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 17 23

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 # $ % Subscribed

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

Sep 23, 2020

!

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 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).

" Reply

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)

Yesterday

" Reply

!

Emily,

I totally agree with you on your point, Knowlton lack of self-confidence pushed him to resign from his job. He was constantly comparing his job with Fester and was so worried to be around him. He was not confident enough about his work either because he was worried that Fester may find something negative about him and the job he has done.

(https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815)Tyler J Lacovara (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815)

Yesterday

" Reply

!

Emily,

Great post! I definitely agree with your assessment that Dr. Jerrold should reflect on the circumstances that led to a bad outcome for his organization. An evidence-based intervention would be the logical next step, particularly because of how well the team was performing before Mr. Fester entered the picture. To supplement this strategy, it would be useful to pursue greater transparency in communication, as you point out. If Mr. Knowlton was not properly advocating for his team, that is a clear failure on his part. It is, however, the ultimate responsibility of Dr. Jerrold to properly manage his organization, so he should reflect on the steps he can take to avoid these miscommunications in the future.

Thank you for sharing,

Tyler

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

Sep 24, 2020

!

" Reply

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:

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/6889815)Tyler J Lacovara (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815)

Yesterday

!

Negina,

Great post and I would generally agree with you that Knowlton had a major personal failure by not properly advocating for his team to Dr. Jerrold. As a team leader, it is his responsibility to foster harmony and discipline to meet the goals that the organization set. As challenging as Mr. Fester's personality may have been, it was Knowlton's responsibility to overcome that and seek the help of his boss to resolve the issue. As we see later in the case, this level of communication may have actually solved the entire situation before it escalated, as Dr. Jerrold could have simply transferred Mr. Fester to a more suitable team. Instead, the personality conflict went mostly unnoticed and the organization ended up losing a solid leader.

" Reply

mostly unnoticed and the organization ended up losing a solid leader.

Thank you for sharing,

Tyler

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

Friday

!

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 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

" Reply

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.

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

Tuesday

" Reply

!

Hello Duane!

I agree that the communication was the main issue that required redesign. It sounds like a lot of the discord could have been avoided if Knowlton had explained to Jerrold how he felt with Fester coming on in the group. Knowlton seemed to lack being assertive and placing firm boundaries. Knowlton also seemed to, as you said, accept defeat without attempting to rectify the situation with Jerrold. Alternatively, Jerrold was placing his goals for the company above others without consideration of others perspectives. Overall, I agree with your case analysis!

Emily

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

!

Yesterday

" Reply

Duane,

I also believed poor communication was one of the factors that led Knowlton to resign. He never talked to Jerrold about his true feelings about Fester and instead he was praising him in front of Jerrold. Jerrold on the other hand, never discussed with Knowlton's team about adding Fester to their team.

(https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815)Tyler J Lacovara (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815)

Yesterday

" Reply

!

Duane,

Great post! I agree that Mr. Fester's authoritative decisions were sudden and likely a difficult leadership task for Knowlton to handle. I am interested by your assertion that Fester didn't believe that the group was properly oriented and structured to achieve their goal. I wonder if this situation could have played out differently so that Knowlton could have embraced Fester's perspective and assessed whether his team was actually efficient or not. This may not have resulted in any changes, it's possible that the group was already properly oriented, but it would have at least allowed Fester to feel acknowledged while potentially adding valuable perspective to the organization. In any case, it is clear that the situation was handled poorly and collaboration was unlikely.

Thank you for sharing,

Tyler

(https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7033803)Ellen Bair (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7033803)

Sunday

!

Key Issues: There are a few leading issues in the case study, “Bob Knowlton.” First, Bob Knowlton is a new and very proud project head, who values a team dynamic. Second, Fester is incredibly competent and more knowledgeable about the work Knowlton’s team is trying to accomplish. Third, Fester has little awareness about how his actions affect others and actively disrupts the team dynamic. Fourth, the lines of leadership/hierarchy are blurred once Fester arrives, causing Knowlton to feel insecure about his position within the lab.

Diagnosis: The problems in this case study are both social and technical in nature. Bob Knowlton is a dynamic leader who values teamwork (social). He prioritizes collaboration and structures team meetings into every morning (social and technical). Fester has a clear lack of awareness when it comes to how his actions make team members feel (social). He actively puts his goals and values above the expectations and needs of others - ie: calling Knowlton in the middle of the night to discuss work (social and technical) and completely dominating team meetings that once were an opportunity for collaboration and idea sharing (social and technical). Fester also joined Knowlton’s team but not with the intention of it being permanent (technical). This ambiguity blurred some

but not with the intention of it being permanent (technical). This ambiguity blurred some of the typical technical procedures that were standard to the lab’s structure.

