SWOT Analysis Guiding QuestionsStrengthsStrengths are internal.docx

SWOT Analysis Guiding Questions
Strengths
Strengths are internal, positive attributes of your company.
These are things that are within your control.
· What business processes are successful?
· What assets do you have in your team, i.e. knowledge,
education, network, skills, and reputation?
· What physical assets do you have, i.e. customers, equipment,
technology, cash, etc?
· What competitive advantages do you have over your
competition?
Weaknesses
Weaknesses are negative factors that detract from your
strengths. These are things that you might need to improve on to
be competitive.
· Are there things that your business needs to be competitive?
· What business processes need improvement?
· Are there tangible assets that your company needs, such as
money or equipment?
· Are there gaps on your team?
· Is your location ideal for your success?
Opportunities
Opportunities are external factors in your business environment
that are likely to contribute to your success.
· Is your market growing and are there trends that will
encourage people to buy more of what you are selling?
· Are there upcoming events that your company may be able to
take advantage of to grow the business?
· Are there upcoming changes to regulations that might impact
your company positively?
· If your business is up and running, do customers think highly
of you?

Threats
Threats are external factors that you have no control over. You
may want to consider putting in place contingency plans for
dealing them if they occur.
· Do you have potential competitors who may enter your
market?
· Will suppliers be able to supply the raw materials you need at
the prices you need?
· Could future developments and disruptors in technology
change how you do business?
· Is consumer behavior changing in a way that could negatively
impact your business?
· Are there market trends that could become a threat?
Running head: FIELD PSYCHOLOGY SCIENTIFIC METHOD1
FIELD PSYCHOLOGY SCIENTIFIC METHOD1
Field Psychology Scientific Method
Name
PSY/635
Teacher name
date
Field Psychology Scientific Method
In social psychology, there is a subtopic known as
social cognition. Social cognition’s main focus is on how

individuals store, process and apply information concerning
social situations and other people. It shows us the role of
cognitive processing in our social interaction. In order for
people to have the advantage of being part of certain social
groups, various psychological processes have to take part and
they are controlled by social cognition.
Various social signals are of importance to social cognition.
These signals enable individuals to learn about the world that
surrounds them. These signals include facial expressions such
as disgust and fear which warn us of danger, as well as eye gaze
direction which shows the direction of interesting things.
In the article, “The Role of Social Cognition Skills (SCS) and
Social Determination of Health (SDH) in Predicting Symptoms
of Mental Illness,” the author uses a quantitative method of
research. The article focuses on mental health and psychiatric
disorders. In the study, the method used was implemented from
a randomized sample assessed in the Colombian National
Mental Health Survey to evaluate the role of SCS, SDH and
psycho-physical factors as predictors of mental illness
symptoms (Santamaría-García, 2020).
The results from the assessment that the best predictors of
symptoms of mental illness were cognitive functioning, the
presence of chronic diseases, a medical history of psychiatric
disorders, social adverse factors as well as emotion recognition
skills. According to the author of the article, the study provided
unprecedented evidence on social factors and the impact it has
on predicting symptoms of mental illness as well as highlighting
the importance of these factors in order to track the onset and
early stages of the disease.
To explore social cognition and social psychology as a whole
and for better understanding, there are different special research
methods that can be used. The methods used in the research to
answer questions are both qualitative and quantitative. The
qualitative research method is used to make an analysis of data
that is not reducible to numbers.
The methods of collecting information and data and generating

it include interviews; an interview involves a conversation
between a researcher and the respondent. The researcher sets
questions with the agenda in place and the interviewee will give
answers. There is also focus groups which have a moderator
who leads in the group discussions. Thirdly there is the use of
naturally occurring data, this is the information that is produced
in the occurrence of everyday life. Lastly, there is the use of
structured methods of collecting data such as open-ended
questioners or vignettes.
Under qualitative data analysis, the methods of collecting data
include, qualitative data analysis. This method involves
developing categories and counting the number of times in
which these categories appear in a corpus of data. And
experimental and none experimental methods (Figgou, 2015).
From the article, the study was not based on different research
methods to draw a conclusion. The only method of research
used was SEM which is a quantitative model of research. The
author should have also used a qualitative method by having
interviews with patients with mental illness and having open-
ended questioners to have a better-drawn conclusion. The
validity and reliability of one method of research is
questionable. Utilizing both qualitative and quantitative method
can help a research come up with better results.
References
Figgou, L. (2015). Social Psychology: Research Methods.
Research Gate.
Santamaría-García, H. (2020). The Role of Social Cognition
Skills (SCS) and Social Determinants of Health (SDH) in
Predicting Symptoms of Mental Illness. SSRN.

8B13C022
Teaching Note
SKILLSFORTOMORROW: A MANAGEMENT TEAM IN
CRISIS
Steven D. Charlier and Martin M. Brennan wrote this teaching
note as an aid to instructors in the classroom use of the case
SkillsForTomorrow: A Management Team in Crisis, No.
9B13C022. This teaching note should not be used in any way
that
would prejudice the future use of the case.
This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized
or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without
the
permission of the copyright holder. Reproduction of this
material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction
rights
organization.
Copyright © 2013, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation
Version: 2013-06-26
SYNOPSIS
The SkillsForTomorrow (SFT) case presents a common scenario
in management consulting — a

client/sponsor who may be unwilling to hear what you (the
consultant) have to say! The student is placed
in the role of Martina Jones, a management consultant who has
been hired to fix the “morale” issues at an
SFT location in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. SFT is a government-
sponsored organization tasked with
helping at-risk young adults gain vocational training toward
preparing them for a successful career in one
of several areas, including automotive and machine repair,
construction, health care and information
technology. The program provides support to students beyond
technical training, including the
development of interpersonal skills, problem-solving skills and
skills in effectively conducting a job
search and interview — all towards the goal of graduating
individuals that are prepared to live
independently and become productive citizens (and taxpayers).
The case provides detailed information on the performance of
the location relative to benchmarks and
peers. Notes from a series of interviews with SFT management,
along with some brief survey results, are
also provided at the end of the case. From this information, it
should become evident that there are several
factors influencing the morale of the SFT management team,
some of which point directly at the sponsor
of the consulting project: Ted Alvarez, the executive director at
SFT Harrisburg. The primary tasks for
students are to discern what the root causes are for the
management discord, and to derive a solution that
can help solve these various issues. The context for the scenario
— a management consulting engagement
— is also an important and unique aspect of the case, as the
student will need to consider the political and
interpersonal aspects of the consulting relationship between
Jones and Alvarez in their analysis and

solution development.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
There are two central learning objectives for the case study:
Page 2 8B13C022
1. To analyze and diagnose task and interpersonal conflict that
is detrimental to team/organizational
performance, and then develop solutions.
2. To understand the unique aspects of the client-consultant
relationship, and how these can impact the
formulation and delivery of consulting recommendations.
Beyond these main objectives, there are several auxiliary
learning objectives for the case. While any
discussion of the case will focus on the two central learning
objectives, the level of emphasis on any of
the following sub-objectives can vary based on the course,
instructor and student population:
1. To analyze the management structure of an organization and
develop recommendations for change
that allow for better coordination and communication among
management teams.
2. To explore the issues related to in-groups and out-groups
within a team, along with perceived

favoritism on the part of influential individuals.
3. To understand the complexities of data analysis and
interpretation within organizations.
4. To explore the potential problems that can be caused by
“inter-office romances” and to discuss how
HR policies can best be implemented to handle these situations.
USE OF THE CASE
The case was initially designed for a graduate-level course in
management consulting, within an overall
program focused on organizational leadership. However, the
case can also potentially be used in both
upper-end undergraduate-level and graduate-level courses in
management, organizational behavior or
teams. The issues and context for the case align well with the
general topic areas of teams, leadership,
conflict, collaboration and communication.
In terms of timing within a given course, this will vary based on
the level of the students. At a minimum,
students will need to have a basic understanding of consulting
processes and methodologies prior to
engaging in the case study — an overview of a general
consulting process is provided in Exhibit TN-1.
For undergraduate students, the case study may best be used as
a capstone-type case study within a course
on teams or organizational behavior, as the issues covered in the
case span a variety of topic areas. For
graduate students, use of the case earlier in the course schedule
may be appropriate, if students generally
have sufficient work experience that relates to the issues at
hand. Again, the case may also serve as a
capstone for courses in general organizational behavior or with

a focus on teams or leadership.
RECOMMENDED READINGS
Below are a number of outside readings that are pertinent to the
context and issues featured in the case
study, some of which are referenced within this teaching note:
K.M. Eisenhardt, J.L. Kahwajy and L.J. Bourgeois, “How
management teams can have a good fight,”
Harvard Business Review, 75, 1997, pp. 77-86.
J.R. Katzenbach, “The myth of the top management team,”
Harvard Business Review, 75, 1997, pp. 82-
92.
P. Lencioni, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, California, 2002.
Page 3 8B13C022
S.J. Mantel, Jr., J.R. Meredith, S.M. Shafer and M.M. Sutton,
Project Management in Practice, 4th ed.,
John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2011.
J.G. Michel and D.C. Hambrick, “Diversification posture and
top management team characteristics,”
Academy of Management Journal, 35, 1992, pp. 9-37.
E.H. Schein, Process Consultation, Vol. II, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, Massachusetts, 1987.

