Please read the case study instructions (attached) and read the case study (attached). Analyze the five items listed and write a detailed case analysis (usually about 800 words). You can look at to the students' responses to the case (attached) to be fami

!

This is a graded discussion: 10 points possible due Oct 4

Lessons 5 and 6 Case Analysis Discussion 1 3

Search entries or author

" Reply

Post your analysis by 11:59 p.m. on Sunday at the end of Lesson 5.

Then, read and comment on at least five case analyses written by your classmates by 11:59 p.m. (ET) Sunday of the second assigned week.

Unread # $ % Subscribe

(https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7003234)Emily Kepley (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7003234)

Wednesday

!

Key Issues:

Bob Knowlton found pride in escalating in the laboratory he worked for after two years. He was able to be creative in finding a solution to a current project and was later promoted to project lead for his idea. Mr. Knowlton was smug in his advancement and was satisfied with the work he was producing. Dr. Jerrold, the head of the laboratory, recognized Mr. Knowlton’s ability to perform and rewarded him accordingly to head a project. However, Simon Fester later came into the workplace and ended up being placed on Mr. Knowlton’s team. Mr. Knowlton expressed, to himself, a disdain for Mr. Fester being on his team but informed Dr. Jerrold that he would be delighted to have him join. Mr. Knowlton appears to want to be a team player but also found himself struggling internally with the attention Mr. Fester was getting with his work. At first, Mr. Knowlton appeared to be flattered that Mr. Fester wanted to review Mr. Knowlton’s work. When Mr. Fester displayed knowledge of the work, Mr. Knowlton appeared to become defensive. Later resulting in Mr. Knowlton resigning without properly explaining to Dr. Jerrold his perception of Mr. Fester and allowing the possibility for rectifying the concerns.

Diagnosis:

This case could easily be a mixture of both social and technical. However, the dominating nature of the problem I will discuss is social. In terms of social, at risk are the goals, values, culture, and psychological climate. It seems that Mr. Knowlton was threatened by Mr. Fester’s knowledge and that threat bled over into the culture and psychological climate. Mr. Knowlton discussed with his other team members, apart from Link, their perception of Mr. Fester. He presumably did not ask for Link’s input since Link appeared to enjoy working with Mr. Fester. Despite Mr. Knowlton gathering this information, he failed to bring it back to Dr. Jerrold to discuss further. Mr. Knowlton’s lack of assertive leadership hindered the psychological climate and culture for the other group

members. It is also assumed that Mr. Knowlton desired to receive credit for this project but, also allowed for Mr. Fester to indirectly take the lead.

Levels:

The levels of problem factors could be all three; individual, interpersonal, and organizational. Individually because Mr. Knowlton displays characteristics of someone who could be identified as self-conscious or lack of confidence in his knowledge. He also struggles internally with Mr. Fester proving himself to be potentially more knowledgeable than him. Interpersonal problems come into play when Mr. Knowlton has opportunities to discuss these concerns with Dr. Jerrold but he goes along with ideas Dr. Jerrold proposes. He also fails to advocate for his group after his group voiced their concerns and discomfort. Despite Mr. Knowlton being uncomfortable and annoyed with Mr. Fester, he advised his superior of the complete opposite. Organizational simply because Dr. Jerrold failed to consider the rest of the team when making decisions on behalf of the group.

Processes:

The process problems result from poor communication, missing leadership, and ineffective group norms and rules. The poor communication stems from Mr. Knowlton continuously pushing aside how he felt about Mr. Fester but rather, going along with what Dr. Jerrold suggested. Mr. Knowlton also did not discuss the boundary concerns of Mr. Fester calling at 2:00 AM after reviewing the project extensively. That falls into the missing leadership process problem as well. Mr. Knowlton did not appear to assert himself as a leader in this project. He allowed for Mr. Fester to seemingly take the lead on the group and Dr. Jerrold along with Mr. Knowlton allowing Mr. Fester to be a part of a presentation without inviting the other members of the group (ineffective group norms and rules). Dr. Jerrold and Mr. Knowlton allowed Mr. Fester to take the lead in this project by presenting the proposal.

Redesign:

At the end of the reading, Dr. Jerrold can reflect on why Mr. Knowlton resigned. He understood that Mr. Knowlton was seemingly happy in his role as project lead and supportive of his colleague, Mr. Fester. Mr. Knowlton’s resignation should have sparked in Dr. Jerrold an evidence-based management intervention (Denhardt, R., et. all, 2019). Dr. Jerrold may have benefitted from utilizing the nominal group technique prior to insisting Mr. Fester join Mr. Knowlton’s team. Denhardt suggests the nominal group technique would have allowed the group members to have equal input in deciding Mr. Fester’s addition. In a nominal group technique, everyone would have had the opportunity to express their concerns or suggestions, have their thoughts written down for all to see, and have a discussion among each other. Mr. Knowlton appears to use this technique when he is with his group, but Dr. Jerrold does not. As Denhardt would say that effective decision-makers understand that the events they are making decisions on are typically manifestations of underlying problems (Denhard, R., et. all, 2019). He claims that effective decision makers end up making less decisions with this understanding. While both parties are at fault, Dr. Jerrold for not considering the input of the rest of his team and Mr. Knowlton for not advocating for his team or actively communicating effectively. Denhardt claims that communicating effectively reinforces

" Reply

communicating effectively. Denhardt claims that communicating effectively reinforces employee’s decision making, which ultimately benefits the organization. It seems Mr. Knowlton was attempting to avoid conflict by bringing up how he truly felt with Mr. Fester in his group. Denhardt states “manage your fear of rejection and conflict. Often people hold back from asserting themselves because they fear what others might say or they may motivate conflict” (Denhardt, R., et. all, 2019).

Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V., Aristigueta, M. R., & Rawlings, K. C. (2019). Managing Human Behavior in Public and Nonprofit Organization. 5 editionl. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Ltd.

th

(https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6925657)Negina Noorzada (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6925657)

Thursday

!

Key Issues:

Bob Knowlton was very proud of his productivity and his ideas have made the job a lot easier. He kept receiving compliments from his boss Jerold, which was making him so satisfied and very pleased each time. Knowlton was not very honest with his feelings. When Jerold added a very talented new member Fester, to Knowlton’s group, he was afraid that Fester may take his place. Knowlton never confronted his feelings with Jerold, and it bothered him internally where he decided to resign from the job where he was very proud.

Diagnosis:

This case is a mixture of both social and technological problems. Laboratory’s goals and values are to productivity and to get the job done in a more sufficient way. Jerold and Fester are trying to look at any possible way to find easier ways for this purpose while Knowlton may forget the goals and values. He instead wanted all credits to himself and wanted himself to be the center of the attention.

Levels:

The level of the problem is, individual, and interpersonal. Knowlton was not comfortable working with Fester. He had a lack of self confidence around Fester which caused him to not be honest with Jerold about his feelings. He even talked with other team members about working with Fester but never took any action about that.

Processes:

The problem is definitely from poor communication. Knowlton attempted to talk to Jerold about Fester, but every time he switched the conversation and changed his mind. He never talked to him about what he really thinks about Fester and how uncomfortable he is working with him, instead, he always praises his good work and showed how grateful he is to work with him.

Redesign:

" Reply

If I were the head of the laboratory, I would involve Knowlton and the team member and discuss what they feel about adding a new addition to the team. As mentioned by Denhard every individual in the team should be part of the decision- making group and be able to share their opinions and concerns openly (Denhard, R., et. al, 2019). This way Jerold would not have to deal with losing one of his experienced employees while he used to love his work and the work environment.

(https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7026855)Duane Robinson (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7026855)

Yesterday

!

Key Issues

Bob Knowlton was a successful project leader who worked for Simmons Laboratories whose leadership qualities were brought into question once a man named Simon Fester joined the team. Knowlton did not like Fester because he thought he was a “know it all” and he would step on his toes. Jerrold brought Fester on the team without giving Knowlton a heads up, which was wrong. Since Knowlton was the project leader, he should have been consulted first before a new member was hired. Fester came into the lab trying to control things which immediately annoyed Knowlton and put Fester on his bad side. Fester did not practice professional etiquette when he called Knowlton at 2 am to discuss work business. Fester eventually wanted to change Knowlton’s whole process of the lab and how their whole experiment was to be structured. Fester soon took over Knowlton’s group meetings pushing Knowlton to eventually quit and obtain a new job where he could become a leader again. Knowlton was a coward for running from his problems when faced with a challenge. Knowlton never really spoke to Fester about what his problems were with him, instead, he kept everything to himself which only resulted in things getting worse. Fester also thought very poorly of the group capabilities and their analyses on the photon experiment lacked substance, which is why they could not find a solution.

Diagnosis

This case seems to be a social and technical problem. It is social because of the animosity that Knowlton has for Fester, who came in and took his job. It is technical because of the way Fester came in and began to change all of the previous processes that Knowlton had set for the group like the group meetings for example. Knowlton set group meetings very often to keep everyone on one accord. Fester did not believe that this was necessary and thought that meetings were only necessary once in a while and just for project heads, the head of the lab, and the sponsors. One other technical aspect was that Jerrold saw that Fester was beginning to take over all of Knowlton’s managerial functions and chose not to step in.

Levels

The levels here are individual, interpersonal, and organizational. It is on the individual level because Knowlton was a successful leader, but he lacked the ability to successfully

" Reply

level because Knowlton was a successful leader, but he lacked the ability to successfully find a solution to the experiment of the photon that the group was working on. He wanted to just give up on the experiment, but Fester would not allow it because he believed that there was a solution, which he proved to be true. Interpersonal problems arose when Knowlton did not voice any of the problems that he had with Fester other than with his wife which could have had a different result if he went to Fester to talk about his issues with him man to man. This was an organizational problem because we see a man that is brought on to the team take over completely and structure everything how he believed it should be with little regard for opinions on what everyone else thought.

Processes

The processes here come from incomplete problem solving and poor communication. We see in the organizational process model that individuals must be organized in a structured way to achieve an objective but Fester did not think that they were structured in a way for them to achieve their goal, which is why he made the changes that he did (Denhardt et. al pg. 140,). Authoritative decisions were made by Fester, which are decisions that are made by an individual or on behalf of the group (Denhardt et. al pg. 144). Poor communication was a factor here because Knowlton never spoke to Jerrold about how he felt about Fester and he left Jerrold for a new job at the last minute just by leaving him a note. Knowlton and his team were going to give up on their project because they could not conclude how to solve it which are results of incomplete problem-solving.

Redesign

The communication could have been better between Jerrold and Knowlton. Jerrold should have given Knowlton the heads up that a new member was joining the team instead of Knowlton looking up to find someone new in the lab. Knowlton should have talked with Fester as soon as he felt as though he was overstepping his boundaries as a new member. Knowlton was the project leader and lacked the will to keep his position solidified. Even though Knowlton was still the project leader, others around began to see his power slip away to Fester. Fester should have consulted Knowlton more on what he thought would be the right decisions instead of changing the way Knowlton structured his team. Knowlton should have been more assertive in his approach to Fester and maybe they would have been better working together, but instead, Knowlton accepted defeat and quit for a new job. I think Knowlton took the easy way out and as a result, he missed out on a new project that Jerrold had set out for him.