“Chip, I know the interviews took a long time, but they were worth it,” Anna says defensively as Chip enters her office with a worried look on his face.
“I’m sure of that,” Chip says. “You really made a good impression on them. People have stopped me in the hall and said they’re glad we’re working on the new system. I’m not worried about the interviews themselves. But I was concerned that we didn’t have time to discuss observations before you did them.” “Rest assured, I was all eyes,” Anna laughs. “I used a technique called STROBE, or Structured Observation of the Environment, to see our decision maker’s habitats systematically. You’ll be interested in these notes I wrote up for each person I interviewed,” says Anna, as she hands Chip her written, organized observations from each interview.

These exercises require that you visit the Web site to obtain observations of the decision makers’ offices. Please visit the Web site at www.pearsonhighered.com/kendall and look for “CPU Observations of Decision Makers’ Offices.”
1. Based on Anna’s written observation of Dot’s office and clothing, use STROBE to analyze Dot as a decision maker. In two paragraphs, compare and contrast what you learned in Dot’s interview and what you learned via STROBE.
2. After examining Anna’s written observations about Mike Crowe’s office, use STROBE to analyze Mike as a decision maker. What differences (if any) did you see between Mike in his interview and Mike in Anna’s observations? Use two paragraphs to answer.
3. Use STROBE to analyze Anna’s written observations about Cher Ware and Paige Prynter. Use two paragraphs to compare and contrast the decision-making style of each person as it is revealed by his or her offices and clothing.
4. Use STROBE to analyze Anna’s written observations about Hy Perteks. Now compare your analysis with Hy’s interview. Use two paragraphs to discuss whether STROBE confirms, negates, reverses, or serves as a cue to look further in Hy’s narrative.