P. Wickham and L. Wickham, Management Consulting:
Delivering an Effective Project, 3rd ed.,
Financial Times/Prentice Hall, Essex, England, 2008.
PREPARATION FOR CLASS DISCUSSION
Prior to class discussion, there are several questions related to
the central learning objectives of the case
that may be posed to students. These align with the proposed
organization of the classroom discussion in
the following section:
1. How does management consulting work? What is the role of
the management consultant in this
particular situation?
2. What are the main issues facing the SFT Harrisburg team of
directors? What are the root causes of
these issues?
3. How would you characterize Alvarez as a leader?
4. What recommendations would you make to help improve the
situation?
5. If you were Martina Jones, specifically how would you
approach the Monday-afternoon meeting with
the directors? What would you do before, during and after the
briefing with the directors?
6. Is an off-site retreat advisable at this time? If so, what would
be the focus of the retreat? Specifically,
how would you organize the retreat?
Additional questions that can be asked of students (either prior

to the discussion or within the classroom
discussion) are as follows:
1. What is your interpretation of the performance data for SFT
Harrisburg in case Exhibits 1 and 2? Is
SFT Harrisburg doing a “good job” or not?
2. Is the current management structure at SFT Harrisburg
effective? Why or why not?
3. Are there in-groups and out-groups within the team of
directors at SFT Harrisburg? If so, what are
they? Is the relationship between Alvarez and Nelson an issue?
Again, the level of emphasis on the second group of questions
will vary from class to class. While these
aspects of the case should not be completely ignored, the
instructor may choose to emphasize some areas
over others based on the goals of the discussion and/or the
placement of the case within the overall
course. Potential answers to these questions are also discussed
within the following section on the
organization of the classroom discussion.
Page 4 8B13C022
ORGANIZATION OF CLASS DISCUSSION
The following is one potential means of organizing the in-class
discussion of the case within a 90-minute
class period. A recommended structure for the overall set of

boards for the classroom discussion is
provided in Exhibit TN-2.
Overview of the case and the major players (5 minutes)
It may be useful to have a list of the directors/roles (including
Jones, the consultant) on a board prior to
the start of class. This will be helpful later in the discussion, as
the various in- and out-groups are
discussed, along with the interpersonal conflicts that are evident
among the directors. This time is perhaps
best used to ensure that students are familiar with the central
figures in the case, and the context in which
Jones/Hancher Consulting was asked to provide consulting
services.
ANALYSIS
1. How does management consulting work? What is the role of
the management consultant in
this particular situation? (10 minutes)
Beyond the overview of the context for the case, it is important
for students to understand the unique
environment within which consultants apply their craft. If the
consulting process has not been covered
prior to class, this is an opportunity to review the process as
described in Exhibit TN-1. It should be noted
that at the time of the case, Jones/Hancher Consulting is
approaching the eighth step in the process
(delivery). But it is also worth mentioning that the addition of
the off-site retreat to the statement of work
would require a shift back to step three (preliminary analysis).

Additionally, it is probably worthwhile to discuss the various
roles that a consultant can assume on a
given consulting project. Schein (1987) proposed three basic
modes for consulting:
Expert The consultant uses their expertise in a given area to
propose solutions to a problem as
identified by the client.
Doctor-Patient Akin to healthcare, this mode is similar to
“expert” mode, except that the
consultant is also tasked with identifying and diagnosing the
problem(s) for the client.
Process Consulting This mode works under the assumption that
the best people to solve an
organization’s problems are the individuals within the
organization. Thus, the consultant’s role is as a
facilitator of change, rather than as the owner of problem
identification and solution development.
While it should be clear that Jones’s role at SFT does not easily
fall into the third mode, students may
debate whether the “expert” role or the “doctor-patient” role
best characterizes the current situation. From
the case, it appears that Alvarez views the role of
Jones/Hancher Consulting as an “expert”; however,
Jones may be perceived as viewing the engagement as more of a
“doctor-patient” role, based on the
information collected from the interviews. This notion will be
revisited later in the discussion.

2. What are the main issues facing the SFT Harrisburg team of
directors? What are the root
causes of these issues? (20 minutes)
Page 5 8B13C022
Again, two boards should be used to capture the issues and root
causes from the ensuing discussion. In
short, students should identify several areas of concern on the
part of Alvarez and others at SFT
Harrisburg. In turn, these identified issues can be tied to various
root causes at multiple levels of the
organization. One recommendation for discussing the potential
issues to be identified and analyzed is to
start at the organizational level, and work through the issues in
a “big-to-small” fashion.
If the class starts at the organizational level (related to
“optional” question #1 from the prior section), a
student will undoubtedly suggest that the organization’s
performance is lacking — clearly, Alvarez would
agree! But this perspective is not shared among the directors, as
the interview notes suggest that several of
the directors do not believe that the Harrisburg office is in
danger of losing its charter. The data are
purposefully vague in this regard, as well — while the location
is clearly not a high performer relative to
its peers, SFT Harrisburg is meeting most of its performance
benchmarks (as shown in Exhibit 2 of the
case). A review of the rankings data in Exhibit 1 of the case
also seems to support the opinions of the

directors — many of the locations that lost their charter in the
prior six years were “repeat offenders” as
very low-performing units, finishing in the bottom three for
more than one year.
Given this, while the mediocre past performance of SFT
Harrisburg is still a valid point of debate for the
classroom, this scenario allows for discussion along two points.
The first is simple — managers do not
always have all of the optimal information to make informed
decisions. The second point is a bit more
complex — if the location truly is not in danger of losing its
charter, what then is Alvarez’s motivation in
driving higher metrics? A brief discussion on goals and
motivation could be had at this point — one
potential explanation is that Alvarez (as a newly appointed
executive director) is keen to “make a name”
for himself within the overall SFT organization. Nevertheless, it
may be suggested that more information
should be gathered on this topic for further analysis — a
“parking lot” board should be used for this and
other aspects of the case that require more fact-finding.
In regards to the second “optional” question listed in the prior
section, some potential issues in regards to
the organizational structure may also arise during this portion
of the class discussion. First, most of the
directors report directly to Alvarez, while others report to other
directors within the top management team
(TMT). Second, the size of the staff beneath each of the
directors varies greatly (ranging from two to over
40). Both of these points may have implications for perceptions
of power and influence within the TMT.
Third, given the issues with teamwork and collaboration, a
student may suggest that sub-groups be
formed among directors with related job functions (e.g.,

business functions, educational/student service
functions, etc.). There is no clear “right” answer in this regard,
but a conversation around the potential
benefits and costs of smaller working groups within this overall
structure may be worthwhile.
Related to the previous issue and per “optional” question #3, it
seems clear that there are several
troublesome relationships between individual directors (e.g.,
Fen and Rasmussen/Cummings, Coldwell
and Steele, Wong and Johnson). Likewise, several directors
suggested that Alvarez has created an in-
group with the female directors on the TMT. It may be helpful
to use the board in Exhibit TN-2 to outline
the various relationships that seem to be problematic. It should
also be noted during this discussion that
two of the three female directors joined the Harrisburg office at
the same time as Alvarez and had worked
extensively with him during his previous tenure at the
Tidewater office. While diving into the “problem
dyads” within the TMT may not be the best use of time, it is
indicative of a larger issue of a lack of
collaboration and trust across the entire team. The notion of in-
groups and out-groups should be fully
explored during the class discussion.
Finally, there is the potential issue of the relationship between
Alvarez and Nelson (optional question #3).
While this can be covered within the context of the overall
discussion of problematic relationships at SFT
Page 6 8B13C022

Harrisburg, instructors may wish to delve deeper into both the
HR and OB ramifications of a romantic
relationship between a supervisor and employee. It is not stated
whether SFT has any regulations in place
regarding these types of relationships (given that it is a
government entity, the answer is assuredly “yes”).
From an OB perspective, the relationship between Alvarez and
Nelson is clearly having an impact on the
directors’ perceptions of fairness and inclusivity. Thus, for both
of these reasons, it is an issue that needs
to be dealt with.
3. How would you characterize Alvarez as a leader? (10
minutes)
Having gone through the previous discussion of issues at SFT,
students will likely be quite negative
towards Alvarez’s performance as executive director thus far.
While Alvarez is certainly not the perfect
manager, the instructor should facilitate the conversation to
include positive attributes that Alvarez has
displayed within the case (e.g., energy, determination, ability to
make tough decisions). Among other
things, it should be noted that Alvarez has replaced a beloved
and long-standing executive director in
Herbert Brooks — a hard act to follow! Some of the
recommendations for change from students will
likely point directly at Alvarez, but having the students reflect
on how they would react to being in
Alvarez’s situation should prove fruitful.
4. What recommendations would you make to help improve the
situation? (15 minutes)

