Group Case Study Leadership and Influence Paper

Lydia Erickson, Karlie Lorenz, Zack Maulella, Jenny McCartney, Hope Spoonhower

1. What is the Leadership Communication problem? In other words, based on what we have

covered in class, what is happening in this case that calls for leadership?

There are many leadership communication problems in this case study coming from the

merging of the two companies, Glass X and Krys Klear. The manager has to develop a

leadership strategy to bring the employees together and make their company more effective and

efficient in a short amount of time. The main problem is finding a way to deal with the different

cultures of the companies and develop a new one that addresses the concerns of all of the

employees. The manager must lead in a way that communicates their expectations. This is

difficult when employees who have been working with their previous companies for 15+ years

have to suddenly adhere to new standards.

2. What are some important elements of the case that you think are important to keep in mind in

your analysis of the case?

Some important elements that are important when analyzing this case are the emotions

that are present among the employees. In order to be an effective leader in this case study, one

must have a strong sense of emotional intelligence. The problem that the manager had was not

understanding why his employees were not working hard enough or why they werent happy.

Instead of just saying make do with the changes, he should have asked the opinions of his
employees. He told them to get to know each other, but he only introduced himself once to his

subordinates. If he took the time to speak to them more and got the deeper issues, he would have

had a better understanding of the problem. Instead of just saying put the past behind you and get

on with the job, he should have said, what did you like about the past that we can bring to the

table? This would have helped the hard-working employees want to stay and would also

encourage the slackers to work.

3. Considering situational/contingency approaches to leadership, what are some of the factors of

the situation or context that need to be taken into account?

This case study demands strong situational leadership. The manager is in charge of

merging two different companies. He needs to be aware of the task at hand and understand the

circumstances of the company in order to develop achievable goals and reasonable expectations.

The ability to adapt leadership to many situations is what makes strong situational leadership.

The manager should have been both task and people oriented in his leadership. When the two

employees were having problems, he should have adapted his leadership style to have a more

hands-on approach as opposed to a more supportive role.

4 Why do you think the company entrusted Peter with this new position and what does it imply

about the companys belief in what leadership is?

The company entrusted Peter with the managerial position at the new Hamilton branch

because he not only had knowledge of both companies, but he was successfully running Glass X
before the merger. The Krys Klear managers we running underperforming branches; therefore,

were not trusted to continue their positions after the merger. In addition to Peters managerial

history, he took the time to build relations with new staff and study their branch layout. He had

the daunting task of combining two different styles of management, but could do so thanks to his

experience and his ability to look towards the future. Peter was trusted to create a comfortable

workplace based on his ability to adapt. This shows that the company believes that leadership

should be constantly adapting to the communication problem. Peters ability to say, the best you

can do is put the past behind you and get on with the job is what the company needs when

trying to stay afloat in this merger.

5. What kinds of perceptual blocks might Peter have and discuss where you see evidence to

support your assertion.

A perceptual block is something that hinders a problem solver from clearly perceiving

either the problem itself or the information necessary to solve it. One perceptual block Peter

might have from his staff is information overload. In the case Peter discusses with his mate Finn

about the frustrations he was having. He states, They employed people who dont know what

theyre doing-no technical skill, no people skill, no business knowledge. Peters responsibility

is to combine two different companies with two different sets of knowledge (or lack of

knowledge) and find a common ground. This will mean him meeting with each person

one-on-one to attempt to teach them their roles, responsibilities, and job expectations while they
meet their new coworkers and adjust to a new leader. This might cause the staff to have an

information overload therefore creating a perceptual block that Peter must attempt to solve.

6. When was there evidence of listening or not listening in the case and what were the effects of

each?

One example of when there was a case of listening (or not listening) was when Peter was

meeting with Dave and Barry about their job performance. Peter attempted to discuss his

expectations and was met with shouting from Barry about his frustrations. He even yells, whats

the problem?. Dave and Barry are clearly not listening to Peters criticism and has to have

several meetings with them, since after every meeting there was no change in behavior. This lack

of listening from Dave and Barry hindered them from being able to alter their performance and

caused tension between them and Peter. This ultimately lead to them resigning. Its possible that

if Peter was able to present the information in a way that Dave and Barry could listen to and fully

grasp the companys expectations of them...maybe they would have improved and kept their

jobs.