Levels: Bob Knowlton’s ability to lead a team and foster collaboration is individual (he’s intrinsically motivated to create a team dynamic), interpersonal (his leadership inspires others in his team to buy-in to the culture of collaboration), and organizational (each individual now invested in the team makes up a successful and highly motivated department). Fester’s ability to dominate a meeting/team is interpersonal (the way he communicates makes others feel inadequate) and organizational (he quite literally takes over the meeting and forces teammates to focus on his ideas and solutions). The fact that he is completely unaware of how he comes across/makes people uncomfortable is individual (he lacks self-awareness) and interpersonal (he does not recognize the reactions of others when his behavior impacts them negatively). When Jerrold had Fester join Knowlton’s team on a trial basis, the roles/responsibilities of Fester in relation to Knowlton were very unclear (interpersonal and organizational). These lines continued to be blurred through actions of both Jerrold and Knowlton (ie: the team meetings and research conference) until Knowlton felt like he lost his team (organizational and individual).

Processes: The issues in this case result from a multitude of factors. First, there is a clear disconnect between Fester, Knowlton, and Jerrold, all of which stems from poor communication, missing leadership, and an inadequate structure of the organization. Because Knowlton is such a team player, he never speaks up when Jerrold asks him how it’s going with Fester. This poor communication has Jerrold assume it’s going well and he’s therefore surprised when Knowlton leaves. Jerrold also lacks leadership, as he is unable to see how placing Fester in Knowlton’s team has affected the dynamic. He also is willing to have Fester bypass organizational procedures/norms. By doing so, he shows the rest of the lab how important he is and undermines Knowlton’s leadership position. This, in turn, pushes Knowlton elsewhere.

Redesign:

Recommendation 1- Nominal Group Technique

While Knowlton values a team dynamic, it is evident that Fester prefers individual work and quickness/efficiency (not that teamwork is inefficient). By implementing the Nominal Group Technique into their morning meetings, Knowlton will be able to combine both elements in a way that works for everyone and lowers the risk of Fester commandeering his meeting. It was clear from the case study that Fester dominated all discussion of possible solutions for their research problem. By offering a platform for each group member, everyone feels like their input matters and it returns to the team-oriented environment. As Denhardt et al. (2020) states, “involving many people in the process may result in a better decision because many will have had the opportunity to think of the pros and cons and therefore will be more likely to support a decision in which they have been involved” (p. 144).

Recommendation 2 – Business Process Reengineering

Both Fester and Jerrold are surprised by Knowlton’s abrupt exit. This highlights the clear disconnect between all three of them. While participating in business process reengineering wouldn’t solve the issues of this case, it could allow Knowlton, Fester, and Jerrold to all learn from this experience and redesign the organizational processes for the future.

Recommendation 3 – Routine Check-ins

Though Knowlton and Jerrold met a few times throughout the case study, Jerrold should implement weekly check-ins with his project heads. By establishing a time every week to come together face-to-face and update one another on progress/lab news, Jerrold and Knowlton may have had more opportunities to connect. While Knowlton was never going

" Reply

Knowlton may have had more opportunities to connect. While Knowlton was never going to actively throw Fester under the bus, weekly check-ins could have provided Jerrold the opportunity to let Knowlton know that he had other plans for Fester outside of Knowlton’s team.

References:

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

Tuesday

" Reply

!

Hi Ellen!

I enjoyed how detailed you laid out the levels portion. It was easy to follow and linear. I liked how you pointed out that Fester lacked self-awareness to the point that he was unaware of how he was affecting others on his team. It's a different perspective from my own thought of this case and focusing on Fester's behaviors rather than Knowlton or Jerrold. Fester did seem to be monopolize the group and Knowlton did not express any reservations in his doing so. You point out later in your redesign portion that Knowlton leaving left Fester and Jerrold surprised. It certainly highlights Fester's lack of emotional intelligence with being able to recognize social ques and body language. The way you describe it makes me think Fester was a bit absentminded!

Emily

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

Yesterday

" Reply

!

Ellen,

I enjoyed reading your recommendations. I love your recommendation number three, I have never thought about it this way. I think it is a great way for all of them to come together and connect and also share their future plans and goals. And this way Knowlton would not be needed to resign from his job.

(https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815)Tyler J Lacovara (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815)

Yesterday

!

" Reply

Ellen,

Great post and I agree with much of your assessment of the case. The point I was considering was whether Mr. Fester's personality was actually an inherent detriment to the organization, or if he was simply mismanaged. Your example of him calling Knowlton at 2am is one that could easily be seen as overly-forceful or inappropriate, but I feel that a good leader might recognize that Fester is passionate about his work. If this is the case, then it might be possible for a strong leader to channel that energy into more positive outlets. It seems to me that anyone who is up at 2am working on something must be very passionate about that subject, and would make a potentially great teammate. This would undoubtedly be a major leadership challenge, but one that Knowlton may have been able to accomplish if he did not allow himself to become insecure from the competition.

