Erik Peterson (A & B)

The purpose of this essay is to present two most serious underlying problems facing Erik Peterson at
the end of part B and the recommended actions for Peterson to address these problems.
Table of Contents
1. Statement of Problems........................................................................................................................3
2. Analysis of Problems............................................................................................................................3
2.1. The lack of open communications between CelluComm and GMCT and within GMCT itself......3
2.2. The inconsistency and vagueness of CelluComm and GMCT organizational structures..............5
3. Recommendations...............................................................................................................................5

2
1. Statement of Problems
With less than two weeks away from GMCT turn-on date (April 1), Erik Peterson needs to
resolve all the showstopper issues facing GMCT. These issues include technical and non-
technical issues that GMCT, as a team, need to act on in the remaining two weeks.

Although GMCT has many bright talents, they failed to meet the original deadline (February 1)
and they are now struggling to meet the revised deadline (April 1). This delay is caused by
numerous problems.

1. The lack of open communications between CelluComm and GMCT and within GMCT itself.
a. Peterson has failed to manage upward relationships and gain trust from CelluComm’s
management. As a result, Peterson is not given the autonomy to make key decisions
that would benefit GMCT. Peterson also feels that he is unable to get either support or
clear direction from his line manager, Hardy. Some of the GMCT-related decisions are
made solely by CelluComm’s management without involving Peterson. For example:
CelluCom had made a change in the power supply ratings in December and this is not
communicated to Peterson until January and this had caused delay in the delivery.
b. Peterson has failed to establish healthy relationships amongst his direct reports. We
have seen several conflicts and disputes between Curt and Trevor, Curt and Melissa,
and Curt and Todd.
2. The organizational structures of CelluComm and GMCT are vague and inconsistent.
The organizational structure’s inconsistency is demonstrated even when Peterson first
joined GMCT. Instead of reporting to Jenkins as he originally assumed, he was assigned to
Hardy. In addition, it is observed that there is no clearly defined job scope and responsibility
for each role in the organization. For example: In CelluComm, Hardy is Diretor of Budgets &
Plans and without any operating systems experience but yet Peterson is reporting to him.
Hardy’s role and responsibility is not clear to us.

2. Analysis of Problems
2.1.The lack of open communications between CelluComm and GMCT and
within GMCT itself
The following are the summary of the actions and respective results that Peterson has taken
in order to tackle the existing communication issues:

a. Establishing communication with senior management (CelluComm’s management)

What have been done?
- Peterson replaced the poorly-performed existing subcontractor with the Granite
State Construction Company which he felt could provide better service.
Result: This was received reluctantly by headquarters but Peterson managed to
provide adequate backup support.

3
 - Peterson discussed Curt Andrew’s difficulties in handling the planning aspects of the
chief engineer’s job with Hardy.
Result: There is no response from Hardy.
- Hardy is unwilling to sign off on agreements Peterson had with local governments to
use specific towers for GMCT cell sites.
Summary:
- Peterson constantly received push back on his ideas from Hardy.
- CelluComm’s management is reluctant to support Peterson’s initiatives.
What could have been done differently?
- Peterson needs to communicate his decision to CelluComm before implementing it if
the decision is impacting CelluComm either directly or indirectly. For example: the
decision to replace the subcontractor that had done a great deal of work for
CelluComm without communicating it first is not encouraged. If only Peterson had
seeked Hardy’s opinion first, the outcome would have been different.
- Since Hardy doesn’t have prior experience with any system operating experience,
Peterson could have explained in details and engaged Hardy for each of his decision.
Peterson and Hardy have to agree that any decision made is benefiting both of
them.
- Peterson could have initiated a weekly formal reporting or one-to-one session with
Hardy to ensure that they are on the same page. The session is also useful to
communicate any problems arising in both CelluComm and GMCT during the week.
- Peterson could have escalated the problem to Jenkins. It is observed that there is no
communication between Jenkins and Peterson since he joined GMCT.
- Peterson could have initiated a good relationship with Cantor and Green instead of
intimidating them during the first meeting. Positive upward relationships will benefit
both CelluComm and GMCT in the long run.

b. Establishing healthy relationships and fostering teamwork amongst GMCT’s personnel.

What have been done?
- Peterson asked Curt to hold weekly construction meetings to which everyone in the
organization was invited.
Result: This weekly meetings are quite useful for all employees to increase the sense
of participation and empowerment.
- Peterson established an inventory control reporting system for Curt and his team.
Result: Curt resisted the effort.
- Peterson instituted weekly, companywide meetings to which all company employees
were invited
Result: Most of the employees had found the weekly meetings very effective and
they believed that morale and understanding of the company’s problem had
increased substantially.
Summary:
- Peterson received positive feedback for some of his efforts.
- However, some of his efforts are resisted and perceived negatively by Curt.
- It seems like each person within GMCT works individually without any collaboration.

4
 What could have been done differently?
- Peterson needs to focus on the strengths of his people and minimizes their
weaknesses by enforcing teamwork effort. For example: Curt Andrew is technically
first-rated and proven as the best engineer while Stevana has excellent people-skill.
Peterson could have put Stevana in charge of project management role reporting to
Curt and encouraged them to work as a team to resolve any arising conflicts.
- If there are conflicts arising within GMCT that couldn’t be resolved within the team
level, Peterson has the power to make the final decision and this decision needs to
be respected by all GMCT employees, assuming CelluComm gives Peterson the
autonomy to make decisions on behalf of GMCT.

2.2.The inconsistency and vagueness of CelluComm and GMCT

organizational structures
What have been done?
- Peterson has hired three key personnel to join GMCT. They are: Jim Wescott
(Marketing), Trevor Burns (Customer Service) and Stevana Hanes (MIS).
- With the three new joiners, Peterson had also put together a revised organizational
structure for GMCT. The new revised structure includes the reassignment of
employees according to their strengths.
What could have been done differently?
- Peterson could have assigned someone to take the role of project manager. The
project manager has to put together the remaining tasks to meet April 1 timeline,
along with the person / team who is accountable for the completion of each of the
task. The project manager then needs to track each task and report to Peterson if
any task is not completed on time.
- Peterson could have defined clear role and responsibility for each department. For
example: If only Peterson had assigned the accountability of antenna equipment-
related decision to either Curt or Todd, there would not be any conflicts arise as
what had happened in GMCT.

Alternative option(s):

- Peterson could also outsource the remaining GMCT tasks to contractor who has
previous experience with cellular operating system implementation. However, since
there are only two weeks left until the turn-on date, this option is dismissed.

3. Recommendations
The recommendations are summarized as follow:

1. Establishing positive upward relationship with CelluComm’s management.

2. Establishing weekly one-to-one meeting between each staff and his /her manager and
between each staff and his/her direct reports.

5
3. Fostering teamwork culture within GMCT that values collaboration. In a teamwork
environment, people understand and believe that thinking, planning, decisions and
actions are better when done cooperatively.
4. Defining clear role and responsibility for each department within CelluComm and GMCT.
This removes the conflicts we have seen previously within CelluComm and GMCT.