7. Articulate and document whether and how you see evidence of any style or relational

approaches to leadership.

Within the story, Peter struggles to make meaningful relationships and integrate the

pre-existing staff and the new merged staff. However, Peter continues by first holding a meeting

and exclaims: I cannot do all this work without your help. Using phrases like this, he attempts
to build a sense of camaraderie throughout the branch. He notes in his meeting that he needs

everyone to work together, for one big team, and disregard the past. This shows he is trying to

get everyone in the same boat with each other. Another example, is when Peter has to deal with

the slackers of the group, Dave and Barry. Both employees are still annoyed about the merger

and the new rules, thus, are doing a lackluster job. TO combat this, Peter speaks with them

individually and tries to stress the importance of working efficiently and getting work done on

time. Eventually, Peter does succeed, but not with out the two men resigning at the end of the

work quarter. Regardless, Peter displayed poor relational leadership within the new group. Peter

never really tried to get know any of the new workers on a more personal level to understand

their hardship in the transfer. Instead, he expected them to forcibly work together for the good of

the company.

8. Put yourself in Peters place. What are three questions you think you would need to ask as a

leader?

How and what can I do to unite the workplace into functioning as a team?

What can I do to make the transition of the new employees into Glass X smooth and

effective?

What changes should I make in the office to help me (Peter) understand the other

employees from the merged branch?

9. Where do you see evidence of Peter engaging in discursive leadership?

While there is not a lot of evidence for Peter engaging in discursive leadership, he does

try. Besides the fall outs with Dave and Barry, Peter was able to get the majority of the staff

(both old and new) in working together. Peter was also able to successfully pick up on the fact

that Dave and Barry were the ones not working efficiently and slowing progress in the company.

Moreover, Peter addresses them individually and is able to get them to working back up to par, at

least before they each resigned at the end of the quarter. This resulted in a 20% below the

company goal before talking with Dave and Barry, to a mere 5% below company goals. That is

quite a big jump to pull within the last few weeks of the quarter. Peter was successful in

addressing and locating the root of the problem and dealing with it in a responsible way that

allowed for Glass X to profit. Overall, Peter stayed grounded in his ability to get his team to

accomplish work done and successfully met standards (or at least came very close to them).

10. How might Peter address this situation with a Win-Win attitude? Describe what might look

different if he took this approach. What would be the next steps you think Peter needs to take.

Support your suggestions.

If Peter were to address this situation, the merging of the two companies, with a win-win

attitude, he would be hopeful of having a large group of qualified employees working under him

in the new branch. He would understand the decisions of the old company (that they had to sell

their business in order to prevent their financial situation from getting worse) and hope to take

advantage of it. He would want to make the most out of all the talented workers that he will be
looking over and make plans to make this a successful branch. If he took this approach, he would

see this as an another opportunity for him to be a successful leader and make this a positive

merger.

If Peter were to look at the situation of Dave and Barry in a win-win situation, like I

believe he did, he would be satisfied with the short-term improvement that he saw from them but

also happy that they were no longer going to be working there any longer, no longer giving them

the opportunity to bring the company down. He should be satisfied with his leadership styles

proving successful on the two bad workers and happy that the two bringing his company down

realized that this was no longer the job for them, while hopefully making them happier people

with jobs that they are happy with. If they continued working for Glass-X this may cause them to

dislike their jobs and continue to not meet Peters expectations.

In the future, Peter should always try to look at situations with a win-win mindset. He

wouldnt ever want any of his employees to be unhappy with their jobs and should be

understanding when employees leave for other opportunities. He should look for the positives of

both perspectives while also making the best out of the situation he is put in. He will then be seen

as a positive and understanding manager and person.

Next, Peter should look for people to replace Dave, Barry, and Joe. He should make sure

that he believes in the people he is hiring and that he is confident that they can complete their
jobs in a satisfactory and timely manner. Doing this will prevent a similar situation from

happening again.