Thank you for sharing,

Tyler

(https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6985318)Charmis Dane (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6985318)

Sunday

!

Key Issues

The key issue is that Bob Knowlton and Dr. Jerrold did not have clear communication with each other. Knowlton was project head and was having great success and felt confident with what he was doing and with his position within the organization. When Simon Fester came in as the new guy with a greater understanding of Knowlton’s research, Knowlton felt threatened in his position. Throughout the time Knowlton and Fester were working together, Knowlton did not know whether Fester was going to take over or how Jerrold was truly feeling towards him. He felt uncertain and was feeling less and less confident in his own work and understanding. He did not speak up on how he was feeling with Jerrold. Jerrold felt everything was okay and that Knowlton was content with the work and was happy to get Fester’s help. Jerrold did not tell Knowlton that Fester was going to get his own team in a different department and that he was thinking of providing additional staff to Knowlton with a similar background of Fester’s to help with the research. If they both would have communicated with each other Knowlton would have realized Jerrold still considered him the future of his team and Jerrold would have known that Knowlton felt his position was in jeopardy and could have easily reassured him that he had a future in the team.

Diagnosis

The nature of the problem is social. It seems that the goals and culture of the organization made Knowlton feel he was going to get replaced. He was told the sky was the limit for those who produce, and he felt since Fester was producing, he would be easily replaced.

Levels

The levels of the problem are interpersonal and organizational. Interpersonal because while Knowlton felt his job was in jeopardy, he did not communicate with Jerrold on how

" Reply

while Knowlton felt his job was in jeopardy, he did not communicate with Jerrold on how he felt. Jerrold also did not communicate clearly of Fester’s role in the group. Organizational because the goals and culture of the organization created this tension with Knowlton. He felt the organization only wanted results and that Fester was getting them at the moment and the organization would leave him behind.

Processes

The main process problem of this case is poor communication. Neither Knowlton nor Jerrold communicated well. Knowlton felt he was about to be replaced by Fester who was brought in by Jerrold. He felt unease throughout the time Fester was there but did not tell Jerrold how he was feeling and instead kept it to himself and started assuming the worst. When someone is faced with a possible problem they do not fully understand, they seek out alternatives (Simon, 1978). Knowlton did not know where he stood and was not as knowledgeable as Fester in certain areas of the research and he felt the best thing for him to do was change jobs. Jerrold should have also communicated with Knowlton on Fester’s role and that the plan was to give Fester his own team in a different division, this would have given Knowlton confidence that his position was not about to be taken from him and that he was just given additional resource to help with his research.

Redesign

The first step that should have been taken was better communication by Jerrold. He should have introduced Fester to Knowlton and given Knowlton a full understanding of Fester’s role and future in the department/organization. Before all this happened, he should have also reached out to Knowlton and other figureheads in the team and consulted with them to get input on whether it would be a good idea to bring in Fester into the team. By consulting with them they would be more likely to support the idea of having someone with Fester’s knowledge around while also giving them a clear understanding of the role he would be playing (Denhardt et al. 2019., p. 206). This would have given Knowlton the confidence that his position is secure and that Jerrold is trying to provide his team with more resources.

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

Tuesday

!

Hi Charmis!

It seems to be pretty unanimous that poor communication is the main process problem in this case. Both Knowlton and Jerrold failed at communicating with one another efficiently. Knowlton definitely felt a sense of intimidation by Fester but also did not dispute Fester's abilities in performance. He gave credit where credit was due to Fester for his knowledge base of the project. Knowlton seems like he stepped aside for Fester and allowed him, unconsciously, to take the lead on the project. He was put into a position that he would not be able to present on the project because Fester had conducted so much of it.

" Reply

Emily

(https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6970617)Nada Alqahtani (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6970617)

Sunday

!

Key issues

Bob Knowlton's success in his laboratory work made him proud of his achievements. He had worked for two successful years tackling projects and solving problems. His boss and other people were satisfied with his job and often showered him with praises and compliments. His achievements went on until a new employee come to his team. This new member, Fester, was very talented and brighter than Bob Knowlton. Bob was so insecure and did not like working with Fester. Dr. Jerrold knew the ability of both Fester and Bob. Dr. Jerrold, however, did not follow up with the team leader on the performance of the project and often would talk to Fester instead. Bob Knowlton, though Fester, was a threat to his career. Bob did not mention any of these to his boss and suffered alone (Robertson, 2009). When Fester joined the team, he assumed a leadership position and role, although Bob was the project leader. Fester believed in his ideas when working on the project and did not consult with his team leader Bob Knowlton. Bob was so discouraged that he decided to resign his job without sharing his problems with anyone.

