MGT 404 (2)

application 2 1

CHAPTER 2 THE NATURE OF PLANNED CHANGE

PLANNED CHANGE AT THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY
REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY

T

he San Diego County Regional Airport
Authority (SDCRAA) was created by a
California state law in October 2001; this
gave it the responsibility to establish and
operate airports within San Diego County.
Most importantly, from Thella Bowens’s
perspective, the law required the San Diego Unified Port District (Port of San Diego) to transfer
operation of San Diego’s international airport to
the SDCRAA by January 2003. Bowens was the
current senior director of the Aviation Division
within the Port of San Diego that was responsible for operating the San Diego International Airport. When the law was passed, she was
named Interim Executive Director of the
SDCRAA, and assigned an interim advisory
board to help manage the transition.
Bowens’s tenure with the organization
gave her an important understanding of the
organization’s operations and its history. For
example, the San Diego International Airport
accounted for about $4.3 billion or roughly 4%
of San Diego’s regional economy. Forecasts
called for air travel to more than double to
35 million passengers by 2030, and contribute
up to $8 billion to the regional economy. In addition, Bowens had participated in the Aviation
Division’s strategic planning process in 2001.
She was well positioned to lead this effort.
As she thought about managing the startup of the SDCRAA, two broad but interdependent categories of initial activity emerged:
developing the transition plan and dealing
with the legal and regulatory issues.

DEVELOPING THE TRANSITION PLAN
In April 2002, Bowens took the senior team
from the old Aviation Division to an off-site
workshop to discuss the creation and management of an effective transition process. This
group understood the importance of SDCRAA
quickly becoming a stand-alone agency and the
need to be seen differently in the marketplace.
The group recommended revising the existing
strategic plan, to hire staff to research, discuss,

and create a transition plan, and to conduct
retreats with employees from multiple organizational levels. In response, Bowens chartered
the Airport Transition Team to ensure the
smooth and seamless transfer of operations
and public services provided by the airport
without regard to which agency was responsible for their provision.
In May 2002, seven employees were handpicked from the Aviation Division to become
members of the Airport Transition Team and
relieved of their day-to-day job responsibilities
so they could focus on the transition. The selection criteria included the ability to work within a
process yet think outside of the box, to communicate well with others in a team, and to influence directors and managers without having
formal authority. A one-and-a-half-day kick-off
meeting was held to set expectations, to communicate goals and responsibilities, and to initiate the team. A “war room” was established
for the team to keep records, hold meetings,
and serve as a communication hub. The team
named themselves the “Metamorphs.”
Many Metamorph members came from different parts of the organization and, having never
worked together, needed to rely on each other
to effectively design the transition process.
Senior team member Angela Shafer-Payne,
then director of Airport Business and Administration, worked closely with the Metamorphs and
led formal team-building activities throughout the
year. Through their work together, the Metamorphs discovered how large and daunting the
organizational change was and yet appreciated
the unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to
make an impact. As one member put it, “How
many times in your life can you say that you
helped put together a brand-new organization?”
The Metamorphs decided that to meet their
charter, any transition plan had to be designed
specifically to minimize disruption to customers
and service, minimize airport and nonairport
financial impacts, and properly address and
resolve all legal and regulatory matters. These

31

32

PART 1 OVERVIEW OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT

criteria guided the creation of 12 functional teams
(which expanded later to 19). Responsibility for the
teams was divided among the transition team members, and each team was composed of employees
from the old Aviation Division and other Port of San
Diego departments. Their mission was to collect
data, establish new or parallel functions for the
SDCRAA, and highlight any issues related to the
start-up of that particular function. Once the teams
were in place, they were given tools to use and
questions that needed to be addressed. Each team
set aside time to review all of the records in each
functional area. For example, the human resources
functional team consisted of Aviation Division
employees, HR professionals from the Port of
San Diego, and Port attorneys; it was charged with
developing the actual transition mechanism, HR
operations, and HR organizational structure. Another
team focused on the environmental issues involved
in the transition. They examined over 100 different
environmental permits held by the Port of San Diego
to understand if SDCRAA needed a similar permit,
needed to be a copermittee with the Port of
San Diego, or if the SDCRAA could stand alone. If
it were a stand-alone situation, then documentation
would be prepared to transfer the permit.
To ensure that no issues fell through the
cracks, three distinct peer reviews were held in
the summer and fall of 2002. The peer review
panels were staffed by professionals within the
aviation industry, people who had experienced a
transition of some type within an organization, or
those who were integral to the start-up of the organization. The first peer review panel examined the
transition plan and offered advice on whether to
add any other critical and/or missing components.
The second peer review panel, consisting of
mostly human resources professionals, examined
the proposed organizational structure. The final
peer review panel focused on the IT systems portion of the transition plan because of technology’s
critical role in the overall success of many of the
internal processes.