Once all of the issues and root causes are documented on the
boards, students should be asked to
recommend solutions to these problem areas. Up to this point,
the conversation has stayed at a somewhat
clinical/diagnostic level, but this is where the aspects of the
client-consultant relationship should start to
enter the discussion. The reality of the situation is that Jones, as
a consultant, must be mindful of
preserving the relationship with Alvarez in providing her
recommendations.
There are two potential strategies for how to handle this part of
the class discussion — both can be
effective, and both should lead to the same result. One strategy
is to remind the students at the start of this
portion of the discussion that they should be mindful of Jones’s
role within the case, and should consider
how Alvarez will view the recommendations (or, for that matter,
the issues uncovered in Hancher
Consulting’s research). A second strategy is to remain silent on
this issue, until either a student raises a
concern or until all recommendations have been vetted by the
class. In the latter case, student
recommendations may take on a new light once students are
reminded of the circumstances facing Jones.
It may be that several recommendations will require some re-
thinking, once this revelation is made.
Because of the nature of the issues and the complexity of the
situation, there is no single “right” answer to
solving these issues at SFT (with the possible exception of the
relationship between Alvarez and Nelson,
although even this may be debated among students). It is
suggested that the class develop a set of
recommendations via dialogue and consensus, whereby the
instructor remains somewhat in the

background of the conversation. However, care should be taken
to ensure that all identified issues/root
causes are covered by the set of recommendations developed by
the classroom participants.
5. If you were Martina Jones, specifically how would you
approach the Monday-afternoon
meeting with the directors? What would you do before, during
and after the briefing with the
directors? (15 minutes)
Page 7 8B13C022
Armed with a set of issues and recommendations, students may
immediately jump to planning for the
afternoon briefing with the directors (including Alvarez). Two
things should result from this portion of
the discussion. First, a strategy for the presentation to the
directors is clearly needed — how the results of
the consulting work are portrayed to the directors is an
important consideration. Jones should be careful
not to alienate any of the directors during this presentation, and
the discussion should remain at a
reasonably high level (without pointing the finger directly at
any individual director, including Alvarez).
A discussion can be had at this point around the ethical
requirements for a consultant — how forthright
should Jones be in her divulging of the interview and survey
data? Is it unethical for Jones to withhold

some of her findings at this point? While it should be made
clear that outright lying is not the proper
course of action, it may be prudent for Jones to reserve some of
her findings for a less public venue. The
particular facets of the issues/recommendations outlined by the
class that are worth scrutiny in this regard
may vary from one class to another, and it will be up to the
instructor to facilitate this aspect of the
discussion as they deem appropriate.
Nevertheless, a second important consideration for Jones at this
point is meeting with Alvarez prior to the
presentation to the directors. While Jones attempted to have a
conversation with Alvarez on the prior
Friday, she was not able to provide an overview of the findings
to Alvarez at that time. Springing this
information onto Alvarez in a meeting with all of the other
directors present will be a recipe for disaster.
According to Mantel, Jr., Meredith, Shaffer and Sutton,1 one
should “never let the boss be surprised.”
This is clearly a case where the manager (Alvarez) should be
duly informed of the results of the
consultants’ research prior to the afternoon briefing. This will
not only help to preserve the relationship
between Alvarez and Jones going forward, but Alvarez can also
assist Jones in framing the presentation
appropriately for the audience in the afternoon briefing. While
Jones does run the risk of fracturing the
relationship with Alvarez before the briefing is even held, that
risk is much greater if Alvarez is caught
unaware in the meeting with the directors.
6. Is an off-site retreat advisable at this time? If so, what would
be the focus of the retreat?

Specifically, how would you organize the retreat? (10 minutes)
Alvarez is clearly keen on holding an off-site retreat. While the
retreat will likely not solve all of the
issues exhibited at SFT, some benefits can be gained from a
properly structured program of activities
aimed at increasing the level of trust and communications
within the TMT. The experience of the authors
has been that most students will suggest that an off-site retreat
be held. Thus, the focus of this aspect of
the discussion will be on the last two questions listed above.
Students can brainstorm the types of
activities and the general structure/goals of the retreat — for
graduate students, participants may be able
to draw on prior experiences with team-building activities. In
the end, students should derive some very
clear goals/objectives for the retreat that tie directly to the
issues outlined earlier in the discussion.
Wrap-up (5 minutes)
To conclude the discussion, the instructor can begin by
recapping the issues and recommendations that
were developed by the students over the course of the class
period. Key points that should be addressed in
the wrap-up include the following:
1 S.J. Mantel, Jr., J.R. Meredith, S.M. Shafer and M.M. Sutton,
Project Management in Practice, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, New Jersey, 2011, p. 49.

8B13C022
Dysfunction in teams can stem from a variety of sources —
personality, organizational structure,
task-related conflict, misaligned goals and more.
Leaders can have a particularly important role in team function,
both positively and negatively.
There are no quick fixes for poor team dynamics — issues with
trust, communication and
collaboration take time to resolve.
In regards to consulting, the client-consultant relationship is
crucial to any engagement, and can
heavily influence how and what a consultant communicates to a
client. The delivery of “bad news” to
a client (or boss) requires careful consideration.
EPILOGUE
Prior to the briefing with the directors, Jones was able to meet
with Alvarez and provide an overview of
Hancher Consulting’s findings. Alvarez was visibly shocked by
some of the information, particularly
around his perceived relationship with Nelson and the
impressions of an “inner circle” with Alvarez.
Alvarez did ask Jones to keep the comments on his relationship
with Nelson out of the afternoon
presentation, but otherwise gave the green light to report the
other findings.
In the afternoon briefing, Jones elected to focus her

presentation on high-level issues with the team (lack
of trust, communication and coordination, along with a lack of
understanding on how all of the various
components of the organization work together). Any individual
issues or specific relationship issues
between two directors were not openly discussed. During the
meeting, it was agreed that an off-site
weekend meeting would be held, with the focus being on the
high-level issues listed previously. It was
also agreed that Jones would facilitate the off-site meeting, and
the contract with Hancher was amended
accordingly.
At the off-site meeting (held several weeks after the initial
briefing), the directors went through a series of
exercises focused on open communication, honest feedback and
the Five Dysfunctions of a Team text
(Lencioni, 2002). At the culmination of the two-day meeting,
the directors were asked to sit in a circle
and write answers to the following questions for each of their
colleagues on the management team:
What is the person’s single most important behavioral quality
that contributes to the strength of the
team?
What is the person’s single most important behavioral quality
that detracts from the strength of the
team?
Responses were collected anonymously and distributed to each
of the directors. After reading their
feedback, directors were asked to share their feedback with the
group and discuss what they had learned
from this process. The result was a surprisingly candid and

honest appraisal of where each of the directors
excelled, and where they could improve.
At the time of writing the case, the long-term effects of this
intervention were not fully known; however,
the lingering effects of a perceived “in-group” with Alvarez
remained, even after the off-site meeting.
How Alvarez and the rest of the management team at SFT
Harrisburg would fare in removing these
impediments to team performance remained a work in progress.
Nevertheless, the consulting engagement
with SFT was completed to the satisfaction of Alvarez, and
follow-on work between Hancher Consulting
and SFT Harrisburg was commencing.
Page 9 8B13C022
EXHIBIT TN-1: CONSULTING PROCESS
Source: Adapted from P. Wickham and L. Wickham,
Management Consulting: Delivering an Effective Project, 3rd
edition,
Pearson Education Limited, Essex, England, 2008.
Initial contact

Decision to work together
Preliminary analysis
Formal proposal
Project charter
In-depth analysis
Implementation
Delivery
Follow-up
Page 10 8B13C022
EXHIBIT TN-2: BOARD STRUCTURE FOR START OF
CLASS DISCUSSION
Key Personnel Issues Root Causes
Solution
s
Ted Alvarez – Executive Director

Lucinda Smith – HR
Jake Rasmussen – Outreach
Yu Fen – Bus Ops
Nancy Cummings – Career Services
Walter Blackmon – Dean

Sidney Johnson – Res Life
Ralph Coldwell – Security/Transportation
Andy Wong – Student Education
Melinda Nelson – General Education
Nora Steele – Health/Wellness
Martina Jones – Hancher Consulting
Monday Morning Strategy

