Fluent Essays

Please read the case study instructions (attached) and read the case study (attached). Analyze the five items listed and write a detailed case analysis (usually about 800 words). You can look at to the students' responses to the case (attached) to be familiar with the expectation for this case study analysis. After that, read and make comments to at least 5 case analyses done by other students. Learning Case Reminder You should continue to work on the following learning case. "Bob Knowlton" This week, we focus on the "Bob Knowlton" case in e-Reserves. The case provides an opportunity for us to understand many OB concepts, such as personality, attitudes, communication, leadership, motivation, group dynamics, conflict, etc. When analyzing this case, you could use all of your knowledge in these areas (though some of the concepts we haven't touched on in this course) to dig into various organizational factors that might affect the performance of individuals and groups. That is, you could also touch on the leadership issues, team dynamics issues, motivation issues, etc., that you feel are important in explaining what happened in the case. First, you need to analyze the case individually. Then, post your case analysis in the case discussion at the end of this module by the end of the first week. Finally, discuss further with the entire class during the second week. I will suggest that you analyze the case by addressing the following five items: 1. Key Issues: Briefly describe the leading issues in this case using the data presented in the case description. 2. Diagnosis: Define the nature of the problem as social (e.g., related to goals, values, culture, or psychological climate) or technical (e.g., related to technological, structural, or managerial work processes). Some cases will present a successful story rather than a problem. For these cases, you need to define the nature of success as social or technical. 3. Levels: Define the level or levels of the problems/success factors. Are they individual, interpersonal, and/or organizational? 4. Processes: Define the process problems in the case. Do they result from poor communication, missing leadership, muddled decision-making, incomplete problem solving, ineffective group norms and rules, inadequate conflict resolution strategies—or some other reason? For some cases, you need to define the process factors that contribute to the success. 5. Redesign: Describe the steps you would take to take to redesign this situation to resolve the problems presented in the case. If the case study presented an example of success, how would you further improve the situation or can you identify reasons for the success? That is, you will propose four to six concise recommendations for people, technology, and structure changes at the individual, interpersonal, and/or organizational levels. Bi-Weekly Case Study PADM510: ORGANIZATION BEHAVIOR Lesson 6: Motivation Sami Al-Qahtani Specifically, you should have done the following: Individually analyze the five items listed above and write a detailed case analysis (usually about 800 words). By 11:59 p.m. (ET) Sunday of the first week, please post your analysis in the discussion for this case study, which is open to the entire class. This week, each of you must read and make comments to at least five case analyses done by your classmates in the case discussion for this lesson. You must also respond to any comments/questions made by other students on your own case analysis by 11:59 p.m. (ET) Sunday of the second assigned week. Please note that there is no standard case analysis, which is unfortunately the reality of any “soft” social science. However, some responses are better than others, which is how I will grade the case summaries. "Better" in this case means more logical, more in-depth, more consistent internally, more critical, and more clearly written. In the grading, I will also take into consideration your comments on other students’ case analyses and how you respond to any questions, concerns, or comments made by other students on your case analysis. If you successfully finish these three tasks, you could get up to eight points for this case. ! This is a graded discussion: 10 points possible due Oct 4 Lessons 5 and 6 Case Analysis Discussion 17 23 Search entries or author " Reply Post your analysis by 11:59 p.m. on Sunday at the end of Lesson 5. Then, read and comment on at least five case analyses written by your classmates by 11:59 p.m. (ET) Sunday of the second assigned week. Unread # $ % Subscribed (https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7003234)Emily Kepley (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7003234) Sep 23, 2020 ! Key Issues: Bob Knowlton found pride in escalating in the laboratory he worked for after two years. He was able to be creative in finding a solution to a current project and was later promoted to project lead for his idea. Mr. Knowlton was smug in his advancement and was satisfied with the work he was producing. Dr. Jerrold, the head of the laboratory, recognized Mr. Knowlton’s ability to perform and rewarded him accordingly to head a project. However, Simon Fester later came into the workplace and ended up being placed on Mr. Knowlton’s team. Mr. Knowlton expressed, to himself, a disdain for Mr. Fester being on his team but informed Dr. Jerrold that he would be delighted to have him join. Mr. Knowlton appears to want to be a team player but also found himself struggling internally with the attention Mr. Fester was getting with his work. At first, Mr. Knowlton appeared to be flattered that Mr. Fester wanted to review Mr. Knowlton’s work. When Mr. Fester displayed knowledge of the work, Mr. Knowlton appeared to become defensive. Later resulting in Mr. Knowlton resigning without properly explaining to Dr. Jerrold his perception