Diagnosis

There is a social problem in this case. The social problem is a psychological one. Bob has psychological torture. The psychological torture was caused by Fester, who is a new member of the team. Fester is brighter than Bob, and Bob and his boss know that. Bob is insecure, working with Fester, and feels unwanted. This psychological problem is not shared with either management or any workers. There is a technical problem too. There is no good structure and working procedure in this company. Despite Bob being the project leader, Fester, a new team member, seems to take over and even works closely with his team leader Bob. This organization lacks a good chain of command to channel information and responsibilities from managers to workers and from workers to managers.

Levels

First, there is an individual problem. The individual problem is clearly shown by Bob, where he suffers and creates a perception of Festers. He goes on to suffer alone without sharing with either his boss or Festers who he leads. Failure to share the individual problem makes Bob quit his work over an issue that could have been solved.

Another problem evident in this case is interpersonal. There is a lack of communication between Bob and Fester. Bob should have talked to Fester about teamwork and give him a procedure they should follow while tackling the project. There is an organizational problem too. The organizational problem is shown by how Fester is recruited and incorporated into the company. There is no procedure followed when recruiting Fester. Dr. Jerrold casually hires festers to the project, something which makes him proud and casual. Besides, Fester does not follow protocols and often bypasses Bob, who is his team leader.

" Reply

Processes

The problems, in this case, are as a result of poor communication and incomplete problem-solving procedure. There is no good communication between Dr. Jerrold, Festers, and Bob. Bob does not communicate his fears and insecurities to his boss and often keeps them to himself. There is no good communication between the team leader Bob and his junior Fester. Lack of communication creates a perception that Fester has a better relationship with Dr. Jerrold.

Redesign

The first step to prevent these problems involves concerned parties in the recruiting and employment of new workers. Bob, being a team leader, should have been involved in recruiting Fester at the first step. Communication is another recommendation for this case. Communication from management to workers and from workers to management would have prevented these problems. If Bob was free and open to his boss, he would have shared his insecurities and complaints, which could have saved his job. Another recommendation is the structure of the company. These include the managerial structure and chain of command. The company should have a good chain of command. If there were a good chain of command, festers would be liaising with Bob on project matters and not Dr. Jerrold.

(https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6986868)David Benne! (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6986868)

Sunday

!

Key Issues:

Dr. Jerrold, the head of the laboratory, likes when scientists can produce. Bob Knowlton is relatively new, working two years at Simmons lab. Knowlton was slightly annoyed with Simon Fester's visitation with him during his quiet time. Jerrold tells Knowlton they are taking on Fester to help with the projects. Knowlton did not want Fester to be on his lab team because Knowlton worried Fester would act like a know it all and negatively affect the lab groups' moral. However, Knowlton eagerly agreed with Jerrold to take him as a group member due to him overthinking the situation, and recalling Jerrold saying, "the person who produces gets ahead in this outfit," which made him increasingly feel as though it was a threat towards him (Bavelas, 2011, p. 584). When Fester was added to the team, he overstepped Knowlton's boundaries by leading the team into re-evaluating a problem that they collectively deemed inconclusive. Fester blamed the team and believed a person could work on the problem themselves and get high-quality solutions. Knowlton felt as though Fester took over the photon lab group's leadership and felt like Fester tore apart the group. Knowlton, therefore, found another job elsewhere and decided to leave suddenly. This stunned Jerrold and had an impact on the rest of the team because now he had to find someone new to fill the position. In addition, Fester left the lab, and Link temporarily had to take over until they found a new manager.

One can conclude that Bob Knowlton does not take charge and maintain employee satisfaction. In fact, he abandoned his job position without speaking up about his concerns. The success of this case description is Simon Fester's contribution to the lab groups' projects. He has loads of knowledge that helped the group, but he failed in working collaboratively with his other peers. Also, Bob Knowlton was successfully able to

working collaboratively with his other peers. Also, Bob Knowlton was successfully able to land a higher paying job doing the same work.

Diagnosis:

The nature of Bob Knowlton's case analysis was social and technical. The social issues grew over time while Simon Fester was a member of the lab and placed under Bob Knowlton's direction. The goals, values, and culture changed when Fester joined the group. The lab group went from daily morning meetings to occasional morning meetings. In addition, their plans changed after everyone agreed the problem was inconclusive because Fester insisted, he could solve the problem, which caused the group to become more individually focused than group focused.

The nature of the issues was technical because the group fell apart after Fester joined the lab. Fester became more of a leader, and Knowlton did not know how to manage Fester's personality. Fester was brilliant but took control of the group and did everything without consulting with anyone else. By doing this his work was rewarded by presenting everything he worked on at the special meeting. "Rewarding unethical decisions because they have good outcomes is a recipe for disaster over the long run" (Denhardt, Denhardt, Aristigueta, & Rawlings, 2020). Fester produced excellent work while in the lab group, however, it negatively impacted the group causing the group to break apart.