Off-site Retreat
Source: Created by author.
Nov 2007 Materials and concepts used in this proposal have
been reproduced with permission of the Author and Client.
BUSA 695 – Organizational Consulting Project
SAMPLE PROJECT PROPOSAL
<<Client name, Client title>>
Catalyst Paper Crofton Division, Crofton BC
<<Date>>
Dear <<Client name>>:

Re: Human Resource People Strategies - Performance
Management Consulting Project for
Catalyst Paper Crofton Division
Thank you for the opportunity to explore potential consulting
project ideas with you for Catalyst
Paper Crofton Division. I appreciate the time you spent with
me sharing information about your
organization, current situation and plans for the future. I
understand the many challenges your
organization currently faces. The recent downsizing and
reorganization of your management
workforce directly affects your employees and increases the risk
of morale, retention and
performance issues.
Following careful consideration of our discussions and your
current situation I am pleased to

submit the attached proposal to help you address challenges
with your current employee
performance management program. The proposal further
explains the purpose, scope, objectives
and anticipated benefits of the services I have to offer. As a
human resources professional and
MBA student, I have professional experiences and interests that
align with your need to improve
the performance of your staff workforce as you work through
significant organizational change.
I appreciate your review and consideration of this proposal. I
would welcome another opportunity
to meet with you to further discuss the details of the services I
have to offer and answer any
questions you may have.

If you accept the terms and conditions presented please indicate
your acceptance by signing the
OCP proposal agreement form located on the last page of the
attached proposal.
Sincerely,
<<Learner Name>>
MBA Candidate
A Consulting Proposal for

Catalyst Paper Crofton Division
Human Resource People Strategies:
Evaluating the use of the Performance Management Program
Submitted to:
<<Client name>>
<<Client title>>
and
Mr. Michele Vincenti
Organizational Consulting Project Coordinator
Royal Roads University
Prepared by:
<<Learner name>>

<<Date>>
INTRODUCTION
The pulp and paper manufacturing facility located in Crofton,
BC began operations fifty years ago
as part of British Columbia Forest Products Limited (BCFP).
Now owned by Catalyst Paper
Corporation, Crofton Pulp and Paper operates as one of four
independent manufacturing divisions
within the company’s current structure. With five manufacturing
lines, Crofton produces pulp and
paper products for global customers.

Many changes have impacted the Crofton employees over the
past decade including multiple
changes in company ownership and identity. Major
organizational transformations involving
restructuring took place in 1996, 1998 and again in 2001. By the
end of fiscal 2006, the company
employed 768 union employees and 209 non-union management
staff.
The senior management team (SMT) relies heavily on the skill
and talent of its workforce to
manoeuvre through constant change and industry challenges. A
performance management (PM)
program exists for non-union staff employees. According to past
practice the SMT communicates
expectations to managers and employees by providing a yearly
timeline for PM related tasks and

deliverables such as completion of yearly performance
evaluations for employees. Unsure of the
state of the actual PM practices at Crofton, Vern Phillips, the
newly appointed Director of HR
requires consulting assistance to enable a well informed and
strategic decision making process for
addressing Crofton’s PM in support of the future direction of
the company.
PRESENT COMPANY SITUATION
Many changes have occurred within the organization over the
past year:
� In early 2007 a financial investment group, Third Avenue
Management, purchased a large
quantity of Catalyst shares making them the company’s single
largest shareholder. Declining
market prices, fiber supply challenges and a higher Canadian
dollar have placed the

profitability of the business in jeopardy and company strategy
has turned to cost
improvements.
� In August 2007, Crofton’s SMT announced and implemented
a new organizational structure
involving an approximate fifteen percent downsizing of the non-
union management
workforce. Some employees were terminated immediately;
others were notified of their
termination with an effective date at year end. For many
remaining employees, reporting
structures, home departments, job positions and responsibilities
as well as future
opportunities within the company have or will change.

� In September 2007, senior management announced changes to
employee performance
contracts, a component of the performance management
program, directly altering the
employee variable pay structure.
Continuous change, looming uncertainty and increasing
workloads are affecting employee morale,
motivation, and retention. With a leaner management workforce
any employee performance and
retention issues pose a significant threat to the business. As the
SMT moves forward with plans to
reestablish Crofton Pulp and Paper as a profitable, cost
effective global competitor, the HR director
is faced with the challenge of developing strategies to ensure

the organization has the people
resources it needs. The current situation highlights the
importance of assessing the existing PM
program to understand how it is being used and to ensure this
component of the HR strategy
meets the current and future needs of the business and its
employees.
Problem Definition
A preliminary SWOT analysis reveals multiple challenges
facing the company:
External Factors
� Strengthening Canadian dollar adversely impacting profits
� Lower cost producers entering the market, specifically in
China
� Increasing raw material costs, specifically oil and gas
Internal Factors

Financial:
� Declining EBITDA
� Weakening and extremely low share price; share price below
book value
� Declining availability of capital for reinvestment
Marketing:
� Shrinking market in North American
� Customers losing confidence in products due to disruptions in
fiber supply
� Customers demanding guaranteed production and sourcing
alternate suppliers
Operations:
� Aging assets without sufficient reinvestment
� Union labour contracts expire in April 2008
Human Resources:
� Reduced workforce resulting in a loss of talent and manpower

� Morale, motivation and retention issues
� Lack of focus on human resources processes, specifically
performance management and
training and development.
Technology:
� Increasing complexity of technology
� Loss of advanced technical support due to restructure
PROJECT PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Purpose
The purpose of the proposed consulting project is to conduct a
Performance Management
Program Evaluation that provides a narrative description of how

the PM program is actually used
by employees and managers within the organization and to
develop recommendations for
improvement. The project will be conducted through a research
based methodology. Major project
components include: discovery based research to investigate
current practices, best practices
research, gap analysis and recommendations for improvement.
Scope
As currently proposed, the project involves:
� Completion of one formal document, a Performance
Management Program Evaluation that
will provide the information and analysis required for the HR
director and SMT to understand
the current state of the PM program in order to strategically
plan for the future of PM at

Crofton.
� Recommendations for improvement based on short and long
term needs of the business,
employees and managers and a proposed implementation plan
for recommendations where
applicable. (Short term refers to the immediate year following
the project; long term refers to
beyond the first year).
� As the project progresses, depending on findings and timing,
recommendations and / or
revisions to the current PM training and communication
materials may be included.
The project does not involve:
� Analysis of any PM type activity related to bargaining unit
employees who are currently
excluded from the PM program.

� Implementing recommendations or any implementation plan.
� Gap analysis in comparison to best-of-class research.
� Evaluation, analysis or research related to technological PM
solutions.
APPROACH and METHODOLOGY
Approach
The project will be conducted according the following steps:
1. Project set up:
� Develop research plan
2. Detailed SWOT analysis:
� A preliminary SWOT analysis was conducted in preparation
of this proposal.

� Conduct a thorough SWOT analysis to identify strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and
threats impacting the business.
3. Best Practices Research
� Conduct secondary research to investigate PM best practices
from literature.
� Research will focus on PM concepts and approach, rather
than technological solutions.
4. Internal Organizational Research
� Develop an interview instrument and submit an ethical review
for research approval to the
Royal Roads University (RRU) Ethical Review Board.
� Conduct primary research to investigate the current PM
practices and needs at Crofton
through staff and management interviews.
5. Internal Data Gathering and Review

� Collect and review relevant available data on PM program
related activity within the
organization.
6. Analysis
� Incorporating information collected in each of the previous
stages, analyze gaps between
current practices and: a) senior management expectations, b)
employee and manager
expectations, c) strategic goals of the business, d) performance
management best practices.
7. Recommendations and Implementation Plan
� Develop recommendations for improvement based on short
and long term needs of the
business, employees and managers.
� Develop a recommended implementation plan moving
forward based.

8. Presentation of results
� Review draft with client followed by presentation of final
document.
Methodology Details
Develop research plan:
� Determine needs and methods for gathering information
relevant to existing / past
performance management program activity.
Primary research:
� Conduct interviews with an appropriate sample of
management and employee stakeholders.

