Analyzing their roles
Bob Knowlton (team leader) - prefers, team collaboration, dishonest, conform, hardworking
Fester (a newcomer in the team)- Self-confident, Aggressive, Intelligent, prefers to work alone (not participative), grab every opportunity given
Jerrold (superior) - does not analyze, does not take concern, high expectations and expects good results
1) Discuss the reasons why what happened.
Bob Knowlton, a head project person with a team often get the job done. With his superior, Jerrold considers his work performance to be very competent and efficient. Alongside, came a newcomer named Fester who was a self-confident, experienced and intelligent person. With Fester on the same team under Bob Knowlton, team dynamics were starting to crumble and Knowlton felt his position was challenged and threatened. Fester also did not attend meetings and prefers not to attend them. At one presentation, Fester presented about a project given by Knowlton himself and performed transcendentally. Soon after, Knowlton praises towards Jerrold about Fester work but at the same time he begin to consider a new job at a new company.
Terms that affect these events.
- Did not take note off
- Does not take the initiative
- Does not voice out
2) Consider the personalities involved, especially Knowlton and Fester and the organizational characteristics.
- Knowlton resigned at the end although still have a bone of contention regarding Fester
- There was not much of a decision making approach between Knowlton and Jerrold when she brought Fester over to the firm.
- Fester being part of team, Knowlton felt his losing his identity. To add on, Knowlton felt that his power was being threatened.
- There were not much of Socialization although, Knowlton insisted Fester to attend the meeting
- Jerrold did not think twice on the the team dynamics when she put Fester under Knowlton's care, she was just seeking for equifinality. Also, as one part of the organizational works in teams, Fester was not a team-oriented person as he is more of a solo person which did not lead to value congruence.
3) Imagine yourself in the position of Dr. Jerrold at the end of the case, reflecting back over the events. Is there anything you could have done, on the basis what you knew or could have known at the time. that would have led to a more favorable outcome? State your reasoning.
If was Dr. Jerrold I think twice before taking in Fester as hiring him could be a double- edged sword situation. One of them leads to team disorientation such as Bob Knowlton's case, however; the other end is if such person is hired in the near future, communication between peers and subordinates are harder to coordinate as one or a few of them prefers to work or take a bulk of work for themselves. Although, it seems like a benefit to the other
team members, but if they wanted to be part of it, that particular individual would be a loggerhead. However; if Knowlton has already resigned, I would ensure his resignation would not be as water under bridge instead understanding and learning why did he resign under such short notice.
