I've read the case study about problem in MCA musuem. It was a classical conflict between the top management facing financial problems. I won't describe the case, but I'll try to answer questions.
Part A.
1. Is Peter Smith micromanaging Keith Schmidt?
In my opinion, yes he is. There should be a difference and division between job description for CEO and board chairman. Actually, when deciding about Schmidt choice, Smith should be aware that some of his decision power is gone. I think he may have some problems with that he's not anymore playing first fiddle.
2. What type of conflict they are experiencing?
They are experiencing interpersonal conflict, which comes from differences between their leadership and management style. Smith is risk - averse and more conservative, Schmidt likes to risk and is ambitious to reach his goals. What is more, Schmidt doesn't like being controlled, so he feels that Smith is not trusting him or that he's not capable of leading the organisation.
3. What can organization do structurally to reduce conflict resulting from role ambiguity?
The first and most important thing is to set up a meeting, where Smith and Schmidt can discuss their differences. Feedback would be very important for the MCA's katharsis. Without that, the conflict will grow - they'll have to face the snowball effect. Secondly, there should be strict rules which divide what board directors do and what the executives do.
4. How should Peter Smith react when his advice is not followed by the board?
First of all, he shouldn't be upset. It is good sometimes to admit, that you're not right, so he can show himself as a person who doesn't hold grudge. If that was the choice of whole top - management, so be it. The worst thing he can do is trying to prove everying, that they were not right. The only thing he can accomplish with this strategy is jeopardizing his relations.
5. How are the roles of board chairman and an executive director different in an organization such as the MCA?
Actually, and that is the major problem, they're not very different. The JD is not specified, so it was just a matter of time, when such conflict would occur. Board chairman should be more a counsellor - i perceive him as more like Gandalf for organiztion and CEO should be more like Aragorn. Two of them play crucial roles in MCA, but the second one is more in charge, so he should make decisions.
Parb B.
1. What alternative approaches should Peggy Fischer use to collect the unfulfilled pledge?
In my opinion, lawsuit is the worst option. First of all, I have some ethical doubts about it and secondly, it will last for a very long time. Mutual agreement (and I know this from the Suits TV show ;)) is always the best. She should meet with Smith and talk to him in presence of lawyers. Then she should come up with the settlement, which both sides would respect.
2. Should Fischer involve the board in further discussions leading to a decision about whether or not to file a lawsuit? Or should she formulate a recommendation on her own for the board's next meeting?
I think she should choose more autocratic leadership style. Board has shown that it has no will to be helpful and also they have different opinions. Actually the board is the least professional part of this organization. She should make decision on her own.
3. Do you think the museum should sue the Smits? Why or why not?
As I wrote before, I think that lawsuit is the worst option. First of all, it's unethical to sue someone, who contributed a lot to development of MCA. Cancer argument doesn't matter here actually. Smith was responsible for growth of entire organization and this organization wants to sue him. It's just simply unfair. Secondly, I think it will be a very long process and it's probable that it won't end with MCA's victory.
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz