1 . DESCRIPTION
This case is approximately a work staff that worked well together properly, bonded very well and felt comfortable about each other. All until somebody else (Fester) arrived to the company who had more relief of knowing that the leader of the group (Knowlton), creating a form of violence causing Knowlton to decide, and the group to be with out a leader.
2 . DIAGNOSIS.
The primary problem in the case was the not enough confidence Knowlton developed because of a new member to the business who had more knowledge to create to the table.
Knowlton was thankful for Fester’s method of the group- analyzed studies, defined the flaws inside the group, and new ways to deal with things. Additionally the group was not comfortable with the sum of knowledge Fester obtained leading to lack in work performance- unable to speak out their thoughts/opinion, act with hesitation, and less team conferences. Basically Intensify interfered using their normal program.
THEORY:
The theory behind all this was Intensify was allowed to be partnered program Knowlton to get an ideal of his work.
However , as a result of propinquity which Luthans explains as “individuals affiliate with each other because of partially or geographical proximity Fester got engaged by looking at previous report, leading him to raise concerns and concerns (2011). Furthermore, according to Newcomb’s stability theory of group formation, Fester and Knowlton would not have identical attitudes to common things and goals of the group causing a failure to connect.
Moreover, with Fester showing that good ideas that might have actually helped the group, the group did not want to make that effort to try to take that new strategy and was resistant to change. Luthans describes this since the punctuated equilibrium style, “groups kind in a initially phase in which a target or mission is set and then aren’t altered effortlessly due to a process called inertia, or methodical resistance to change (2011). Lastly Knowlton proven poor command skill by simply leaving the group rather than trying to stick it out.
four. PRESCRIPTION:
Short-run resolutions: Would be to find the group a fresh leader. Long term resolutions: Will be for Knowlton to realize his flaws being a leader. He has
self-efficacy up to the point that someone acquires more understanding. Knowlton must realize that there will always be someone who learn more. Furthermore the group must learn to adapt to change with out how to leave their convenience zones- alter their procedure, reach for more.
5. FALLOUT:
For Knowlton, if doesn’t change his ways he can never become a successful innovator and instead a failure (quitter) ” A true innovator does not back down or quit without a battle. Furthermore, in case the group don’t’ realize that things are bound to alter, then they also will never find an occupation that they will be happy with- businesses are developing and change is usually part of this.
References:
Luthans, Farrenheit., (2011). Advanced Organization Behavior MBA 633. McGraw-Hill Learning Solutions.
1
