3. Review Chapter 8 - Diagnosis and Feedback: Simeron Technologies Legal Department and answer the following questions:

a. Based on the assessment interviews, how would you summarize the data so far?

b. Models such as the STAR model can be used as a diagnostic tool to evaluate the effectiveness of an organization's design in achieving desired results. How would you evaluate the strategy, structure, processes, rewards, and people practices of Simeron's legal department?

c. Culture can be defined as a shared set of values, assumptions, and beliefs that govern behavioral norms. For example, if lawyers believe that the way to get ahead is to show that they can work independently, they may be reluctant to seek help from colleagues.

? What are some common behaviors that are negatively affecting results?

? What are some widely held values, beliefs, and assumptions that appear to be behind these behaviors?

d. If you were the OD practitioner advising this organization, what suggestions would you have for next steps?

Please include references thank you!

Simeron Technologiesl is a 30-year-old technology company with roughly $16 billion in revenue. The company employs 40,000, about half in the United States. Although the company has a number of products, about 80% of the revenue comes from one product line, where the company has held a dominant market position. However, competition is heating up. Smaller, nimbler competitors are moving in. Growth has stagnated. The company is seeking expansion and growth through several means: (1) new product introductions, (2) new applications for its existing products, (3) acquisitions of adjacent technologies, and (4) expansion into emerging markets. 1. While this case study is built on the experiences of the case writer, the company and characters are ctitious and do not intend to represent any real companies or actual scenarios. This case study is about the Simeron Technologies Legal Department (see Figure 8.1 for the Organization Chart). Phillip Clyburn, CEO, has just given Tom Daniels, chief legal counsel, his annual performance review. Phillip Clyburn, CEO, held his gaze steady as he said, \"Tom, you really need to x the issues in legal. I can't have my general managers shopping your attorneys until they get the answer they want or, worse, keeping your team out of the loop because they get a different answer depending on who they go to. I can't have your team approving deals to make a GM happy that are not in the best interest of the company. I know the issues are complex. We need to protect our intellectual property, but we can't be so restrictive that we handcu' the business. If we are to grow this company again, we'll need every part of the company pulling together, including the legal team. Are you with me on this?\" Tom said, \"I know we've had some issues this past year. I've been giving it a lot of thought. I don't have the answer yet, but we have a smart team. We'll gure it out.\" \"All right. Let's touch base in a couple of weeks and you can tell me what your plans are.\" Phillip's cell phone rang, and he took the call, nodding to Tom as he left the conference room. As Tom walked back to his ofce, he had a sinking feeling. Two weeks to come up with a plan? The problems in legal had taken years to develop. How was he going to come up with a plan to x things in two weeks? Tom had been with the company for 27 years. He started as an engineer but had always been interested in law. As a top-performing technologist, the company supported his desire to complete a law degree, even allowing him to take leaves to complete the rigorous legal studies and internships. After completing his degree and passing the bar exam, he began work at Simeron as an attorney. Over the years, he worked through several different legal specialties, and eventually worked his way to the top spot, chief legal counsel, when his predecessor retired 7 years ago. Although Tom sometimes longed for the days when Simeron was a small company and he knew nearly everyone, he had thrived on the challenges as the company struggled from start- up to eventually becoming a dominant player in the industry. The last few years, however, had not been as much fun. Historically, nearly everyone was willing to work long hours because the work was exciting and they were handsomely rewarded with stock options that rapidly accelerated in value. But the stock price languished as growth slowed. Forays into new arenas met with limited success, and the complexity was almost overwhelming. The company faced increasingly contentious legal battles as it struggled to protect its intellectual property while at the same time trying to enable new business through use of its technologies. The company had just settled a lengthy legal battle with a smaller rival, H.E. Electronics, that could be called a draw at best. Most industry observers gave the win to H.E. Morale of the legal team was at an all-time low, and tumover was picking up. As Tom returned to his desk, he reread the last paragraph of his review: \"Our relationship with any customer, competitor, or fellow business traveler is very complex and likely involves licensing, business group relationships, and intellectual property rights. We can't have three different approaches within legal to one problem. A common strategy across legal is needed.\" Tom knew that Phillip was referring to the silos that had developed over the years in the legal department. He had even restructured several times in an attempt to break them, but the silos remained. Having survived law school, Tom knew lawyers were a competitive bunch. But when he was a young lawyer, there seemed to be a lot more camaraderie among the attorneys at Simeron. Sure they were competitive, but it was about beating the competition, not each other. But now, the attorneys from the different functions seemed to ght among themselves as much as they did with the competition. And although he did not work in a law rm apart from his internships, he heard many stories about the cutthroat nature of making it to partner. At Simeron, the legal work had become more and more complex and specialized as the technology advanced. For the last 15 years, the company went after experienced attorneys from law rms who tended to stay in their areas of specialty. Long gone were the days when an engineer could go to law school and change careers at Simeron, let alone move from one specialty to another. Tom wondered if his current batch of attorneys could ever get along. Tom picked up the phone and called his HR business partner Laura Nyberg. \"Hi, Tom. How did your review go?