This Is the best case explains about the decision making and consequences in making decisions. How the organization work flows and to work meeting the objectives of the organization within the polices, what are the conflict rise In group meetings? How to overcome from these conflict are better explained in this case study.
This page mainly focuses on Washington and Carl what are the conflicts rose in aging decisions, what Is the role of dean and vice president having the legitimate power. This case study takes us in developing the leadership skills, analysis and development skills of an employee. According to O Robert, Christopher Leadership skills involve decision making how their position plays role in controlling employees, what are the key conflict rise in team work. We can get complete insight about the power politics and how to influence the employees In supporting their own views to make the task done.
Mall objective of the author Is to make us clear teaching and creating the real time environment with more examples. Here In the example Carl Is clear about his objective and keeping focus on situations and acted accordingly to attain expected outcome. This guides us in planning ahead whenever possible and how to negotiate when required. Introduction: In this case study Lately Washington is one of the full time professors working for School of Business. According to School of Business there are no policies and left it for professor to develop policies according to their requirement.
Here in working as a team conflict rise from individual opinion of the employees. Carl has to convince entire team to put forward his policy at dean and vice president. This explains what employees expect from a manager and how managers act according to the organization requirements. Question 1: (a) What source of power does Carl have, and (b) What type of power is he using? (c) Which influencing tactic is Carl using during the meeting (d) Is negotiation and/or (e) The exchange tactic appropriate in this situation?
Solution: positioned by the school. He is having the control over his reporting employees working for the same organization. John position power motivates him to implement some policies (p. 182) (b) Out of six faculty members in the department John Carl is interested in policies. But such kind of policies is not there in the School of Business concluded by vice president and dean. This interest of John to for implementing new policies guided him to ask superiors having final decision making power I. E. , legitimate power.
For example Mr.. John has sent his proposal request to the dean and Vice president they can approve or disapprove Johns proposal this is called legitimate power. (c) Even proposal from John denied from superiors he still develops his policy to place in the department meeting. And discussed with department people and takes prior opinion before meeting. He is willing to make it beneficial for the department and convince them with the proposal using his consultation influencing tactic. John is influencing his coordinates to get his task done. D) It is the opinion of Carl to implement the policy. The employees belong to the same department may agree with him or may not be. John Carl has to discuss with subordinates to make it done. (e) As the book says that Washington is having argument with Carl and rest of the employees working for the same department. Negotiating is must to share their views and opinions and if the John task has to get done, he should negotiate and invoice the rest of employees to make his task done and implement the policy has to be discussed in the department meeting.
Question 2: (a) What source of power does Washington have, and (b) What type of power is she using during the meeting? (c) Which two influencing tactics is Washington is primarily using during the meeting? (d) Which influencing tactic is Washington using with the memo? (e)l’s the memo a wise political move for Washington? What might she gain and loose by sending it? (a). Washington is having exams on objective basis and not required this policy and she is the only one using graduate assistants to grade exams. She is having only personal power to influence and authority over her followers.
She is using her own ability to convince her followers. Washington is not having any authority legitimate power to take decision against Carl. She is using reference power stating across the campus and across the country are using the graduate assistants to teach entire courses. In this model employees will observe managers and do as what they do and expect the same. (c). Washington is trying to influence the people by showing the social proofs and logical argument to convince the rest of employees by using rational persuasion and arsenal appeal influencing tactics during the meeting.
Washington clearly explained about her reason of request to attain the objective with evidence to convince easily O Andrew Dublin. (d). Washington is using the last chance of getting the things done using pressure influencing tactic by sending memo to the department members asking if it is legal and ethical to deny her resources as others using the same resources. She is stating that she can no longer use the resources if department sets the policy. (e). Talking to dean is a wise political move.
Washington may lose some respect thin their department members and this will raise conflict between John Carl and Washington Question 3: What would you do if you were a Carl? (a) Would you talk to the dean, letting him know that Washington said she would appeal the policy decision? (b) Which influencing tactic would this discussion involve? (c) Which political behavior would the discussion represent? (d) Would you draft the policy directly stating that graduate assistants cannot be used to grade objective exams? E) Would you answer to (d) be influenced by your answer to (a)? (a). If I am a Carl then I’ll know the information sent to dean in memo and act accordingly. Note the benefits of the policy and give information about number of department members accepted with the policy and explain how it benefits them and try to influence dean and vice president. (b). The coalition influencing tactic would be used by Carl in the discussion. As the Carl is working in a group of members towards the common goal so need to influence other members working in the same team.
