The Campbell and Bailyn case takes place during a time of significant

change in thefinancial world, especially within the investment industry.

The trying economictimes had created a different sort of demand in the
market place that required theapplication of complicated debt
instruments. Additionally, the shrinking of high-profile sales had
influenced the organization to restructure the sales compensationin
such a way that required sales teams to work more closely with product
managerand research staff located in a different geographic area. The
case details theseactions, but it is important to remember that the
catalyst for this new behavior wasthe
changes in the environment.

Here, we can see the application of Lewin’s Field

Theory at work- the firm was in a state of quasi-equilibrium until forces
in theenvironment (namely, the macro economic recession and
mortgage crisis) createdforces that altered that state. According to
Lewin, changes in the environment (thefield) result in changes in the
behavior of the
group
within the field, and in this casethe pressure was enough to warrant a
re-organization of the firm in order to bettercontend with the changes
in the environment.
When analyzing the case through Lewin’s lens, it is also important to
note the
elements of group dynamics that are at play. The changes in the field
subsequentlyled to a restructuring of the organization and a
redefinition of tasks and the team
began to take a different behavioral shape. Previously, the “generalists”
had been
satisfied with their work and had healthy relationships with their
clients; but aschanges in the field created changes in the workplace, the
behavior of groupmembers began to change. John Oates became
distant and averse to his new, non-local team of product and research
professionals, Callahan began displayingpessimism regarding general
affairs, and Jen Ulin expressed satisfaction with thenew world order.
This disparate state of group opinions and behavior wasdetrimental to
the effectiveness and formation of a high-performing team,
but according to Lewin it would not be possible to change the behavior
of the negativeinfluencers in isolation
–
rather, the forces surrounding the team would need to beaffected and
the team would need to traverse through the three-step-model as
aunified whole. Without collective change, the temporary behavioral
changes
influenced by “pep talks” or other managerial pressures would
ultimately be
fruitless.
Open-Systems
The environment as described in the case is one of significant difficulty,
and
members of the firm may well feel as though that they are in
“survivalist” mode.
Winston needs to be acutely aware of this, as such a prolonged state of
existence canlead to defensive behavior, combative dynamics between
groups, and rivalry withina group. There are several factors that are
contributing to this state in the case; 1)the KAT team is getting backlash
from clientele regarding the inefficiency of the newstructure 2) calls are
coming in that require a higher level of knowledge dexterityand a
greater degree of risk should the wrong instrument or advice be utilized
3)salespeople are now being scrutinized by other functions as part of
theirperformance management review. All of these elements can very
quickly lead to aclosed-system environment where the KAT team
becomes unwilling to continuouslylearn from the rapidly changing
economic environment and instead reinforces each
other’s defensive behavior, creating an “us and them” mentality within
the team.
The threats to the team are such that the members have very little
control overthem, and all of the threats originate externally; factors
which exacerbate thedevelopment of defensive and anti-learning
behaviors. This could backfire in anumber of ways; 1) the new
compensation system could lead to inner warfareinstead of the
intended purpose of bridging the knowledge gap between sales
andproduct 2) salespeople could become less connected with the
personal needs of
their clients, preferring instead to just “get the job done” without the
element of
customer service that was a prior differentiator 3) the Boston office
could becomeincreasingly siloed with unhealthy working relationships
developing between theKAT team and the remaining specialists.
Internal Fit and Nadler’s Congruence Model
Another very important theme concept that surfaces in a variety of
forms in this
case is that of “fit.”
The field changes that took place, which influenced the
work environment, have rendered several previously well-fit elements
misaligned. Let usexamine the most relevant fit segments
of Nadler’s congruence model
independently;1)