Secondary research:
� Literature review of performance management best practices
focused on concepts and
approach not technological solutions.
PROJECT SCHEDULE and MILESTONE DATES
Project work will begin following your acceptance of this
proposal with completion of the final
deliverables on or before March 14, 2008. Your acceptance is
required within 5 days of receiving
this proposal for the project work to be completed within this
time frame.
MONTH (Nov to March) PROJECT PHASE
N D J F M
COMPLETED BY
1. Project Set Up November 30, 2007

2. SWOT Analysis November 30, 2007
3. Best Practice Research November 30, 2007
4. Internal Organizational Research December 21, 2007
5. Internal Data Gathering and Review December 31, 2007
6. Analysis January 11, 2008
8. Draft Report and Presentation February 15, 2008
9. Final Revisions February 29, 2008
8. Submit Final Report
(sign off by client, advisor and RRU)
March 14, 2008
TIMING AND COST ESTIMATES
The final project will be completed over a 4 month period
requiring a minimum of 360 hours of
work. Final deliverables will be provided to you the client and
submitted as a requirement of the
Royal Roads University MBA program and therefore offered
free of consulting fees. Limited
expenses include office supplies, printing and copying costs.
Royal Roads University estimates a

project value of $30,000 to the client based on scope and
required hours of work.
ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES and BENEFITS
The project will provide an analysis of Crofton’s performance
management program that will assist
senior management in:
� Understanding how the current PM program is used at
Crofton.
� Revising the current program to meet organizational needs
and business objectives.
� Setting a benchmark and measuring the success of
improvement strategies implemented in
the future.

� Enabling the organization to efficiently and effectively
conduct PM activities.
� Improving the PM skills and knowledge of managers.
� Improving the value of PM to individual employees and their
managers.
� Improving motivation, morale, retention and performance of
the staff workforce.
� Identifying and planning for required employee development
and succession planning to
meet the future needs of the organization.
SUMMARY of PROJECT DELIVERABLES
Following completion of the project you will receive 2 printed
copies and 1 electronic file of the
following documents:

1. Performance management program analysis document
(approximately 75-100 pages plus
appendices) including short and long term opportunities for
improvement and applicable
recommended implementation plan.
2. Power Point Presentation summarizing findings and
recommendations
CONSULTANT’S CREDENTIALS and CONTACT
INFORMATION
I completed a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) degree from the
University of Waterloo in 2001 and 6
years working experience in the human resources field. I began
my MBA in Executive
Management in April 2006 at Royal Roads University. To date
I have successfully completed the
required course work for the program preparing me with skills
and knowledge essential to working

with clients to investigate potential business concerns, diagnose
issues that need to be addressed
and deliver effective solutions.
MBA course work specifically relevant to this project include:
Project Management, Business
Research Methods, Consulting Skills, Change Management and
Organizational Relations.
My consulting philosophy centres on client partnerships;
working directly with clients to provide
tools, information and mutually developed solutions to ensure
the client’s specific business needs
are addressed.
Contact information:
Office: 250-246-6079

Email: [email protected]
9B13C022
SKILLSFORTOMORROW: A MANAGEMENT TEAM IN
CRISIS
Steven D. Charlier and Martin M. Brennan wrote this case
solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors do
not intend
to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a
managerial situation. The authors may have disguised certain
names and
other identifying information to protect confidentiality.
This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized
or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without

the
permission of the copyright holder. Reproduction of this
material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction
rights
organization. To order copies or request permission to
reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Business
School, Western
University, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 0N1; (t)
519.661.3208; (e) [email protected]; www.iveycases.com.
Copyright © 2013, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation
Version: 2013-07-10
Martina Jones shut the door to her office in downtown
Pittsburgh, collapsed into her chair, and
contemplated the predicament that she found herself in with her
client, SkillsForTomorrow (SFT). It was
Friday night on September 28, 2012, and she faced a long
weekend in preparation for a meeting with the
SFT management team at the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, location
on the following Monday. Jones was a
lead consultant for Hancher Consulting, a small boutique
management-consulting firm that specialized in

the public sector. Her client, a satellite location within SFT,
signed a contract with Hancher in early
August 2012 to help with “morale issues” among its
management team. Jones and her team of consultants
had been busy ever since, learning about SFT and the problems
facing the Harrisburg campus. Through a
series of interviews with the Harrisburg management team,
several issues had come to life — many of
which went well beyond poor morale. She opened her laptop,
began to review the data that she and her
team had collected, and wondered how she was going to present
their findings while preserving any hope
of a continuing relationship with SFT and the Harrisburg
executive director, Ted Alvarez.
SKILLSFORTOMORROW (SFT)
SFT was a government-sponsored organization tasked with
helping at-risk young adults gain vocational
training toward preparing them for a successful career in one of
several areas, including automotive and
machine repair, construction, health care and information
technology. The program provided support to
students beyond technical training, including the development

of interpersonal skills, problem-solving
skills, and skills in effectively conducting a job search and
interview — all towards the goal of graduating
individuals that were prepared to live independently and become
productive citizens (and taxpayers). SFT
was founded in the 1960s, and had been widely hailed as a
success story.
The SFT organization was highly decentralized, operating out of
a total of 180 locations across the entire
United States as of the end of 2011. While the headquarters was
located in Washington, D.C., each
location had its own management staff that oversaw the
operations within its jurisdiction. The Harrisburg
location handled SFT activities for the entire south-central
Pennsylvania region. Like in much of the
country, unemployment was an issue in this region (around 7
per cent in the summer of 2012), and the
demand for entrants into the SFT was high and stable.
Harrisburg was one of six SFT locations in the
state of Pennsylvania.
Page 2 9B13C022

All of the SFT locations went through an annual appraisal
process conducted by a team from the
corporate headquarters. During the appraisal process, locations
were rated based on a variety of criteria,
including admission rates, graduation rates, hiring rates,
disciplinary issues and student satisfaction.
Based on the data from these yearly appraisals, locations were
ranked from top to bottom across the entire
organization. These rankings could have a significant impact on
the individual locations, in that
consistently low-performing locations had had their charter
revoked in recent years (see Exhibits 1 and 2).
SFT HARRISBURG AND THE YEARLY RANKINGS
In terms of the yearly rankings, Harrisburg consistently placed
in the lower half of the SFT locations.
While the location met the baseline standards in a number of
key performance areas, Harrisburg had not
been able to break into the upper half of the rankings for several
years. Jones knew that this was a

potential source of concern for everyone at the Harrisburg
location, but this was especially true for the
executive director, Alvarez, who said:
We’ve got to figure out a way to get our ranking up in the next
year or two, at the latest. Four
locations were axed last year, and I don’t want to be the next! I
know that D.C. is keeping an eye
on things here, and if we don’t right the ship, we’ll all be
looking for a job. Everyone needs to
understand how vitally important the rankings are to our future.
How to “right the ship” seemed to be a topic of conversation in
many of the interviews that Jones and her
team conducted with SFT management. The comments of staff
members covered a wide variety of topics
and issues facing the organization. The quotes below typify this
diversity of opinions:
I don’t think our students are as well prepared for life after the
program as they should be. I mean,
we focus our efforts on giving them technical training to do

their jobs. But what about everything
else that you need to know to live on your own? The curriculum
that’s in place now only covers
the bare essentials, and I think many of our graduates still
struggle with basic life skills after they
leave SFT. (Nancy Cummings, director of career services)
Our executive director is a nice guy, and I know his heart is in
the right place, but I think he’s in
over his head. He’s never been an executive director before, and
from what I’ve seen, he’s still
got a lot to learn about leading an organization. (Walter
Blackmon, dean of students)
How do I define the culture here in Harrisburg? Every man for
himself. We have to fight for
funding, fight for staff, fight for programs . . . everything is a
battle. If we just had more money, I
think you’d see a lot more camaraderie around here — instead,
we’re just constantly bickering
amongst ourselves for whatever we can get. (Jake Rasmussen,
director of outreach)
The instructors are pretty cool, I guess . . . . I mean, I’ve
learned a lot in the six months that I’ve

been here. But I don’t think anyone understands how hard it is
for us when we get here, you
know? I’ve got three kids, no money . . . . I’m trying to make
my life better for my family, but
sometimes I just need a break. But the system is set up so that
we never get time off! I think if
these folks walked a day in our shoes, they’d have more respect
for what we’re going through.
(Tabitha White, current SFT student)
Jones closed her eyes and pondered these quotes in particular.
She knew that Hancher Consulting had
been brought in to help with “morale issues” in the management
team — trying to fix everything at the
Page 3 9B13C022
location was beyond the scope of the assignment. Also, Alvarez
had made it clear to Jones that he felt that
the potential for the location to lose its charter was having a

severe impact on morale. But what about the
other issues that came up in the interviews? Was all of this
connected in some way? She pushed this
thought aside and pulled up the organizational chart for the
Harrisburg location on her screen.
THE HARRISBURG SFT ORGANIZATION
The management team at Harrisburg was relatively flat, with
most of the senior managers (all with the
title of “director”) reporting directly to the executive director,
Alvarez. Eleven directors (including
Alvarez) comprised the central management structure at
Harrisburg. Many of the directors had worked for
SFT — and in the Harrisburg location — for more than a
decade. As a whole, they were dedicated to their
jobs and believed in the mission of the organization. Time and
again, graduates of the program were able
to make a new start in life, and success stories were
commonplace. Thus, it came as no surprise to Jones
that turnover among this group was very low — openings in the
management team at Harrisburg
generally came either through retirement or a
promotion/relocation to another SFT location. (See Exhibit

