2. Review Chapter 5A - When a Team Breaks in Two and answer the following questions:

a. The case involves an internal and an external consultant. What are the benefits or drawbacks in having both an internal and external consultant working together in this case? What is the role of the internal and the external organization development practitioner in this case?

b. What would be important skills or competencies you would look for when selecting a consultant for this case?

c. Looking back, was it a good idea to select Chuck to facilitate the assessor's intervention and cofacilitate the Monday meeting where you will work toward moving forward toward a resolution to this problem? Explain your position and provide examples from the case to back up your claims.

As you drive through the beautiful rolling hills toward your meeting with Tim and Chuck, you find yourself wondering how today's meeting is going to unfold. Working on this project has been one of the most unique, fascinating, and difficult consulting jobs in which you have ever been involved. However, you have no idea what to expect next. You are aware that Tim and Chuck do not know everything you know and therefore are looking at the issue very differently. Unfortunately, having promised confidentiality, you cannot tell them all that you know, yet you are going to have to figure out a way to move this situation toward an effective and ethical resolution. Tim is the manager of a home improvement and efficiency division for a nonprofit agency dedicated to improving the lives of impoverished people. The company Helping Hands, Heating Homes, Healthy Hearts is known in the community as Six-H. Four months ago, Tim approached you after hearing you present at a conference on effective teamwork. He told you he was committed to a team approach in the workplace and saw himself more as a coach rather than a manager. However, he was having a real problem with his team. Tim's team is composed of assessors, crews, and inspectors. Assessors go into homes and determine what work needs to be done to improve the energy efficiency of the house and the materials necessary to do the job. Crews do the necessary work, and inspectors determine if all efficiency needs have been met and at the appropriate standard. When all goes well, the three parts of the team work seamlessly together, providing a high-quality, energy-efficient solution for their client. According to Tim, the key to success in his business is effective communication. Communication ensures that the members of the team understand the game plan, learn from their mistakes, and continually grow and improve. Unfortunately, the members of "Team Tim" do not communicate effectively. Even worse, they do not seem to see themselves as a team. In fact, the way they treat each other makesit appear that they are at war. It seems that the only time crew members talk to assessors is to yell and swear at them about how poorly they assessed the needs of the client. For example, last week one crew leader approached an assessor screaming, \"You dumb a**, they needed four f* *** *g windows, two f***** g doors, and insulation in the attic AND basement. Get your head out of your a** and do yourjob right, you g**d*** moron!\" It is not surprising that the assessors actively avoid the crew members, but hiding is not an effective solution to the problem and inhibits any chance of effective team work. Tim tells you that he has tried to solve the communication problem in a variety of ways, but all have failed; in fact, the situation has gotten worse. Tim feels it is a no-win situation. On one hand, others he has asked for advice suggest that he fire the whole bunch. On the other hand, he knows that his workers are really good at what they do and are dedicated to the mission, vision, and values of the organization. Tim was stuck; if he red the crew members, he would lose exceptional, well-trained, and highly skilled employees. Yet if he let the crew continue this abusive behavior, he would lose the respect of the assessors, inspectors, and crew members. At this point, Tim asked for your advice. You told Tim that you had a unique intervention plan you think may work in this situation. Since the main issue seemed to be with the assessors and crew members, they would be the groups to work with a facilitator. Each group would have their own facilitator as they go through a process known as dumping, exposing, and identifying. During the \"dump session,\" participants identify each and every bad experience they have had in the organization. The second stage involves exposing the pain that these bad experiences caused. In the third stage, participants identify how they communicated during and after these painful experiences and how others in the organization reacted to their response. The following week, the two groups would get together in a meeting attended by Tim and other supervisors. At this meeting, the two groups share the results of working through the three stages, and under the guidance of you and the other facilitator, make a plan for moving forward together. Tim likes the idea and suggests you contact a facilitator named Chuck, who has worked with the assessors in the past. You meet with Chuck and feel that he is denitely a competent trainer/facilitator. He has a lot of experience working with a diverse set of clients. Unfortunately, while he agrees on the plan for the intervention, he seems to have a different purpose than you do. As you explained to Tim, your purpose is to work toward understanding how the team got into this problem in the rst place and use that knowledge to help them get out of the problem. Chuck's purpose for the process seems to be to \"x the problem,\" and he seems to see the crew as the problem that needs xing. You are uncertain of Chuck's approach is because he has worked as a trainer with the assessors in the past or if he is biased by the things Tim has tried to do to address the situation. In a meeting with you and Tim, Chuck emphasized that Tim needed to address both groups together at the beginning of the intervention, telling them that if they did not change their behavior as a result of this process, they would be red. You are concerned that such a statement may make the participants feel less comfortable disclosing during the \"dump session.\" However, Tim is enthusiastic about addressing the groups and feels that he can nd a way to make everyone comfortable with the plan. He is prepared to do whatever is necessary to improve the team cultureiincluding ring those who do not buy into the program and change their behavior. The location for the crew members' intervention is the basement of the local bowling area. As you arrive, tensions are high. You attempt to set a more comfortable tone as you lay out the plan for the day. Then you introduce Tim, who is very nervous as he addresses the crew. He begins by focusing on the desire to have a workplace where good work is done in an atmosphere that is enjoyable, noting that the current situation is not enjoyable for anyone. The crew members nod in agreement. Getting more comfortable with the situation, Tim describes his commitment to the intervention process. Specically, he tells the crew that it is very important that they actively engage in the dumping session. He goes so far as to provide examples from his life of when people suffered because they held on to old hurts. He discloses that he understands that when those hurts are let go, healing begins and people move forward to a better, more fullling life. It is obvious to you that Tim really wants the crew to recognize his passion for improving their experiences at work and that he is sincerely looking out for their best interests. He insists that no matter what they say, there would be no negative consequences for sharing their concerns. He promises condentiality by saying, \"What is said in this room stays in this room.