Situation Analysis

One of the main circumstances that was the basis of the first issue, which we identified as

a lack of sufficient policies to encourage employee integrity, is that the CEO, Chip, displayed a

poor example when he allowed himself to be unduly influenced by one of the so called “old

guard”, Dale, to forgo the Ombudsman role and “to delay training related to the new open-door

policy until HR had completed existing programs”. Without training and an Ombudsman, there

is little suitable means for identifying, codifying and disseminating firm-wide, open-door

policies. After all, one cannot expect to cultivate an ethical corporate culture unless everyone is

well versed in, and can access the policies that foster such a culture.

According to Hasson, Chip’s reserved agreement to Dale’s unfounded opposition to

training and an Ombudsman (Hasson, 2007, p. 3) is how the two proposals fell to the wayside.

Dale seemed to speak with confidence and authority when he cautioned “Anything that operated

outside management’s chain of command…might let serious problems slip through the cracks

and was therefore a recipe for disaster” (Hasson, 2007, p. 3). Clearly, Dale deliberately and

perhaps irresponsibly manipulated the “power dynamics of interaction“ (Tannen, 1995, p. 141).

to put himself in a one-up position at the meeting by using menacing language such as “serious

problems” and “disaster” to sway others.

Consequently, Chip’s inability to balance the leadership <--> followership dialectic

within the management group diminished his effective leadership. Furthermore, according to

Rothwell’s characterization of conflict management in groups, Chip and the other managers are

terrible at managing conflict although conflict can be very advantageous to the group goals.

Rothwell states that “Conflict can be a constructive force in groups if managed completely…

conflict is a major part of a groups “growth, change and evolution” and can protect the group

against “stagnation, detachment, entropy and even extinction” (Rothwell, 2004, p. 284). A true

manager need not coerce fellow managers or employees to see things his way, however as CEO,

he should have clearly established the significance and value of the training and Ombudsman as

vital elements of the open-door policy, by utilizing the collaboration style to manage the conflict

with Dale and if that did not work, then competing (Power/Forcing) was certainly called for in

this instance. Chip had forgotten that “effective leadership is not a solo task – it requires loyal,

competent and responsible followers” (Engleberg & Wynn, 2010, p. 20). The consequence of

Chips lack of leadership is that he permitted one dissenter to ostensibly derail the most crucial

aspects of the initiative, which defies one of the reasons that Chip was initially brought aboard as

CEO.

At this time, consider the second circumstance that contributed to the disintegration of

what was supposed to be an innovative “people” initiative. That would be a lack of supervision,

minimal oversight or accountability and apparently lax listening skills intrinsic to the Galvatrens

management team. Engleberg and Wynn describes associations between effective leadership and

broad listening skills. “Good leaders are good listeners. They know when and how to use

comprehensive, empathic, analytical and appreciative listening. Effective leaders are also

proactive listeners (Engleberg & Wynn, 2010, p. 195). Evidently, Harry’s failure to espouse

executive listening skills for Mike’s complaint confirms that he may not be an effective leader.

The management team does not seem to value employee feedback or respect the sanctity of

confidential information, which flies in the face of the purpose of the new policies.

The incongruity is that the whistle-blower was immediately at risk, although he thought

that he was protected and doing the right thing by confiding in a senior manager that he trusts;

the complacency of management initiated a completely opposite outcome to the one person who

was willing to risk everything by blowing the whistle on the channel stuffing scheme. This is not

2

an isolated occurrence, the management team seems to share this apathetic manner, and that

could explain why no one else in the firm spoke up. This managerial style was evident in that

Mike’s manger was not helpful but “brutal” in reaction to Mike’s performance deterioration

(Hasson, 2007, p. 3). There is further evidence of management’s lack of leadership as Harry did

not participate in any of the meeting that addressed the law suit and it makes him look

suspicious. Fortunately, the board of directors was keen on the next steps required to remedy the

situation and Arch and Sheila, correctly took charge of the situation (Hasson, 2007, p. 4). The

steps that they hash out should include removing the oversight responsibilities from the

managers and placing them in the hands of the board. In addition, they should immediately

schedule training, hire an Ombudsman, revamp the company policies and allow the failings of

the managers to be reflected in their bonuses.

References

Engleberg, I. N., & Wynn, D. R. (2010). Working in groups communication principles and strategies (Fifth ed.). NY: Allyn & Bacon.

Hasson, R. (2007, Apr). Why Didn't We Know. Harvard Business Review, 1-5.Rothwell, J. D. (2004). Conflict Management in Groups. In J. D. Rothwell, In mixed company,

communicating in small groups and teams (5th ed., pp. 283-315). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thompson Learning.

Tannen, D. (1995, Sep-Oct). The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why. Harvard Business Review, 138-148.

3