USING THEORY OF CONSTRAINTS TOOLS TO MANAGE ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE ...

USING THEORY OF CONSTRAINTS TOOLS TO MANAGE
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE: A CASE STUDY OF EURIPA LABS

Kwangseek Choe
Susan Herman

ABSTRACT

This paper illustrates the application of the theory of constraints (TOC) Thinking
Process (TP) to a research organization. This paper initially discusses the TOC TP
tools, and then applies them to Euripa Labs, a research organization which had an
urgent need of organizational change to support its effort to earn the Association of
Industrial & Technological Research Organization (AITRO) accreditation. Three key
issues including leadership, organizational structure and performance appraisal were
identified as the core problems, and the solutions that address the core problems were
developed. This paper illustrates the utility of the TOC TP tools for analyzing and
resolving dysfunctional managerial situations in a research organization, and concludes
that the TOC TP tools provide promise as a strategy for management team grappling
with difficult organization programs and working towards resolution of a wide variety
of issues, including managerial and interpersonal organizational dynamics.

Key words: Theory of constraints, thinking process, organizational change, case study

INTRODUCTION

The theory of constraints (TOC) has evolved from an operations scheduling technique to a
management philosophy focusing on continuous improvement process. In the early stage of
development, the main focus of TOC was in the context of manufacturing. The Drum-Buffer-
Rope (DBR) scheduling system, together with the five-step focusing process for continuous
improvement, and the TOC performance measurement system were the key elements of TOC.
Given that the major constraint to improvement was the resistance to changing the
performance measures, Goldratt (1994) developed a set of tools known as Thinking Process
(TP) that enable people to tackle organizational behavior or policy constraints (Dettmer 1998;
Scheinkopf 1999; Schragenheim 1999; Cox, Blackstone & Schleier 2003; Boyd & Cox III,
1997). The development of TP has broadened the scope of TOC application beyond the
manufacturing context. Some new applications of TOC include human resource management
(Taylor et al. 2003), organizational behavior (Dettmer 1998; Patrick 2001; Mabin et al. 2001),
business education (Cooper & Loe 2000; Sirias 2002), and strategic planning (Boyd et al.
2001). There has been a considerable growth of publications on TOC since the late 1990s
(Mabin & Balderstone 2003).
The application of the TOC TP tools to change management is one of the new appealing
applications of TOC. An organization can be viewed as a biological system which, in an ever-
dynamic environment, needs to focus on continuous improvement, to change in order to
survive and grow (Black 2000). However, improvements do not come free. The successful

Kwangseek Choe (ffkc1@uaf.edu) is Associate Professor of Management at the School of Management,
University of Alaska Fairbanks and Director of TOC center Korea. Susan Herman (ffsjh@uaf.edu) is Professor
of Management at the School of Management, University of Alaska Fairbanks; and principal in Herman
Associates, an organizational consulting practice.
8nternational Journal of Management & Organisational Behaviour, Volume 8 (6), 540-558 ISSN 1440-5377
© K Choe & S Herman

---

International Journal of Management & Organisational Behaviour
Volume 8, No. 6


implementation of change depends on numerous prerequisites, including vision, mission,
culture, leadership, successful experience of adaptivity (Gell-Mann 1995), capacity for honest
communication throughout the organization, as well as the ability of an organization to define
and comprehend what it particularly considers to be information worthy of being
communicated (Bar-Yam 1997), and adequate participation of organizational members
(Byrne 1998).
People refuse to comply with change when they fear where the change will lead them or have
doubts that the change will produce positive consequences (Kanter 2001; Hathaway 2000).
People become cynical about change when they are unsure if change is necessary, or if
change can be effectively accomplished (Austin et al. 1997; Wanous 2000) or, even more
importantly, when they believe change will adversely affect their own situation. Patrick
(2001) associates the TOC TP tools with a series of layers of resistance that frequently appear
in the process of improvement, positing that the TOC TP provides a ‘coordinated set of tools
to help take full advantage of resistance to change’.
Even though there have been a growing number of papers linking the change management
literature to the TOC TP tools (Houle & Burton-Houle 1998; Dettmer 1998; Patrick 2001;
Mabin et al. 2001), few case studies have been published. Mabin et al. (2001) present the
application of the TOC TP tools in the New Zealand bank merger case, positing that ‘the TOC
frame helps lead and manage change by providing practical guidance on situation assessment,
assumption surfacing, conflict resolution, planning and implementation of successful change’.
This paper is an application of the TOC TP tools in a case study involving a research
organization. This paper illustrates how the TOC TP tools are used in identifying core
organizational problems and developing solutions that address these core problems, while
dealing with layers of resistance in the change management process.

