Work Styles and Personalities of Thomas Green and Frank Davis - Case Study Example

? A Review of the Thomas Green Case This paper examines the Harvard Business review case Thomas Green: Power and Office Politics and a career in crisis. The case talks about the situation that Thomas Green, a marketing manager in Dynamic Displays finds himself in due to the criticism by his superior Frank Davis, a few months after a series of rapid promotions. This paper makes comparisons on the personality and style of work differences that resulted in the conflict between the two. The actions of Thomas Green and their negation from Davis’ expectations is also under the spotlight with analysis of the performance of Green in the few months after promotion provided. The paper also seeks to outline the possible underlying agendas that the superiors of Green may have in relation to the case. As finality, the paper seeks to provide recommendations to use in the resolution of the dilemma through means that benefit all parties. The research focused on the two conflicting professionals and how their differences have affected their relationship. Key words: personality, work style, conflict, superior Introduction Thomas Green was a Senior Market Specialist of the Eastern region in the North America branch of the Travel and Hospitality Division of Dynamic Displays who held the office after his promotion that became effective as of September 10, 2007 at the age of 28. Prior to this, Thomas was an account executive in the company’s Banking Division, where he sold ATMs to Southeast regional banks (Beckham and Sasser, 2013). He held the same post in the Travel and Hospitality Division when he first joined Dynamic Displays in 2007. Thomas Green holds a bachelor’s degree in Economics from the University of Georgia class of 2001 as his qualification. At the same time, Frank Davis held the position of Marketing Director for the organization’s Travel and Hospitality Division, which was senior to the position held by Thomas Green. At the time, he was a 17-year veteran of the organization at the age of 45 having risen through the ranks from the position of an accountant executive. A bachelor’s degree in history from the New York University in 1986 and a Sawyer Business School, Suffolk University Executive MBA in 2002 served as his qualifications for the job (Beckham and Sasser, 2013). Thomas Green is answerable to Frank Davis who in the situation is his boss. After undergoing rapid promotions through the ranks, Green is criticized by Davis. The criticism arises from the differences that the two have in terms of their work styles and personalities that results in the two having differing views on the best methods to use to attain the ends of the required work (Beckham and Sasser, 2013). The situation results in a silent conflict that threatens the success of the division. The conflict threatens to destroy the working relationship of the two, which would impede the attainment of the goals of the company (Pfe?eri and Falcone et al., 2013). The methods incorporated by the two are both convenient for attaining company goals and the conflict is resolvable if only the two take steps to mend the relationship. Work styles and personalities of Thomas Green and Frank Davis The work styles that Davis and Green incorporate in their approaches to achieve the required ends are different. The personality traits of the two professionals also tend to differ. Davis applies the use of facts and hard data in the form of charts, memos, and proposals as well as a strategy in the presentation of proposals in an attempt to sway clients (Beckham and Sasser, 2013). He believes this will assure clients’ confidence in their investments. Green on the other hand is a practical person favoring face-to-face meetings with clients to sell the ideas to them in a manner that sways them into trusting his ideas (Hbr.org, 2013). The idea of using charts, memos, and proposals as the core strategy does not augur very well with Green. Davis also believes in the following of procedure as a style of working requiring Green to fill out his outlook calendar, follow it to the letter, and keep him informed of developments. Green believes in instincts. He is of the view that one should not restrict himself to schedules and instead act according to the situation on the field. He is also not a fan of filling in his superior, Davis, on the developments, as the results will be clear (Hbr.org, 2013). Thomas is brought out as being very intelligent and loaded with marketing talents. This results in him having a sense of arrogance and a lot of confidence (Pfe?eri and Falcone et al., 2013). This comes out in the views gives that go against Davis’ ideologies. Frank on the other hand comes out as being a visionary concerned over the company’s future believing in facts to attain goals. He tries to spur the same personality in Green by making comparisons to other employees of the same rank (Pfe?eri and Falcone et al., 2013). Differences in Green’s actions from Davis’ expectations Two months after his promotion, Green received a review from Davis criticizing his actions (Hbr.org, 2013). The review illustrated how the actions differed from Davis’ expectations. The first action was Green’s failure to update his outlook calendar meaning Davis could not locate him. This is coupled with Green’s failure to call back after he is