DEALING WITH THE LEGAL
AND REGULATORY ISSUES
By January 2002, the SDCRAA was not yet a full
agency and had only one employee, Thella Bowens.
Despite all the work of the Metamorphs and the

functional teams, and sometimes because of it,
Bowens also had to interface with the California legislature. The original legislation (California Senate Bill
AB93 [2001–2002]) provided a framework for setting
up the new agency but left many questions unanswered, including issues relating to property transfer
(SDCRAA would lease land from the Port on a 66-year
lease) and the transitioning of employees from one
public agency to another. To provide clarity and
another layer of understanding, “clean-up” legislation
(SB 1896) was passed in mid-2002. Together with the
original bill, the legislation protected employees to
ensure no loss of jobs or benefits. This gave the Metamorphs additional information and guidance to deal
with employee contract issues. For example, in the
middle of the transition planning process, the Port District had to renegotiate its union contract. The Metamorphs had to work closely with the airport’s external
counsel, the Port of San Diego counsel, and state
senators to ensure a smooth negotiation.
Finally, Bowens and the Metamorphs had to
address changes to federal security regulations outlined in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act
that resulted from the September 11, 2001, attacks.
Those events caused a number of disruptions for
many stakeholders in the air transportation industry.
They required the transition plan to include a component that focused on keeping costs contained to
enable aviation partners, the airlines, the gate gourmets, and tenants, to weather the storm.

IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
The final transition plan was presented to the
interim board and then to the Board of Port Commissioners for approval in October 2002. The
approved plan was comprised of several components, including an IT conversion plan and the process for formally transferring responsibility to the
SDCRAA, but the key elements were human
resources and communication plans.
The human resources plan specified the transition of 145 budgeted Aviation Division employees to 52 vacancies plus the 90 other positions
identified by the Metamorphs to make the organization whole. The plan called for all of the positions
to be filled by mid-2005. The human resources
plan also provided for the purchase of services,
like the Harbor Police, from the Port of San Diego
until mid-2005.

CHAPTER 2 THE NATURE OF PLANNED CHANGE

The communication plan was critical to the
implementation phase. The Metamorphs regularly
carried information about their progress to coworkers in their respective departments. In addition,
communication meetings with the entire organization, called “all hands meetings,” were held to provide information about the transition. The Airport
Transition Plan contained a special emphasis on
the needs of the employee. Bowens understood
the sociotechnical nature of change and did not
want the human factor to be forgotten in the
midst of all the legal, technical, and other transitions. She included a number of changemanagement education sessions for all employees.
The change-management education sessions were
developed to reassure employees; to encourage
genuine, candid, frequent, high-quality communications; and to neutralize anxiety and fears.
During the sessions, employees were
(1) updated on the progress of the transition;
(2) introduced to change theories, models, and
concepts; and (3) encouraged to share their issues,
fears, anxieties, concerns, and creative ideas.
Employee input was organized into themes, then
documented and communicated to Bowens and
her direct reports. The leadership team was
committed to answering questions and addressing
concerns that emerged from the changemanagement sessions. Airport managers met regularly to select and answer questions for publication

33

in the organization newsletter or live communication
at “all hands meetings.” In addition, the employee
satisfaction survey was updated with questions to
learn about transition concerns.
Thella Bowens was named President and CEO
of the SDCRAA on January 1, 2003. By June 2003,
the SDCRAA had received awards based on superb
customer service and outstanding levels of performance. The SDCRAA, based on all available
metrics, is successfully operating San Diego’s international airport and serving over 15.2 million passengers on 620 daily flights in and out of the airport.
Part of the success is due to the way the transition
plan was developed. Because of the broad participation in its creation, many employees understood the
plan. When issues arose, identifying the personnel
to become part of an ad hoc problem-solving group
already familiar with the topic was easy.
“Ms. Bowens accomplished the extraordinary
job of leading a successful transition of the airport
from the Unified Port of San Diego to the Authority,”
said Joseph W. Craver, Authority (SDCRAA) Chairman. “She is highly regarded and respected for
both her breadth of knowledge of aviation management issues and her visionary leadership.” Thella
Bowens added, “Fortunately, we’ve been supported
by very dedicated professional employees who have
exhibited great resolve and sheer hard work through
the transition process, and continue to do so as we
create a ‘world-class’ organization.”