\" Tim then explains that to move ahead, the crew members need to be willing to be part of the plan. As a team, they need to help with the plan and eventually be part of the solution. The crew seemed to be with him, looking at each other as if to say, \"We can do this,\" while nodding and afrming that they were \"on board.\" Tim nishes his presentation by saying that at the end of the intervention process, the crew members had four choices: You embrace the plan and act in ways that help us achieve the plan. You question the plan, but act in ways that help us achieve the plan. You do not embrace the plan, but you are a \"good soldier\" and act in ways that help us achieve the plan. You do not embrace the plan and do not act in ways that help us achieve the plan. He said his goal was for the crew members to take the rst choice and embrace the plan. Yet he knew that not everyone was ready for that and if people choose number two or number three, he would respect that decision and hoped they would eventually embrace the plan. However, if a crew member took the fourth choice, that crew member will not work here anymore, and that decision would be for the good of the team. You are proud of Tim. His presentation shows that he sincerely cares for the crew members and is committed to the process. You are happy to hear him promise no negative consequences for participation in the intervention process and his encouragement for them to talk about their concerns and hurtsieven if he was pointed out as the \"bad guy\" in those conversations. You are especially happy to hear him promise that you will not be asked to \"out\" crew members by committing to condentiality. You also feel he struck a good balance by laying out the four choices, focusing on his desire to see them buy into the plan but being willing to accept that they may not embrace the plan while remaining \"good soldiers.\" You feel the tone for the day is set and are ready for a difcult but important conversation as crew members engage in the \"dump\" session. After Tim leaves, you work diligently to get the participants to engage in the \"dump\" session, but no one is willing to open up. You put them into small groups to discuss their concerns and past hurts, but when you listen in to their conversations it is obvious that they were not on task. You try a different approach and hand out notebooks to each crew member. You put them at separate tables and ask them to write down every bad experience they ever had in the organization. You are horried to watch them simply look at the paper and not write anything down. You wait patiently. Finally, Tom starts writing, and then slowly, one by one, each crew member begins to document his or her experiences. After 20 minutes, Joe throws down his pen and says, \"I need a smoke.\" He leaves the room but is back within 5 minutes and continues writing. After 30 minutes more, you notice that several crew members seem to be done. Not wanting to cut the process short, you say, \"When you are done, feel free to go outside or up to the bar. I will come and get you when everyone has nished.\" Eventually only Tom was left writing. You look at your watch and realize he has been writing for over an hour and has not slowed down. Finally, after an hour and a half, Tom puts down his pen, looks at you and says, \"I guess that's about all I got.\" You ask how he feels. \"Good,\" he said. \"I guess it is good to get it all outI feel lighter, ya know? I guess Ibeen holdin' in a lot of stuff.\" He looks back down at his notebook and all he had written. \"God, I need a cigarette,\" he says as he gets out of his chair. Watching Tom head up the stairs you think, okay, nally we are getting somewhere. You give Tom 15 minutes to relax and then call everyone back to the basement. You ask how everyone feels about writing down their experiences, and they note it was good to get things off their chest and onto paper. Good, you think, now we can get moving on the process. But when you ask if they are ready to start listing their thoughts on the ip charts at the front of the room, there is no response. You remind them that this rst step called for getting everything out. They now need to start documenting the negative consequences on their work, relationships, and personal well-being. Still, no one is ready to speak up. You wait. Eventually Bob says, \"You heard Tim this morning. He said that we are the problem and he is looking to re usiso, I ain't gonna say anything because I need to keep my job!\" It becomes clear to you that the \"you will be red\" message was the only message they retained from Tim's presentation. You remind them that Tim offered three other options. They remain resistant to share their responses, and you are getting nervous. Out of desperation, you remind them that Tim said everything in this session was condential and that you will not tell him their specic examples. \"So how's anything gonna change if Tim doesn't know what we talked about?\" asks Bob. You explain that you are atrained professional and quite capable of explaining the problems in a way that maintains condentiality. You then tell them that you know how much courage it takes to open up and talk about these things, and you absolutely promise to do everything in your power to make the situation better. \"Okay,\" Tom says. \"You know my wife says Italk too much, that I ain't got the brains to know when to keep quiet, but I got a lot of s*** written down here and I guess I'm old enough to take social security if they re my a**. Here ya go . . . \" Tom reads off his list, which is long and seems to take forever. Then others begin to open up. It takes almost 2 hours, and when everyone is nished, you end up with a very long list of bad experiences crew members have encountered in the organization. Once crew members start talking about their experiences, the other two stages come together easily. Several individuals describe how their experiences and hurt feelings led them to bond more tightly as a crew. As they bonded closer together, they found that they did not trust anyone outside of their group. After talking through the issues related to trust, you send the group on a break. When everyone is out of the basement, you look over what is written on the ip charts and things start to make sense. No single person or group is \"at fault\" for the current very bad situation in the home improvement and efciency team. You begin working on an explanation on how the home improvement and efciency team got into this problem in the rst place. You are surprised at how easy it is to see the situation in a new light. The problem comes down to three things: legitimate concerns shared by crew members, a set of four issues that led to the crew bonding closer together, and an overarching response to the situation by the crew which caused, and continues to fuel, the lack of communication from the