of Mr. Fester and allowing the possibility for rectifying the concerns. Diagnosis: This case could easily be a mixture of both social and technical. However, the dominating nature of the problem I will discuss is social. In terms of social, at risk are the goals, values, culture, and psychological climate. It seems that Mr. Knowlton was threatened by Mr. Fester’s knowledge and that threat bled over into the culture and psychological climate. Mr. Knowlton discussed with his other team members, apart from Link, their perception of Mr. Fester. He presumably did not ask for Link’s input since Link appeared to enjoy working with Mr. Fester. Despite Mr. Knowlton gathering this information, he failed to bring it back to Dr. Jerrold to discuss further. Mr. Knowlton’s lack of assertive leadership hindered the psychological climate and culture for the other group members. It is also assumed that Mr. Knowlton desired to receive credit for this project but, also allowed for Mr. Fester to indirectly take the lead. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7003234 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7003234 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 Levels: The levels of problem factors could be all three; individual, interpersonal, and organizational. Individually because Mr. Knowlton displays characteristics of someone who could be identified as self-conscious or lack of confidence in his knowledge. He also struggles internally with Mr. Fester proving himself to be potentially more knowledgeable than him. Interpersonal problems come into play when Mr. Knowlton has opportunities to discuss these concerns with Dr. Jerrold but he goes along with ideas Dr. Jerrold proposes. He also fails to advocate for his group after his group voiced their concerns and discomfort. Despite Mr. Knowlton being uncomfortable and annoyed with Mr. Fester, he advised his superior of the complete opposite. Organizational simply because Dr. Jerrold failed to consider the rest of the team when making decisions on behalf of the group. Processes: The process problems result from poor communication, missing leadership, and ineffective group norms and rules. The poor communication stems from Mr. Knowlton continuously pushing aside how he felt about Mr. Fester but rather, going along with what Dr. Jerrold suggested. Mr. Knowlton also did not discuss the boundary concerns of Mr. Fester calling at 2:00 AM after reviewing the project extensively. That falls into the missing leadership process problem as well. Mr. Knowlton did not appear to assert himself as a leader in this project. He allowed for Mr. Fester to seemingly take the lead on the group and Dr. Jerrold along with Mr. Knowlton allowing Mr. Fester to be a part of a presentation without inviting the other members of the group (ineffective group norms and rules). Dr. Jerrold and Mr. Knowlton allowed Mr. Fester to take the lead in this project by presenting the proposal. Redesign: At the end of the reading, Dr. Jerrold can reflect on why Mr. Knowlton resigned. He understood that Mr. Knowlton was seemingly happy in his role as project lead and supportive of his colleague, Mr. Fester. Mr. Knowlton’s resignation should have sparked in Dr. Jerrold an evidence-based management intervention (Denhardt, R., et. all, 2019). Dr. Jerrold may have benefitted from utilizing the nominal group technique prior to insisting Mr. Fester join Mr. Knowlton’s team. Denhardt suggests the nominal group technique would have allowed the group members to have equal input in deciding Mr. Fester’s addition. In a nominal group technique, everyone would have had the opportunity to express their concerns or suggestions, have their thoughts written down for all to see, and have a discussion among each other. Mr. Knowlton appears to use this technique when he is with his group, but Dr. Jerrold does not. As Denhardt would say that effective decision-makers understand that the events they are making decisions on are typically manifestations of underlying problems (Denhard, R., et. all, 2019). He claims that effective decision makers end up making less decisions with this understanding. While both parties are at fault, Dr. Jerrold for not considering the input of the rest of his team and Mr. Knowlton for not advocating for his team or actively communicating effectively. Denhardt claims that communicating effectively reinforces employee’s decision making, which ultimately benefits the organization. It seems Mr. Knowlton was attempting to avoid conflict by bringing up how he truly felt with Mr. Fester in his group. Denhardt states “manage your fear of rejection and conflict. Often people hold back from asserting themselves because they fear what others might say or they may motivate conflict” (Denhardt, R., et. all, 2019). " Reply Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V., Aristigueta, M. R., & Rawlings, K. C. (2019). Managing Human Behavior in Public and Nonprofit Organization. 5 editionl. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Ltd. th (https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6925657)Negina Noorzada (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6925657) Yesterday " Reply ! Emily, I totally agree with you on your point, Knowlton lack of self-confidence pushed him to resign from his job. He was constantly comparing his job with Fester and was so worried to be around him. He was not confident enough about his work either because he was worried that Fester may find something negative about him and the job he has done. (https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815)Tyler J Lacovara (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815) Yesterday " Reply ! Emily, Great post! I definitely agree with your assessment that Dr. Jerrold should reflect on the circumstances that led to a bad outcome for his organization. An evidence-based intervention would be the logical next step, particularly because of how well the team was performing before Mr. Fester entered the picture. To supplement this strategy, it would be useful to pursue greater transparency in communication, as you point out. If Mr. Knowlton was not properly advocating for his team, that is a clear failure on his part. It is, however, the ultimate responsibility of Dr. Jerrold to properly manage his organization, so he should reflect on the steps he can take to avoid these miscommunications in the future. Thank you for sharing, Tyler (https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6925657)Negina Noorzada (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6925657) Sep 24, 2020 ! https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6925657 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6925657 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6925657 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6925657 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 " Reply Key Issues: Bob Knowlton was very proud of his productivity and his ideas have made the job a lot easier. He kept receiving compliments from his boss Jerold, which was making him so satisfied and very pleased each time. Knowlton was not very honest with his feelings. When Jerold added a very talented new member Fester, to Knowlton’s group, he was afraid that Fester may take his place. Knowlton never confronted his feelings with Jerold, and it bothered him internally where he decided to resign from the job where he was very proud. Diagnosis: This case is a mixture of both social and technological problems. Laboratory’s goals and values are to productivity and to get the job done in a more sufficient way. Jerold and Fester are trying to look at any possible way to find easier ways for this purpose while Knowlton may forget the goals and values. He instead wanted all credits to himself and wanted himself to be the center of the attention. Levels: The level of the problem is, individual, and interpersonal. Knowlton was not comfortable working with Fester. He had a lack of self confidence around Fester which caused him to not be honest with Jerold about his feelings. He even talked with other team members about working with Fester but never took any action about that. Processes: The problem is definitely from poor communication. Knowlton attempted to talk to Jerold about Fester, but every time he switched the conversation and changed his mind. He never talked to him about what he really thinks about Fester and how uncomfortable he is working with him, instead, he always praises his good work and showed how grateful he is to work with him. Redesign: If I were the head of the laboratory, I would involve Knowlton and the team member and discuss what they feel about adding a new addition to the team. As mentioned by Denhard every individual in the team should be part of the decision- making group and be able to share their opinions and concerns openly (Denhard, R., et. al, 2019). This way Jerold would not have to deal with losing one of his experienced employees while he used to love his work and the work environment. (https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815)Tyler J Lacovara (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815) Yesterday ! Negina, Great post and I would generally agree with you that Knowlton had a major personal failure by not properly advocating for his team to Dr. Jerrold. As a team leader, it is his responsibility to foster harmony and discipline to meet the goals that the organization set. As challenging as Mr. Fester's personality may have been, it was Knowlton's responsibility to overcome that and seek the help of his boss to resolve the issue. As we see later in the case, this level of communication may have actually solved the entire situation before it escalated, as Dr. Jerrold could have simply transferred Mr. Fester to a more suitable team. Instead, the personality conflict went mostly unnoticed and the organization ended up losing a solid leader. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 " Reply mostly unnoticed and the organization ended up losing a solid leader. Thank you for sharing, Tyler (https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7026855)Duane Robinson (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7026855) Friday ! Key Issues Bob Knowlton was a successful project leader who worked for Simmons Laboratories whose leadership qualities were brought into question once a man named Simon Fester joined the team. Knowlton did not like Fester because he thought he was a “know it all” and he would step on his toes. Jerrold brought Fester on the team without giving Knowlton a heads up, which was wrong. Since Knowlton was the project leader, he should have been consulted first before a new member was hired. Fester came into the lab trying to control things which immediately annoyed Knowlton and put Fester on his bad side. Fester did not practice professional etiquette when he called Knowlton at 2 am to discuss work business. Fester eventually wanted to change Knowlton’s whole process of the lab and how their whole experiment was to be structured. Fester soon took over Knowlton’s group meetings pushing Knowlton to eventually quit and obtain a new job where he could become a leader again. Knowlton was a coward for running from his problems when faced with a challenge. Knowlton never really spoke to Fester about what his problems were with him, instead, he kept everything to himself which only resulted in things getting worse. Fester also thought very poorly of the group capabilities and their analyses on the photon experiment lacked substance, which is why they could not find a solution. Diagnosis This case seems to be a social and