Individual-Organization: the members of the KAT team are now viewing

theorganization through a very different lens than they did before the
change.We can assume that the members of this team are type A,
gregariousindividuals who enjoy a high-income lifestyle and who are
experts inrelationship management. This assumption is valid because
these are thepersonality and motivational characteristics that create
excellent salespeoplein the investment business. Now, in the new
organization, t
he salespeople’s
individual needs to be self-managing and independent are impeded by
thefact that they have to rely on their other team members to assist in
the careof their customers. Additionally, the new compensation
structure has
created a dissonance between the individual salesperson’s goal to earn
a high
commission and the organization’s goal to create products that better
serve
the clients. On the surface, it would seem that these two goals are
aligned-the better the product and the more expertise the salesperson
has regardingthe product, the more sales he should be able to make.
However, when thecompensation structure is abruptly changed to
incorporate feedback fromcoworkers instead of being based solely on
financial performance, theindividual can feel that the organization is
not supporting him in his goals.2)

Individual-Task: In the new world order at C&B, salespeople that

hadpreviously been generalists and functioned as singular and
dedicatedrepresentatives of the firm for their clients, were now boxed
into specialistsroles. Part of why these people were such high
performers was due to thefact that they were able to build
relationships with their clients above andbeyond the details of the job.
This ensured loyal and lasting relationships,and it is in this arena that
these particular salespeople were most suited. When they were forced
into specialist roles, they lost their places asthe only salesperson
assigned to particular accounts, and so theserelationships began to be
diluted. Instead, they were required to sell andmaintain accounts with
only the merits of their investment acumen in aparticular area of
expertise. This suggests that the new roles thesesalespeople were in
were no longer a great fit for them as individuals, as thejob focus
shifted from relationship to technical knowledge.3)
Task-Organization: At Campbell and Bailyn, the organizational changes
andtasks changes go hand in hand. In order to better meet the
changing needs of the firm’s clientele, generalists had to become
specialists and so their task definition was radically altered. In order to
help support this change, theKAT team was introduced and
implemented. These two sides of the samecoin were designed as a
means to reinforce the other, and to create a socialsupport system.
However, because the individuals in the roles exhibit signsof task-
mismatch, it is difficult to tell whether or not the
task/organizationrelationship is effective. If Campbell and Bailyn, as a
larger company, decidedto implement the KAT organization across the
company, it might experiment first to see if a team comprised of
salespeople who had been specialists in thepast might be better suited.
Part II: Action Resear
ch Implementation and Winston’s Next Steps

1) Research and Data Gathering:

In the case, Winston did perform a bit of research before approaching
his team for a feedback and brainstorming session.However, this data
was based solely on financial performance- Winston did not takethe
time to gather additional qualitative data that could have aided in the
ideationprocess. Now, I would recommend that Winston go back and
spend timeunderstanding the personalities and social dynamics that
makeup the office

environment. For example, he could issue personality tests to

generalists andspecialists alike to determine if there are thematic traits
that permeate eachemployee group. In addition, he could ask a skilled,
objective party (consultant orotherwise) to interview members of the
team in order to discern pain points anduncover underlying issues that
have arisen since the added pressure of theeconomic crisis. Armed with
such insight, Winston would then be better equippedto utilize his
workforce in such a way that would both address the needs of
themarket and take into account the individual needs of the
employees.
2) Feedback:
Winston did a good job in the case of taking the problem to
hisgeneralist team in a meeting designed for that purpose. However, he
neglected toinvolve any other office members- most notably, the
specialists. By not gettingfeedback from over half the office, Winston
and his team did not have theopportunity to get valuable insight from
people who were already operating in a jobsimilar to the new one
being designed. This insight may have brought to light
theindividual/task misalignment that was previously noted, as the
specialists werefamiliar with both the personalities of the generalists
and the nature of the job.They could have contributed to the discussion
in such a way as to ideate aconfiguration that was more conducive to
multi-dimensional needs. In this regard, Irecommend that Winston take
a step back and meet with the generalists andspecialists independently
to get feedback on the process change. Then, he shouldconduct an
office wide meeting where he delivers key insights uncovered at
theprevious meetings to the greater team as a catalyst for constructive
conversation.The greater team can then begin a brainstorming session
to figure out someexperimental processes- these ideas would not only
incorporate the combinedknowledge of the entire staff, but would also
garner an element of buy-in fromeveryone instead of leaving a
significant portion of the group completely out of thedecision.
3) Diagnosis:
Here, Winston also did a good job of ensuring that the diagnosis of
theproblem was collaborative. However, he did not go through a
structured diagnosticmodel to ensure that important considerations
were taking place. He showed theteam quantitative evidence of recent
poor performance, and this technique waslikely well chosen for a team
of professionals who are influenced by data as part of their day-to-day
jobs. But Winston was lacking insightful qualitative data withpersonality
descriptions and cultural norm information. Armed with the
properresearch, Winston could have gone much deeper into the stage
of the Action-Research model.Specifically, when the team thought of
the KAT, it could have examined theproposed team with the following
questions:A. Does the group have measurable goals? Is its purpose
clearly defined and agreedupon by all members?B. Do the group
members have the proper experience to be able to accomplish
theexplicit goals?