3 for the organizational chart for the Harrisburg location.)
Alvarez was a relative newcomer to the Harrisburg location. He
had been with SFT for 14 years in a
variety of roles and locations, but had only been in the
executive director position at Harrisburg for four
months. When he arrived at Harrisburg in May 2012, Alvarez
also brought two other directors (Nancy
Cummings and Lucinda Smith) from his previous stint in the
Tidewater region of Virginia. It just so
happened that two other vacancies in the Harrisburg
management team were available at the time of his
acceptance of the executive director position (one former
Harrisburg director had retired, while the other
had taken a position at the SFT headquarters in Washington,
D.C.). Alvarez had worked with Cummings
and Smith for several years prior to their relocation, and found
them both to be highly reliable and
competent individuals.
Alvarez had known about the consistently lower-than-average
ranking of the Harrisburg location before
he took the job, but felt that the location had a lot going for it
— after all, the raw scores for Harrisburg on
many of the criteria had been consistently above the baselines

set by the SFT headquarters for many
years. He was confident that with the right leadership, the
Harrisburg location could quickly improve in
its rankings and avoid the potential of losing its charter. But his
first few months on the job showed him
that this task would not be so easy.
First, Alvarez had to deal with the fact that he was replacing a
beloved executive director, Herbert
Brooks. Brooks had led the Harrisburg location for nine years
— when he announced his retirement in
January 2012, the Harrisburg staff pooled together a fund to
throw Brooks an elaborate going-away party.
Pictures from the party could still be found in many of the
cubicles at the SFT office. Alvarez told Jones:
Herbert was a hard act to follow. I met with him several times
to discuss the transition, and I was
really struck by his passion for this place and his incredibly
positive outlook on life and SFT.
Everyone around here loved him! I knew that the transition
would be tough, simply because of
the personal relationships that he had developed with the staff
here over the years. That was

something that I knew I wouldn’t be able to change overnight.
But I think I’ve done a good job at
fostering those relationships since I got here.
After the first week on the job, Alvarez noticed that
communication between the directors was not always
good. He was accustomed to management meetings at the
Tidewater office that were often loud,
Page 4 9B13C022
passionate and energetic. At the Harrisburg location, his first
status meeting with the directors could not
have been more different.
Boy, that first status meeting was a nightmare! I laid out the
agenda for the meeting and dove into
the first order of business — it had to do with some mandated
curriculum changes that were

coming from D.C. Andy [Dr. Wong, director of student
education] presented an overview of the
changes, and there was nothing. Stone-cold silence. I tried to
get feedback from the other
directors, but no one really had anything to say! It was like no
one cared . . . or that everyone was
afraid to speak. Status meetings have gotten a bit better since
then, but I still feel like people are
holding back.
After Alvarez was on the job for about a month, the annual
budgeting process began for all of the SFT
locations. Budget proposals were due to SFT headquarters by
the end of June for the upcoming fiscal year
(which began on September 1). Alvarez was proud of the work
that he and the staff did on the budget
proposal — they had been hit with a 10 per cent cut across the
board, and tough decisions had had to be
made. Alvarez commented on this period to Jones:
The conversations that we had around the budget for this year
were some of the hardest
conversations I’ve ever had as a manager. Many of the directors

already felt like they were
understaffed, and the budget cuts weren’t going to help. I
solicited proposals from all of the
directors, and had to make some tough choices in terms of who
would get their request, and
whose areas were going to fall short. It wasn’t fun — especially
for someone new to the position.
Alvarez also stated that while the Harrisburg location was able
to get a budget approved, he felt like some
of the staff took the decisions personally.
My overarching goal during the budgeting process was to
protect the students from feeling the
brunt of the budget cuts. So naturally, education and res life
stayed relatively safe, while other
areas felt more pain. I know this created some bad blood
between some of the directors, but I felt
that it was the right thing to do. We’ll never be successful as an
organization if our students aren’t
successful. They have to remain our priority.

INTERVIEWS WITH HARRISBURG SFT EMPLOYEES
Because Jones’s main initial contact in Harrisburg was with
Alvarez, she was keenly aware of the issues
that Alvarez believed should be the focus of her consulting
efforts. But Jones knew that to get to the heart
of the matter, it was necessary to talk to as many members of
the Harrisburg SFT management team as
possible. Between Jones and the rest of her colleagues, the
Hancher Consulting team conducted one-on-
one interviews with all of the senior management team, along
with a number of students, instructors and
support staff at the location. Exhibit 4 provides selected notes
and quotes from the director interviews. A
brief survey was also given to the directors, and the results can
be found in Exhibit 5.
While many of the same themes were evident across the overall
set of interviews, the blame was placed
on many different facets of the organization. And some new
issues arose from these interviews, as well.
As Jones reviewed the interview data again (for what seemed
like the hundredth time), it was clear that
there were several problems that needed to be addressed. With

just a weekend to prepare for the Monday
meeting, Jones barely knew where to begin.
Page 5 9B13C022
FINAL PREPARATION MEETING WITH ALVAREZ
As if the situation were not dire enough, Jones thought back to
the meeting that she had with Alvarez
earlier that day. As Alvarez entered the conference room for the
meeting, it was clear that he was under a
lot of stress. And while the meeting was brief, Alvarez made it
clear to Jones about the direction that he
wanted to take things.
(Alvarez rushes into the conference room)
Alvarez: Hi Martina — sorry I’m late. We just finished a status
meeting on recruitment, and the

numbers for the upcoming winter session are lower than I
expected. Had to give the troops a pep
talk on getting the word out about the program, and trying to
drive those numbers up in the next
few weeks!
Jones: No problem, Ted! I know you’re very busy, but I just
wanted to take a few minutes to
review some of the things that came out from our interviews. I
don’t want our presentation on
Monday to come as a surprise to you!
Alvarez: Oh great! I hope that all of my staff have been
accommodating to you and your team.
Jones: Yes, they’ve been very forthright in their feelings about
SFT and the team! We’ve been
very pleased with their candor.
Alvarez: Good . . . good. Listen, I’ve been thinking about this a
lot, and I really believe that we all
just need to take a day or two outside of the office and really
have an honest conversation about
how we do things here. You know, a management retreat of
some sort! I think I could get

something scheduled for next weekend, and would love your
help in organizing the meeting. I’m
sure the team will grouse about having to go away for the
weekend, but I know it will pay huge
dividends!
Jones: Well, Ted, I think we ought to talk about some of the
things that emerged from our
research before we dive into planning a retreat. For example —
Alvarez: Listen, Martina — I know that we brought you and
your team in to provide an outside
assessment of what’s going on, but things are going from bad to
worse around here, and I need to
get everyone on the same sheet of music. Personally, I’ve found
that getting folks out of the
office, in a neutral environment and away from the daily grind,
and focusing everyone to really
open up about their concerns — you know, lay everything on
the table, no holds barred — is the
best way to resolve these kinds of touchy-feely issues. We can’t
beat around the bush, especially
with our next round of audits and rankings around the corner.
I’ve got to get results now, or we’re
all cooked. I think if we just incorporate your thinking with my

thinking — at the retreat — we’ll
get these problems solved!
Jones: Frankly, Ted, I’m not sure it’s that easy! I’d really like
to go over some of the data that
we’ve collected over the past month, and —
Alvarez: But isn’t that what the Monday meeting is for? I think
your presentation will be a great
way to introduce the need for the retreat. You know, here’s
what you all said, these are the issues
. . . . let’s go off-site for a day or two and hash it all out
together! It’s got to work!
Page 6 9B13C022
Jones: Well, I think you might be surprised about —
Alvarez: Oh, I doubt that there are any surprises there! I’ve
been around the block a few times,
and I know this organization and these folks well enough to

know what’s going on. We’ll get
everyone in the room for your presentation on Monday, and I’ll
get Lucinda to figure out the
logistics for the off-site by the time we meet. Remind me again,
the presentation is scheduled for
3 p.m. on Monday, right?
Jones: Yes, but —
Alvarez: Super — that’s more than enough time to find a place
for the retreat! I’ll get Lucinda on
it right away. I look forward to hearing your presentation and
working with you on the retreat! I
know you guys will be a big help in clearing the air with the
team. Having an outside facilitator
for these things is so important! I’m sure that you all will do a
great job, and we’ll leave the
retreat as a much more cohesive team.
Jones: Ted, I’m sure that we can add a retreat to our statement
of work without too much
difficulty —
Alvarez: Oh right, the contract! Yes, let’s plan on meeting right
after the presentation to draw that

up. I know you consultants need to have the i’s dotted and the
t’s crossed before you do anything!
(Laughs) We’ll get that worked out on Monday. I’ll see you
then! Got to run to another meeting,
but thanks for all of your hard work! I’m so glad that you all are
here!
(Alvarez leaves the conference room)
A LONG WEEKEND AHEAD
As she sat in her office, tapping her fingernails on her desk,
Jones figured that she had two significant
dilemmas facing her. First, what were the major issues facing
the Harrisburg location — and what was the
root cause (or causes) behind those issues? And second, how
should she handle the Monday presentation
with Alvarez and the rest of the Harrisburg directors? She knew
that Alvarez expected her to “rubber
stamp” his solution of an off-site management retreat — but was
this really the answer? She knew that
whatever course of action she took, the Monday presentation
was going to have a significant impact on

both the Harrisburg location and her prospects of seeing this
project to a successful completion. Jones
picked up the phone, ordered some beef lo mein and
contemplated her strategy.
Page 7 9B13C022
EXHIBIT 1: RANKING OF THE HARRISBURG SFT
LOCATION
(2006-2011)
2006 2007 2008
Rank Location Overall Score Rank Location
Overall
Score Rank Location
Overall
Score

