MOT, Inc. provides cloud-based software for customer relations management to small- and medium-sized firms in North America. In a little over a decade, the company has grown rapidly with annual revenue about $275 million and a workforce approaching 300 product development, sales, and support personnel. MOT has a strong entrepreneurial culture and informal structure with few rules and procedures. Its highly talented and relatively young workforce is afforded considerable freedom and flexibility in how software products are developed, sold, and supported. Tasks and personnel are loosely organized into four areas addressing software development, marketing and sales, service support, and administrative staff. Employees in each area report directly to an area manager, who, in turn, reports to the CEO, who founded the company and helped develop and sell its first software application. This flat hierarchy promotes fluid interaction among area members and their manager, and, when combined with an informal structure, it enables area members to interact freely with members from other areas on work related or personal matters.

MOTs CEO and area managers only met as a team informally when problems arose and circumstances demanded an integrative solution. These were usually quick stand-up discussions aimed at solving a specific problem. Scheduled meetings were frowned upon and rarely occurred. However, as the firm grew in size and complexity, problems needing information sharing and coordinated decision making across the areas escalated. Informal problem-solving meetings increased dramatically as did the number of solutions that were ineffective, delayed, or poorly executed.

Reluctantly, the CEO decided that a more formal problem-solving process was needed. She scheduled a weekly two-hour meeting with the area managers and a few key administrative personnel. This top team was intended to share pertinent information, deal with issues affecting all the areas, propose product and organizational innovations, and address a host of emergent issues. Members described these meetings as informative but often chaotic in terms of decision-making. The meetings typically started late as members straggled in at different times. The latecomers generally offered excuses about more pressing problems occurring elsewhere at the workplace. Once started, the meetings were often interrupted by urgent e-mail or phone messages for various members, including the CEO. In most cases, the recipient would leave the meeting hurriedly to respond to the message in the hallway outside the meeting room.

The team had problems arriving at clear decisions on issues, particularly important ones that affected all the areas. Discussions often rambled from topic to topic, and members tended to postpone the resolution of problems to future meetings. This led to a backlog of unresolved issues, and meetings often lasted beyond the two-hour limit. When group decisions were made, members often reported problems in their implementation. They typically failed to follow through on agreements, and there was often confusion about what had been agreed upon. Everyone expressed dissatisfaction with the team meetings and their results.

Relationships among team members were cordial yet somewhat strained, especially when the team was dealing with complex issues in which members had varying opinions and area interests. Although the CEO publicly stated that she wanted to hear all sides of the issues, she often interrupted the discussion or attempted to change the topic when members openly disagreed in their views of the problem. This interruption was typically followed by an awkward silence in the team. In many instances, when a solution to a pressing problem did not appear forthcoming, members either moved on to another issue or informally voted on proposed options, letting majority rule decide the outcome. Team members rarely discussed the need to move on or vote; rather, these habits emerged informally over time and became acceptable ways of dealing with difficult issues.

1. Read assignment and diagnose and list all issues. Brief summary for each. Just to provide some insightI have counted fifteen. If you can find ten that would be sufficient.
2. Choose the top three issues (core problems, processes, people, culture, leadership style etc..) related to priority. i.e, which ones are most important and will have highest probability of improving the company functioning at MOT. Make recommendations about your top three choices as how you would go about correcting these issues from your consultant role.