The scenario Glenda Pritchard is the manager of a team of seven program evaluators who work directly for a state legislature. The team includes two economists with PhDs, an attorney with expertise in commercial law, two statisticians, and two MBAs. The team has been asked to evaluate a program implemented by the legislature five years previously to promote economic development in the state. The program included components such as tax increment financing, and the legislature wants to determine if the monies the state expended for the program have resulted in economic growth and increased tax revenues for the state.   Ms. Pritchard does not have expertise in economic development or related fields. But she is respected nationwide for her general expertise in program evaluation as well as her ability to work in environments that are politically volatile. Over the years, she has consulted with various states to assist in the establishment of program evaluation units and provide advice about conducting work in politically charged environments. She also has written several articles offering guidance in these areas. initial problemsFor the first few weeks of the project, everything goes smoothly. But after a few weeks, the team encounters various problems. They have difficulty obtaining the data required to do statistical evaluations of the program. The data they obtain is limited, making it difficult to conduct regression analysis and determine how much of the state’s recent economic growth and increased tax revenues can be attributed to the program. Some of the people working in the program refuse to cooperate with the evaluators. Others cooperate but as the evaluators work with them, it becomes clear that they are withholding information.   Initially, Ms. Pritchard works closely with the evaluators and is very involved, helping them deal with these issues. She makes phone calls on their behalf and tries to act as a liaison to ensure they can get the information they need and do the project. She offers advice to each evaluator and provides clear direction for how she wants them to carry out the project. She also solicits their input routinely and incorporates their suggestions into the work plan for the project. continuing problems As the project continues, the problems escalate, and Ms. Pritchard gets increasingly frustrated. It becomes apparent that she does not have the expertise needed to help the team with the specifics of the project, such as determining the usefulness of their data or understanding the legal issues of the program. She starts spending more time in her office with her door closed and when she does interact with the evaluators, she is irritable and unhelpful. She also rejects most of their written documentation, insisting that they redo it. But, she provides little explanation for why the documentation is unacceptable or what they need to do differently to improve it.   When the project began, the evaluators were excited about it. They felt it was a challenging project and the information they would provide to the state legislature would be important and useful in helping the state’s lawmakers decide how to move forward with the program. But now, the evaluators are discouraged. Part of their frustration stems from Ms. Pritchard’s leadership. They do not feel that she is providing the leadership they need to complete the project. Since the project is scheduled to last for at least another year, several of the evaluators have started looking for another job. Questions a.Based on the skills approach, how would you assess Ms. Prichard’s leadership and her relationship to the evaluators? b.Will the project be successful? c.Does Ms. Pritchard have the skills necessary to be an effective leader of this research team? d.The skills model describes three important competencies for leaders: problem-solving skills, social judgment skills, and knowledge. If you were to coach Ms. Pritchard using this model, what competencies would you address with her? What changes would you suggest that she make in her leadership?