THEORY OF CONSTRAINTS

The theory of constraints (TOC), originally developed by Goldratt, is a management
philosophy focusing on continuous improvement process. The central idea of TOC lies in the
identification and exploitation of the system constraint in improving a system. TOC is based
on the assumption that the performance of a system is determined by the system constraint,
which is anything that blocks the system from accomplishing its stated goal, or in achieving a
higher level of performance with respect to this goal. As the first step in improving a
system, managers need to determine what constrains the system from reaching its goal.
Constraints can be physical or nonphysical. When the constraints are physical, such as
resources, raw materials, or supplies, they can be relatively easily identified by undertaking a
capacity analysis. However, if constraints are nonphysical, such as policies, behaviors, or
measures, they are harder to identify.

TOC TP was developed as a set of logical tools that enables people to tackle nonphysical
constraints. TOC TP consists of a set of six logical tools including Current Reality Tree
(CRT), Evaporating Cloud (EC)1, Future Reality Tree (FRT), Negative Branch Reservation
(NBR), Prerequisite Tree (PT), and Transition Tree (TT). Each of these six can be used
together, or as stand-alone tools (Goldratt 1994).



1 An alternative term is Conflict Resolution Diagram (Dettmer 1995).

541

---

Choe & Herman

Using Theory of Constraints Tools to Manage Organizational
Change: Case Study of Euripa Labs

HOW THEORY OF CONSTRAINTS LEADS TO IMPROVEMENT

The improvement process focuses on three questions: What to change? What to change to?
How to cause change? These three questions must be answered in sequence to make the
improvement process effective.

What to Change—Identify the Weakest Link

The first step in the improvement process is to determine what to change. Improvement
requires change, but change does not always lead to improvement. Sometimes, change makes
things worse. Change results in improvement only when it focuses on the right element to
change. If we view a system as a chain composed of many links, the strength of a chain is
determined by the weakest link. When the weakest link is strengthened, the change is an
improvement. When a non-weakest link is strengthened, the change is not an improvement.

Current Reality Tree (CRT) is used to identify the core problem by revealing causal
relationships among the undesirable symptoms that an organization exhibits. Building a
current reality tree begins with constructing a list of ‘UnDesirable Effects’ (UDEs) that are
dysfunctional symptoms or behaviors. Once UDEs are identified, the second step is to seek
causal relationships between these UDEs and possible causes. Which UDE is the cause of
which other UDE? To identify, refine and audit the causal relationships, a set of rules, called
the Categories of Legitimate Reservation (CLR) is used to find out if the logic presented
makes sense.


Clarity: Is the meaning/context of the words describing the UDE clear without
ambiguity? Is the UDE written in a complete sentence? Does the UDE convey only one
idea?

Entity existence: Does the UDE actually exist? Are there adequate empirical data to
support this UDE?

Causality: Does the causality between two UDEs make sense? Does the cause, in fact,
result in the effect?

Cause insufficiency: Is the cause sufficient to explain the effect? Might the effect have
additional causes?

Additional causes: Is the UDE the only major cause? Is there anything else that might
cause the effect on its own?

Predicted effect: Do other unavoidable outcomes exist in addition to the stated effect
from this UDE?

The process of connecting the UDEs using the IF-THEN logic continues until all UDEs are
connected so that all UDEs can be traced to a few root causes. Conflict can result from
differences of perspective about what the core problem is, but if there is any root cause to
which at least 70% of UDEs can be traced, a strong case can be made to view this root as a
core problem or the weakest link (Noreen et al. 1995).

