Case Study 3 Management

Dear Boss,

I have prepared the following analysis in an effort to effectively outline and solve the conflict between Dynamic Display’s Frank Davis and Thomas Green. Below I will apply some managerial theories and concepts to better outline the behavior and outlook of both parties involved.

Starting with Mr. Davis, it’s clear that he values a high-task, low-relationship leadership orientation. This is evidenced by his lack of empathy and acceptance towards Mr. Green’s concerns in regards to Dynamic Display’s unrealistic growth output. Mr. Davis also expects his requests to be completed without any opposition, which is a key trait of anyone who follows this type of leadership behavior. This can create a lot of friction between two individuals that have two differing outlooks on how a job should be done. This is exemplified by Mr. Davis’ dismissive attitude towards Mr. Green’s differing sales style. However, it is not accurate to evaluate a leader solely by behavior and trait theories.

 Another good way to analyze Mr. Davis is to use a contingency theory developed by psychologist Fred Fielder, called the Fiedler contingency model. This theory believes that the overall favorability of a situation determines whether the situation should be modified to match the leader or the leader should be replaced to match the situation. The favorability  of a situation is determined by the following variables:

• Leader-member relations - this is not a strength with Mr. Davis’ current style. Fiedler’s model claims that good leader-member relations make up a favorable leadership condition.
• Task Structure -  standard procedures in place that help complete a task.
• Positional Power – Mr. Davis’ ability to evaluate performance, reward, and punish. Mr. Davis currently lacks in authority related to reward and punishment.

While this theory provides a lot of good insight, it is also based on the assumption that leaders cannot change their leadership style. This is a debatable assertion since Mr. Davis also has superiors that are the able to pressure him into changing his viewpoint. Hersey and Blanchard’s Situation Theory expands on this and elaborates on ways that leaders, like Mr. Davis, should handle employees based on their maturity level when performing a task.  Maturity is broken down as follows:

• High maturity – self confidence and ability to perform a task
• Low Maturity – lack of ability and low self-confidence

Mr. Green seems to have a high maturity in his position. He is eager to develop new relationships with clients and expand reach. This theory claims that leaders should adjust their direction and support to match an employee’s maturity. Based off the given information, it is clear that Mr. Davis is only interested in pointing out areas where he thinks Mr. Green is lacking, rather than working with him to build them up.  Mr. Davis fails to educate Mr. Green on effective methods for developing market strategies and instead micro-manages Mr. Green in areas where he is already skilled. Mr. Davis’ high-task, low relationship style proves to be a counter-productive approach in assimilating Mr. Green into a different environment. Mr. Davis possesses the power to help Mr. Green improve his lack of managerial experience, but chooses not to. It is also clear that Mr. Davis would rather hire someone that is already molded to his personal expectations.  

Although Mr. Davis has the power to manage certain employees, he still is limited in certain actions. He does not possess the power to hire, fire, or promote an employee at his personal will. Mr. Davis still must go through is superiors to carry out any of the listed actions. This may create discontent in certain situations that he does not have personal power of (hiring without his approval) because he wants things to be done his way, which could be achieved by playing office politics.

Now that there is an analysis, along with backing examples, on Mr. Davis’ leadership approach. It is now important to assess how it plays into the current conflict between Mr. Davis and Mr. Green. The following  factors seemed to play a big role in escalating the conflict:

When considering power and influence:

        For both parties:

• Disagreement about Priorities – Mr. Green doesn’t see an importance in updating his schedule and keeping his superiors up to date. Mr. Davis wants Mr. Green to have more of a plan and direction when making calls with clients, specialists, and account executives, rather than attempting to establish a relationship.

For Mr. Davis:

• Setting expectations and providing feedback, which is part of the asserting component of a pushing style, but lacking any ability for the exchange of assistance
• Not willing to be influenced, which limits any sort of bridging pulling style.
• Not interested in creating common ground in the attracting pulling style component, this is a problem when an employee doesn’t know what to do (think Mr. Green’s lack of managerial experience).
• Creates a micro-managed environment for Mr. Green, which causes him to be viewed as less likable. Thus, Mr. Green may be more resistant to his authority.
• Does not encourage Mr. Green to go after scarce opportunities
• Strong belief in positional authority. He has firm expectations for employee’s to follow orders, even if they don’t agree.

For Mr. Green

• Failure to get routine feedback from Mr. Davis. He assumed he was always doing a good job. He also did not pursue feedback from a wide variety of sources.
• Failure to monitor all actions closely
• Failure to develop relationships with other employees to better understand their experience in corporate culture and expectations.
• Failure to pursue help in lack of managerial experience.
• Not used to being told how to do his job
• Applying the same tactics of a sales job to a different job
• Lack of ample overall self-monitoring due to the listed actions above

Mr. Davis and Mr. Green appear to have interpersonal conflict since both belong to the market sector of Dynamic Display are working toward the same common goal. However, Mr. Greens disagreement on Mr. Davis’ sales tactic in a meeting made Mr. Davis feel undermined and threatened. Mr. Davis may now feel that Mr. Green has a different vision that directly conflicts with his own. As a result, Mr. Davis may feel Mr. Green is unfit for his position.