3. Review Chapter 16 - The Future of Organization Development: Dialogic Organization Development in a Virtual Organization and answer the following questions:

a. As a consultant, what would you propose as a next step to the leadership team?

b. What challenges and opportunities does virtual facilitation present? For the consultant? For the client?

c. What are some similarities/differences of virtual communication versus in-person facilitation?

d. How can the use of dialogic organization development help virtual organizations navigate through organizational challenges?

e. What lessons does this case study highlight for consultants working with virtual teams?

Please include references. Thank you!

After many years of service at large international transportation companies, three longtime friends decided to head out on their own and start a consulting company. They were condent that with their combined professional histories they could offer a rare expertise in both breadth and depth of industry knowledge. After the successful completion of several customer contracts, they made it ofcial and incorporated as Transit Inc.l 1. For the purposes of this case study, the company name has been changed. Transit Inc. took the form of a virtual company; the three owners were dispersed across two provinces in Canada. They worked on varying schedules and availability, and relied primarily on e-mail, Skype, and Dropbox for their information sharing and day-to-day connections. Eventually, they added five additional members to the team. These individual \"contractors\" collaborated on a per-project basis depending on their availability and skill set. Due to the varying competencies required for a project to progress, the need for constant communication, time management, and organization was extremely important, especially since most of their clients were operating in fast-paced competitive environments. This intensive and dynamic workow model requires cooperation throughout various stages; an interdependent and reciprocal process in which each individual's performance is impacted by the performance of others (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). When a project is complete, Transit Inc. collects 50% of the revenue, and the remaining 50% is distributed to the consultants who have worked on the project. After a year and a half, the once spirited and engaged team members had lost their enthusiasm and willingness to collaborate. They had also lost a few clients, and their resources were dwindling. In addition, one of the owners, Brent, started taking contracts with other companies, and his availability to focus on Transit was reduced. This led the other owners to rely more and more on the contractors for managerial tasks like invoicing and business development activities. It seemed like a new organizational structure was emerging. Unfortunately, this reality and the residual effects remained unaddressed. Rather than communicating and problem solving together, the once positive team dynamic disintegrated into destructive ghting and interpersonal politics. I was contacted by Matt, the president of Transit, and invited to apply the objective lens of an outsider to help them explore and address the root causes, and help them get back on track. After speaking with all members of the company, owners and contractors included, I agreed to help them take a deeper look at what was going on. The preliminary interviews were conducted as voice calls using an Intemetbased application. At times, inconsistent Internet connection impacted the conversation. This was my first experience with the challenges of at-distance communication in a clienticonsultant relationship. As we struggled to get through the 'can you hear me now?' episodes, a growing sense of urgency and frustration set in. I wondered how dependence on the Internet was going to impact my ability to create a reliable container for meaningful dialogue. I also wondered to what extent the larger systemic issues were being caused or exacerbated by the predominantly virtual nature of their work environment. As I prepared for the next phase, the virtual focus-group sessions, these questions were front of mind. I planned three focus groups, 2 hours total: an hour and a half of dialogue, plus 15 minutes at each end of the conversation for transitioning. As Storch (as cited in Bushe & Marshak, 2015) explains, \"people are more inclined to change in behavior if they feel commitment and loyalty to a group of people that can hold them accountable for carrying out new actions\" (p. 213). So, I rst designed the conversations to surface the diversity of the group by holding the space for each person to share. When conicting accounts arose, I would frame the divergent opinions as an opportunity to reect on the possibility that both may have elements of truth.2 Then, with this acknowledgment, I asked a question that refocused the dialogue toward solution-seeking opportunities. Not only did this format allow me to gather the information about current narratives; the refraining also seemed to reduce tension and defensive behavior and helped maintain a ow of conversation that resulted in the group looking at old problems in new ways. 2. The terms conicting accounts and frame restructuring were initially presented by Donald Schon in 1979 in his explanation of how language and metaphors inform organizational learning. In Schon's (1984) \"frame restructuring\" process, two descriptions of the same situation can be leveraged to engage people in a process of reection and redefinition. I was surprised by how well the conversations went. Once we were past the first 15 to 20 minutes of ddling with microphones and a \"check-in,\" people were engaged, focused, and eager to participate. We had 100% participation rate. There was a noticeable constructive energyi moments of silence when sensitive issues were raised, and moments of laughter to demonstrate relief that we had surmounted the tense moments together. Much like a successful meeting in a boardroom or office setting, there was a natural ebb and ow to the time we spent together. In fact, at times it didn't feel that we were hundreds of miles apart at all. It felt like we were all at the same table. For all intents and purposes, it was a virtual facilitation success. I reviewed the conversations and themed the challenge areas into three main categories: structural, technical, and interpersonal. Let's look at each of these briey. Structural challenges: