Alex demanded immediate corrective actions be taken, better documentation created, and complete transparency be made available to all Acme staff members. On January 15, 2005, Alex held a meeting with Jamie, Pat, Chris, and Stacy to settle the matter. Alex asked that a copy of all information pertaining to (1) current laws and (2) Chris' and Pat's certifications/licenses be kept in the executive offices and be available for review by senior staff. Alex also informed everyone that Stacy was to be allowed to resume interacting with and researching Leslie's condition. Although Jamie, Chris, and Pat agreed to the orders at the January 15th meeting, they ultimately ignored everything. Around this time, Chris' staff begins to reduce the overall quality of care given at the new facility. When confronted by Alex, Chris and Pat indicate they never agreed with the new business plan, and that Alex would need to hire additional personnel. Between January 16th and March 31st, Alex held six more meetings with Jamie, Chris, and Pat to understand why problems were not being resolved in an appropriate and timely manner according to the directions provided. Following each meeting, a detailed memo was drafted and distributed by Alex to review all points discussed, clearly define the expected outcomes, and establish due dates. In every case, Jamie, Chris, and Pat agreed to what had been discussed in front of Alex, then ignored all tasks and due dates. Furthermore, Jamie, Chris, and Pat began talking about the situation with other employees, which caused significant tensions between staff and senior management. Not only did Chris and Pat ignore Alex's orders to allow Stacy to interact with Leslie, but they decided that Rene should review Stacy's interaction skills to determine if future interactions would be allowed. When Stacy learned of the new barrier, Alex was immediately informed, who in turn confronted Chris and Pat about not following orders. Chris and Pat cannot understand why Alex will not accept their new "review-of-Stacy" idea, and were outraged at Alex's lack of support. Additionally, Jamie confronted Alex and stated that Alex's role is to support the decisions made by Acme's senior management. Alex did not believe Pat's accusations about Stacy, and decided to independently monitor Stacy's interactions with Leslie. As expected, Alex never found any evidence whatsoever to support Pat's claims, and actually discovered evidence to the contrary. When Alex confronted Jamie, Chris, and Pat about the findings, Alex learns that Jamie, Chris, nor Pat have ever actually watched Stacy interact with Leslie. In other words, they fabricated all the stories about Stacy's behavior and incompetence. In mid-March, Tracy suddenly walked into Alex's office, placed a tape-recorder on the conference table to record the conversation, and accused Stacy of harassment. Tracy demanded to know why after four years of following all the rules, no special privileges had been granted or promotions offered? Tracy also demanded to know when Stacy would be terminated and Pat's authority reinstated. Alex informed Tracy that Pat's authority had never been revoked, but that several tasks were not completed by Jamie, Chris, and Pat per Alex's instructions. Tracy indicated that Alex's tasks would not be Case Study #1: The Kobayashi Maru1 Created By Steve Shore Managerial Decision Making 2015 Stephen Shore 4 necessary if Stacy were terminated. Outside of Alex's office, Tracy continued to promote hostility towards Stacy. At the end of March, Alex finally received all the legal documents requested on January 15th. After carefully reviewing them, Alex noticed a significant discrepancy - Pat had been working under false pretenses and did not have a current certification. In fact, Pat had not submit the annual dues and renewal paperwork for the current year until February 1st - after the aforementioned January 15th meeting when Alex was informed all licenses were current. Alex immediately confronted Jamie, Chris, and Pat about the latest findings, and two days later, Alex was given a Cease-and-Desist order by Pat. Pat indicated that since Alex did not have any certifications, job orders could not be issued. Jamie immediately indicated that the entire situation was Alex's fault for not supporting the decision to remove Stacy. Lastly, many staff members began expressing their opinions to Alex, and indicated that Jamie's wishes should be final (because of tenure). Unbeknownst to Alex and the senior staff, Pat had started a blog on a personal website, and had been posting negative comments about Alex and Stacy. After receiving the Cease-and-Desist order, Alex contacted the governing body that oversees the certification/licensing process to better understand Acme's options. Alex finally learned about recent changes in the laws - which neither Chris nor Pat informed anyone about - and that a lack of a recognized and licensed individual on staff would result in the immediate removal of all patients and the closing of the Lost Leader project. All of Chris and Pat's staff were sub-licensed under Chris' master license; therefore, without Chris' support, the project would be doomed. Unfortunately, Acme's cash flow position limits Alex's options, since the company cannot afford to hire someone new at a higher salary, nor can Acme afford to relocate someone from another area.

***** Here is the question for the scenario above: 1. What's the problem / situation? 2. What makes you think this is a problem / situation (i.e., what's driving / supporting you to say this is an issue worthy of addressing)? 3. What's the plan (i.e., what are we going to do about it)? 4. How are you going to measure it, because if you don't talk about it and measure it, you'll never fix it? 5. How will you know you are on/off target as it relates to the plan?