There is an alternative method of constructing a CRT, which is called ‘Three UDE cloud
approach’ or ‘Generic Cloud approach’ (Cox, Blackstone & Schleier 2003). The procedure
for building a CRT starts with a Current Reality Branch (CRB), which is a logical tool for
using cause-effect relationships to determine the causal linkages from actions or policies to

542

---

International Journal of Management & Organisational Behaviour
Volume 8, No. 6


their effects in the current situation (Cox, Blackstone & Schleier 2003). A list of UDEs from
different functional areas within the organization is constructed and three diverse UDEs from
different functions are picked. The next step is to build the cloud for each of these three
UDEs using the cloud template, and then build the Generic Cloud, which is the source of all
UDEs. Once the Generic Cloud of the subject matter defined by the UDEs is identified, the
CRT is used to validate the core conflict of the entire subject matter. Cause-effect logic is
used to link the Generic Cloud to the UDEs. This new method is a holistic approach to
constructing a CRT. However, people who favor the emphasis of both validation and the
stringent use of the Categories of Legitimate Reservation (CLR) prefer the traditional
approach to constructing a CRT (Cox, Blackstone & Schleier 2003). In our analysis, we use
the traditional method of constructing a CRT.

What to Change to?—Design a Stronger Link

The next step in the improvement process is to determine what to change to. Once the core
problem is identified, the development of the solution may simply be the elimination of the
core problem. However, eliminating the core problem can also be hampered by the existence
of two opposing forces pulling the decision makers in opposite directions, resulting in a
tension or conflict. The Evaporating Cloud (EC) is a tool that helps the decision makers
search for a solution by challenging the assumptions underlying the conflict.

There are alternative methods of building the EC. The EC can be built from the CRT
(Goldratt 1994; Noreen et al. 1995; Dettmer,1995; Houle et al. 1998; Mabin et al. 2001;
Patrick 2001) or from the Generic Cloud (Cox, Blackstone & Schleier 2003). In our
analysis, the EC is built from the CRT. The general format of the EC is displayed in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1
General Format of Evaporating Cloud (EC)
REQUIREMENTS
PREREQUISITES
B
D
OBJECTIVE
Conflict
A
C
D’
Assumptions



543

---

Choe & Herman

Using Theory of Constraints Tools to Manage Organizational
Change: Case Study of Euripa Labs

The construction of the EC starts with a desired objective (A), such as the opposite of the core
problem identified in the current reality tree (CRT). Next is a determination of requirements
(B & C) and prerequisites (D & D’). Requirements are the necessary conditions to achieve the
objective, while prerequisites are the necessary conditions for requirements. The necessary
conditions are verified using the ‘IN ORDER TO…WE MUST HAVE…’ logic. In order to
have the objective A, we must have the requirements B and C. In order to have the
requirement B, we must have the prerequisite D. But in order to have the requirement C, we
also must have the prerequisite D’. As the two prerequisites D and D’ are in conflict, the
objective A appears to be unobtainable. The resolution of the conflict requires the hidden
assumptions of the necessary conditions be surfaced and challenged. A solution that
invalidates any of the assumptions is called an ‘injection’.

EC helps determine the initial thrust or primary injection needed to create a future system that
produces the desired effects. However, this primary injection is just the first step. To build a
robust solution that actually will work, other injections need to be added to ensure that the
primary injection achieves the desired results while not creating new, undesirable problems.

The Future Reality Tree (FRT) looks similar to the Current Reality Tree. While CRT is used
to trace the undesirable effects to the root causes using IF-THEN causal relationships, FRT is
the tool used in a similar fashion to CRT to show how the stated changes solve the problem
without becoming the source of future problems.

How to Cause Change?—Operationalize this Stronger Link into the Chain

The last step in the TOC improvement process is the implementation of the solution. Its
success depends on the degree of understanding and support participants in the improvement
process might have about the implementation of the change. Participants might have doubts
because they may perceive some critical obstacles that prevent the change from being
implemented. The Prerequisite Tree (PT) is a tool used to identify these obstacles and to
establish a series of intermediate objectives to overcome them. The last step in planning is a
detailed action plan, embedded in the Transition Tree (TT).

The TOC TP tools are clearly useful in identifying root causes and the primary injection for
change. They are also useful as communication tools to facilitate cooperation, collaboration
and co-ownership of participants in the improvement process. As a team works together in
employing these tools for the purpose of organizational problem-solving and continuous
improvement, the team develops strong process skills and mutual trust in the process. Team
members learn a common vocabulary and reflective process for communicating about
organizational design, conflict management, action planning and organizational learning
(Schon 1983).