technical problem. It is social because of the animosity that Knowlton has for Fester, who came in and took his job. It is technical because of the way Fester came in and began to change all of the previous processes that Knowlton had set for the group like the group meetings for example. Knowlton set group meetings very often to keep everyone on one accord. Fester did not believe that this was necessary and thought that meetings were only necessary once in a while and just for project heads, the head of the lab, and the sponsors. One other technical aspect was that Jerrold saw that Fester was beginning to take over all of Knowlton’s managerial functions and chose not to step in. Levels The levels here are individual, interpersonal, and organizational. It is on the individual level because Knowlton was a successful leader, but he lacked the ability to successfully find a solution to the experiment of the photon that the group was working on. He wanted to just give up on the experiment, but Fester would not allow it because he believed that there was a solution, which he proved to be true. Interpersonal problems arose when Knowlton did not voice any of the problems that he had with Fester other than with his wife which could have had a different result if he went to Fester to talk about his issues with him man to man. This was an organizational problem because we see a man that is https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7026855 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7026855 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 " Reply brought on to the team take over completely and structure everything how he believed it should be with little regard for opinions on what everyone else thought. Processes The processes here come from incomplete problem solving and poor communication. We see in the organizational process model that individuals must be organized in a structured way to achieve an objective but Fester did not think that they were structured in a way for them to achieve their goal, which is why he made the changes that he did (Denhardt et. al pg. 140,). Authoritative decisions were made by Fester, which are decisions that are made by an individual or on behalf of the group (Denhardt et. al pg. 144). Poor communication was a factor here because Knowlton never spoke to Jerrold about how he felt about Fester and he left Jerrold for a new job at the last minute just by leaving him a note. Knowlton and his team were going to give up on their project because they could not conclude how to solve it which are results of incomplete problem-solving. Redesign The communication could have been better between Jerrold and Knowlton. Jerrold should have given Knowlton the heads up that a new member was joining the team instead of Knowlton looking up to find someone new in the lab. Knowlton should have talked with Fester as soon as he felt as though he was overstepping his boundaries as a new member. Knowlton was the project leader and lacked the will to keep his position solidified. Even though Knowlton was still the project leader, others around began to see his power slip away to Fester. Fester should have consulted Knowlton more on what he thought would be the right decisions instead of changing the way Knowlton structured his team. Knowlton should have been more assertive in his approach to Fester and maybe they would have been better working together, but instead, Knowlton accepted defeat and quit for a new job. I think Knowlton took the easy way out and as a result, he missed out on a new project that Jerrold had set out for him. (https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7003234)Emily Kepley (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7003234) Tuesday " Reply ! Hello Duane! I agree that the communication was the main issue that required redesign. It sounds like a lot of the discord could have been avoided if Knowlton had explained to Jerrold how he felt with Fester coming on in the group. Knowlton seemed to lack being assertive and placing firm boundaries. Knowlton also seemed to, as you said, accept defeat without attempting to rectify the situation with Jerrold. Alternatively, Jerrold was placing his goals for the company above others without consideration of others perspectives. Overall, I agree with your case analysis! Emily (https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6925657)Negina Noorzada (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6925657) ! https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7003234 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7003234 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6925657 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6925657 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 Yesterday " Reply Duane, I also believed poor communication was one of the factors that led Knowlton to resign. He never talked to Jerrold about his true feelings about Fester and instead he was praising him in front of Jerrold. Jerrold on the other hand, never discussed with Knowlton's team about adding Fester to their team. (https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815)Tyler J Lacovara (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815) Yesterday " Reply ! Duane, Great post! I agree that Mr. Fester's authoritative decisions were sudden and likely a difficult leadership task for Knowlton to handle. I am interested by your assertion that Fester didn't believe that the group was properly oriented and structured to achieve their goal. I wonder if this situation could have played out differently so that Knowlton could have embraced Fester's perspective and assessed whether his team was actually efficient or not. This may not have resulted in any changes, it's possible that the group was already properly oriented, but it would