Case study: Chris Peterson at DSS Consulting

1. Short cycle process

 This article is about chris Peterson who is a team leader in a consulting firm
called dss, he is in charge of the southwest region team responsible for
developing a new product, but in order for her team to be effective and
successful chris tried to select people who not only had the skills but also the
experience in working with one another in the past, after the group was
completed they created a new integrated budget and planning system, and
they were satisfied by their accomplishments but their was a dispute between
chris and her boss at dss consulting meg cooke who felt differently, raising
questions about the team's performance and Peterson's ability to lead, and in the
end the project was cancelled and the all the efforts of the southwest region team
was in vain.

2. Long cycle process

 The case examines a dispute between Meg Cooke, DSS’s COO and Chris Peterson,
newly appointed Southwest Region’s team leader. Cooke appointed Peterson a
leadership role for one of the newly structured cross-functional teams designated
to create a new integrated budget and planning system. The cross functional
teams were tasked with building relationships with existing school districts in their
regions and provide them a full range of DSS services and to develop new
consulting offerings in response to the district’s needs. (Case 2010) Theses goals
were created to facilitate a transition to servicing larger districts rather than the
smaller districts,
Peterson’s behavior and management style influenced her team’s performance,
while Cooke’s absence of communication and guidance lead to wasted time and
resources on a system that did not meet DSS goals. Listing Alternative Courses of
Action That Could Be Taken Better communication needs to be created between
mid and upper management. Proper communication will lead to a better
understanding of the goals desired. Feedback is provided by upward
communication, which makes employees feel involved and can help managers to
get employees to understand their concerns. Cooke and Peterson communicated
scarcely and poorly. No regular meeting were scheduled. When the two did
communicate there was no clear and actionable dialogue. Communication is only
successful when both the sender and receiver understand the same information
as a result of communication, Both Cooke and Peterson should establish regular
structured communication. This can be accomplished by setting periodic
meetings, written updates via e-mail or memos. These meeting will provide
downward communication that will allow information to be dispensed to the
team working on the projects in question. These meeting will make Peterson and
her team feel more involved in the direction of the project and it will also keep
Cooke abreast of the attitudes and values of her employees. Cooke can defuse
any potential problems