A survey of the change management literature shows that people become less resistant to
change when they participate in the process of defining the change and developing road maps
and plans for the change (Kanter 1983). When the main sources of resistance to change in an
organization are the lack of agreement among organization’s members on the core problem
and the direction for a solution, TOC TP can provide an effective set of tools for
understanding and coping with the forces of resistance. This paper illustrates the application
of several of these tools through the analysis of a case study, ‘Euripa Labs Case’, which is

544

---

International Journal of Management & Organisational Behaviour
Volume 8, No. 6


based on a disguised, real-life situation. The case highlights leadership, organizational
structure, and performance appraisal issues in a situation that requires immediate
organizational change. The case began upon arrival of a newcomer (John) at the Euripa
Labs to start his job as a researcher of its Computer Sciences & Software Department.

BACKGROUND ON THE EURIPA LABS

Euripa Labs is the research laboratory of Euripa Technologies, located in the Silicon Valley,
California. Euripa Lab’s research focus is on information and communication technology,
systems and networking, wireless systems and technology, and mobile networking. As shown
in Figure 2, Euripa Labs has four departments: Chemistry, Computer Sciences and Software,
Physical Sciences, and Mathematical Sciences.

FIGURE 2
Organizational Chart at Euripa
President of Euripa Technologies
(Thompson)
Director of Euripa Labs
(Harold Cumming)
Computer Sciences
Chemistry
Physical Sciences
Mathematical Sciences
& Software
Department
Department
Department
Department


Euripa Labs developed as an outgrowth of a major lab housed on the outskirts of and
affiliated with a large university. It grew from less than twenty members in 1980, including
research personnel and system administrators, to approximately two hundred members in
2002. Euripa Labs has a lab director and four departments, each with its own department
head. The size of each department seems to bear no relationship to the number of research
projects each department undertakes. In the early stage of institutional growth, Euripa Labs
focused on the foundation areas of scientific study in the field of chemistry, physical sciences
and engineering, and computing and mathematical sciences. Euripa Lab’s focus then shifted
from ‘department-centered’ research in the foundation areas to ‘cross-departmental’ research,
representing areas of scientific study spanning multiple fields of technology.


545

---

Choe & Herman

Using Theory of Constraints Tools to Manage Organizational
Change: Case Study of Euripa Labs
John arrived at Euripa Labs about one year ago and jumped right into his first set of research
projects. Because John had been an opportunistic and last-minute hire, he was working in an
area of the lab with colleagues who were not in his department, and was astonished to hear a
constant flow of complaints about the Euripa Labs, about the Lab Director (Harold
Cummings), about the working conditions and lack of equity in assignments and recognition.
As a new member of an organization, in a new community, John did not want to alienate
potential friends, so he simply listened to the grumbling and tried to focus on his work.
What he learned in his first month was that Euripa Labs was about to undergo the process of
the AITRO (Association of Industrial and Technological Research Organizations)
accreditation which represented a worldwide recognition as a symbol of quality research
organization. The AITRO accreditation was viewed as confirmation that research
organizations were serious in setting, achieving and maintaining high standards for industrial
and technological research. Even though the accreditation would be critical to the reputation
of Euripa Labs, and Euripa administrators had invested tremendous amount of time and
energy in the accreditation effort, there was doubt among many of the research personnel that
Euripa Labs would earn the AITRO accreditation. John was shocked to know that the
morale within Euripa Labs had deteriorated to the point where members of each department
were openly hostile to members of the other departments, sometimes even to members of their
own department. At Euripa Labs, John attended two full staff meetings during his first year,
neither of which generated full attendance. The first meeting was advertised as a strategic
planning workshop, which included breaking into groups to brainstorm and then to debrief the
ideas. At no point did idea-generation turn into action planning, and the cynical attitudes
John heard in advance of the workshop—that strategic planning was a useless exercise—
indeed proved to be the case. The second full-staff meeting was billed as a ‘start of the new
year’ get-together, with the agenda centered on discussing ways to assess research
productivity. Two members of the staff had been investigating how other research
organizations which were already AITRO accredited measured productivity, and gave a
PowerPoint presentation of their findings. The meeting ended with no discussion or guidance
on how to apply the information presented.