C. Is there a process to handle conflict that might arise as a result of the

new teamdynamic? Should this be informal or formalized? What types
of conflict can wepredict, and can we agree on some terms on how to
objectively view and analyzesuch conflict?D. How will the group receive
feedback? Will this be left up to the customers andthe new
performance management program? Or will the team be able to
doperiodic self-assessment and adjustment? If so, what should be the
proper cadenceand format for these assessments?E. What is the impact
of the new tasks on other members of the KAT? Othermembers in the
office?F. What potential downfalls can we see? Are there mechanisms
in place that canhelp mitigate?G. Do we feel, as individuals, that we are
well suited to complete the new job as it isbeing outlined?These
questions are tough to answer- but now that the KAT has been in effect
forsome time, Winston might find it very helpful to run through a
session designed toanswer these questions. Recalibration based on the
outcome might be necessary.Based upon the reading in the case, I
would propose (if I were a member of theKAT), to keep the
specialization on the team, but revert back to single-handledaccounts.
Meaning, only one member of the team would actually converse with
aparticular client, but if the client needs something that is outside his
realm of specialization, he would consult with that specialist to
determine the best course of action for the client. This would need
some process analysis in order to be effective,but an experimental
approach could be taken wherein the team opens itself up
toadaptation based on the learning it gains in the new format.
4) Planning and Intervention:
There was not much discussion regarding action
planning in the case beyond “after lengthy discussions with senior
managers in NewYork…Winston had introduced the ‘Key Accounts
Team.” Although not stated in the
case, it seems apparent that Winston used his clout and influence to
garner buy-infrom other management members for his idea. This did
not necessarily follow anysort of OD/C recommended approach to this
step.Some steps that Winston could take now in order to plan for the
future of the KATteam are 1) Determine measurable goals for the team
to achieve 2) Discuss tactics inorder to reach those goals 3) implement
regular inspection and feedback sessionsfrom both the team and major
clients. Encourage recalibration in order to foster anexperimental
environment instead of one where high-performance is the
onlyoption.Another element in the case that deserves further scrutiny
by Winston is the newPerformance Management system. Although this
was not his idea, if he did his duediligence in data collection and
observation, he would probably find that the new
program was contributing to the KAT’s collective defensiveness and he
might see it
as a threat resulting in heightened closed-system thinking. Essentially,
the company