Not only was Bob Knowlton’s case analysis social and technical, but Simon Fester's success was as well. Simon Fester used his intellectual abilities and drive to produce what Jerrold wanted for the group. He was able to produce and determined to solve any problem regardless of the rules. His ability to lead the group and solve challenging issues helped him become successful.

On the other hand, Bob Knowlton's success was technical. His experience in the position of leading the lab group helped him land a job. He was able to find one that paid more and allowed him to do the same work.

Levels:

The issues presented were individual, interpersonal, and organizational. Individually, Bob Knowlton had slight problems with Simon Fester’s work attitude and never brought it up to anyone. Bob Knowlton hid his feelings and allowed him on his team although he had a bad feeling and felt as though he was not a good fit for the team. Knowlton went from being a programmed decision-maker to a nonprogrammed decision-maker. According to Denhardt et al. (2020), nonprogrammed decisions “occur infrequently and are poorly structured” (126). His decision to take Fester on his group caused his organized team to fall apart. On an interpersonal level, Fester did not work well with the others in the group. During the morning meetings, Fester “had been rude, refusing at certain times to pursue an argument when he claimed that it was based on the other person’s ignorance of the facts involved” (Bavelas, 2011, p. 549). On the organizational level, the entire group fell apart. In fact, “Knowlton had little difficulty making a convincing case regarding whether Fester’s brilliance actually was sufficient recompense for the beginning of his team’s break up” (Bavelas, 2011, p. 549). The photon lab group stopped doing their regular morning meetings, and they all stopped working efficiently. Knowlton seen the organization falling apart, and he did not like it. Therefore, he left and started a new job elsewhere discreetly.

In contrast, the success factor was individual. Simon Fester was naturally a leader, and he was highly intelligent for the lab group. His determination and drive to produce were present in his work. He was able to get the whole group to look at the impossible problem again and present a successful presentation at the special meeting.

Processes:

In this case, the process problems included a lack of strong leadership, ineffective group norms and rules, and inadequate conflict resolution strategies. Bob Knowlton’s leadership slowly diminished when Fester joined the group. Fester pushed his leadership skills and knowledge even though he was only a lab personnel. Fester did not like to follow the group norms and always argued against the group members. His presence caused the group to fall apart due to ‘his way or the highway’ approach to work. Although his approach did not sit well with the other group members, he was able to settle conflicts. On the other hand, although Bob Knowlton was in higher ranking, he failed to effectively direct and help make decisions. Knowlton “demonstrate(ed) honest and open communication limited only by legal, privacy, and competitive considerations” (Ran, 2020, 5.1). He did not want to communicate his problems to Jerrold because he wanted to be private and felt like he was competing with Fester. Thus, his decision-making was biased and caused the group to fall apart.

In addition, the process problems that contributed to Simon Fester’s and Bob Knowlton’s success was incomplete problem solving and muddled decision-making. Michael Raynor says the key to success is never giving up on the vision (Raynor, 2008). Fester never gave up and kept pushing for a successful solution, while Knowlton’s decision making helped Fester, and made him look good in the eyes of upper management.

Redesign:

On an individual level, Knowlton was someone who kept his emotions to himself. He felt that Fester was overstepping his boundaries. In order to create a better outcome, Knowlton needed to discuss with Jerrold his feelings and the issues he was facing in the lab. Better communication could have helped with the success of the group.

In addition, if Knowlton applies the rational decision-making model, which is consistent, logical, and maximizes value, he could save the group from falling apart and gain more confidence. “Most of our decision-making systems and practices are somehow under the influence of this model” (Ran, 2020, 5.3).

In contrast, if fester stopped working individually and started working collaboratively with the other team members, he could build the group up, more ideas could be presented, and they could become phenomenally successful as a group.

On an Interpersonal level, Fester’s relationship with the group members, was terrible. Fester needed to be more open to other people’s ideas and work with them to improve the company. If he were more open to working collaboratively, being a team player, open-minded, and building people up instead of pushing them away, the group would present more effective and efficient work.

" Reply

Organizationally, the group fell apart. “It is important (for Knowlton) to remember that all problems require decisions, but not all decisions will require problem-solving” (Denhardt, Denhardt, Aristigueta, & Rawlings, 2020, pp. 126-127). Knowlton should have recognized that it was not a good idea to continue a problem that the whole group collectively agreed was inconclusive. “The people who will need to live with the new decisions should be involved in the decision-making” (Denhardt, Denhardt, Aristigueta, & Rawlings, 2020, p. 129).

In addition, when it comes to success, Fester would be more successful if he were a team player rather than an individual. His success would be more substantial and produce better outcomes.