have at least allowed Fester to feel acknowledged while potentially adding valuable perspective to the organization. In any case, it is clear that the situation was handled poorly and collaboration was unlikely. Thank you for sharing, Tyler (https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7033803)Ellen Bair (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7033803) Sunday ! Key Issues: There are a few leading issues in the case study, “Bob Knowlton.” First, Bob Knowlton is a new and very proud project head, who values a team dynamic. Second, Fester is incredibly competent and more knowledgeable about the work Knowlton’s team is trying to accomplish. Third, Fester has little awareness about how his actions affect others and actively disrupts the team dynamic. Fourth, the lines of leadership/hierarchy are blurred once Fester arrives, causing Knowlton to feel insecure about his position within the lab. Diagnosis: The problems in this case study are both social and technical in nature. Bob Knowlton is a dynamic leader who values teamwork (social). He prioritizes collaboration and structures team meetings into every morning (social and technical). Fester has a clear lack of awareness when it comes to how his actions make team members feel (social). He actively puts his goals and values above the expectations and needs of others - ie: calling Knowlton in the middle of the night to discuss work (social and technical) and completely dominating team meetings that once were an opportunity for collaboration and idea sharing (social and technical). Fester also joined Knowlton’s team but not with the intention of it being permanent (technical). This ambiguity blurred some https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6889815 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7033803 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7033803 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 but not with the intention of it being permanent (technical). This ambiguity blurred some of the typical technical procedures that were standard to the lab’s structure. Levels: Bob Knowlton’s ability to lead a team and foster collaboration is individual (he’s intrinsically motivated to create a team dynamic), interpersonal (his leadership inspires others in his team to buy-in to the culture of collaboration), and organizational (each individual now invested in the team makes up a successful and highly motivated department). Fester’s ability to dominate a meeting/team is interpersonal (the way he communicates makes others feel inadequate) and organizational (he quite literally takes over the meeting and forces teammates to focus on his ideas and solutions). The fact that he is completely unaware of how he comes across/makes people uncomfortable is individual (he lacks self-awareness) and interpersonal (he does not recognize the reactions of others when his behavior impacts them negatively). When Jerrold had Fester join Knowlton’s team on a trial basis, the roles/responsibilities of Fester in relation to Knowlton were very unclear (interpersonal and organizational). These lines continued to be blurred through actions of both Jerrold and Knowlton (ie: the team meetings and research conference) until Knowlton felt like he lost his team (organizational and individual). Processes: The issues in this case result from a multitude of factors. First, there is a clear disconnect between Fester, Knowlton, and Jerrold, all of which stems from poor communication, missing leadership, and an inadequate structure of the organization. Because Knowlton is such a team player, he never speaks up when Jerrold asks him how it’s going with Fester. This poor communication has Jerrold assume it’s going well and he’s therefore surprised when Knowlton leaves. Jerrold also lacks leadership, as he is unable to see how placing Fester in Knowlton’s team has affected the dynamic. He also is willing to have Fester bypass organizational procedures/norms. By doing so, he shows the rest of the lab how important he is and undermines Knowlton’s leadership position. This, in turn, pushes Knowlton elsewhere. Redesign: Recommendation 1- Nominal Group Technique While Knowlton values a team dynamic, it is evident that Fester prefers individual work and quickness/efficiency (not that teamwork is inefficient). By implementing the Nominal Group Technique into their morning meetings, Knowlton will be able to combine both elements in a way that works for everyone and lowers the risk of Fester commandeering his meeting. It was clear from the case study that Fester dominated all discussion of possible solutions for their research problem. By offering a platform for each group member, everyone feels like their input matters and it returns to the team-oriented environment. As Denhardt et al. (2020) states, “involving many people in the process may result in a better decision because many will have had the opportunity to think of the pros and cons and therefore will be more likely to support a decision in which they have been involved” (p. 144). Recommendation 2 – Business Process Reengineering Both Fester and Jerrold are surprised by Knowlton’s abrupt exit. This highlights the clear disconnect between all three of them. While participating in business process reengineering wouldn’t solve the issues of this case, it could allow Knowlton, Fester, and Jerrold to all learn from this experience and redesign the organizational processes for the future. Recommendation 3 – Routine Check-ins Though Knowlton and Jerrold met a few times throughout the case study, Jerrold should implement weekly check-ins with his project heads. By establishing a time every week to come together face-to-face and update one another on progress/lab news, Jerrold and Knowlton may have had more opportunities to connect. While Knowlton was never going " Reply Knowlton may have had more opportunities to connect. While Knowlton was never going to actively throw Fester under the bus, weekly check-ins could have provided Jerrold the opportunity to let Knowlton know that he had other plans for Fester outside of Knowlton’s team. References: Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V., Aristigueta, M. R., & Rawlings, K. C. (2019). Managing Human Behavior in Public and Nonprofit Organization. 