took one of the job’s most convincing motivators (compensation) and

turned from a
completely self-propelled mechanism to one that was subject to the
control of others. For a highly independent, self-motivated team such
as the KAT, it is easy tosee why this would not be well received. It is a
viable threat that the relationshipbetween this sales team and the
product/research teams will begin to erode overtime, ultimately
working against the goal of the program (although the case said it has
had moderate success so far).This business is built on relationships, and
the KAT are relationship experts. It stands to reason, then, that a more
appropriate way to elicit communication andcollaboration between the
sales team and other departments is to encouragerelationship building
between them. Granted- further analysis would be necessaryto
determine whether this is the right course of action for the
product/researchteams, but in taking the initiative to dig deeper, ideas
would most likely begin tosurface. From reading the case, I thought a
potentially more feasible way for theseteams to communicate would
be to organize retreats- weekend, multi-departmentalgetaways that
were half debriefing sessions and half relationship-building activities.By
tapping into the natural tendencies and skill of the sales team, the
company couldbegin to organically grow collaboration that happens
willingly, without threats to

one side and undue pressure on another to take on a “managerial” role.

CAMPBELL AND BAILYN’S BOSTON OFFICE:

MANAGING THE REORGANIZATION
Dear Mr. Ken Winston,

First, thank you for hiring Miracle Consulting to assist you in the next few months to improve Campbell and
Bailyn’s. The changes that your company has implemented have both positive and negative aspects to them. The
establishment of the Key Accounts Team and the New Performance Management System are great ideas. We feel
that your KAT team was implemented much better than your performance management system since the KAT team
followed most of Kotter’s eight-step plan for implementing change, while the Performance Management System
didn’t. It’s obvious that the Performance Management System is a good idea because the results were positive based
on annual sales. However, the ideas could’ve been implemented better since there are several key issues. Even
though we believe that the issues are detrimental to your company’s well-being, they aren’t impossible to resolve.

Issues and Analysis

Issue 1: Fears of Job Specializations

It has been expressed by your team members that they’re worried about the new team structure limiting their future
career prospects. Managers often neglect to further develop skills of employees that are in a specialized role since
the managers are satisfied with their employee’s current role and performance of their employees(Tucker).
However, if your team members start to believe that their current role has no advancement opportunities, they may
leave your company to find a career that provides better opportunities to learn transferable skills and the possibility
to advance further in their career. Therefore, this may lead to your company seeing a higher turnover rate.

Issue 2: An increase in customer dissatisfaction

It’s obvious that, because of specialization, trades have become more complicated for your clients since they would
have to communicate with several different departments rather than dealing with just one generalist. This made
trading more complicated and tedious for your clients and about half of them didn’t believe the change was
necessary. Also, by forcing your clients to deal with more than one person, the personal connection between client
and generalist is lost.

Issue 3: Resistance of Performance Management System

Currently, there’s tension and resentment within your sales staff due to the rash implementation of this system.
Unlike the introduction of the KAT team, we noticed there’s little communication during the transition period.
Employees are less likely to accept change when there is a lack of communication and they feel excluded from the
process (Langton 551). According to the cognitive evaluation theory, the increase in working pressure to make
higher profits has also shown to be an ineffective method of encouraging employees in the long run. If your
employees continue to be dissatisfied with the new management system this may lead to a continuance commitment
or an increased turnover rate.

Alternatives

Alternative #1: Resign of Evaluation System. With the new system, the bonuses are solely based on feedback;
however, we don’t think this is the best solution to judge a person’s efforts. We advise you to redesign your
effectiveness evaluation system by considering both sales volume and feedback in the evaluation. Financial
incentives are still necessary, so that employees are rewarded both intrinsically and extrinsically. It’s common that
people may focus too much on getting the compensation. However, the new performance management system may
destroy the work environment and cause them to lose their target while they’re chasing the sales figures.

Alternative #2: Unlimited Vacation Days

We initially thought of offering your employees unlimited vacation days. Not only will your employees feel
recharged from the extra time off, they may also enjoy the feeling trust that’s bestowed upon them since they’re
asked to take time off at their own discretion. However, this policy can be both underutilized by employees, when
they’re too scared to take time off and abused by employees who don’t care about the company. Therefore, we
believe our recommendation of communication and setting team goals would be more beneficial.