One of the recurring themes in the structural category was time management. As they worked in dyads and triads to address the client's needs, they had to rely on a certain synergy between the members to progress the projectincorporating a variety of schedules and skills. However, some members were juggling multiple part-time projects; specic portions of the project life cycle were then delayed, postponing the advancement of the next phase of work. In addition, they had yet to develop a standardized operating procedure manual, or as they referred to it a \"play book,\" to outline a mutual understanding of the specic task and time allotted for each phase. Schedule misalignment and a lack of operational clarity were impacting their bottom line. Technical challenges: Each consultant had a different background of professional expertise, including varying levels of familiarity with Internet technology. For example, the folder layout on Dropbox was created by one person, and the assumption was that everyone would be able to navigate the document arrangement with ease. However, this was not the case. Important content, including relevant information to project development, was not easily accessed by everyone on the project team. Furthermore, people felt uncomfortable raising the issue for fear of embarrassment or judgment. Interpersonal challenges: Throughout the dialogue and discovery process, I found that many people had reservations with one particular leader. He had made some comments that had hurt people's feelings, he was difficult to get in contact with, and was known to answer e-mails with a short or even aggressive tone. He also skipped out on the whole company meeting a few months prior without a clear explanation as to why, leaving people to wonder if he was still invested or interested in the company's development. This was the first and only time the company had attempted to come together as a whole team. People described him as an \"absent leader\" and did not feel it necessary, or safe, to confront him directly. I suggested to the leadership team that we conduct a 1.5- to 2-day in person workshop with the entire Transit team. Over the course of the 2 days, we would look at the sociotechnical system of the company, explore difficult issues in a face-to-face context, and allow for interpersonal relationships to heal and strengthen.3 A sociotechnical analysis includes collectively mapping out the inputs and outputs of the work ow, as well as the connected systems between each phase. Important rules of engagement around communication, information sharing, and roles and responsibilities are co-created, thus increasing a sense of shared responsibility and accountability. It also provides an experiential learning opportunity for a team and can increase a sense of team cohesion and trust. Finally, it helps build a systems overview and collective understanding of how these interdependent subsystems are supportive of one another. 3. Developed by Trist (1983), Socio-Technical Systems Theory states that because all organizational subsystems are interdependent, changes in one area affect and inuence other system elements. As I planned for the nal meeting with the leadership team to design the workshop, I was concerned about Brent's attendance and unsure if he would show up. He had been evasive with e-mails and choose not to respond to the meeting invitation. The other members of the leadership team and I met on the videoconferencing application at the mutually agreed-upon time. We sat, made small talk, and waited for that \"Virtual board room\" door to open. After about 10 minutes into the call, his icon and name popped up. This was an important turning point in the leadership team's morale. We moved through a generative discussion: We explored differences in perception and experinece, spending the majority of time on the interpersonal dimension. Brent acknowledged that he was feeling increasingly disconnected and withdrawn, and believed a lack of trust was infecting their working relationships. At this point, the owners began a process of deep reection, revealing moments in time that had been painful and uncomfortable. Brent admitted that he was unsure whether he wanted to continue their professional relationship. This candid and honest dialogue allowed the leaderhsip team to (a) internalize the gravity of the current reality, (b) use appreciative inquiry to explore what conditions needed to change in order for Brent to feel more connected, and (c) vocalize a collective commitment to a process of change.4 Once again, I was feeling that the virtual nature had not impeded our abilty to connect at all, and we were able to tackle tough issues with a sense of togetherness. Although we had yet to get into the details of the workshop design, the sharing and openness of this call was a crucial piece of the puzzle. We planned to have one more call to work on the design and logistics before the workshop. 4. Please see Bushe and Kassam (2005) for additional reading on appreciative inquiry. However, rather suddenly, Brent announced that he would not be able to attend the workshop. He explained that he was working on another project and that he simply didn't have the time. The space between us was lled with a long and heavy silence. Brent had already eluded a whole company meeting, and the fact that he was preparing to do so again was very unsettling. I felt all of my practitioner and training \"alarms\" going off. I felt anxious and frustrated that we had come this far only to feel that the proj ect's success was threatened. On one hand, I knew that Brent's absence at the workshop would be damaging to company morale and likely result in even more frustration and disconnection. On the other hand, maybe this was a tipping point exemplifying the need for the ownership team to do more foundational team building before engaging the whole system in a participative process. But I was hesitant to delay a much needed (and promised) process for the company in order to tend to one individual's needs, especially when that individual was historically unpredictable. Itried to both make sense of my own emotions and to assemble a calm and centered presence for the team. As the screen remained still and inactive, I felt a growing need to say something. As I prepared myself for an offering, I reected on my role and purpose: What could I offer in this moment of tension and high emotional stakes that could guide Transit Inc. in a helpful direction