References:

Bavelas, A. (2011). Bob Knowlton. In D. Hellriegel, & J. Slowcum, Organizational Behavior (pp. 547-550). Cincinnati: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V., Aristigueta, M. P., & Rawlings, K. C. (2020). Managing Human Behavior in Public and Nonprofit Organizations Fith Edisition. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Ran, Bing. (2020, September 27). [Lecture notes in lesson 5]. PADM 510, Pennsylvania State University. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/modules/items/29680744

Raynor, M. (Director). (2008). Michael Raynor, Deloitte [Motion Picture].

(https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815)Tyler J Lacovara (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815)

Yesterday

!

David,

Great job on this post! I love that you mentioned that condoning unethical actions always leads down a bad path, even if it provides initial benefits. This is definitely a result of the organizations leadership focusing on "tangible" results and failing to provide stability for leadership. This shortsighted leadership fostered an environment where Fester's short-term successes were weighed far more heavily than the long- term negative impacts of his presence in the team. In fact, it basically eliminated all rewards for intangible leadership traits like Knowlton's ability to build and manage a cohesive and effective team. Predictably, this led to a situation where Fester's early successes were negated by the loss of a core team leader and the dissolution of positive team dynamics.

Thank you for sharing,

" Reply

Tyler

(https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6886138)Elizabeth Logan (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6886138)

Sunday

!

Key Issues

The case of Bob Knowlton, a project head in a laboratory, enlightens us on various issues with communication in the workforce. Knowlton appears to be leading a team with successful consensus-building skills utilizing a morning group meeting to discuss how the team can address problems with their project. However, a new employee, Simon Fester, impacts the team's synergy with his lack of teamwork skills and abrasive communication style. Finally, Dr. Jerrold, the head of the laboratory, never properly communicated Fester's role to either Fester or Knowlton. The resulting impact was Knowlton leaving his position, without expressing the real reasons he left to Dr. Jerrold. Ultimately, misunderstandings based on miscommunication affected all of the key personnel in this case study.

Diagnosis:

Knowlton's case outlines how communication impacts actions, both socially and technically. Before Fester's arrival, Knowlton is leading a project successfully and engaging his team daily in problem-solving. They appear to be working well together toward a common goal. This cohesiveness helps the team both technically, as they can bounce ideas off of each other and socially, as the team feels they are all part of the solution. When Fester appears, his dominance over the team and lack of willingness to work with the team impacts the psychological climate of the group. Technically, Knowlton allows Fester to take over control, affecting the daily meetings and the focus of the team. Dr. Jerrold also plays a role both socially and technically. By not thoroughly discussing the hiring and placement of Fester with Knowlton, Dr. Jerrold impact's Knowlton's confidence as a project manager. He also does not seem to follow any technical processes in hiring and bringing on a new team member. Dr. Jerrold's obliviousness of Knowlton's internal team struggles demonstrates his ineffectiveness as the head of the laboratory. This ineffectiveness results in both technical and social problems. He loses a good project lead in Knowlton due to his inability to understand the social dynamics of the team, and left Knowlton's team to flounder after Fester's transfer and Knowlton's leaving.

Levels:

Again, this case study affects all levels of the organization. Initially, Knowlton led the team successfully, using a decision-making structure that included a diverse group from the administrative staff to the head of the laboratory. Fester's hiring results in several impacts. Individually, Knowlton is affected by Fester's presence. Fester makes him feel inadequate in his intellect and insecure in his leadership position. Interpersonally, Fester's hiring impacts the entire team by shifting the power dynamic and makes the team players uncomfortable. The interpersonal relationship between Dr. Jerrold and Knowlton is shown to degrade because of misunderstandings and lack of leadership. Knowlton and Fester's interpersonal relationship lacks, as well. Knowlton is not comfortable communicating with Fester, and Fester's overbearing personality creates havoc on the team. Organizationally, the hiring and Fester and Knowlton's subsequent leaving makes a good deal of harm to the project. Fester ends up moving on to another

project, leaving a once well-functioning team in disarray.

Processes:

There are several process problems in this case. As discussed above, poor communication causes the majority of the issues within the organization. Inadequate communication is supplemented by poor leadership, both in Knowlton and Dr. Jerrold. Knowlton refused to keep his team together and stand up to Fester. Dr. Jerrold showed poor leadership in helping integrate Fester into the company and accessing Fester's success with the team for himself. As there was no formal conflict resolution strategy or onboarding process within the organization, the structural inadequacies created process problems. It should be noted that Knowlton was initially successful in his team management style. He had created an environment that allowed cooperative decision- making; unfortunately, he allowed Fester to hijack his team's mentality.

Redesign:

In redesigning the situation, I suggest the following changes:

1. Improve the hiring processes for new employees. Denhardt et al. recommends including the people that need to live with a decision to be involved in the decision- making process (2019). By including project leaders, at a minimum, in the hiring process. Fester's overbearing personality traits may have quickly become apparent. Evidence of his personality by other team members may have affected the decision in hiring. Or if Fester had a better understanding of the team dynamic of the laboratory environment, he might not have taken the position, since he preferred independent work.