He should also look into Joes comment about the Glass-X influence and why that is

seen as negative. If he believes that his company has a problem, he should take action to change

it. Although he was saddened by Joe leaving the company, this gives him an opportunity to make

things better and prevent other needed employees from leaving.

11. Vision Our reading on Visions stated that a vision affects employees perceptions of the

organization and of leadership. Write a vision statement for the Hamilton Branch of Glass X that

would help people make meaning of the organizational changes and see where they are headed.

I know we have had some hard and confusing changes happen in the last few weeks, but I

want this situation to benefit every one of us. I know some of you may not be happy with the

current setting, but it is my goal to make this a positive experience for all of us. Times have been

hard, but my plan for this branch is to be successful and to make us all successful. I want us all to

work together, to become friends, to become family. I want this branch to be a place of success.

As a leader, I cannot do any of this without you all and without your hard work. I hope we can

all work together to make this a positive and enjoyable opportunity for all of us.

12. Story: Identify a specific place in the timeline of the events offered in the case where you

think a story needed to be told. Discuss what kind of story you think is needed and why. Then

craft a short (2-3 paragraphs) story that would serve this need. You may make up details needed
for the story, but consider that the story should sound and reflect authenticity. Spelling and

grammar will be assessed. Try to choose your words carefully for impact.

Summary: A specific story that needs to be told in this texts timeline of events is on page 30

depicting Joes rejection of the offer of a full-time employment position at Glass X. The reason

this section is lacking is because it only offers Joes response, not the circumstances that led to

the response or any explanation for how Joe may have come to his decision. There is limited

consideration for how other employees may have been treating Joe in his new role, and a lack of

understanding of the pressures he is likely facing that may not be immediately apparent. As his

boss, Peter should not have let the conversation die after a simple No thanks!, he should have

sought to discover the story leading up to this interaction. The results of not having this

information are also included in the text through the statement, In the following weeks, Peter

noticed that Joe became increasingly uncooperative; he didnt work any overtime and would not

mix with the other staff members during breaks or social activities. If Peter had realized long

ago that there was an underlying problem presented in the following story, he could have

potentially kept one of his most valuable company members.

Story: Joe McGinty genuinely enjoyed his job at Krys Klear, and years of experience led to

extensive knowledge and skill in his area of work. The merger with Glass X was far from ideal,

but he had a family to support at home and still came to the office on time and ready to work. As

he entered the office building, he was met by a sudden hush of voices as his new coworkers

stopped conversing. They murmured brief greetings but largely avoided interacting with him and

his friend Chris who was another previous employee of Krys Klear. Joe and Chris spent lunch
alone at a separate table from the other Glass X employees, and in the following days, Chris told

Joe he was leaving the company indefinitely. The next week, Joe realized he was without a place

to sit at lunch, and hesitantly approached the other employees. They made room for him at the

table, but did not seek to include him in conversation, and included some subtle and then

boisterous comments about how the merge with Krys Klear was harmful to them personally. Joe

began to draw into himself and have no desire to engage with his fellow employees.

At the company Christmas party, Joe decided to seek companionship one last time. The dish of

food he prepared remained largely untouched, and the group photo of the company was

conveniently taken while he was using the restroom. Joe began to feel with utter certainty that

this exclusion was intentional and that he was not wanted. Additionally, his boss Peter failed to

notice or address the problem. As the cycle repeated itself, Joe did not want to try to fix the

situation, merely to escape it. He found himself stopping his work overtime, eating lunch in his

office, and skipping social activities with others in the office. Shortly after this, Joe began

looking for another position elsewhere. Based on his quality of work, he found an excellent

opportunity in a separate Auckland branch of the company where he knew several of the

employees already. By the time Peter asked Joe to consider a foreman position, he had already

gone through the stages of social isolation and psychological distancing and chose to leave

quietly rather than create more dispute in the office by complaining about past circumstances. He

also did not fully trust Peters leadership style because he had not noticed or addressed the

problem his employee was facing in the workplace.