CASE #1
The information technology division of a large hotel chain was partnering with an outside vendor. The hotel chain was creating and implementing new technology for a centralized call center as well as for use by individual hotels. The user groups were getting more and more frustrated as they found the product difficult to use and not meeting their needs in serving customers. They felt IT had bought into a complicated, sexy product which was much too sophisticated for the average user to navigate. IT specialists thought that the users were resistant to change and too lazy to learn the new system. Attempts to meet and discuss issues were often counterproductive, involving rude behavior and lack of follow-through on the few agreements negotiated. The president of the hotel chain had a lot riding on the success of this new technology and was at a loss as to how to get the two stakeholder groups to work effectively together.
A development group of a major company was set to break ground at a new site in Europe. This was the company’s first European project and they had assembled the best talent from all over Europe as well as the U.S. The development group was a new cross-cultural team and individual members had no previous relationships with one another. The president of the development company was disappointed over dissention within the group and concerned about the group’s lack of progress. He could not figure out all the reasons why they found it so difficult to work together because he got conflicting, convoluted answers from everyone involved. He was unsure how to approach their dysfunctional team dynamics and would have liked to fire them all. He was at the end of his rope and this situation needed to be resolved quickly.
CASE #2
CASE #3
An international leadership and sales training company wanted to train their sales force to deal with their biggest and most challenging clients and potential clients in ways that would ensure a close on substantial contracts. Client surveys had confirmed that the sales people were often pushy, not focused on client needs, inattentive listeners, and ineffective in providing unique, customized solutions. They were also territorial and reluctant to cross-sell with colleagues. The president of the company decided to use an annual conference to provide training in managing the politics of power and influence to work effectively with clients and colleagues. His challenge was how to deal with the topic in a successful way with a group of over 300 people.
The last round of union negotiations had gone badly. Although a contract had been signed, some union members were not happy. A frustrated angry groundswell of employees was growing. Employees felt they had legitimate grievances and requests which were not being heard. Union membership was fracturing into factions with differing loyalties and perspectives. The work environment was impacted. Employees were distracted by gossip and the antagonism growing between union members and management. Management was challenged by trying to interpret the varying information they were receiving from different quarters. They were at a loss as to how to deal with the growing escalation of criticism and negativity. Every attempt on the part of management to communicate and resolve issues was met with further resistance and refusal to engage constructively and directly. How could the leader and the senior team begin to turn the tide to address this conflict effectively?