5 editionl. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Ltd. th (https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7003234)Emily Kepley (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7003234) Tuesday " Reply ! Hi Ellen! I enjoyed how detailed you laid out the levels portion. It was easy to follow and linear. I liked how you pointed out that Fester lacked self-awareness to the point that he was unaware of how he was affecting others on his team. It's a different perspective from my own thought of this case and focusing on Fester's behaviors rather than Knowlton or Jerrold. Fester did seem to be monopolize the group and Knowlton did not express any reservations in his doing so. You point out later in your redesign portion … ! This is a graded discussion: 10 points possible due Oct 4 Lessons 5 and 6 Case Analysis Discussion 1 3 Search entries or author " Reply Post your analysis by 11:59 p.m. on Sunday at the end of Lesson 5. Then, read and comment on at least five case analyses written by your classmates by 11:59 p.m. (ET) Sunday of the second assigned week. Unread # $ % Subscribe (https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7003234)Emily Kepley (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7003234) Wednesday ! Key Issues: Bob Knowlton found pride in escalating in the laboratory he worked for after two years. He was able to be creative in finding a solution to a current project and was later promoted to project lead for his idea. Mr. Knowlton was smug in his advancement and was satisfied with the work he was producing. Dr. Jerrold, the head of the laboratory, recognized Mr. Knowlton’s ability to perform and rewarded him accordingly to head a project. However, Simon Fester later came into the workplace and ended up being placed on Mr. Knowlton’s team. Mr. Knowlton expressed, to himself, a disdain for Mr. Fester being on his team but informed Dr. Jerrold that he would be delighted to have him join. Mr. Knowlton appears to want to be a team player but also found himself struggling internally with the attention Mr. Fester was getting with his work. At first, Mr. Knowlton appeared to be flattered that Mr. Fester wanted to review Mr. Knowlton’s work. When Mr. Fester displayed knowledge of the work, Mr. Knowlton appeared to become defensive. Later resulting in Mr. Knowlton resigning without properly explaining to Dr. Jerrold his perception of Mr. Fester and allowing the possibility for rectifying the concerns. Diagnosis: This case could easily be a mixture of both social and technical. However, the dominating nature of the problem I will discuss is social. In terms of social, at risk are the goals, values, culture, and psychological climate. It seems that Mr. Knowlton was threatened by Mr. Fester’s knowledge and that threat bled over into the culture and psychological climate. Mr. Knowlton discussed with his other team members, apart from Link, their perception of Mr. Fester. He presumably did not ask for Link’s input since Link appeared to enjoy working with Mr. Fester. Despite Mr. Knowlton gathering this information, he failed to bring it back to Dr. Jerrold to discuss further. Mr. Knowlton’s lack of assertive leadership hindered the psychological climate and culture for the other group https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7003234 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7003234 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 members. It is also assumed that Mr. Knowlton desired to receive credit for this project but, also allowed for Mr. Fester to indirectly take the lead. Levels: The levels of problem factors could be all three; individual, interpersonal, and organizational. Individually because Mr. Knowlton displays characteristics of someone who could be identified as self-conscious or lack of confidence in his knowledge. He also struggles internally with Mr. Fester proving himself to be potentially more knowledgeable than him. Interpersonal problems come into play when Mr. Knowlton has opportunities to discuss these concerns with Dr. Jerrold but he goes along with ideas Dr. Jerrold proposes. He also fails to advocate for his group after his group voiced their concerns and discomfort. Despite Mr. Knowlton being uncomfortable and annoyed with Mr. Fester, he advised his superior of the complete opposite. Organizational simply because Dr. Jerrold failed to consider the rest of the team when making decisions on behalf of the group. Processes: The process problems result from poor communication, missing leadership, and ineffective group norms and rules. The poor communication stems from Mr. Knowlton continuously pushing aside how he felt about Mr. Fester but rather, going along with what Dr. Jerrold suggested. Mr. Knowlton also did not discuss the boundary concerns of Mr. Fester calling at 2:00 AM after reviewing the project extensively. That falls into the missing leadership process problem as well. Mr. Knowlton did not appear to assert himself as a leader in this project. He allowed for Mr. Fester to seemingly take the lead on the group and Dr. Jerrold along with Mr. Knowlton allowing Mr. Fester to be a part of a presentation without inviting the other members of the group (ineffective group norms and rules). Dr. Jerrold and Mr. Knowlton allowed Mr. Fester to take the lead in this project by presenting the proposal. Redesign: At the end