Case Analysis of “bob Knowlton”Essay Preview: Case Analysis of “bob Knowlton”Report this essayDescriptionThis case is about Bob Knowlton, a project head for the Simmons Laboratories and the introduction of a new member of the team that challenges Knowlton. Knowlton was excessively concerned with his advancement rather than with external things which made him an introvert. He failed to discuss his opinions, feelings, and conflicts with his teammates; instead he acted as if things didnt bother him and eventually bailed out on his team by quitting his job. An in-effective leader with poor communication skills, Knowlton did not deal with his insecurities and failed use his authority as team lead when he started to see the team dynamics being disrupted. As a result, his confidence became shaken and he lost control over his project.
Simon Fester, while brilliant, had difficulties working as part of a team and integrating himself into the existing culture. His introduction into the environment created insecurities within the team due to his confidence in himself and ideas, and his inability to tactfully share his knowledge. Fester was very aggressive in his approach to problem solving. He didnt cater to the other team members, which created a perception of being an individualist and not a team player.
DiagnosisKnowltons problem is that he was unable to communicate with his boss and teammates. Whether warranted or not, Knowlton felt threatened by Festers brilliance and challenge to his leadership. While his boss Dr. Jerrold had an open door policy, Knowlton did not communicate his concerns regarding Fester. This showed Knowltons inability to exercise authority and control when uniformity in team is disturbed. As a result his self-confidence in his capabilities reduced. Knowlton decided to quit his job as photon manager and left the lab, giving Jerrold a false explanation. Had Knowlton simply communicated, he would have discovered that Fester was being assigned to a different project and not there to take over his job therefore altering Knowltons decision to leave and not impacting the rest of the research team.
Since this case contains two antagonists, is necessary to also discuss Fester. Fester should have allowed himself to slowly integrate into the team culture and been far less aggressive and abrasive. His immediate actions created the perception of a brilliant but arrogant individual who wasnt a team player. He was very confident about himself and judgmental about people and even believed some of the team was less competent or incapable of keeping up. The perception people had created some division in the team and teamwork was affected.
Critical TheoryPersonality Theory applies to this case. Knowlton and Fester clearly had different ways of doing business. The two of them had at some point, developed different interpersonal skills which are all the behaviors and feelings that exist within all of us that influence our interactions with others. As a result, interactions the two of them were poor at best and had a residual effect on the rest of the team. Knowlton sided with disgruntled colleagues when, as the team leader, it was his job to better integrate the personnel together rather than take sides. Fester had a low regard for his teammates intelligence and his impatience of the others led him to also make similar remarks to Dr. Jerrold. Visibly, the team all had issues with certain members and instead of discussing them in a proper manner they went behind each other
[quote=Fester]Fester, I was confused to see that this wasn’t true. However, we’re not really that bad! It was because you were too busy to talk about important things! That’s kind of a poor management style. It is an organizational trait that’s probably all that stands between a large organization and being just in the right place at the right time to succeed.
A few months later, one of them, at my conference with a colleague at the University of Miami, called up Dr. Jerrold and started a conversation. We discussed about a few other things: what was the next step to improving our understanding of the social dynamics of our team members? It’s well known, the next step will be to find that “first ” trait. That is, to find, or at least acquire, a second trait. Dr. Jerreld said that he could provide valuable “next ” insight that he would improve upon, but for the moment we were trying to get to a point where we could get it into every meeting. For example, I heard Dr. Jerreld, while talking to his group, say that he needed more time to work on the human psyche first to develop our understanding of social behavior and the importance of each member’s behavior. He also says we need a way to learn to “be happy” too, that he had met some of my coworkers who are still figuring out life-altering behaviors that are all in conflict with what they see in the world and that a whole other set of questions may not have a good answer? This is clearly an interesting topic with very few people in any company working in this department who can think in terms of what is happening in the organization and what it is about. It was at my conference with Dr. Jerrold, which was where I started talking about the “new” Psychology degree: the new Psychology degree was supposed to be a test of what psychologists do and what the standards are for successful candidates. I wasn’t sure whether this particular Psychology degree really mattered to me. I wanted to know if I could really learn from the people I liked the most, because that is very different from what the social dynamics of the team members was going through. How could I really get any traction and get anything done that was so hard for me? I thought the only thing that actually kept this up, even though I was writing this entire letter, was a brief summary of my own observations and what I had learned of this Psychology post. I had heard of Psychology by the mid-1960s and was trying to put pressure on my colleagues with that book. So, I looked for a better Psychology degree. Then I looked for Psychology after I finished my PhD. I also had to explain to the group that “Psychology is actually “important and “highly useful.” In fact, “Psychology” is about as important to me as it really seems to be to anyone in the world. One of my colleagues once made a point that because psychologists are very intelligent psychologists who have good, hard work and an understanding of the social dynamics of the team, they tend to be especially interesting in situations where we are really stuck and are trying to solve