Leaders Address Issues And Propose Solutions ✓ Solved

Overview Leaders address issues and propose solutions. As a

Overview Leaders address issues and propose solutions. As a leader, you must analyze an organization and present strategic solutions to improve organizational efficiency. The new CEO has engaged your consulting firm to provide an analysis. Prepare a presentation-style paper that presents your research findings and proposed strategic solutions. Your paper must include: Describe the organization and the issue to resolve: Provide a brief description of the organization and the specific organizational issue that adversely affects productivity. Analyze current corporate culture: Explain how the current corporate culture facilitated the development of the issue, using mission and vision statements and other cultural artifacts. Identify areas of weakness: Apply organizational behavior concepts (diversity, teamwork, motivation) to identify weaknesses related to the issue. Propose solutions: Recommend specific modifications to organizational practices and strategic solutions management can implement to resolve the issue. References and citations: Support your analysis with quality sources and include in-text citations and a reference list. Confidentiality: Use an alias for any real company or individuals if needed.

Paper For Above Instructions

Executive summary

This consulting brief analyzes "AtlasTech Solutions" (alias), a mid-sized software development firm experiencing reduced productivity due to departmental silos, weak cross-functional collaboration, limited psychological safety, and uneven diversity and inclusion practices. Drawing on organizational culture and behavior frameworks, this paper diagnoses cultural drivers of the problem, identifies specific weaknesses, and proposes a set of strategic, actionable solutions for the CEO to implement. Recommendations emphasize culture change, structural adjustments, leadership development, and measurable metrics to restore sustainable productivity improvements (Schein, 2010; Kotter, 1996).

Organization and issue description

AtlasTech Solutions is a 600-employee firm that builds B2B cloud applications. Its mission emphasizes innovation and client-centric delivery, but recent performance metrics show delayed releases, increased defects, and lower employee engagement scores. The core issue is persistent departmental silos—product, engineering, QA, and customer success operate with limited interaction, causing handoff delays, duplicated effort, and low knowledge sharing. This misalignment has directly reduced throughput and increased time-to-market.

Analysis of current corporate culture

AtlasTech's visible cultural artifacts include a top-down decision cadence, competitive incentive structures tied to department-level KPIs, and public recognition that favors technical "heroics" over collaborative success. The stated mission and vision emphasize speed and technical excellence, but the enacted values prioritize individual or team-level performance over collective outcomes. According to Schein's model, such artefacts and espoused values create assumptions that reward narrow achievement, which in turn entrenches silo behavior (Schein, 2010). Psychological safety is limited—employees report reluctance to raise cross-team concerns—which inhibits learning and experimentation (Edmondson, 1999).

Areas of weakness

  • Structural misalignment: Functional reporting and KPI design reinforce silos; cross-functional coordination lacks formal mechanisms (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).
  • Diversity and inclusion gaps: Leadership lacks demographic and cognitive diversity; hiring practices and limited mentorship reduce varied perspectives critical for innovation (McKinsey, 2020).
  • Motivation and rewards: Incentives focus on individual or departmental output, undermining intrinsic motivation to collaborate (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
  • Leadership and change capability: Middle managers lack training in cross-functional facilitation and change management, limiting cultural shifts (Kotter, 1996).
  • Communication and knowledge flow: Tools and formal forums for cross-team knowledge sharing are underutilized, creating information bottlenecks (Edmondson, 2012).

Proposed strategic solutions

The following recommendations target the root cultural and structural causes and are sequenced for practical implementation over 12 months.

1. Redesign metrics and incentives

Shift from siloed KPIs to shared, outcome-based metrics (e.g., release quality, customer satisfaction, cycle time). Introduce team-level recognition for cross-functional achievements and tie a portion of variable compensation to these shared metrics to realign incentives (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).

2. Establish cross-functional squads with clear mandates

Create stable, cross-functional product squads that include product, engineering, QA, and customer success. Give squads end-to-end responsibility for defined outcomes and create a lightweight governance model to remove inter-departmental handoffs (Edmondson, 2012; Kotter, 1996).

3. Build psychological safety and continuous learning

Launch a psychological-safety initiative led by HR and senior leaders: training for managers on inclusive behaviors, regular “blameless” retrospectives, and mechanisms for upward feedback. Psychological safety increases learning, innovation, and error reporting (Edmondson, 1999; Kahn, 1990).

4. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) program

Implement a DEI strategy with concrete hiring targets, structured interview training to reduce bias, sponsorship programs for underrepresented staff, and tracking of diversity metrics. Greater diversity correlates with higher performance and decision quality (McKinsey, 2020).

5. Leadership development and change management

Invest in leadership development programs focused on collaborative leadership, systems thinking, and change management (Kotter, 1996; Bass & Riggio, 2006). Equip middle managers to coach cross-functional teams and reinforce new norms.

6. Communication platforms and knowledge processes

Upgrade digital collaboration tools and standardize knowledge repositories, combined with structured fora (e.g., cross-squad demos, guilds) to accelerate knowledge sharing and reduce duplication (Harvard Business Review, 2017).

Implementation roadmap and measurement

Phase 1 (0–3 months): Align leadership on vision, redesign KPIs, and pilot two cross-functional squads. Phase 2 (3–9 months): Scale squads, launch DEI and psychological-safety initiatives, deploy leadership training. Phase 3 (9–12 months): Evaluate results, refine incentives, and institutionalize practices. Key metrics: cycle time, defect rates, customer satisfaction (NPS), employee engagement scores, cross-team collaboration index, and diversity ratios. Use quarterly reviews to iterate on interventions and maintain visible executive sponsorship (Kotter, 1996).

Expected benefits and risks

Expected benefits include faster time-to-market, reduced defects, improved employee engagement, better innovation outcomes, and higher client satisfaction. Risks include change fatigue, short-term productivity dips, and resistance from managers reluctant to cede silos. Mitigation: clear communication, phased pilots, and incentive alignment to encourage early adopters (Kotter, 1996; Cameron & Quinn, 2011).

Conclusion

Addressing AtlasTech’s productivity shortfall requires both structural and cultural change. By realigning incentives, instituting cross-functional squads, strengthening psychological safety, advancing DEI, and investing in leadership, the organization can break down silos and restore high-performance delivery. These recommendations are grounded in established organizational behavior theory and best practices; with consistent executive sponsorship and measurable milestones, AtlasTech can expect sustainable productivity improvements within 12 months (Schein, 2010; McKinsey, 2020).

References

  • Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. Jossey-Bass.
  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
  • Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
  • Edmondson, A. (2012). Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete. Jossey-Bass.
  • Harvard Business Review. (2017). Best practices for cross-functional collaboration. Harvard Business Review.
  • Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
  • Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.
  • McKinsey & Company. (2020). Diversity wins: How inclusion matters. McKinsey & Company.
  • Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). (2019). Employee engagement: Strategies and metrics. SHRM.

Related Assignments