DBA 8090 Module 3 Written Assignment: Diagnosis and Resistance at a Marine Contractor Example

It Was Never One Estimator: Diagnosis, Three Kinds of Resistance and a Feedback Meeting at a Marine Contractor

Student Name

Doctor of Business Administration, Thomas Edison State University

DBA-8090: Organizational Consulting: Process Consultation, Avocation, and Business Sustainability

Mentor Name

Month Day, Year

It Was Never One Estimator: Diagnosis, Three Kinds of Resistance and a Feedback Meeting at a Marine Contractor

The Data-Gathering Approach

The proposal promised a diagnosis grounded in records before opinions. Rousseau (2006) argues that managers decide better when research findings, the organization's own facts and experienced judgment are used together, and the approach here used all three. First, Lauren and I rebuilt each of the 22 jobs by line item: mobilization, materials, pile driving, framing and decking, sheathing, equipment, labor and change orders. Second, I interviewed both estimators and all four superintendents for about an hour each, using the same eight questions and starting with the jobs they were proudest of. Third, I compared the pattern with research on cost estimating.

Two limits shaped the work. Seven files had incomplete daily reports, so labor hours for those jobs come from payroll and are less precise by task. And the two jobs in claims with a township were excluded at Frank's request, leaving 20 jobs in the detailed comparison.

What the Data Shows

Across the 20 jobs, actual costs exceeded estimates by about $640,000 in total. Three sources account for roughly 80 percent of that amount.

Both estimators' jobs followed the pattern, at similar rates. The senior estimator's jobs had larger dollar overruns only because he prices the largest marina work. The interviews explain why the pattern persisted. Estimates are built from the bid documents and a site visit at whatever tide is running that day. Superintendents receive the estimate total and the schedule but not the assumptions behind them, so they cannot flag an assumption that fails until the money is spent. Owners' requests in the field are handled informally because superintendents "don't want to be the guy who argues with a township engineer." Flyvbjerg et al. (2002) found that cost underestimation in public works is common and persistent across decades, which they attribute partly to optimism in early estimates; a small contractor competing on low bids faces the same pressure in miniature.

Three People, Three Kinds of Resistance

Block (2011) holds that resistance is an emotional reaction to the loss of control or to vulnerability, often expressed indirectly, and that the consultant's task is to notice it, name it plainly and without blame, and then stay quiet so the client can respond. Ford et al. (2008) add that resistance is partly produced by the change agent's own actions and can contain useful information. Piderit (2000) argues that people often hold mixed feelings toward a change, so a response that looks like opposition may be ambivalence. Each lens helped with a different person.

The senior estimator, 26 years with the firm, gave detailed answers but returned three times to how he had been "set up to take the fall." His resistance took the form of over-explaining. Read through Ford et al. (2008), it was a reasonable response to the way the engagement began: he had heard that Frank called a consultant to find a weak estimator. I named this directly: "It sounds like you expected this to be about you. The data says it isn't." He then offered the most useful fact of the diagnosis, that he had stopped writing pile assumptions on estimates years ago because no one in the field read them.

Frank resisted through urgency. When I shared the early pattern, he asked for "the bottom line" and moved to cutting overhead. Block (2011) calls this flight into action, a way of avoiding the discomfort of what the data says about the leader's own system. I pointed out that the hand-off he wanted to skip was the finding itself.

Danny's response fits what Piderit (2000) calls ambivalence. He agreed strongly that unbilled changes were a problem and resisted the idea that tide-window scheduling was his crews' issue. Treating his support and his objection as two separate attitudes made it possible to use the first while testing the second with his own daily reports.

Designing the Feedback Meeting

Block (2011) recommends keeping feedback short and simple, presenting a few significant findings in plain language, and then making room for the client to react before any recommendations. The meeting will run 90 minutes with the family and all six staff. I will present the three sources and the hand-off gap in ten minutes, show the table, and then ask each person what surprised them. Only after that will the group discuss options. Armenakis et al. (1993) found that readiness for change grows when people hear a believable case that things must improve and also come to believe the group can close that gap. The meeting will therefore end with the agreement that each of the three causes is within the company's control.

What the Diagnosis Cannot Yet Say

Three questions remain open, and the feedback meeting should hear them as openly as the findings. The data cannot show whether the firm's bid prices are too low overall, since winning more bids may reflect lower prices as well as weak assumptions; answering that would need lost-bid data the company never kept. It cannot show how much of the tide-window loss could be recovered, since some sites will always be short-window work. And the two excluded claims jobs may tell a different story. Saying this aloud protects the credibility of the three findings. A consultant who claims more certainty than the records allow gives the resistant reader a reason to dismiss everything else.

Conclusion

The diagnosis moved the problem from one estimator to the space between estimating and the field. Resistance appeared in three forms, over-explaining, urgency and ambivalence, and each carried information that improved the findings. The feedback meeting is designed to let the family and staff own those findings before anyone proposes a fix.

References

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600601

Block, P. (2011). Flawless consulting: A guide to getting your expertise used (3rd ed.). Pfeiffer.

Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. S., & Buhl, S. (2002). Underestimating costs in public works projects: Error or lie? Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3), 279-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360208976273

Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193235

Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783-794. https://doi.org/10.2307/259206

Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as "evidence-based management"? Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 256-269. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208679