Please help with case study.

• What are the main arguments you need to counter?
• What is at stake for each key character?
• What levers can you use to influence those who disagree with you?
• What is the most powerful response you can offer? What is the best context for this response?

Determine an approach to resolving the problems in the case by imagining how the conversation between the protagonist and the antagonist might go if you (the protagonist) were to speak up to them about your beliefs regarding the resolution of this problem. Then, distill the lessons learned into a memorandum addressed to the antagonist, which summarizes the conversation (I wanted to follow up on our conversation with this written summary to be sure we are on the same page going forward.)

Specifically, this memorandum should:

• Recount the way in which the protagonist expressed his or her values (of course, an actual conversation didn't take place, so describe the main points of the conversation you think should have occurred).
• Address the scripting questions presented in the introductory lecture.
• Carefully and effectively use language to convey the protagonist's exact intent.

Please present this work in office memo form. Memos should be approximately 2 pages (double-spaced) and should be written in a clear, careful, and concise manner.

The throng grimaced when Paul Wagland, the Senior Applications Programmer, stood up and asked, 'What's the organization doing about the product quality issue that was raised six months ago?" This wasn't the first time that his statement, in front of the assembly of the entire IT staff, just over 100 members, was perceived as untimely. Although recognized as a strong performer, Paul was also known for his conf rontational communication style, often during group meetings of the IT department. Many appreciated him, including his poss of two years, Allen Finan, and his internal clients, but several management team members cringed when ne spoke. Frequently, Paul addressed issues that several considered to be inappropriate, particularly in a team setting. Among the group who struggled with Paul's style was the VP of IT, Miles Patterson, the executive who was leading the meeting. CMS Industries, a leading aerospace company was known for its satellites and payloads. A multi-billion dollar enterprise, founded over 70 years ago. The mission ofCMS was to build the best commercial and defense satellites for its global customers. Its success had been noted in the press and acknowledged in the equity markets. Miles had been with the company for 30 years and moved up the corporate ladder to his current position. Respected by the president, Miles often ascribed his accomplishments to his focus on goal attainment and building a dedicated team of IT professionals who delivered effective computer systems to a number of nternal customers including Engineering, HR, Finance, and Procurement. Allen, who held a Director title, had been with CMS for 12 years, and reported to Miles. Allen's management style was one of collaboration and teamwork. Miles's style was more directive; he occasionally made promises to IT customers which he believed were necessary, but without coordinating with his senior nanagers like Allen who then found them a challenge to meet. These style differences sometimes created conflict between the two. Allen recognized Paul's limitations, but was also aware of the value he brought to the IT group and its nternal customers. Although his colleagues often rolled their eyes when Paul spoke out of turn, they also valued his talent and commitment to doing quality work. He managed a small group consisting of three programmers. The purpose of his team was to maintain the customers' computer applications across multiple functions, such as Engineering and Finance. The Design and Manufacturing Engineers, in particular, valued the work of Paul's team in assisting them in the design of components that found their way into satellites and payloads. They relied on Paul's group for support to avoid using outdated procedures. In fact, Engineering often informed Allen that Paul's unit was the only IT group that was able to consistently respond to their support requests. Paul enjoyed touting the systems he developed and often argued in the open forums that his team delivered superior results. At times he openly expressed disappointment that he and his direct reports had not received adequate pay increases during performance reviews. Up until Miles became the Chief Information Officer (CIO), the applications reflected a hodgepodge system. Miles' job was to develop a more integrated IT application architecture that could be supported by 3 rd and 4th generation application tools. The technology that Paul used, although effective, did not fit neatly into the new architecture developed by Miles, but was supported by Design Engineering. This created some conflict between Miles and Paul. Allen made efforts to convince Paul that he and his group needed to refocus on the new technology advanced by Miles. However, Paul was convinced the applications created by his team were the most effective for the organization and appealed to Allen to talk with Miles about revising the CIO's model such that it was more aligned with his own. During the period Paul reported to Allen, he had received two performance evaluations. In each case Allen acknowledged Paul's quality work and his strong focus on satisfying the information needs of his in-house clients. In addition, Allen provided feedback regarding Paul's "open forum" behavior along with suggestions about ways he could get his agenda on the table without coming across in a manner that challenged management's decisions or approaches to running IT. Upon receiving the feedback, Paul responded by saying that he had his own style and it would be difficult for him to change. Over time, Miles began to lose patience with Paul's outspoken behavior and resistance to implementing the IT architecture he designed. He was annoyed with Paul's comments, which he perceived as an attack on his leadership. It was a crisp winter day when Miles called Allen at 7 a.m. Miles' introductory statement was straight to the point, "Allen, I want you to fire Paul." At that time, the IT organization was going through a reorganization and layoff process due to budget constraints. When Allen asked for clarification, Miles repeated his demand. Allen responded, "Is there a question about his performance?" The reply came quickly, "Allen, just do it." "Have you checked with HR?" asked Allen. "Allen, let me be very clear, I want you to put him on the layoff list, now." Allen was disturbed by the request, particularly because Paul had always received fairly high performance evaluations from him and his prior manager. He knew that HR and the corporate lawyers would have a very difficult time putting Paul on the layoff list. When budget concerns emerged the company focused on reducing headcount. The policy was to discharge those with performance ratings of 4 or 5 (on a scale of 1, "Outstanding," to 5, "Poor"). Paul had received consistent scores of 2 from Allen as well as his previous boss. Allen also knew that Paul's internal clients (engineers primarily) would find such a decision troubling. In addition, Allen was convinced that following the layoff, Paul's three reports would seek employment elsewhere. However, Allen was aware that Miles was committed to the decision and would unlikely yield. Adding complexity to the dilemma, in addition to the reorganization, the company was about to begin system-wide annual performance reviews. The assessment process provided further leverage for Miles. Another issue emerged, however. The new IT architecture proposed by Miles would require additional funding-a budget increase would be necessary. Because it was an overhead expense, other senior corporate executives, in addition to Miles, would have to approve it. Many of these executives were engineers. Because Page 2 of 3 Page 3 UVA-OB-1184 Paul had support from Engineering his departure could undermine Miles' goal of getting a larger budget allocation. During their meeting Allen attempted to discuss this with Miles, but Miles said he was not worried. Allen was convinced that Miles' request was inappropriate from multiple organizational perspectives. In addition, Allen didn't believe a layoff would be fair to Paul. Although Allen understood Paul's limitations he also believed in Paul's contribution to the organization. Allen did not inform Paul of the dilemma he was facing because of the concern that Paul would go directly to Miles and incite the CIO even more. However, Allen needed to find a way to change Mile's position. What could he say and do, to whom, when and how