After reviewing the following case study, I have concluded that both parties are responsible for the lack of synergy between the employee, Green, and upper-management, Davis. The underlying root cause of these problems occurring in the office is from the lack of respect the co-workers have for one another. There are several other possible underlying root causes of these employee-managerial altercations such as Thomas Green’s immense amount of confidence in himself, or Frank Davis’ approach on how to handle certain situations, however, the lack of respect for one another is the root cause of the inappropriate challenges to authority Green has expressed, and the ill-favored atmosphere Davis has created.
Respect is defined in Webster’s Dictionary as “esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as the manifestation of a personal quality or ability.” The underlying root cause of the lack of synergy in Dynamic Display’s work place is the lack of respect the employee has for his superior and vice versa.
Thomas Green doesn’t respect Frank Davis’ leadership strategies and the amount of experience Davis has, while Davis doesn’t respect Thomas Green’s potential and his ability to correctly do his job effectively and efficiently.
Frank Davis had his mind set on whom he wanted as the new senior market specialist and Thomas Green was not who he originally had in mind. This is displayed when Shannon McDonald informed Thomas Green about his new boss, “ Tom, you are walking into a sticky situation with Frank Davis. Frank had expected to choose the new senior market specialist and it would not have been you. You’ll have to deal with any fallout that might result from that” (p.3). Frank Davis had very high expectations in a little amount of time for Green to show the best of his abilities. This is the beginning of Davis showing a lack of respect towards Green.
Davis doesn’t realize that just because Green wasn’t the specific candidate he wanted for the new senior position, doesn’t mean that Green isn’t the correct man for the job. Davis is bitter from the beginning, which lead Davis to make inappropriate judgments towards Green and eventually turned into harsh behavior directed towards Green. “ Frank spent two hours picking apart my work style. You think he would be concerned with bigger issues than how often I update my Outlook calendar” (p.5).
The first time Green was ever exposed to the financial forecasting process, he expressed his true emotions and consequently disrespected Davis. According to Green, “Frank Davis was way off base with his pro forma numbers… In the meeting I expressed my concern that my goals would be impossible to meet. I couldn’t believe I was the only one with the guts to speak up” (p.4). Green displays an inappropriate challenge to authority and shows little respect for Davis’ previous experience and developing performance strategies. As stated from Davis in his email, “He has a right and an obligation to question aspects of our plan if he finds them illogical or unfeasible, but the kind of negativity he displayed in the Plan Budget meeting on October 8th is dangerous to the organization and unacceptable to me” (p.9).
One recommendation for solving these attitude problems between Frank and Thomas is to get the two in the same room outside the work environment. A casual setting and a normal conversation between the two could spark a potential friendship outside the workplace and develop a sense of respect for one another. If both co-workers become friends, then the job becomes more enjoyable and easier for upper-management to express authority without hurting their employee’s feelings.
As for Thomas Green, a private, personal meeting with Frank Davis to discuss his concern for the pro forma projections would have been a more respectful way to express his opinion, while still allowing Davis to maintain his authoritative figure throughout the meeting and in front of his employees. This approach would have prevented the confrontation between the two and Green’s questioning on whether or not Frank Davis is out to get him. “ I can’t shake this nagging suspicion that Frank’s criticism of my performance are a direct result of my questioning the validity of his forecasts in the Budget Plan meeting” (p.5).