2. Change the onboarding process. Dr. Jerrold did not adequately introduce Fester to the team or Knowlton as the project lead. Fester's onboarding started strangely and unusually. Dr. Jerrold should have brought his around to the different groups and introduced him, instead of allowing his free reign to wander around the laboratory. This simple change may have improved Knowlton's understanding of Fester's presence and impact on the project. Fester could have spent a couple of days with each team, instead of automatically taking over the work on Knowlton's team. His skills may have been more useful by providing feedback to all teams, based on his background. Fester's skills would also help add diversity to the decision-making process of all teams as Fester was creative in using his knowledge to provide solutions.

3. Provide leadership training. By providing leadership training to project managers, Knowlton may have learned to be more assertive in leading his project team and reigning in Fester's monopolizing of the team's efforts. He also may have been more willing to explain his concerns to Dr. Jerrold and support his team members who expressed concern with Fester's impact on their work environment. Leadership training may also have helped Dr. Jerrold understand Fester's effect on the team and make an effort to explore Knowlton's desire to leave.

4. Formalize the decision-making process. One way to prevent Fester from taking over the teamwork would be to create a formal decision-making process that everyone followed. This process existed in an informal capacity among Knowlton's team, but by establishing a formal process, Fester would understand the need for everyone to work collaboratively, instead of independently. By creating a culture of evidence- based decision-making and research participation, the lab would effectively strengthen its teams (Denhardt et al., 2019).

Reference

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

th

" Reply

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

Tuesday

" Reply

!

Hello Elizabeth!

Your diagnosis section caught my eye when reading through analysis'. You pointed out that communication impacts actions for both socially and technically. I agree with you that Knowlton allows Fester to take control of the group. Fester appears to have a dominant personality that Knowlton does not address. Dr. Jerrold certainly plays a major role in this dynamic as well. He did not discuss with Knowlton his plan to place Fester on his team. From how it read, he told Knowlton of Fester and indicated that he would be joining Knowlton's team since Fester expressed an interest in Knowlton's work. Knowlton, not having strong boundaries, agreed with this suggestion and went forward despite his reservations having Fester on the team. It sounds like there could have been quite a bit avoided in this situation had Knowlton been able to implement a firm boundary with Dr. Jerrold and/or Fester.

Emily

(https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6986868)David Benne! (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6986868)

Tuesday

!

Hi Elizabeth,

You had a great case analysis. All the sections were clear and well structured. Bob Knowlton’s case was tricky to analyze. I agree with everything you wrote, such as the social and technical aspects, organizational levels present, poor communication, and missing leadership. I liked your redesigning of the case. All of the suggested changes applied to this case were excellent suggestions. The one thing I said differently was Knowlton and Fester’s success. If you look past the storm, you can find a glimmer of light. The silver lining I say was the success of Fester’s workability, which contributed to the team and Knowlton’s ability to get hired in a better position.

David

" Reply

(https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7002509)Gloria Onwugamba (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7002509)

Tuesday

" Reply

!

Key Issues : After working for 2 years working at the laboratory, Bob Knowlton was known as a successful project leader. He was extremely proud of his work and received admiration for his work employees and specifically his boss, Jerald. It wasn't until the arrival of Fester did Bob start to feel under-appreciated. The Laboratory added Fester in a nontraditional way to the lab. Jerrold brought Fester on the team without putting Knowlton on notice. When Jerold added a very talented new member Fester, Knowlton was afraid that Fester would take his place. Bob felt intimidated because Fester was well received and, in many ways, better than Bob at certain things. Immediately after Fester came into the lab, he wanted to make changes to how people did things that annoyed Knowlton. Fester even called Bob, a married man, at 2 am to discuss work. Bob grew more insecure about his job and decided to resign from duties at the laboratory.

Diagnosis: The problems in this case study are both social and technical in nature. The social issues are the personality clashes between Bob and Feaster. Bob Knowlton is a successful leader who values teamwork. On the other hand, Fester was a straightforward person who lacked awareness of his strong personality. His actions caused Bob to feel unsure and unappreciated by his job. The problem is also technical because the organization could have handled the new hire process better. It is the best interest of the company to announce, especially to upper management when someone is being added to the team. The case ended with another social problem, regarding the way Bob resigned. Bob should officially give 2- week notice and should have thought about why he was going to quite a job of 2 years.

Levels: The levels of the problem are interpersonal and organizational. Interpersonal because Bob did not effectively voice the reasons why Fester made him so insecure. He also resigned from the job in the worst manner. If Bob felt his job was in jeopardy, he should have effectively communicated this to his boss. If he felt Fester was overstepping, he could have easily communicated to Fester to be aware of his actions. Jerold could have known that there would be some awkwardness and chose not to inform bob that he would have a new person working with him. The development of the problem is also Organizational because the organization failed to address Bob's feelings. The organization should have put the interest of Bob and let him know ahead of timing someone was coming on his team.

