answer format. Jim: Dave, how much time do you think it might take? Dave: I dont know. Jim: What would you do if the number of questions added up to a three-hour session? Dave: I would hand the problem back to the first-line supervisors. I would tell them, After looking over your questions, we have estimated a three-hour session. We are prepared to stay if you are. If they agree, there is no problem. If they think this is too long, fine - Id ask them what they want us to do. I think they should be told this is their session and that they will have to accept some responsibility for it. Bonner: I dont think well get three or four hours of questions. If we do, we can ask them to rank order the questions. We can then speak to as many as we can in an hour or so and schedule another meeting to deal with the remaining questions. Jim, I know there are some unknowns here, but I want to give this a try. Alan: We considered the time-consuming aspects of this. I think there will be some closely related questions and some duplications. I think the time needed will be manageable. Jim: I think we should screen the questions for duplications. Alan: We discussed screening and rejected it because of the possible bad impression. Screening will tell them, in effect, we want to answer your questions but well decide which questions to deal with. I dont think this is the impression we want to make. Jim: I agree. I didnt mean to eliminate any questions. I meant to group related questions and list them as submitted. Alan: Are you volunteering to do the grouping? Jim: I will if you will. Alan: OK. Jim and I will review the questions and group related questions. Dave: No eliminations? No rewording? Alan: Right. No eliminations. No changes. Dave: Do you all agree with this? Staff: Agreed. Bonner: OK. Lets get on with it. Ill expect each of you to get your questions into Jane by Friday. Jane will call Jim and Alan when they are all in and they can do the grouping. Alan: I have one more item. We discussed doing a follow-up check to get their reactions. We need to know if they see this as a useful exercise. Bonner: Dave, whats a fast way to do this? Dave: I can help Jim and Alan prepare a brief questionnaire they could complete at the end of the meeting. Bonner: Do you all agree with that? Staff: Agreed. Bonner: OK. Do it. Ill see you on Friday.

1) Discuss Daves role as the internal consultant and how he handled this situation?