of the reading, Dr. Jerrold can reflect on why Mr. Knowlton resigned. He understood that Mr. Knowlton was seemingly happy in his role as project lead and supportive of his colleague, Mr. Fester. Mr. Knowlton’s resignation should have sparked in Dr. Jerrold an evidence-based management intervention (Denhardt, R., et. all, 2019). Dr. Jerrold may have benefitted from utilizing the nominal group technique prior to insisting Mr. Fester join Mr. Knowlton’s team. Denhardt suggests the nominal group technique would have allowed the group members to have equal input in deciding Mr. Fester’s addition. In a nominal group technique, everyone would have had the opportunity to express their concerns or suggestions, have their thoughts written down for all to see, and have a discussion among each other. Mr. Knowlton appears to use this technique when he is with his group, but Dr. Jerrold does not. As Denhardt would say that effective decision-makers understand that the events they are making decisions on are typically manifestations of underlying problems (Denhard, R., et. all, 2019). He claims that effective decision makers end up making less decisions with this understanding. While both parties are at fault, Dr. Jerrold for not considering the input of the rest of his team and Mr. Knowlton for not advocating for his team or actively communicating effectively. Denhardt claims that communicating effectively reinforces " Reply communicating effectively. Denhardt claims that communicating effectively reinforces employee’s decision making, which ultimately benefits the organization. It seems Mr. Knowlton was attempting to avoid conflict by bringing up how he truly felt with Mr. Fester in his group. Denhardt states “manage your fear of rejection and conflict. Often people hold back from asserting themselves because they fear what others might say or they may motivate conflict” (Denhardt, R., et. all, 2019). Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V., Aristigueta, M. R., & Rawlings, K. C. (2019). Managing Human Behavior in Public and Nonprofit Organization. 5 editionl. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Ltd. th (https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6925657)Negina Noorzada (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6925657) Thursday ! Key Issues: Bob Knowlton was very proud of his productivity and his ideas have made the job a lot easier. He kept receiving compliments from his boss Jerold, which was making him so satisfied and very pleased each time. Knowlton was not very honest with his feelings. When Jerold added a very talented new member Fester, to Knowlton’s group, he was afraid that Fester may take his place. Knowlton never confronted his feelings with Jerold, and it bothered him internally where he decided to resign from the job where he was very proud. Diagnosis: This case is a mixture of both social and technological problems. Laboratory’s goals and values are to productivity and to get the job done in a more sufficient way. Jerold and Fester are trying to look at any possible way to find easier ways for this purpose while Knowlton may forget the goals and values. He instead wanted all credits to himself and wanted himself to be the center of the attention. Levels: The level of the problem is, individual, and interpersonal. Knowlton was not comfortable working with Fester. He had a lack of self confidence around Fester which caused him to not be honest with Jerold about his feelings. He even talked with other team members about working with Fester but never took any action about that. Processes: The problem is definitely from poor communication. Knowlton attempted to talk to Jerold about Fester, but every time he switched the conversation and changed his mind. He never talked to him about what he really thinks about Fester and how uncomfortable he is working with him, instead, he always praises his good work and showed how grateful he is to work with him. Redesign: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6925657 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/6925657 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 " Reply If I were the head of the laboratory, I would involve Knowlton and the team member and discuss what they feel about adding a new addition to the team. As mentioned by Denhard every individual in the team should be part of the decision- making group and be able to share their opinions and concerns openly (Denhard, R., et. al, 2019). This way Jerold would not have to deal with losing one of his experienced employees while he used to love his work and the work environment. (https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7026855)Duane Robinson (h!ps://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7026855) Yesterday ! Key Issues Bob Knowlton was a successful project leader who worked for Simmons Laboratories whose leadership qualities were brought into question once a man named Simon Fester joined the team. Knowlton did not like Fester because he thought he was a “know it all” and he would step on his toes. Jerrold brought Fester on the team without giving Knowlton a heads up, which was wrong. Since Knowlton was the project leader, he should have been consulted first before a new member was hired. Fester came into the lab trying to control things which immediately annoyed Knowlton and put Fester on his bad side. Fester did not practice professional etiquette when he called Knowlton at 2 am to discuss work business. Fester eventually wanted to change Knowlton’s whole process of the lab and how their whole experiment was to be structured. Fester soon took over Knowlton’s group meetings pushing Knowlton to eventually quit and obtain a new job where he could become a leader again. Knowlton was a coward for running from his problems when faced with a challenge. Knowlton