At this point, about six months into John’s time at Euripa Labs, he decided to foster some of
the collegiality he had experienced at his prior job. He invited several colleagues, including
department chairs, to dinner, but the discussion focused exclusively on how the number of
contracts was dropping off and going to the competition, and how miserable it was to work
with constant anxiety and frustration. Co-workers complained that Harold, the lab director,
seemed to be away a lot, attending conferences and meetings. Since he never reported back
what he did while away, there was speculation in the lab that he used these occasions for
personal family visits or for socializing with counterparts, rather than attending to the
business of the lab. The department heads complained that Harold failed to demonstrate his
leadership and commitment to the AITRO accreditation effort, even while he emphasized the
importance of the accreditation for the future of Euripa Labs. John became friendly with
two long-term Euripa Lab members—Marjorie at the Chemistry Department, and Arthur
Potter at the Physical Sciences Department. Both Marjorie and Arthur were very enthusiastic
for work and their opinions were worth listing to. Both agreed that the AITRO accreditation
effort would be in vain unless Euripa Labs made fundamental changes.

At this time Harold decided to form a special Task Force aimed at the facilitation of the
accreditation effort due to his own growing concerns about the AITRO accreditation, as well
as the deterioration of employee morale within Euripa Labs. The Task Force consisted of

546

---

International Journal of Management & Organisational Behaviour
Volume 8, No. 6


three members including Marjorie, Arthur and, surprisingly, John, who had reservations about
accepting this assignment based on his newness to the lab, and based on what he had
experienced thus far. Because of his respect for Arthur and Marjorie, he thought that this team
could lead Euripa Labs into the accreditation project, improve the working environment, and
build clients and respect from the external stakeholders. Furthermore, John felt that the
added responsibility would be interesting and would keep him busy resolving, rather than
bemoaning, the problems he recognized as standing in the way of Euripa Labs being an
excellent, high performance team. Arthur and Marjorie, knowing that John had background
in the AITRO accreditation process at his prior lab, strongly encouraged him to join the Task
Force. Even though there was no job description, and although the parameters of the new job
were completely unclear, John took the leap.

What to Change?

The full staff meetings were held at Euripa Labs, and the meetings were dedicated to
developing a list of UDEs—dysfunctional symptoms or behaviors that Euripa Labs
exhibited—and constructing Current Reality Tree (CRT) to identify the core problems. After
the explanation of the purpose of the meeting, the TOC TP tools, and the importance of the
participation in constructing CRT, participants broke into small groups for brainstorming.
Later, the lists of UDEs presented by each group were merged together and examined in the
full meeting. After two full staff meetings, twenty UDEs were identified as follows:

UDE 1. The number of contracts has decreased.
UDE 2. The employee morale at Euripa Labs has deteriorated.
UDE 3. There is role ambiguity for administrators.
UDE 4. Employees complain about lack of equity in assignments, pay and recognition.
UDE 5. Employees have doubts about the ultimate success of the accreditation effort.
UDE 6. There is insufficient cooperation between internal organizational work teams.
UDE 7. The reputation of the lab is rapidly going down.
UDE 8. Department egoism is strong.
UDE 9. Employees are not participative in the accreditation effort.
UDE 10. Staff meetings are often hostile and rarely productive.
UDE 11. Employees have different perspectives on performance expectations.
UDE 12. Employees make decisions based on self-interest rather than the organization’s
goal.
UDE 13. Employees do not know what decisions are good for the organization.
UDE 14. There is lack of efficient leadership to facilitate the accreditation effort.
UDE 15. Qualified employees are leaving the lab.
UDE 16. Employees have anxiety and frustration.
UDE 17. Employees’ decisions are sometimes contradictory to the organization’s goal.
UDE 18. Accountability and performance of research teams are difficult to monitor.
UDE 19. Allocation of resources to projects is inefficient.
UDE
20. There is lack of communication and exchange of information between
departments.

Once the UDEs were agreed upon, the team started the second step—constructing the Current
Reality Tree (CRT) to search for a causal relationship among these UDEs using the IF-THEN
logic. For example, UDE 16 was connected to UDE 2, through the logic: ‘IF (UDE 16)
Employees have anxiety and frustration, THEN (UDE 2) the employee morale at Euripa Labs

547

---

Choe & Herman

Using Theory of Constraints Tools to Manage Organizational
Change: Case Study of Euripa Labs
has deteriorated’. The process of connecting UDEs using the IF-THEN logic continued until
all UDEs were connected. The complete causal road map was constructed not only from the
UDEs listed, but also included other entities or conditions that were necessary to make the IF
THEN logic hold. These were read using the IF-AND-THEN logic. For example, IF
(UDE 11) Employees have different perspectives on performance expectations, AND (UDE
27) Employees do not understand mission/goals/objectives of the organization, THEN (UDE
13) Employees do not know what decisions are good for the organization. A complete
causal road map showed that all UDEs were consequences of a few core problems including:

• UDE 14 There is lack of efficient leadership to facilitate the accreditation effort.
• UDE 28. Current organizational structure is not supportive of the organization’s needs.
• UDE 33 Job performance expectations of employees are not clearly defined.