1 Baton Rouge, LA 122.5 1 Boise, ID 124.9 1 El Paso, TX
119.8
2 Cedar Rapids, IA 119.4 2 Helena, MT 121.2 2 Boise, ID 119.7
3 El Paso, TX 119.1 3 Baton Rouge, LA 120.0 3 Cedar Rapids,
IA 118.7
… … …
76 Pittsburgh, PA 95.4 82 Detroit, MI 93.9 81 San Diego, CA
93.3
… … …
82 Harrisburg, PA 93.2 90 Harrisburg, PA 91.8 91 Harrisburg,
PA 91.6
… … …
150 Richmond, VA 79.0 163 Acton, MA 80.1 161 Omaha, NE
78.2
151 Sacramento, CA 78.8 164 Richmond, VA** 78.2 162
Dallas, TX 78.1
152 East Los Angeles, CA 78.5 165 Tacoma, WA 78.1 163
Sacramento, CA** 77.9

2009 2010 2011
Rank Location Overall Score Rank Location
Overall
Score Rank Location
Overall
Score
1 Kalamazoo, MI 123.3 1 Kalamazoo, MI 124.1 1 Phoenix, AZ
122.0
2 Portland, ME 122.5 2 Helena, MT 123.9 2 El Paso, TX 121.9
3 El Paso, TX 120.3 3 Phoenix, AZ 123.3 3 Kalamazoo, MI
120.4
… … …
85 Cincinnati, OH 94.1 88 Atlanta, GA 93.4 90 St. Louis, MO
93.1
… … …
95 Harrisburg, PA 92.7 97 Harrisburg, PA 92.2 103 Harrisburg,
PA 91.7
… … …
168 Toledo, OH 80.5 174 Bethesda, MD** 79.1 178 Fort

Collins, CO** 80.5
169 Bethesda, MD 80.1 175 Durham, NC 78.8 179 Newport,
RI** 80.4
170 Omaha, NE** 77.2 176 Tallahassee, FL** 78.7 180
Albuquerque, NM 79.9
** Charter revoked during the following year.
Source: Adapted from company files.
Page 8 9B13C022
EXHIBIT 2: HARRISBURG RAW SCORES AND BASELINE
TARGETS
FOR SFT LOCATIONS ON KEY PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Criterion Benchmark Harrisburg Score for 2011

Recruiting and Admissions
30-day commitment rate 80% 77%
60-day commitment rate 75% 73%
Student Retention & Satisfaction
Average length of stay 9 months 8.6 months
Graduate length of stay 12 months 12.4 months
Location capacity utilization rating 100% of target 98%
Compliance rating 100% of target 97%
Student satisfaction rating 100% of target 104%
Program Results
Graduation rate 59% 61%
GED/high school diploma rate 56% 60%
Vocational training completion rate 56% 58%
Placement Results
Placement rate 65% 62%
Average initial wage rate $8.50 $8.78

Percentage wage above $8/hour 62% 66%
Other Factors
Student safety rating 85% 92%
Early student terminations for cause 10% 8%
Other student terminations for cause 10% 7%
Incident reports per student 0.10 0.06
Page 9 9B13C022
EXHIBIT 3: HARRISBURG SFT ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

9B13C022
EXHIBIT 4: NOTES FROM HARRISBURG INTERVIEW
SESSIONS
Name: Ted Alvarez, Executive Director; Age: 43
Education: BA — Old Dominion; MBA — U. of Richmond
Tenure with SFT: 14 years; Tenure at Harrisburg location: 4
months
What do you love about your job?
What do you hate about your job?
What would you change at Harrisburg?
Other comments:

Name: Lucinda Smith, Director of HR; Age: 52
Education: BA — Amherst College
months
The impact that we have on students’ lives — our mission and
purpose.
The challenge of achieving success, even with the current
economic/fiscal difficulties.
Being surrounded by a talented and hardworking staff.
While I do believe that the staff is talented and hardworking…
Lack of morale and teamwork among the directors.
In-fighting and bickering; departmental focus rather than focus
on the “big picture.”
Struggles over budget decisions.

We need to get back to the basics — why are we here? For the
students!
Need to focus on getting our ranking up — if we don’t have a
charter, we can’t help our students.
Morale and teamwork need to improve now — we need to come
together and work out these issues and
become a cohesive team.
None
I love working in HR — I have a real passion for helping our
staff continue to grow and be more
successful.
Ted is a great guy to work with — he knows how to get a job
done, and he’s very supportive as a boss.
Some of the SFT policies are tough to deal with — lack of
flexibility related to performance management,
and feedback mechanisms just don’t work.
It’s been difficult to gain the trust of some of the other
directors — they blame me for HR policies that are
beyond my control!

People are stuck in how things used to be (before I got here) —
not open to change.
Page 11 9B13C022
EXHIBIT 4 (CONTINUED)
Other comments:
Name: Jake Rasmussen, Director of Outreach; Age: 31
Education: BBA (Finance) — George Washington U.
years

Other comments:
Implement 360 feedback for directors — I think this will be
beneficial to both the individual and the
management team, but HQ won’t let me implement this!
Get people to understand how HR policy is developed. If
everyone understood how things work in HR, I
think they’ll have more respect for my position.
Work on trust and putting aside personal grudges.
It’s been tough being new to the staff — I know these things
take time, but it’s been hard for me to deal

with the cold shoulder that I’ve gotten from several of the other
directors. I don’t know if I can keep
fighting these battles…
I feel that I have a significant role in helping this organization
achieve its mission of helping these
students.
I enjoy the level of responsibility that I’ve been given — as the
youngest member of the management
team, and relatively new to the position (18 months), I’m
excited to be a part of the decisions made on
behalf of the entire location.
While I’m excited to be a director, some people don’t respect
me or the work that I do — especially Yu.
We just don’t see eye to eye.
I’ve had my budgets cut twice since I came into this position —
I can’t do a good job without the right
level of resources and support! Meanwhile, Sidney gets
whatever he wants. It’s frustrating.
Budgeting — we need to know how these decisions are made. I
submit a budget, and it gets cut every

time. Why? Need more visibility and voice in this process.
People need to understand what it is that I do, and why it’s so
important to the success of this
organization. Without my staff and me, who’s going to recruit
students and solicit donations from the
community?
Yu has had it in for me from day one — we’ve got to figure out
a way to work better together.
Walter is a great guy, but what does he do here? I’ve never
understood his role in the organization.
Page 12 9B13C022
Name: Yu Fen, Director of Business Operations; Age: 38
Education: BA — Xiamen University; MBA — U. of Illinois
years

Other comments:
Name: Nancy Cummings, Director of Career Services; Age: 45
Education: BS — U. of Delaware; MBA — Temple U.
months

I have a great team! The managers and staff in my department
are great to work with and highly reliable.
I love working for an organization that has such a significant
and positive impact on our customers
(students).
I wish we got more praise for the jobs we are doing — all Ted
ever talks about is the rankings. We’re
fine! We’re not going to get our charter revoked. I don’t know
what the big deal is.
I’m tired of listening to Jake complain about his budget —
we’re all stretched thin (well, except for Res
Life and Education). We’ve just got to do the best with what we
have.
We need to celebrate our successes more! And Ted needs to
calm down about the rankings.
More autonomy in decision-making. Most of us have been in
our jobs for a while now, and we know what
to do. Just let us do our jobs.