Recommendations and Solutions:

Recommendation 1: Problem-Solving Team and Job Rotation

We recommend that your company should develop a problem-solving group consisting of members from the Key
Accounts Team and hold weekly meetings. We believe that this would provide your employees with more
opportunities to develop their personal soft skills. The purpose of each meeting would be to increase communication
within the company, so all members are well informed of any major decisions.It also allows group members to
express any dissatisfation with the company and therefore, would be in the “Voice” quadrent of the Job
Dissatisfation Response Chart. Also, a job rotation system should be implemented with quarterly rotations. We
believe that your organization should still have specialized roles since it increases productivity (Tucker). Not only
will job rotation increase motivation, it’ll reduce the fear of future job prospects since employees can learn a wider
range of skills (Langton 189).

Recommendation 2: Conference Calls

Due to specialization, the process for in-house traders to receive information is now more complicated. Therefore,
your company should utilize conference calls that would include the client and all the members of the KAT team.
This would allow the client to receive all the information they’re looking for at one time, rather than having to make
three different phone calls. This could also please the clients since they’re now receiving more facetime with the
employee that they’d initially worked solely with.

Recommendation 3: Team Goals and Increasing Communication

Currently, the biggest concern is the loss of customers due to specialization. In order for the performance
management system to resolve this we suggest increasing lunch visits, dividing the customers amongst the
specialists, and integrating customer satisfaction into the performance evaluation. Through this, close working
relationships will be maintained and your company will be able to keep their personal connection with clients which
can build trust and loyalty. Another crucial change needs to be an increase in communication.By allowing your
employees to provide feedback, it gives your employees a voice and is a good indication of how well the new
system is working. Furthermore, just as you had shared sales figures from a competitor you should continuously
share valuable information regarding your company’s position compared to competitors to motivate employees. The
feeling of purpose and meaningfulness to the company are high intrinsic motivators for employees (Langton 190).
Not only will this improve the overall satisfaction of the employees but studies show this will increase customer
contentment and loyalty (Langton 101). Lastly, by creating small goals for the team and rewarding these short-term
“wins”, this will increase both teamwork and the likelihood of the new system being accepted by employees.

Conclusion

After a careful analysis, we strongly believe that our recommendations will be highly beneficial for your company.
Not only will they decrease the fears about job specialization, they will also increase communication between
employees. We also believe that they will solve the problems that your clients face, especially having to make
several calls to receive the information that they need. Attached to our analysis, we have included an implementation
plan that will give you the initial steps of using our recommendations.

The image above is our suggested implementation timeline. We believe that, immediately, you should implement
conference calls since it takes very little effort to implement it. Also, by using conference calls, you are also
increasing communication immediately. After one month, we believe you should have set goals for your team and
extrinsically reward them for being able to work as a team. By month 3, we suggest that the problem solving team is
implemented and that you begin the quarterly job rotation. We wanted to introduce the problem solving 3 months in
rather than immediately so that you are given an opportunity to communicate the idea to your team members.
Campbell and Bailyn was founded in the early 1900 s. The company has been based in New York. C & B has
been one of the largest investment banks in the market. The company has been performing reasonably well
within the investment banking market. Along with this, the firm has had a bond division which has been the
fastest growing unit for the company. The most productive division for C&B is in Boston.

It has eight regional offices in the world. Moreover, after the New York office, Boston was the largest office
for C & B. In terms of the revenue model and the size, the Boston office was often used as the bellwether
because of its management ideas. Ken Winston who is the regional sales manager for the Boston office has
been an experienced individual in bond sales. He was appointed in the year 2003. The idea behind his hiring
was to actually grow and expand the local sales team.

In the recent past, the banking industry has changed dramatically. The market has grown and new players have
entered the market. Product scope has increased and the demand has also been diversified. The companies
have been facing issue where they find it hard to sell and maintain the volume.

The margins have also decreased and the market has been affected with the entrance of low price and low
service brokers. To actually gauge in reasonable profits, the brokers have been made to understand the market
deeply.