never really spoke to Fester about what his problems were with him, instead, he kept everything to himself which only resulted in things getting worse. Fester also thought very poorly of the group capabilities and their analyses on the photon experiment lacked substance, which is why they could not find a solution. Diagnosis This case seems to be a social and technical problem. It is social because of the animosity that Knowlton has for Fester, who came in and took his job. It is technical because of the way Fester came in and began to change all of the previous processes that Knowlton had set for the group like the group meetings for example. Knowlton set group meetings very often to keep everyone on one accord. Fester did not believe that this was necessary and thought that meetings were only necessary once in a while and just for project heads, the head of the lab, and the sponsors. One other technical aspect was that Jerrold saw that Fester was beginning to take over all of Knowlton’s managerial functions and chose not to step in. Levels The levels here are individual, interpersonal, and organizational. It is on the individual level because Knowlton was a successful leader, but he lacked the ability to successfully https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7026855 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/users/7026855 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 " Reply level because Knowlton was a successful leader, but he lacked the ability to successfully find a solution to the experiment of the photon that the group was working on. He wanted to just give up on the experiment, but Fester would not allow it because he believed that there was a solution, which he proved to be true. Interpersonal problems arose when Knowlton did not voice any of the problems that he had with Fester other than with his wife which could have had a different result if he went to Fester to talk about his issues with him man to man. This was an organizational problem because we see a man that is brought on to the team take over completely and structure everything how he believed it should be with little regard for opinions on what everyone else thought. Processes The processes here come from incomplete problem solving and poor communication. We see in the organizational process model that individuals must be organized in a structured way to achieve an objective but Fester did not think that they were structured in a way for them to achieve their goal, which is why he made the changes that he did (Denhardt et. al pg. 140,). Authoritative decisions were made by Fester, which are decisions that are made by an individual or on behalf of the group (Denhardt et. al pg. 144). Poor communication was a factor here because Knowlton never spoke to Jerrold about how he felt about Fester and he left Jerrold for a new job at the last minute just by leaving him a note. Knowlton and his team were going to give up on their project because they could not conclude how to solve it which are results of incomplete problem-solving. Redesign The communication could have been better between Jerrold and Knowlton. Jerrold should have given Knowlton the heads up that a new member was joining the team instead of Knowlton looking up to find someone new in the lab. Knowlton should have talked with Fester as soon as he felt as though he was overstepping his boundaries as a new member. Knowlton was the project leader and lacked the will to keep his position solidified. Even though Knowlton was still the project leader, others around began to see his power slip away to Fester. Fester should have consulted Knowlton more on what he thought would be the right decisions instead of changing the way Knowlton structured his team. Knowlton should have been more assertive in his approach to Fester and maybe they would have been better working together, but instead, Knowlton accepted defeat and quit for a new job. I think Knowlton took the easy way out and as a result, he missed out on a new project that Jerrold had set out for him. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2073870/discussion_topics/13238489?module_item_id=29680769%23 Warning Concerning Copyright Restrictions The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the reproduction of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are permitted to furnish a reproduction if used for “private study, scholarship or research.” A second condition is that only single articles or chapters of a work totaling no more than 15% of the total number of pages be reproduced. Any use of a reproduction that exceeds these guidelines may be considered copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse any request for reproduction that is deemed a violation of current copyright guidelines. This material has been reproduced from the following source: Date prepared: This material is presented for use solely by authorized faculty and students of the Pennsylvania State University. Further reproduction or distribution of this material is expressly prohibited. This material may be made available in alternative media upon request. Please contact Course Reserves Services at [email protected] or by phone at (814) 863-0324. If you are experiencing problems viewing or printing this document, please visit http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/reserve/useelectronicreserves.htm for troubleshooting information. If further assistance is required, please send a description of the problem to [email protected] that includes the course and instructor for which the material is on reserve, as well as the title of the material. ADM135 Hellriegel, D. and J. W. Slocum. Bob Knowlton case study. Organizational Behavior. Cincinnati. South-Western Cengage Learning 2011. 143904225X. pp. 547-550. ADM135 1/20/2011 Sami Al-Qahtani