limited to the defined issues, although additional problems may be uncovered and may
need to be addressed. Similarly, the change process tends to focus on those organizational systems having specific problems, and it generally terminates when the problems
are resolved. Of course, the OD practitioner may contract to help solve additional
problems.
In recent years, OD has been increasingly concerned with fundamental change. As
described in Chapter 1, the greater competitiveness and uncertainty of today’s environment have led a growing number of organizations to alter drastically the way in which
they operate. In such situations, planned change is more complex, extensive, and long
term than when applied to incremental change.30 Because fundamental change involves
most features and levels of the organization, it is typically driven from the top, where
corporate strategy and values are set. OD practitioners help senior executives create a
vision of a desired future organization and energize movement in that direction. They
also help them develop structures for managing the transition from the present to the

‫المملكة العربية السعودية‬
‫وزارة التعليم‬
‫الجامعة السعودية اإللكترونية‬

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Ministry of Education
Saudi Electronic University

College of Administrative and Financial Sciences

Assignment 2
Organization Design and Development (MGT 404)
Due Date: 22/03/2025 @ 23:59
Course Name: Organization Design and
Development
Course Code: MGT404

Student’s Name:

Semester: Second

CRN:

Student’s ID Number:

Academic Year:2024-25-2nd

For Instructor’s Use only
Instructor’s Name:
Students’ Grade:
Marks Obtained/Out of 10

Level of Marks: High/Middle/Low

General Instructions – PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Restricted – ‫مقيد‬

The Assignment must be submitted on Blackboard (WORD format only) via allocated
folder.
Assignments submitted through email will not be accepted.
Students are advised to make their work clear and well presented, marks may be reduced
for poor presentation. This includes filling your information on the cover page.
Students must mention question number clearly in their answer.
Late submission will NOT be accepted.
Avoid plagiarism, the work should be in your own words, copying from students or other
resources without proper referencing will result in ZERO marks. No exceptions.
All answered must be typed using Times New Roman (size 12, double-spaced) font. No
pictures containing text will be accepted and will be considered plagiarism).
Submissions without this cover page will NOT be accepted.

Learning Outcomes:
1. Describe the basic steps of the organizational development process.
2. Evaluate the strategic role of change in the organization and its impact on
organizational performance.

Assignment Question(s):
Please refer to the case study titled “Kenworth Motors” given Chapter 9 in your textbook
and answer the following questions:
1. What were the primary organizational challenges Kenworth Motors faced that led
them to initiate a change process? (2 marks)
2. What diagnostic tools were used to collect data on the organizational issues at
Kenworth Motors? How did the data inform the intervention process? (3 marks)
3. Explain how employee involvement was encouraged in the change process at
Kenworth Motors. What impact did this have on the success of the intervention? (2
marks)
4. How did Kenworth Motors address resistance to change among its employees?
What strategies were implemented to minimize resistance? (3 marks)

Note:
•
•

Restricted – ‫مقيد‬

You must include at least 5 references.
Format your references using APA style.

Answers
1. Answer2. Answer3. Answer-

Restricted – ‫مقيد‬

234

THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT

KENWORTH MOTORS*

t began with a telephone call, as did so many
of my engagements. The person calling identified himself as Robert Denton, the plant
manager of Kenworth Motors’ Seattle truck
manufacturing operations. Denton said he’d gotten my name from Charles Wright, a client of
mine in Seattle. Charlie is the OD manager for
a major timber products company. I’d been
doing several projects with Charlie’s group of
internal consultants for the past three years
and occasionally served as the OD group’s consultant. Denton noted that Charlie and he were
members of the same sailing club. He went on
to say that when, as someone relatively new to
Seattle, he’d asked Charlie if he knew any consultants, Charlie had spoken highly of me.
I remember thinking that Charlie probably
wouldn’t have mentioned me unless he thought
I could be useful to Denton. My trust in Charlie’s
competence and judgment was very high.
Denton went on to explain that he’d been
the plant manager for only eight months, that
things seemed to be going well, but that he
had a gnawing sense that things could be better. I must have murmured something appropriate because Denton invited me to visit him and
become acquainted with his operation.
I was both flattered by and interested in
Denton’s invitation. After all, I thought to
myself, it’s nice to be wanted, a consulting
engagement might come out of it, I always
wanted to get behind the gate of the Kenworth
plant, and Denton sounded like a basically
smart guy and nice besides. However, reality
intruded into my thoughts, as it often does.

