When Key Employees Clash: Case Study
The Issue
Though the issue looked like personal conflicts on the face, it actually stems from the friction between two departments fundamentally different in their working methods and thought processes. The fact that the two managers, Ellen and Ronnie, with different working styles leading these two departments has only compounded the problem. Ellen’s complaint was that Ronnie’s team is not sending their timesheets in time, which is leading to late payments from the insurer and shortage in cash flow. Even Ronnie acknowledges this but the solution appears to be different in each other’s minds. Ronnie is adamant that they just need more time, while Ellen is saying that genuine effort is required, not just time extensions. As much as possible, company should not leave any process to individual’s judgment. As long as the company does not have a proper procedural framework to ensure both the silos work together, any personnel change will not work. Company’s leadership should stop this before it trickles down to individual team members and takes a dangerous transition as a war between two departments that are key components in the organizational setup. Each of three main characters played their own role in jeopardizing the healthy working environment.
Matt’s Contribution
Mathew’s biggest fault was not to clearly stating the business mission of the company because that is what employees such as Ellen (who will go by the rules) will refer to repeatedly. By trying to run Florida business from Chicago, he gave the impression that profits are most important and do not care about smaller details of how Florida managers conducted business. If only he had been in Florida, he might have been able to cut this issue in its grass roots without letting it go out of bounds. Moreover, he promoted Ronnie to a managerial position for the first time based on this exceptional performance over the time and did not emphasize on proper transitional training to Ronnie. He just assumed
Though the issue looked like personal conflicts on the face, it actually stems from the friction between two departments fundamentally different in their working methods and thought processes. The fact that the two managers, Ellen and Ronnie, with different working styles leading these two departments has only compounded the problem. Ellen’s complaint was that Ronnie’s team is not sending their timesheets in time, which is leading to late payments from the insurer and shortage in cash flow. Even Ronnie acknowledges this but the solution appears to be different in each other’s minds. Ronnie is adamant that they just need more time, while Ellen is saying that genuine effort is required, not just time extensions. As much as possible, company should not leave any process to individual’s judgment. As long as the company does not have a proper procedural framework to ensure both the silos work together, any personnel change will not work. Company’s leadership should stop this before it trickles down to individual team members and takes a dangerous transition as a war between two departments that are key components in the organizational setup. Each of three main characters played their own role in jeopardizing the healthy working environment.
Matt’s Contribution
Mathew’s biggest fault was not to clearly stating the business mission of the company because that is what employees such as Ellen (who will go by the rules) will refer to repeatedly. By trying to run Florida business from Chicago, he gave the impression that profits are most important and do not care about smaller details of how Florida managers conducted business. If only he had been in Florida, he might have been able to cut this issue in its grass roots without letting it go out of bounds. Moreover, he promoted Ronnie to a managerial position for the first time based on this exceptional performance over the time and did not emphasize on proper transitional training to Ronnie. He just assumed