[SOLVED] Harmon Davidson stared dejectedly at the departing

Harmon Davidson stared dejectedly at the departing figure of his management survey team leader. Their meeting had not gone well. Davidson had relayed to Al Pitcher complaints about his handling of the survey. Pitcher had responded with adamant denial and unveiled scorn.
Davidson, director of headquarters management, was prepared to discount some of the criticism as resentment of outsiders meddling with “the way we’ve always done business,” exacerbated by the turbulence of continual reorganization. But Davidson could hardly ignore the sheer volume of complaints or his high regard for some of their sources. “Was I missing danger signals about Pitcher from the start?” Davidson asked himself. “Or was I just giving a guy I didn’t know a fair chance with an inherently controversial assignment?”
With his division decimated in the latest round of downsizing at the Department of Technical Services (DTS) earlier that year, Davidson had been asked to return to the headquarters management office after a five-year hiatus. The director, Walton Drummond, had abruptly taken early retirement.
One of the first things Davidson had learned about his new job was that he would be responsible for a comprehensive six-month survey of the headquarters management structure and processes. The DTS secretary had promised the survey to the White House as a prelude to the agency’s next phase of management reform. Drummond had already picked the five-person survey team consisting of two experienced management analysts, a promising younger staff member, an intern, and Pitcher, the team leader. Pitcher was fresh from the Treasury Department, where he had participated in a similar survey. But having gone off after retirement for an extended mountain-climbing expedition in Asia, Drummond was unavailable to explain his survey plans or any understandings he had reached with Pitcher.
Davidson had been impressed with Pitcher’s energy and motivation. He worked long hours, wrote voluminously if awkwardly, and was brimming with the latest organizational theory. Pitcher had other characteristics, however, that were disquieting. He seemed uninterested in DTS’s history and culture and was paternalistic toward top managers, assuming they were unsophisticated and unconcerned about modern management.
A series of pre-survey informational briefings for headquarters office heads conducted by Davidson and Pitcher seemed to go swimmingly. Pitcher deferred to his chief on matters of philosophy and confined his remarks to schedule and procedures. He closed his segment on a friendly note, saying, “If we do find opportunities for improvement, we’ll try to have recommendations for you.”
But the survey was barely a week old when the director of management received his first call from an outraged customer. It was the assistant secretary for public affairs, Erin Dove, and she was not speaking in her usual upbeat tones. “Your folks have managed to upset my whole supervisory staff with their comments about how we’ll have to change our organization and methods,” she said. “I thought you were going through a fact-finding study. This guy Pitcher sounds like he wants to remake DTS headquarters overnight. Who does he think he is?”
When Davidson asked him about the encounter with public affairs, Pitcher expressed puzzlement that a few summary observations shared with supervisors in the interest of “prompt informal feedback” had been interpreted as such disturbing conclusions. “I told them we’ll tell them how to fix it,” he reassured his supervisor.
“Listen, Al,” Davidson remonstrated gently. “These are very accomplished managers who aren’t used to being told they have to fix anything. This agency’s been on a roll for years, and the need for reinvention isn’t resonating all that well yet. We’ve got to collect and analyze the information and assemble a convincing case for change, or we’ll be spinning our wheels. Let’s hold off on the feedback until you and I have reviewed it together.”
But two weeks later, Technology Development Director Phil Canseco, an old and treasured colleague, was on Davidson’s doorstep looking as unhappy as Erin Dove had sounded on the phone. “Harmon, buddy, I think you have to rein in this survey team a bit,” he said. “Several managers who were scheduled for survey interviews were working on a 24-hour turnaround to give a revised project budget to the Appropriations subcommittee that day. My deputy says Pitcher was put out about postponing interviews and grumbled about whether we understood the new priorities. Is he living in the real world?”
Canseco’s comments prompted Davidson to call a few of his respected peers who had dealt with the survey team. With varying degrees of reluctance, they all criticized the team leader and, in some cases, team members, as abrasive and uninterested in the rationales offered for existing structure and processes.
And so, Davidson marshaled all of his tact for a review with the survey team leader. But Pitcher was in no mood for either introspection or reconsideration. He took the view that he had been brought in to spearhead a White House-inspired management improvement initiative in a glamour agency that had never had to think much about efficiency. He reminded Davidson that even he had conceded that managers were due some hard lessons on this score. Pitcher didn’t see any way to meet his deadline except by adhering to a rigorous schedule, since he was working with managers disinclined to cooperate with an outsider pushing an unpopular exercise. He felt Davidson’s role was to hold the line against unwarranted criticisms from prima donnas trying to discredit the survey.
Many questions arose in Davidson’s mind about the survey plan and his division’s capacity to carry it out. Had they taken on too much with too little? Had the right people been picked for the survey team? Had managers and executives, and even the team, been properly prepared for the survey?
But the most immediate question was whether Al Pitcher could help him with these problems.
Questions
1. What type of decision process does Pitcher seem to be using in his work with other departments? What type of process should he be using in this situation? Explain.
2. How would Davidson apply the Carnegie model to make a decision about Pitcher at this point? Explain.
3. Does the type of decision process Pitcher appears to use when working with other departments reflect any personal constraints (Exhibit 13.3)? Any cognitive biases? Explain.

Question: Harmon Davidson stared dejectedly at the departing