Background

The case study is about a person named Bob Knowlton who is the project head in a photon laboratory. Knowlton had the habit of staying in the office after everyone leaves and think about the work processes. He was the newly appointed project head of the company and he was quite happy after seeing the reports of the test run of new unit. The head of this laboratory Dr. Jerrold motivated him and the other employees to be productive and make advances in their career. He was sitting alone in the office when someone entered suddenly.

The person who had entered was Simon Fester, who was sent by Dr. Jerrold and Knowlton was quite surprised by his entry. The next day Knowlton came to know that Fester was about to join his group. Knowlton was not quite comfortable with the decision; however, he did not show his discomfort to Jerrold (Biggs, Brough & Barbour, 2014). That day Fester entered late in the office and told everyone that he had a lunch meeting with Jerrold. Fester joined Knowlton’s group that day and was introduced to the other members of the group. Knowlton was waiting for personal time in the office that day after everyone’s exit, however, he did not get that chance as Fester was still present in the office. This made him uncomfortable and he was also annoyed with Fester. That night Fester called him up at the middle of the night and this made him even more angry. This annoyance and discomfort was further increased by many other problems that occurred in the official proceedings in the later days (Yukl, 2012).

Knowlton was the leader of group of a few members including Link, who was the mathematician, Martha Ybarra, Lucy Martin, George Thurlow, Bob Davenport, Arthur Oliver. Knowlton held a lot of pride in conducting these meetings with the members of the group and this was an important part of the job that he was doing in the lab. The team meetings were regarded as the chance of analysing various ideas of the members of the team and thereby implementing these ideas. The effort of the team in the proceedings of the work was important as thought by Knowlton. In the first meeting where Fester was included in the team, Knowlton brought up a topic that previously discussed and was decided to be impossible to solve. This move caused many problems to Knowlton (Haslam et al., 2014). After this topic was brought up, the charge of the meeting was taken up by Fester and he started noting the problem and also came up with a solution. Knowlton was quite impressed with Fester after this instant, however, at the same time he had mixed feelings of annoyance and anger as well. The reason was that according to Fester the problem was not analysed properly in the previous attempt and that the way of thinking of the team was not right. From that time on the team meetings were led by Knowlton, however, in the true sense the meetings were taken by Fester. The meetings now took a complete different turn and were no longer cooperative in nature. Fester used to come up with a problem in the meetings and he himself solved the problems without much discussion with the other team members. Knowlton felt that although Fester had increased the intellect level of the team, however, the cooperative spirit of the team was hampered. After six months of the joining of Fester, the sponsor meeting was held which was supposed to be attended only by the employees of the administration level (Jiang et al., 2012). Knowlton was reluctant to invite Fester for the meeting as he did not have a position in the management level. However, he was invited to attend the meeting on the insistence of Jerrold. Fester dominated the meeting that was held with the sponsors and this was another blow for Knowlton. The attention that was given to Fester disturbed Knowlton, however he did not show his discontent to the others in the organization. Knowlton then started searching for some other job of the same level without consulting his office members. He received an offer from another company within a few weeks and then he sent his resignation letter to Jerrold. This was blow to the company as Fester was also moved to another project and the photon project was now in a lot of problems (Lee, Park & Koo, 2015).

Overview of the Case Study

The objective of the case study is to understand the problems that are faced by a particular person in an organization in spite of being productive. Knowlton was facing the problems related to his work process after the entry of Fester in the lab. Fester was preferred by Jerold, who was the head of the lab and this was the main issue that was bothering Knowlton (Vaccaro et al., 2012). He had the fear of getting replaced by Fester, as he had a high intellect level and was able to solve those problems which were previously left unsolved. However, the work process of the team was hampered by Fester as the collaborative spirit of the team decreased. This happened after Fester started leading the meetings instead of Knowlton (Moore et al., 2012). The sponsor meeting of the company which was not supposed to be attended by Fester, was also dominated by him. This was a huge blow to the leadership spirit of Knowlton.

The alternative actions that can be taken are as discussed further. Knowlton should have discussed the problems related to the interference of Fester with the head of the lab. Jerrold was also at fault as he had appointed Fester under Knowlton without proper discussion with him. After the appointment of Fester under Knowlton he also should have discussed the problems that he was having with him, instead of just keeping quiet and searching for another without any consultation with anyone. The organizational behaviour of an employee is an issue in this case. Fester was not behaving as a subordinate or a team member under Knowlton and was using his intellect level to influence others (Mosadeghrad, A. M. (2012). Fester was also not giving the respect that Knowlton deserved and he had shown improper behaviour by calling at the middle of the night for discussing about a problem that could be discussed later on as well. Knowlton was also at fault by not discussing his issues with Fester and taking the drastic decision of leaving the job. Knowlton should have discussed the problems with Fester and Jerrold and try to find the solution instead of leaving the job (Sung & Choi, 2012).

The implementation of the alternative ways that are discussed above can prove to be fruitful for the organization. The leadership style of Knowlton was cooperative in nature and Fester had caused a hamper in the style by trying to solve every problem all by himself. Fester can try to coordinate his activities with the other members of the team. He can then use intellect level to increase the productivity of his team rather than focussing only on personal achievements Knowlton on the other hand can understand the mentality and the needs of Fester and work accordingly with him (Olsen & Martins, 2012).

The implementation of the actions will have positive effects on the organization in the future. The lab will be able to retain the productive employees like Knowlton and not let them leave the organization due to the issues that have been faced in the case. The organization should introduce fresh talent in the team, however the management should also take initiatives to understand the needs of the senior employees as well.

References:

Biggs, A., Brough, P., & Barbour, J. P. (2014). Strategic alignment with organizational priorities and work engagement: A multi?wave analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 301-317.

Haslam, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., Platow, M. J., & Ellemers, N. (Eds.). (2014). Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice. Psychology Press.

Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of management Journal, 55(6), 1264-1294.

Lee, E. S., Park, T. Y., & Koo, B. (2015). Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 1049.

Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Klebe Treviño, L., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 1-48.

Mosadeghrad, A. M. (2012). Towards a theory of quality management: an integration of strategic management, quality management and project management. International Journal of Modelling in Operations Management, 2(1), 89-118.

Olsen, J. E., & Martins, L. L. (2012). Understanding organizational diversity management programs: A theoretical framework and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1168-1187.

Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2012). Effects of team knowledge management on the creativity and financial performance of organizational teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(1), 4-13.

Vaccaro, I. G., Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2012). Management innovation and leadership: The moderating role of organizational size. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 28-51.

Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66-85.