Thomas Green Case Analysis
- Pages: 4
- Word count: 828
A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteedOrder Now
Thomas Green, a former accountant executive, worked in Dynamic Displays as a senior market specialist right now. Directly promoted by Shannon McDonald, the Division Vice President of Dynamic Displays, Thomas Green is currently encountering problems while working with Frank Davis. First of all, Thomas Green has lower organizational power compare with Frank Davis because Frank is the boss of Thomas Green and organizational power derived primarily from positions. First, his title was a senior market specialist, so he had lower legitimate power compared with Frank.
Second, he had no reward power. Third, he had no coercive power also. At the same time, Thomas also have low personal power as well as organizational power. At first, Thomas has low expert power. It is true that he had a degree of economics but he lacked managerial experience as a professional. Thomas was directly promoted by McDonald so he did not have working experience in former position. During the 2008 Budget Plan meeting, Thomas disagreed with Davis’s 10% growth goal because he analyzed this goal from an accountant perspective and he was too conservative.
Also, he did not have the ability to coordinate with his boss, Frank, and the communication skill is also important for coordination. When he had disagreement with his boss, he told his workmates about Frank from a negative aspect and did not respect Frank at all. Meanwhile, he could not provide supporting details and market data continuously in demand of both boss and clients. When he proposed ideas right after his promotion, he gave many great advices, however, he could not develop supporting details. In fact, he also failed to provide hard data, memos and presentations again when he worked with one of the market specialists.
Secondly, Davis did not have high referent power so Thomas did not want to identify and associated with Davis. First, Thomas lacked personal power which is very important for good performance as a senior market specialist and Davis, his boss, cannot stand that. Second, Thomas did not have high organization power when he believed he was right. Third, Davis used his organizational power improperly, especially reward power. He did not praise Thomas frequently when Thomas gave good ideas. Instead, he concentrated on coercive power, making Thomas depressive.
Fourth, Davis used his influence improperly. Davis adopted pressure and coalitions, 2 least effective influences when he found Thomas’ problems instead of inspirational appeal, consultation, collaboration, apprising, exchange and ingratiation. Davis kept demanding Thomas to update Thomas’ calendar and change strategies, making Thomas felling uncomfortable. During this process, he did little effort to rational persuasion. He claimed that Thomas needed to provide more data but he only had two meetings with Thomas and he only mentioned once.
Meanwhile, when those strategies failed, Frank used coalitions, in which he sent the contents of meetings with Thomas to McDonald. Those actions Frank took made Thomas not to talk with Frank. Fifth, Thomas gave very negative response to all demands and requests. At first, Thomas responded with compliance, for example, he would like to challenge Frank’s proposal on the meeting and he still met with Frank during the process. After that, he responded with resistance, for example, he refused to do as Frank scheduled and he spent 3 months independently on his software program and avoided interactions with Frank whenever he could do.
Sixth, both Frank and Thomas are lacking political skills. For Thomas, he lacked networking ability, meaning that he did not develop diverse contact. Moreover, both of them did not own social astuteness. Thomas adopted the wrong method of expressing difference voices when facing his boss while Frank did not know how to solve the relationship with Frank so that he directly sent an email to McDonald and this conversation was sent to Thomas by somebody else. Last but not least, Frank and Thomas had different perceptions toward their goals
Frank should first have a meeting with McDonald to talk about all the problems that Thomas had and possible solutions. It is possible that Frank would advise Thomas to do some other jobs. After the meeting, McDonald would like to have a conversation with Thomas to talk about Thomas’ ideas and opinions about his future career and if Thomas could improve his performance. Thomas would like to conclude all the responsibilities to Frank. Finally, McDonald would transfer Thomas to another department and talk with Frank about how to improve the effectiveness of Frank’s influence.
First, I need to improve my expert power by enriching my professional experience and talking with other workmates. Second, I need to have a conversation with Frank and admit my shortcomings and apologize for complaining about him with my workmates. Thirdly, I also need to negotiate with Frank according to an integrative bargaining. On one hand, I need to update my calendar on day-day basis and enrich my professional experience by a broaden horizon. On the other hand, I could provide alternative solution and plan if possible only if I have enough data and supporting details which are persusive.