THOUGHTS ON THE ROAD
I reminded Denton that I lived across the state
in Spokane and added that I had limited time
available in the short run. I noted that I had
plans to visit Seattle in three weeks and could
see him then, otherwise it might not be for a
month. Denton sounded almost eager as he
agreed to a 10 A.M. appointment on April 11.

*Craig C. Lundberg, Cornell University.

The drive westward from Spokane across
the state of Washington on Interstate 90 begins
with several hours of boring highway. I had purposely put off thinking about my appointment
with Robert Denton until I was on the road. As
the interstate stretched out over the rolling sagebrush hills and checkered wheat fields, I turned
my thoughts to Kenworth Motors and Denton.
Uppermost in my mind was that I was about to
talk with a man I knew little about, consult with a
firm I knew very little about, and I had no
focused agenda. What should I say and do?
As the miles went by, I envisioned several
alternative scenarios for my upcoming appointment with Robert Denton, the plant manager of
the truck manufacturing division of Kenworth
Motors Corporation. I saw his office in several
possible ways. It could be spartan and centrally
located to the production floor. It could be conventionally furnished but of a fair size. It could
be large. It might even be opulent. It could be
personalized with mementos of career, hobbies, or family. It might be far from the production floor, or even in a separate building. The
more I tried to envision Denton’s office, the
more alternatives came to mind. So I focused
on Denton, trying to imagine him from the
voice cues on the telephone—not old, probably
fit, probably clean shaven. Again the futility of
trying to imagine came home to me.
What did I think I knew? I didn’t know much
beyond a handful of facts about his title and his
job tenure, the fact that he knew Charlie,
believed things were generally going OK at the
plant, and had some vague notion something
wasn’t quite right. I also had the distinct impression he had been fairly eager to talk with me—
after all, he’d initiated calling me and had quickly
settled for an appointment convenient to me.
What did I really want to accomplish when
I met with Denton? The more I considered this
question, the more I pared down my answers.
At minimum, it seemed for me a low-cost
situation—a couple of hours of my time, perhaps some impressions of me that would be
communicated to Charlie (though I believed
Charlie and I had a relationship of mutual

Selected Cases

I

PART 2

SELECTED CASES

respect and trust based on a lot of shared work).
On the other hand, there was potentially a lot to
gain—perhaps another consulting job, perhaps
more visibility and reputation in Seattle, which
would be good for my business.
I decided I couldn’t plan for our meeting in
much detail; about all I could reasonably do was to
be true to the posture I found to be useful in situations like this. I had to be myself, be as real as possible. I see myself as a curious, friendly person who
basically likes others. I also know I can be bold and
thought I might have to be to get the conversation
going, to help Denton become clear as to why we
were talking together, and to clarify my role.
I also wanted to leave our meeting with a decision to either go forward or not. While I didn’t mind
investing a little time, my time was valuable. I also
felt strongly, as I always do, that I didn’t want to
work with anyone who I didn’t basically like as a
person or who didn’t seem to genuinely want to
do some real work. Seeing the Cascade mountains
on the horizon, I began to feel easier. I’d be myself,
whatever happened. Only one question nagged:
Could Denton and I connect swiftly enough so
there would be time to push for clarity in our possible work relationship?