unreachable on the phone. Davis expects information on the progress of tasks carried out by those under him, which is provided through the keeping in touch with them (Beckham and Sasser, 2013). Second, Green failed to provide updates on some specific tasks that Davis had assigned to him like the VIP Hotel Group and Journey Airlines research (Hbr.org, 2013). As such, Green failed to meet the expectations Frank had of every employee that needed submission of updates that ensured the attainment of the goals of the organization. These actions served to negate from the expectations Davis had of Green and portrayed him as one seeking to further his goals of promotion and not reaching goals set by the organization (Pfe?eri and Falcone et al., 2013). Analysis of the first five months of Thomas Green’s actions and performance Thomas green seeks to attain the goals of the company through aiming to achieve increased selling growth for the organization. In his methods, he prefers the use of face-to-face communication to data in bringing clients on board with the proposals he is selling (Beckham and Sasser, 2013). His methods and actions have been successful, as they have resulted in the landing of a number of clients. However, his focus on the goals has clouded his vision on the surrounding current issues. His lack of adherence to protocols has created constraints with Davis, his superior (Pfe?eri and Falcone et al., 2013). These constraints threaten the working relationship between the two, which threatens the success of the division. This has also put his employment in jeopardy a few months after his promotion. His reduced managerial skills have also affected his performance as they facilitated his dealing with dealing with the issues with Davis on a view that is long-term (Pfe?eri and Falcone et al., 2013). Instead of rebuilding the relationship weakened by the criticism, Green decides to avoid having encounters and interactions with Davis, which further deteriorates the relationship (Beckham and Sasser, 2013). Green’s lack of adherence to follow the instructions provided by Davis in terms of providing reports and updates on tasks have also affected the attempts to reach the organization’s goal, as Davis is not able to fill out the company’s schedule. The methods Green uses to say customers have also impacted his performance as clients ask for hard data to back his claims. Underlying agendas of Davis and McDonald Although the arguments in Davis’ case have sufficient backing for criticizing Green, the situation portrays Davis to have an underlying agenda. Davis comes out as using the situation to have Green fired as punishment for questioning his authority when he aired views that were against his market projections (Pfe?eri and Falcone et al., 2013). Davis does not ask McDonald to prompt Green to change his attitude and instead prefers to ask her for his discharge. This shows that he may have a hidden motive. McDonald does not also act in a manner that would suggest fairness in her reaction to the claims made by Davis on an employee under him. Instead of taking immediate action and resolving the issue, she takes a calm approach that seems to portray that she favors Green. The fact that she promoted Green in a time span that seems too short for the appointment also brings out a view of bias towards him (Pfe?eri and Falcone et al., 2013). Recommendations of the actions Green to be taken by Green Green should set up a meeting with McDonald to enable him speak directly to her to air his side of the story. To avoid the feeling of secrecy and mixed messages, the request should ask for the presence of Davis in the meeting. In the meeting, he should discuss his performance with the involved parties who happen to be his superiors. The discussion will enable his reasons to be clearly understood as he pleads his case. The portrayal of his willingness to meet some of the demands held by Davis will go a long way in repairing the relationship. The forum would also provide a neutral field for the airing of the suggestions that he holds avoiding future conflicts. Conclusion The methods incorporated by the two are both convenient for attaining company goals and the conflict is resolvable if only the two take steps to mend the relationship. Although the two may use different methods, both share the goals of seeing the company succeed. The conflict resulted from the differences existing between them. The beliefs shared by Green caused him to act in mannerisms that negate from the expectation held by Davis. The modes of handling of the case by McDonald and Davis portray them to having different underlying agendas. The cracks in the working relationship are amendable if the two take positive steps towards the reform. References Beckham, H. and Sasser, W. (2013). Thomas Green: Power, Office Politics, and a Career in Crisis. [online] Retrieved from: http://s3.amazonaws.com/docuum/attachments/6083/Thomas%20Greene.pdf?1299470546 [Accessed: 25 Nov 2013].  Hbr.org (2013). HBR Case Study: Challenge the Boss or Stand Down?. [online] Retrieved from: http://hbr.org/2011/05/hbr-case-study-challenge-the-boss-or-stand-down/ar/1 [Accessed: 25 Nov 2013].  Pfe?eri, J., Falcone, P. and Sasser, W. (2013).Challenge The Boss or Stand Down?. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.inepan.waw.pl/pliki/studia_podyplomowe/mba/Business [Accessed: 25 Nov 2013]. Read More