Winston created the Key Account Team (KAT) at Campbell and Bailyn to increase specialization and provide technical advice to customers. However, the KAT design had weaknesses including making large trades more complicated, limiting salespeople's abilities, and reducing job satisfaction. Reorganizing the structure without involving employees led to disagreements. Research shows specialization increases productivity but reduces job satisfaction and can cause employees to leave for other firms.

1. Ken Winston, the regional sales manager for the Boston office of Campbell and Bailyn (C & B) along
with his upper management Team created the Key Account Team (KAT) to increase the amount of
specialization in the area of product knowledge. KAT was also created to help the customers to get
more in depth technical advices on specific issues. However, the KAT design has many weaknesses
and issues that in the long run will hurt the organization and decreases the level of productivity of the
employees. The change in reorganizing the structure made things more complicated in making large
multiproduct trades because more people and more time needed to be involved. On the other hand,
the salespeople felt too specialized and limited and were not able to use their abilities in other areas
out side of specialty. Winston took advantage of functional and product departmentalization while
avoided their weaknesses.
Winston forced the employees into specialized roles and limited their abilities. Researches show that
assigning specialized employees to a specific job does contribute to higher employee productivity.
However, it reduces job satisfaction and usually employees tend to lose interest in the current job and
go to another firm. As an example in this case, Callahan tells to Winston that “I am starting to worry
about John Oates. Ever since we put him on the corporate debt desk as a specialist, he hasn’t been
himself. I think he is considering jumping ship for another firm.” Another weakness in creating the
KAT was that the Management Team acted more centralized in making decisions about the changes in
the organizational structure. They made the decision without involving other employees in the process
or knowing the effects of the changes on the employees’ career prospects. As a result, the employees
felt more under pressure of high authorities and started expressing their disagreements and
frustrations.
There is also another change in restructuring of performance...
2
===============================================================
Part I: Analysis of Case and Application of OD/C Theories
Field Theory and Group Dynamics
The Campbell and Bailyn case takes place during a time of significant change in the financial world,
especially within the investment industry. The trying economic times had created a different sort of
demand in the market place that required the application of complicated debt instruments. Additionally,
the shrinking of high-profile sales had influenced the organization to restructure the sales compensation
in such a way that required sales teams to work more closely with product manager and research staff
located in a different geographic area. The case details these actions, but it is important to remember that
the catalyst for this new behavior was the changes in the environment.
Here, we can see the application of Lewin’s Field

2. Theory at work- the firm was in a state of quasi-equilibrium until forces in the environment (namely, the
macro economic recession and mortgage crisis) created forces that altered that state. According to
Lewin, changes in the environment (the field) result in changes in the behavior of the group within the
field, and in this case the pressure was enough to warrant a re-organization of the firm in order to better
contend 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 subsequently led 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 as
changes in the field created changes in the workplace, the behavior of group members began to change.
John Oates became distant and averse to his new, non-local team of product and research professionals,
Callahan began displaying pessimism regarding general affairs, and Jen Ulin expressed satisfaction with
the new world order. This disparate state of group opinions and behavior was detrimental 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 negative influencers in isolation–rather, the forces surrounding the team would
need to be affected and the team would need to traverse through the three-step-model as a unified
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 can lead 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 new structure.
2) Calls are coming in that require a higher level of knowledge dexterity and 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 their performance
management review. All of these elements can very quickly lead to a closed-system environment
where the KAT team becomes unwilling to continuously learn from the rapidly changing economic
environment and instead reinforces each other’s defensive behavior, creating an “us and them”
mentality within the team.

3. The threats to the team are such that the members have very little control over them, and all of the
threats originate externally; factors which exacerbate the development of defensive and anti-learning
behaviors. This could backfire in a number of ways;
1) The new compensation system could lead to inner warfare instead of the intended purpose of bridging
the knowledge gap between sales and product
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 become increasingly siloed with unhealthy working relationships developing
between the KAT 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 us examine the most relevant fit segments of Nadler’s
congruence model independently;
1) Individual-Organization: the members of the KAT team are now viewing the organization
through a very different lens than they did before the change. We can assume that the members
of this team are type A, gregarious individuals who enjoy a high-income lifestyle and who are
experts in relationship management. This assumption is valid because these are the personality
and motivational characteristics that create excellent sales people in the investment business.
Now, in the new organization, the salespeople’s individual needs to be self-managing and
independent are impeded by the fact that they have to rely on their other team members to assist
in the care of 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 regarding the product, the more sales he should be able to make. However, when the
compensation structure is abruptly changed to incorporate feedback from coworkers instead of
being based solely on financial performance, the individual 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 had previously been
generalists and functioned as singular and dedicated representatives of the firm for their clients,
were now boxed into specialists roles. Part of why these people were such high performers was

4. due to the fact that they were able to build relationships with their clients above and beyond 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 as the only salesperson assigned to particular accounts, and so these relationships
began to be diluted. Instead, they were required to sell and maintain accounts with only the merits
of their investment acumen in a particular area of expertise. This suggests that the new roles
these salespeople were in were no longer a great fit for them as individuals, as the job focus
shifted from relationship to technical knowledge.
3) Task-Organization: At Campbell and Bailyn, the organizational changes and tasks 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, the KAT team was introduced and implemented. These two sides of the same coin were
designed as a means to reinforce the other, and to create a social support system. However,
because the individuals in the roles exhibit signs of task-mismatch, it is difficult to tell whether or
not the task/organization relationship is effective. If Campbell and Bailyn, as a larger company,
decided to implement the KAT organization across the company, it might experiment first to see if
a team comprised of salespeople who had been specialists in the past might be better suited.
Part II: Action Research 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
take the time to gather additional qualitative data that could have aided in the ideation process. Now, I
would recommend that Winston go back and spend time understanding the personalities and social
dynamics that makeup the office environment. For example, he could issue personality tests generalists
and specialists alike to determine if there are thematic traits that permeate each employee group. In
addition, he could ask a skilled, objective party (consultant otherwise) to interview members of the team in
order to discern pain points and uncover underlying issues that have arisen since the added pressure of
the economic crisis. Armed with such insight, Winston would then be better equipped to utilize his
workforce in such a way that would both address the needs of the market 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 his generalist team in a meeting designed for
that purpose. However, he neglected to involve any other office members- most notably, the specialists.
By not getting feedback from over half the office, Winston and his team did not have theopportunity to get

5. valuable insight from people who were already operating in a job similar to the new one being designed.
This insight may have brought to light the individual/task misalignment that was previously noted, as the
specialists’ were familiar 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 a configuration that was more
conducive to multi-dimensional needs. In this regard, I recommend that Winston take a step back and
meet with the generalists and specialists independently to get feedback on the process change. Then, he
should conduct 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,

6. 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

7. 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.