MAKING CONTACT
At the Kenworth plant, the uniformed guard at the
plant gate checked his clipboard, slipped around
my car, and copied down my license plate number.
Returning to my open window, he pointed ahead
to a one-story brick building attached to the multistoried plant and told me I could park in the space
in front and then go inside and identify myself to
the receptionist.
The floor of the wide hallway inside the double
glass doors of the office building was freshly
waxed. Framed photographs of trucks and large
buildings lined the walls. A middle-aged woman
in a suit looked up from her desk and smiled.
After I identified myself, she led me down a side
corridor to an alcove and informed the secretary
there who I was and that I was there to see
Mr. Denton. She then turned to me, smiled again,
and wished me a good day. The seated secretary
told me Mr. Denton was expecting me, but was on
the telephone. She gestured toward a bank of chairs
and asked me to wait. As I sat down, I observed

235

the corridor traffic, busy but quiet. I settled back to
wait.
About ten minutes later, a man of medium
height and build wearing a sports jacket over an
open-collared shirt came through the door behind
the secretary and walked directly to me. He
extended his hand, smiled, introduced himself as
Bob Denton and motioned me into his office.
The office was larger than I expected. It was
paneled and a large Persian rug was centered on
the floor. At one end were a clean desk with side
chairs and a table full of papers behind it. At the
other side of the office were a couch and two
stuffed chairs around a low coffee table. Drapes
framed one large window that looked out on the
parking lot. Denton asked if I wanted coffee, and I
said I did. He went to the door and asked the secretary to bring us both coffee and added we were not
to be disturbed. While waiting for the coffee, we sat
on the two stuffed chairs and made small talk. He
asked about my drive across the state; I asked
about the framed sailing prints on the wall and
whether he’d been sailing lately. We chatted about
the Sonics, the Kingdome, and the coming World’s
Fair in Vancouver. After our coffee arrived, I asked
him to tell me about his plant and products.
Denton spoke excitedly for 10 or 12 minutes on
a wide range of topics—the daily production rate of
23 trucks, the cost of a truck, the sales order backlog, some equipment updating just finished, his
coming to this job from a plant in the Midwest, his
spending a lot of time lately with the next year’s
budget, and so forth. My impression of Denton
was that he was highly involved in his work. He
spoke rapidly but clearly with enthusiasm. Finally,
he leaned back, smiled, and said, “Well, I’ve been
going on, haven’t I?” I remember thinking I liked
Denton’s ease and his willingness to talk about his
plant and himself. I’d already learned a lot about the
plant and his job without more than looking interested. Denton certainly did seem likable, and he
was younger and more casual than I expected.

GETTING DOWN TO BUSINESS
I clearly recall my response to Denton’s question.
“Actually, I’ve appreciated your sharing all this
background with me. I’ve always been curious
about this plant. Years ago, I had a part-time job
when I was in college and used to deliver some

236

PART 2

THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT

industrial supplies in this end of town and always
wanted to know what happened in this plant. All I
could see from the road were those lines of big
shiny trucks. It’s nice to know they’re built with
care. But you asked for this meeting, Bob.
Remember you told me that while things were
going well here you sensed something wasn’t
quite right. Can you tell me a little more now?”
“Not really. I know the plant is doing fine. I feel
pretty much on top of my job. I like what I’m doing
here very much. My department heads—all nine of
them—are all good people. All but two have been
here quite a while. They’re dependable, damn
good at what they do, get along fine, and basically
are good managers,” he said.
“I get along good with everyone. I go out in
the plant every day and circulate around. Things
are moving smoothly. My two newer managers—
one runs our purchasing and inventory, the other is
in personnel—couldn’t be working out better. Yet
some things nag at me that I can’t put my finger
on. I guess it boils down to some crazy notion I
have that while we get along fine and work
together well, we haven’t jelled together as a
team quite like I’d hoped.”
I bombarded Denton with questions, trying to
find something that didn’t hang together or might
indicate a problem. No matter what I asked
about—from union relations to accounts receivable,
from engineering-production relations to turnover
figures—Denton’s responses were consistently factual and full, and everything seemed to be in
remarkably good shape.
I caught myself from going on with more questions. Instead I said, “Bob, everything I’ve been
asking about tells me you’re OK. Maybe things
here really are OK. Maybe you’ve just got some
apprehension that things couldn’t be that good.
After all, you’ve been here long enough to really
know. While there is some chance that you’re
not well informed, and some things aren’t so hot,
the odds are against it. About all I can suggest is
whether you might want someone like me to independently confirm how things are going.” Denton
smiled as if to himself and replied, “Hmm, maybe,
what would you suggest?”
“What’s usually done in situations like this, if
there is the interest and if there is the money to
pay for it, is to engage someone like me to spend a