Redesign: Since Bob is a project leader at the laboratory. He should have been informed and apart of the hiring process. The first step is to create a hiring process that allows people to know that they are looking to fill a space. Also, before Fester could walk around the lab, there should be an introductory day where you are assigned to shadow certain people and get a feel for the job. Although Fester is accomplished it is unfair to staff that he gets hired and can walk and judge all the work before him in the lab. The lab needs an HR or at least Jerald should have spoken to Bob about his reaction to the new hire and even a follow up to his resignation from the company.

(https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815)Tyler J Lacovara (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815)

Yesterday

!

Key Issues

Bob Knowlton occupied a position as the project leader within the laboratory he worked for, often achieving successful results through a group-oriented workflow. During this case, Simon Fester was hired and placed within Knowlton’s group as a research member, causing significant personality conflicts. The evidence suggests that both Knowlton and Fester struggled with inflated egos, manifesting as insecurity and arrogance in each, respectively. Where Knowlton was comfortable with his position and wanted to encourage group collaboration, Fester believed that groups were largely a hurdle and should be sidelined in place of individual research. His inflated opinion of himself increased tensions and eventually discouraged many group members from participating at the level they had previously. Around this time, Knowlton decided to quit and move on to a new organization.

Diagnosis

The key issue in this problem is social, but the fault lies at both the interpersonal and organizational level. Primarily, this was a failed attempt at collaboration between two highly egotistical individuals. Knowlton’s insecurity stymied progress and made it impossible for him to give support to Fester, whom he felt was more qualified and intelligent than him. Alternatively, Fester’s arrogance was highly disruptive and effectively caused the dissolution of the core team dynamics that were at play before he was hired.

On an organizational level, the power dynamic was only slightly defined. In practical terms, Knowlton’s position as team leader was determined solely by how well he performed most recently, meaning he lacked serious support from his leadership (Bavalas, pg. 550). At any point, someone more talented could come in and steal his position, increasing paranoia and insecurity.

Levels

This case dealt with issues on the individual, interpersonal, and organizational level. As previously outlined, the individual personality traits of both Fester and Knowlton led to increased tension and disunity within the team. This was not properly addressed at the organizational level early on, and made it practically impossible for Knowlton to lead his team properly. In fact, the organization’s official philosophy of leadership was inherently unstable, as it focused on creating internal conflict between employees. This strategy may be a derivative of equity theory, whereby “employees strive for equity regarding the efforts they exert for an employer and the rewards they receive in return” (Ritz, pg. 4), but its implementation was lacking.

Processes

The primary process problems in this case revolved around leadership and group dynamics. More specifically, there was very little positive communication from Knowlton to his superiors or Fester as to how the group was being negatively impacted. The group norms that were present prior to Fester’s employment were upturned rapidly, and without consent initially, causing individual members to feel steamrolled. The onus was on

" Reply

consent initially, causing individual members to feel steamrolled. The onus was on Knowlton to lead with confidence through this process, encouraging Fester’s strengths and tempering his weaknesses. Instead, he stayed quiet and eventually ran from the problem.

Redesign

To re-orient this team towards success, a clear organizational chart with some semblance of job security for the leaders should be implemented. The meritocratic philosophy of the company could continue to play a role, but team leaders should have enough stability to not have to worry about their position when a new member is hired. Additionally, upper-level management should take it upon themselves to communicate better with their mid-level management and address issues as they occur. Proper employee motivation should be honest, employee-oriented, have clear metrics for success or failure, and be flexible enough to address differences in personality (Denhardt, 2019).

On an individual level, Knowlton was a relatively successful professional with a group- oriented leadership mindset. As someone holding a leadership position, it is likely that his core skills are not “highly visible behaviors” that can be easily measured in performance reviews (Ran, 2020). This is an issue because if the organization is only measuring highly visible behaviors as the primary determination of success for their employees, it might leave good leaders at a disadvantage. A better approach would be a holistic performance review that takes all tangible and intangible skills into account, and personalizes the feedback based on the individual. This could be supplemented with a mentorship program where supervisors directly engage with mid-level managers to ensure they are receiving the support they need.

References

Bavelas, A. (2011). Bob Knowlton. In D. Hellriegel, & J. Slowcum, Organizational Behavior (pp. 547-550). Cincinnati: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Ritz, A., Neumann, O., & Vandenabeele, W. (2016). Motivation in the Public Sector.

Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V., Aristigueta, M. R. & Rawlings, K. C. (2019). Managing human behavior in public and nonprofit organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Ltd.

Ran, Bing. (2020, September 27). [Lecture notes in lesson 5]. PADM 510, Pennsylvania State University. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/modules/items/29680744