Coalition also take advantage of examine pressure. People are working for organization team member support and acceptance for the policy is required as a strong talking point at the dean. If Carl is having support from more number of workers than chances are high for getting policy approved. (d). Yes, If dean got convinced and feel this policy will support the employees of the department as dean is having the legitimate power to take decision. Then I can state directly that graduate assistants cannot be used to grade objective exams. E). Yes even if Washington has taken wise decision in sending memo to dean that has given opportunity to talk with dean with coalition influencing tactic. This policy will benefit the team members and can gain the additional support from the team ND creates environment with better coordination. Question 4: (a) If you were Washington, knowing you had no verbal supporters during the meeting, would you have continued to defend your position or agreed to stop using a graduate assistant? (b) What do you think of Washington sending the memo? C) As a tenured full professor, Washington is secure in her Job. Would you answer change if you (as Washington) had not received tenure or promotion to the top rank? (a). Usually dean won’t take any standpoint of faculty people at chair. Washington doesn’t have any supporters even to talk with dean. If I was a Washington then I won’t continue to defend to stop using a graduate assistant. (b) Without tenure, memo cannot support Washington to go against management and team members. Washington should think and analyze controversies before sending the memo to dean. C) Being a full time professor ill work according to School of the Business policies and coordinate with others and identify the working parameters that helps in achieving the promotion. But as already been sent the memo and lost support from other employees, first ill work on gaining the support from employees and rectify errors room the previous work. Question 5: (a) If you were Washington, and the Carl drafted a policy and department members agreed with it, what would you do? Would you appeal the decision to the dean? (b) the top rank? (a).
School of Business is not having any policies and leave employees to work independently, If I was Washington then I won’t appeal dean ill discuss with the team and explain how it benefits me. If the team agrees with me ill go ahead. (b). If I haven’t got any rank ill research myself what makes my efforts put down and how I can improve myself and prove within short time following SUB policies. Even if I o as what I believe in the next company without following the company policies and disagree with superiors I won’t be ranked, so if I am Washington I will learn from my own mistakes and prove within the organization.
Question 6: If you were the dean of the school of Business (SUB), knowing that vice president doesn’t want to set a college wise policy, and Washington appealed to you, what would you do? Would you develop a school-wide policy for SUB? If I am a dean I will follow School of Business policies and stick to that. I won’t go for one individual favor ill maintain the consistency between the employees without aging any conflict between the employees. Question 7: At what level (college-wide, by schools, or by department within each school) should a graduate assistant policy be set?
Washington is requesting for graduate assistant which will benefit and the same policy is been their across the country. But the policy can be set if the SUB is accepting that and at what level it is accepting. The policy which is been requested by Washington cannot be accepted for one individual benefit. That may raise the the policy and at organizational level conflicts shouldn’t be raised. ] Question 8: a) Should Eddie Accords have spoken up in defense of Washington during the meeting? (b) If you were Accords , would you have taken Washington’s side against the other seven members? C) Would you answer change if you were or were not friends with Washington, and if you were or were not a tenured full professor? (a). According to the case presented Eddie Accords agreed with the argument done by Washington. If he agreed with Washington he has to share his views in the meeting hall. That’s the common platform where employees can exchange and take decisions. But by agreeing to Washington after coming out doesn’t make sense and no one Ares his opinion in any other meeting.
Accords should explain what points make him to support Washington and how it supports her. (b). If I was Accords first I will analyze myself about what is correct and think about my opinion after getting stick to point then I’ll talk on Washington side and explain the supporting point to talk on behalf of Washington. (c). Even if I were or were not friends with Washington I won’t change my opinion ill talk to the members according to my analysis and benefits that a team get. But before talking to the member’s ill check it is in company policy or not then ill talk accordingly.
Conclusion This case study concludes that being a marketing leader whenever performing a function decision should be taken with complete analysis and understanding the requirement of the organization. Expecting the future problems that may rise while performing the task and take decisions. Prior the task managers should collect, interpret and evaluate the information develop possible alternative solutions to gain solutions. Managers need to do continuous follow-up, evaluate and make changes when needed.