few days interviewing a sample of managers and
other key staff people to see what might turn up.”
“From what you’ve heard so far, do you think
that makes sense here?” Denton asked.
“Frankly, I don’t know. It might be worth it to
you just to learn things really are OK. What usually
happens, however, is that I do find out about something that could be improved. After all that’s what
I’m supposed to be good at, finding problems. One
way or another, Bob, the mere fact I was here
would have some impact. The word would spread
pretty fast that some outsider was snooping
around. What impact that might have I can’t say. If
things really are OK, my presence might mean little.
If there are real problems, my being here would
probably create some tensions, it could raise expectations that something would be done about them,
and it could even cause problems.”
Denton nodded, “I see what you mean. If you
came in, it would cost me some bucks, it would
have some risks in how my people reacted; one
way or another I’d have to do something.” He
paused and then went on. “Well, to tell the truth,
I don’t want to upset things if they’re OK, but just
finding out whether they are or not appeals to me.
Isn’t there some other way to do this?”
Bob Denton seemed to me to be open to some
minimal work by me. He’d responded as I’d hoped
to my candidness about the risks of some conventional diagnostic snooping. He’d really seemed to
pay attention to what I’d said, and I was beginning
to like him and was intrigued with the situation. At
times like this, my thought processes seem to jump
into high gear. After all, a careful response was
called for and there were a number of considerations to factor in. The things I recall noting to myself
went like this: apparently some minimal motivation
on Bob’s part; my real lack of information about the
Kenworth situation; my own schedule for the coming months—which was pretty full; my intuition that
probably nothing major was wrong with Bob and his
managers; and that whatever I proposed had to be
of modest cost.

LET’S HAVE A RETREAT
I said to Bob: “Let me sketch out one idea that
comes to mind. We could do a modest retreat.
You, your department managers, and I could
meet away from here for a couple of days, say

SELECTED CASES

on a weekend, to jointly explore how things are
going. At minimum, I see several probable outcomes from such a meeting: everyone would get
somewhat better acquainted with one another;
we’d know better if there were serious issues to
tackle; we’d have the experience of jointly going
through problem identification; and you’d get a
sense of whether or not your team was open to
working with an outsider like myself.”
I paused and went on: “Such a meeting would
be relatively efficient. It wouldn’t take time away
from work, and it wouldn’t cost an arm and a
leg.” Bob nodded, sipped his coffee and looked
at me intently. “OK,” he said, “I can see your
points. Just what would we be doing?”
Seeing Bob’s interest as well as warming to
the idea myself, I went on to outline a retreat. I
suggested doing it at a country club or lodge within
a few hours’ drive of Seattle. This setting was to
provide a symbolic break from the customary business environment, and because it would cost
everyone weekend time and the company the
expense of travel, food, and lodging, it would
show Bob’s seriousness about the event. I then
suggested we begin with cocktails and dinner on
a Friday evening, work all day Saturday with appropriate breaks, and conclude by noon Sunday.
Again, Bob nodded. He then asked, “But what
would we do? What would you charge?”
I did some quick calculations and responded,
“As for my fee, I’d have to bill you for a minimum
of three days at my daily rate of $___ per day, and
travel expenses—assuming Kenworth would

237

provide food and lodging. As for what we’d actually
do, that’s more difficult to say exactly. Frankly, while
I have several ways to get us started, I’d need to
play it by ear. In general, it would be my responsibility to see we talked straight and a lot with one
another to surface our concerns both big and
small. I’m afraid you’d have to trust me on this.”
I said this last couple of sentences with some trepidation, knowing from my experience that most
managers would want much more clarity, but
I needed to know how Bob was viewing me.
I was surprised at what happened next. Denton
quickly agreed to have a retreat weekend as I’d
outlined. We also selected a weekend a monthand-a-half away. He would find a site and let
me know. In addition, we agreed he would use
the phrase “a communications workshop” when
he informed participants. Glancing at my watch as
I left Denton’s office, I saw it was just 11:30.

Questions
1. How well did the OD consultant prepare for
the meeting with Denton? Would you have
done anything differently?
2. In the discussion between the OD consultant
and Denton, what was effective and ineffective about the consultant’s behavior?
3. How effective was the contracting process
described in the last part of the case? What is
the scope and clarity of the agreement?
4. How would you design the upcoming retreat?

Purchase answer to see full
attachment