\" Laura asked. \"Well . . . we need to talk. Do you have a minute?\" \"Sure. I'll be right up.\" Tom got right to the point, recounting to Laura his conversation with Phillip. \"So, Laura,\" Tom said, \"I need your help on this. I'm supposed to report back to Phillip in 2 weeks with a plan.\" \"Hmmm, 2 weeks?\" \"I will make it clear what I expect from the organization, but I'm not sure the attorneys know how to work together. I think maybe we need some training across the organization on how to work collaboratively. You know the soft stuff isn't my forte, but maybe that's what we need. Can you pull in some help on this?\" \"Absolutely, I'll help, but I'm not sure training is going to do it. We've had this issue of attorneys not working well together for a long time. You've even tried to address this issue before. Do you remember when we brought the consultant in for the Myers-Briggs assessments and training when you thought if people just understood each other they would work together better? Although some people found it interesting, nothing really changed.\" Laura paused. \"Let me give it some thought. I know someone I want to talk to. Let's get together again tomorrow afternoon.\" Laura had heard from a colleague that a new course was being taught to HR business partners called Organization Development: A Systemic Approach. Her colleague said the course really helped her understand why people in organizations behave the way they do and why doing certain \"tried and true\" things failed to deliver results. Laura planned to enroll, but meanwhile, she had this challenge to deal with and knew she needed help. Her colleague told her there was a new team of organization development experts that could be brought in to help with organizational challenges. After some research, she found out that Steve Davis was the instructor of the course. She gave him a call, and Steve agreed to meet with her the next morning about the challenges the legal team was facing. The next morning, Laura described the current situation to Steve and gave him some history of the organization. After describing the situation, she said, \"So, that's where we are. Tom wants to update Phillip in 2 weeks on his plan to turn the organization around.\" \"Do you think there's a 'quick X' that will work here?\" Steve asked. \"It sounds like the silos have been a problem for quite some time.\" \"Honestly, I don't know what an effective quick fix would be, and that's why I called you. Ithought you could help me assess the situation and come up with some ideas. Tom is a pretty action-oriented guy, as is Phillip, and so he'll want to do something and do it quick.\" \"I think our best bet is to convince Tom that what we really need to do is take an in-depth look at the organization,\" Steve said, \"to understand why people are behaving as they are, so we know what to change. That will take some time . . . it's not a quick x.\" \"OK, I agree. So how do we convince Tom?\" \"I have an idea . . . how about the two of us start by talking to his direct reports to get their assessment of the situation? My guess is that they'll lend credence to our belief that systemic issues are at play here. What do you think?\" \"I like that idea . . . but do we tell Tom?\" \"Oh, absolutely. In fact, Ithink it would be great if Tom would tell his staff about his performance review and enlist their help. If he's agreeable to that, he could tell his staff we'll be talking to them to get their perspectives.\" \"OK, I'll give it a try.\" That afternoon, Laura met with Tom. After providing some detail on her meeting with Steve she said, \"We thought it would be a good idea for you to share the feedback you got from Phillip with your staff. After all, it is feedback on the organization, and on them as the leadership team. We will not be able to x this without their help.\" \"Yes, I had already thought about sharing my review with them. They need to be very clear that Phillip is not happy with our performance and he expects me to fix it.\" \"Great. What Steve and I would like to do is interview your staff to get their perspective about what's going on . . . get their insights . . . see if they have any ideas.\" \"I like getting their perspective,\" Tom said. \"but why don't we just have the discussion in staff tomorrow?\" \"Hmmm . . . Ithink that could work. Get their opinions right then and there and out in the open. Would it be OK if I invite Steve?\" \"Sure, no problem. It would be good for him to see how my staff interacts.\" At Tom's staff the next day, these words were projected in big, bold letters: Our relationship with any customer, competitor, or fellow business traveler is very complex and likely involves licensing, business group relationships and intellectual property rights. We can't have three different approaches within legal to one problem. A common strategy across legal is needed. \"Phillip is not happy with us right now,\" Tom said, \"and that's an understatement. In no uncertain terms, he expects us to get our act together and fast. He doesn't want any more complaints from our GMs about conicting advice. He doesn't want suppliers getting the best of us because the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. He doesn't want to hear an attorney say, 'I don't know what's going on . . . Joe Blow is handling that.' And he doesn't want