The Director’s leadership, the lab’s organizational structure, and performance appraisal
surfaced as the three key issues.2

What to change to?—Mending the Leadership Link

The successful achievement of organizational change requires the strong leadership of
management to set direction from the top (Beer & Nohria 2000). Top management must be
visionary, consistent, persuasive, and capable of translating vision into workable action plans.
The successful achievement of organizational change also needs to engage employees at all
levels where the change will impact. Frequent communications about the change with an
adequate number of organization stakeholders are key (Kanter 1983). However, most of the
researchers and staff at Euripa Labs agreed that the deterioration of employee morale and the
lack of organization-wide commitment of employees to the accreditation effort were, at least
partially, caused by the poor leadership of the Director, Harold Cumming. Harold was
viewed to be neither a task-centered leader who paid close attention to the job and work
procedures involved with that task, nor an employee-centered leader who developed cohesive
work groups and ensured employee satisfaction. Many viewed Harold as an ‘impoverished
manager’ (Blake et al. 1964). Figure 3 shows that Harold’s poor leadership played some part
in creating dysfunctional symptoms or behaviors such as ‘(UDE 4) Employees complaint
about lack of equity in assignments, pay and recognition’ and ‘(UDE 25) Employees have
cynical attitudes about the accreditation effort’.

2 For convenience sake, the overall CRT is broken down into three CRTs according to the core problem of each
CRT. These CRTs are shown in Figures 3, 5, 7. As indicated in Figures, these CRTs are interconnected by some
UDEs such as UDE 13 and UDE 16.

548

---

International Journal of Management & Organisational Behaviour
Volume 8, No. 6


FIGURE 3
Current Reality Tree – Leadership Issue
5
Employees have doubts
2
about the ultimate
The employee
success of the
15
morale at
accreditation effort.
16
Qualified
Euripa Labs has
Employees have
employees are
deteriorated.
anxiety and
leaving the lab.
frustration.
10
9
Staff meetings are
Employees are not
often hostile and
participative in the
3
13
4
rarely productive.
accreditation effort.
There is role
Employees do not
Employees complain
ambiguity for
know what decisions
about lack of equity in
administrators.
are good for the
assignments, pay and
organization.
recognition.
25
Employees have
cynical attitudes
26
about the
There is lack of
27
commitment of
11
24
accreditation effort.
Employees do not
employees to the
Employees have
Employees feel that
understand
accreditation effort.
different perspectives
Harold asks for
mission/goals/objectives
on performance
accountability without
of the organization.
expectations.
corresponding authority.
23
Employees feel that
Harold doesn’t care
22
21
about the welfare of
Harold does not share
Harold doesn’t empower
subordinates.
his ideas and visions
subordinates.
with others.
14
There is lack of efficient leadership to
facilitate the accreditation effort.


Although appointed by Harold, when the accreditation Task Force began making the changes
necessary for accreditation, resistance to their leadership grew in the ranks—especially from
Harold. The Task Force decided to approach Mr Thompson, the president of Euripa
Technologies, to ask that Harold be removed and Thompson appoint an interim lab director
until a new lab head could be found. In the meeting with Thompson, the Task Force
presented the Current Reality Tree (CRT), arguing that one of the core problems was
leadership and that the best solution was the removal of Harold from his position as the
director. Thompson hesitated to accept the Task Force’s request, even though he agreed that
Harold’s leadership was one of the key issues. Harold was appointed by Thompson six
years ago as a replacement of the former director who was forced to step down due to his
involvement in an alleged bribery scandal. Thompson worried that the request for Harold’s
resignation made by the key members of Euripa Labs, after such unsettling problems with his
predecessor, would further harm the reputation of Euripa Labs. Even more important was
Thompson’s worry that a shift in leadership at this juncture would alarm the Board of
Directors to the point that they would not fund the lab’s latest planned expansion.

Figure 4 shows the Evaporating Cloud (EC) for the leadership issue at Euripa Labs. The EC
in Figure 4 shows that in order to increase the possibility of the ultimate success of the

549

---