I try and stay out of these things, but it’s obvious that there are
clashes between directors — you know,
personality differences? It’s not my business, but somehow
we’ve got to resolve these personal issues
among the directors.
Ted has his favorites — obviously, Lucinda and Nancy (since
they came with him). Melinda as well.
Everyone knows this, and it’s causing problems.
When a semester comes to an end, and a student walks out with
a new job and new outlook on life…
that’s why I come into work!
I love working with Ted — he respects me and the work that I
do, and I know that he’s always got my
back.
The team has lost sight of “teamwork.” Trust issues have led
some directors to have a “cover your back”
mentality, and they focus more on their department instead of
what’s best for the entire location.
Meetings with the directors are a waste of time — Ted may as
well just have individual meetings with all

of us, because we do a lousy job of trying to help each other.
Page 13 9B13C022
Other comments:
Name: Walter Blackmon, Dean of Students; Age: 53
Education: Graduate from SFT (1979); BA/MA — Penn State
U.-Harrisburg
years

Other comments:
I don’t know how to do it, but we’ve got to develop a better
sense of trust among the directors. People
need to understand everyone else’s roles and how we all fit
together to make this place successful.
We’ve got to place more emphasis on training these students in
life skills. They know how to do a job,
but do they know how to live? I think we can do better.
I’ve had a hard time communicating with Yu — I don’t know if
it’s a cultural thing, or a language issue, or
what . . . but I just can’t seem to connect with him. Maybe
things will get better as time goes on, but I
know that I’ve had a hard time reading him…

It’s simple — the students! Having been one of them 30+ years
ago, I know firsthand what they are going
through. Seeing the students learn and grow in the program, and
the positive changes that I see from
when they first walk in the door to when they graduate — it’s
everything to me! That’s why I came back,
and that’s why I stay. I love being a mentor to these kids!
Ted has a lot of passion, but I think it’s a bit misplaced. All
this talk about rankings . . . that’s all we hear
about. Students don’t care about the rankings — all they care
about (and all we should care about) is
that we are doing a good job for them.
Directors’ meetings are either “bitch sessions” or silence — no
one helps each other!
Ted has got to change his focus away from the rankings, and
back to the students and his team. Same
goes for the directors in regards to the last point — we’ve got to
learn to work together and quit
squabbling between departments.
We seem to be a bit of a ship without a rudder. We need to start

over and clearly define our goals as a
management team, and lay out the path forward with concrete
steps to be taken . . . with everyone’s
buy-in.
Off the record, Ted seems to think of himself as a ladies’ man!
He clearly favors some of the women in
this organization. In fact, I think he has a thing for Dr. Nelson!
Page 14 9B13C022
Name: Sidney Johnson, Director of Residence Life; Age: 35
Education: BA — Ohio State U; MA — U. of Iowa
years

Other comments:
Name: Ralph Coldwell, Director of Security and Transportation;
Age: 56
Education: Mount Olive HS
years
I love that I have a positive impact on the lives of these

students.
I love working with my staff — we have a lot of fun!
I hate always having to support Jake’s outreach sessions —
these are always at night or on weekends,
and it conflicts with what we’re trying to do in Res Life.
I hate all of the complaining over budgets.
Dr. Wong is difficult to work with. He thinks everything
revolves around the curriculum! There’s more to
the program than just classes.
Everyone has to gain a full understanding of each other’s
mission/goals, and how each of us has a role
in making each other successful. I don’t think the other
directors have a clue about what we do in Res
Life to support the mission.
Everyone needs to learn how to say what is really on his/her
mind, and create an environment where
there is no retaliation for stating an opinion.
We seem to have in-groups and out-groups among the directors.
I won’t name names, but it’s clear to

me that Ted has a trusted “inner circle” that excludes a number
of the directors.
I have worked my way up from the bottom, and I am thankful
for the opportunities that have been given
to me along the way. I believe that SFT appreciates loyalty and
hard work.
I have a great staff and a great manager — Sidney has always
been a strong supporter of our work.
Not everyone appreciates what we do. I suppose it’s a
compliment if no one notices our work (we’re
supposed to be “behind the scenes”), but it would be nice to be
appreciated by someone other than
Sidney once in a while.
Nora and I don’t get along. I feel like she looks down on me
and my department. She doesn’t respect me
. . . and the feeling has become mutual.
I would force Education to coordinate with us when they plan
their schedules. We have classes that run
all hours of the day and night, and when schedules are made
we’re forced to adapt at the last minute.

We need to be part of the conversation.
We all need to better appreciate each other’s work, and stop
taking each other for granted.
Page 15 9B13C022
Other comments:
Name: Dr. Andy Wong, Director of Student Education; Age: 49
Education: BA — Colgate U.; MA — NYU; Ph.D. — U. of
Virginia
years

Other comments:
Name: Dr. Melinda Nelson, Director of General Education; Age:
41
Education: BA — Georgia Tech; Ph.D. — U. of Arizona
years
None
The students are an absolute joy to work with! I love that
we’ve been able to have high student
satisfaction scores for several years now — it’s validation that

we’re doing the right things!
I have a passionate and skilled team of instructors, and could
not ask for anything more from them!
I hate director meetings. They are a waste of time — nothing
ever gets done in these meetings! We do a
poor job of helping each other out.
Sidney and I seem to disagree on just about everything. I’ve
tried to work with him on a number of joint
initiatives, but there’s no give with him — only take.
We don’t communicate change well — generally speaking, it
seems that a change is implemented, and
then people are told. It should be the opposite!
We need to change how we “change”! Decisions can’t be made
in a vacuum. We need to do a better job
of communicating.
Related to this, I think we spend too much time emailing one
another. I think if we went one week where
nobody used email — and instead, talked to one another like
real people — this would help matters a lot.

I’ve worked with Walter for a number of years, and I value his
experience and friendship. But it’s not
clear to me how his role fits in with Sidney’s and mine. I have
Education and Sidney has Res Life…then
what does the “Dean of Students” do? Maybe a reorganization is
needed…
I have great support from Ted and Andy — I know that I can
come to them with any request and it will
get a fair appraisal.
I love working with the instructors and students — it really is a
magical place to see these students
transform as they work through the program! We are doing
really important work here.
Page 16 9B13C022
Ralph can be quite rude at times. I know he’s trying to be
funny, but I don’t appreciate his humor. I

haven’t spoken with him about it, but it really gets under my
skin. I need to have a talk with him, but it
never seems like the right time.
Other comments:
Name: Nora Steele, MD, Director of Health & Wellness; Age:
61
Education: BA — Penn State U.; MD — Penn State U.
years

Other comments:
Working with the other directors can be tiresome, simply
because we don’t work “with” one another. We
all seem to be stuck in our own little worlds!
I don’t think that we all share the same view of where it is that
we’re heading. While I’m sure that
everyone cares about the students, we seem to have a lot of
different ideas on how to best serve the
students. We’re not all on the same sheet of music.
I realize that this is easier said than done, but we need to
change our focus from just our departments to
SFT as a whole. I’m not an HR specialist, but I wonder if

something as radical as a new performance
management process is needed. You know, something that will
force everyone to look at the big picture?
I’ve started to hear rumors about something between Ted and
me, and I don’t know what to do about it.
We did go out for drinks after work a couple of times, but my
personal life is none of their business. I’m a
professional and so is Ted, and I don’t think what we do outside
of work has any bearing on SFT or the
other directors.
I love being able to help our students live healthy lives! Some
of the students come in here in pretty
awful shape — most don’t have health insurance, and haven’t
been to a doctor in years. I love that we’re
able to help them in mind, body and spirit.
I feel very constrained as to what I can accomplish as a
physician. We don’t have enough resources to
be able to provide the level of care that these students need.
I hate that Food Service is out of my direct control. I’ve been
trying to get a new nutrition plan
implemented for three years now, and it’s always shot down. Yu

just tells me that it’s too expensive,
period. It’s very frustrating.
Food service is part of health and wellness, and should be in
my department, not Bus Ops.
We don’t seem to deal with change very well as a group.
People seem to be stuck in their ways: “It’s how
we’ve always done things” seems to be a common justification
for most decisions. We need to be more
open to new ideas.
Page 17 9B13C022
EXHIBIT 5: DIRECTORS SURVEY
All questions were responded to on a 1-5 scale (1 = very poor, 2
= poor, 3 = adequate, 4 = good, 5 = very good)

1. How would you rate the communication within the
management team?
2. How would you rate the level of teamwork within the
management team?
3. How would you rate the level of trust within the management
team?
4. How would you rate the overall effectiveness of the
management team?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

1
2
3
4
5
# of Raters
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1
2
3
4
5
# of Raters
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1
2
3
4
5

# of Raters
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1
2
3
4
5
# of Raters

SWOT Analysis Guiding QuestionsStrengthsStrengths are internal.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to SWOT Analysis Guiding QuestionsStrengthsStrengths are internal.docx

Similar to SWOT Analysis Guiding QuestionsStrengthsStrengths are internal.docx (20)

More from mattinsonjanel

More from mattinsonjanel (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

SWOT Analysis Guiding QuestionsStrengthsStrengths are internal.docx