Office Politics Promotions and Office Politics Office Politics Case Study
In a case study ofoffice politics, Thomas Green of Dynamic Displays finds himself engrossed in drama as he struggles to meet the expectations of a boss whose power was superseded in his hiring. Green’s boss Frank Davis would have normally hired for Green’s position; Davis’ boss McDonald had hired Green instead. Although the case study advises the reader that McDonald warned Green that he would be in a “sticky situation” her intentions in putting him in the situation are ambiguous leaving the reader to make their own assumptions (Sasser & Beckham, 2008, p. 3). At best the reader can assume that McDonald’s agenda was to advance the company objectives and she felt that Green was the best new hire for the team although she must have known that he was not a team player.
This hiring situation puts Green in an awkward position with Davis and off on a bad foot from the get go. Davis’s expectations were not only very different from what Green anticipated would be expected of him but it also seemed that Davis may have expected Green to perform better than what would have normally been expected considering the hiring circumstances. In addition to this subliminal expectation on the part of Davis, he also seemed to have a very different work style than Green. While Green wanted the freedom to be creative and go where he deemed best on any given day, Davis wanted Green to report frequently and post to hisOutlook calendarwhenever he changed his schedule (Sasser & Beckham, 2008, p. 4). Although this was clearly a cultural norm for the whole of the organization, Green did not seem to care and was determined to do things his own way. This could have been a reflection of Green’s age or a character flaw in general; regardless it was not a smart move for Green as a new employee hired in by the boss’s boss.
It would appear that the individual agenda of Green was to build and promote a new service that he was developing to impress the company. A sub agenda was to service his territory and up sales and it seemed Green had no agenda to impress Davis. On the contrary the individual agenda of Davis was to advance company objectives. At first glance the case study could also appear to elude to an agenda by Davis to get rid of Green based on the frequent emails sent from Davis to McDonald regarding Green however when one reflects on the cultural norms of Dynamic Displays one will note that Davis was simply following company protocol in his memos (Sasser & Beckham, 2008, p. 4). Likewise Green wished to be treated with freedom to do his job and report whenever he saw fit. Green appeared to want his job performance to be measured by sales and end results rather than communication efforts and supervisor subordinate relationship. Green also seemed to expect that he would launch this creative pet project and it would be so successful that his neglect of company policy and blatant insubordination would be overlooked (Sasser & Beckham, 2008, p. 2). Davis prefers to want adequate control of Green through frequent communication and careful monitoring.
The case study also reflected a poor deploy of power on the part of both men. Davis leads from a source of French and Raven’s legitimate position power and Green offered a counter veiling power through information control and perhaps even some expert knowledge in that he knows his customer base (McShane & Von Glinow, 2008). Green is clearly annoyed by office politics and rather than taking the time to learn about the culture of this particular firm he chooses to ignore the cultural norms and values that existed. Although Green was acting in insubordination by not following Davis’ orders to report more frequently and update his information, facts and figures; Davis was inefficient in his methods of power deployment (McShane & Von Glinow, 2008). While Davis was within his company policies and protocol in using his legitimate power to try and control Green’s behavior, he did not reflect a model that displayed the positive side of power and he never seems to reach the intended results. Rather than building an alliance with Green, Davis chooses to rely on his legitimate power rather thanin leadership, producing intimidation and focusing on compliance which further agitated Green. Davis would have been much better off had he chosen to down play his legitimate power and focus on coercion and reward.
Davis could have offered help with Green’s special pet project in exchange for Green completing these seemingly mundane tasks for Davis; this would have deployed both the short-term use of coercion as well as long-term referent power should the project become a success (McShane & Von Glinow, 2008). Helping others to success is a win/win situation and a good way to build long-term referent power because people respect leaders that can help them become successful. Because positive leadership requires “goal agreement,” Davis would have had to offer this at the beginning for this situation requires some level of relationship, an alliance that clearly did not exist for Green and Davis toward the end of the case study (McShane & Von Glinow, 2008). Davis could have offered rewards, such as commission, based on Green’s reports rather than sales totals. Davis could have also used his legitimate power in a more positive way by addressing Green’s counter veiling attempt to sequester information by having an upfront discussion with him (McShane & Von Glinow, 2008). Davis could have said, “Green, I understand you have a level of expert knowledge but the company basis your performance on your reports not your sales numbers.”
The Thomas Green case study, while fictitious in reality, poses some very real office politics that every employee and employer should be aware of. The case study makes the reader aware that every office has a culture and a protocol that should never be completely ignored. As the character formation progresses throughout the case study one can examine the role that generational behavior often plays in office politics as well as the obvious and sometimes hidden agendas of bosses and employees alike. The Thomas Green case study gives readers an excellent rationale to never completely ignoreoffice politics.
References
McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2008). Organizational behavior (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Sasser, W. Earl & Beckham, Heather. (2008). Thomas green: power, office politics, and a career in
crisis. Harvard Business Publishing.