In the year 2007, the financial crisis melted down the mortgage backed securities market which also affected
the sales for the firm C & B. In the current situation, Winston had to actually make two strategic changes to
operate efficiently and maintain the sales growth for the firm.

To actually fulfill the strategic goal, Winston created the “key account team” KAT. The five major generalists
in the taxable bond division sold the entire product line and also managed their respective customers. Winston
combined the generalists and also assigned each one of them to sub segment of the firm. The major goal or the
objective for Winston has been to enhance the sales team expertise for the product details and also focus on
each individual respectively.

Along with this, for the past several months, the customers have also enjoyed the change and they see the new
sales team more valuable. However, in spite the efforts made by Winston, some customers have been unhappy
and have perceived it more complicated.

Moreover, some sales people also found the new method a bit complicated because of the multi product trades
and large number of people. Another concern for Winston has been the limitation on the natural salesmanship
for the people due to the specialization.

Along with this, the second change implemented by Winston was called as the multi source appraisal. This
method did not include the combination of sales volume and own manager assessment.

The change was aimed to actually improve the collaborations between the cross functional teams and the
regional sales force and also encourage the team to improve upon the profits and gross margin. The major risk
that has been associated with this plan is that the method might lose upon the gross margins and the sales
volume. The sales team was also frustrated with the change.

Problem Analysis and Diagnosis

Winston had to present the two changes for the annual year end meeting. Since Winston has been in touch with
the customers and the sales team, he was rather clear with the pros and cons of the new changes. Since the
KAT team provided value to the customers, it also created confusion, extra burden and complications for the
sales team and also for the customers.

The major issue was that the customers had to deal with multi people now instead of an individual who
handled them in the past. Along with this, more people were engaged depending upon the size of the deal.
Number of meeting and calls also increased. The decision to actually introduce KAT team had missed the
input and the engagement from the specialist team who had experts working on specialty products.

Similarly, the fail process believed that the engagement not only helped in communicating management
respect for the individual but it also encouraged the refutation which cleared the thinking and the vision. It also
lacked smooth process and collaborations. Furthermore, the sales team has been spending extra time in house
to figure out the new process

Campbell and
Bailyn’s Boston
Office: Managing
the
Reorganization
C&B is one of the
five largest
investment bank
in the world, with
strong presence in
all banking
segment industry
including:
corporate finance,
investment
management,
mergers
andacquisitions,
securities sales
and trading.The
Boston office,
which is C&B
largest regional
office, is
undergoing a
major reorganizati
on to address the
loss of business to
competitors
because of its
assumed lack
of detailed
product
expertise.The
Boston office
used to spit its
portfolio of
customers
between 5
Generalists, who
managed75% of
the total taxable
bond sales and 7
Specialists, who
managed 25% of
taxable bondsales.
The former earned
up to a million
dollars in salaries
by making
multiproduct
tradeswith large
accounts, which
often required the
assistance of one
of more
specialists,
whereasthe later
earned twice less
by making smaller
trades with
smaller
accounts.Followin
g the
reorganization in
June 2007, the
Boston office is
now structured in
key accountteams
(KAT). The
former 5
Generalists are
now heading KAT
that are
specialized
by product. Each
KAT interact with
the top 60
customers for
their respective
product
of expertise.In
addition, C&B
introduced a new
performance
management
system (PMS) to
address
the practice of
salespeople to
only focus on
deals that
generated the
highest margins.
The oldPMS used
to assess salesman
on annual sales
volume and
regional sales
managers
ownassessment.
The new PMS
includes softer
measures, such as
salesman
responsiveness to
theneeds of
traders in New
York and the level
of motivation in
learning new
product.The
outcome of these
2 major changes is
contrasted. On
one hand the new
KAT
organizationonly
pleased half of the
Boston Office
customers. Half of
the customers
dislike the
constrainto deal
with multiple
specialist to close
a trade; whereas
members of the
KAT were
worriedof being to
specialized and to
limit their career
prospects....