Introduction – Case Summary
Carnegie Industrial is one of the biggest corporations in the US with over USD$ 125 million turnover and 45, 000 employees globally. The company started as a producer of engineering and construction equipment and further expanded in consulting business. The aggressive inorganic growth strategy through acquisitions made the organization face challenges, related to cultural diversity, as it experienced the mix of at least four different cultures among its people. To address the issue, the company opened doors to Leadership Development Center (LDC), but it failed to deliver the results under the previous management. Elizabeth Silver, the Director, decided that it was time for a change and brought Copley as the Head of the program. Galvin, more experienced and older professional was given a part-time role of Assistant Director.
When the management announced the budget cuts for the next year, outlining the fact that the performance of LDC program was excellent and thus it will not be cut, but instead will remain with the same budget, Copley brought the news to Galvin, who received the news about impossibility to give him a full-time position in as personal offence. After the performance appraisal session, where Copley gave Galvin an outstanding grade, Galvin expected to get a full-time role, which she did not confirm due to budget limitations. Later, Galvin challenged Copley in an informal “corridor” meeting, giving and ultimatum of resignation if she does not confirm that sooner or later Galvin will have a full-time role.
Key Issues of the Case
The current case dwells upon the change management initiative to assign a new leadership to LDC and internal conflict of interests and interpersonal relationships between suitable for candidates for the position of LDC Director, Ms. Copley, and Mrs. Galvin. While the cased builds on several typical challenges, which companies face during growth spurts, such as the re-thinking or organizational culture, management of diversity, emotional intelligence training and employee development, conflict of interests among different stakeholders and other, the central issues, which should be discussed in view of the facts, presented in the case is the relationships issue and the degree of acceptance of the Copley’s leadership style by her team. The point that should be made here is that Copley was placed in the position, where her experience and theoretical education were not enough to immediately recognize and effectively address such elements of teams’ interpersonal relationships as (1) generation gap, (2) conflict of interests on vertical and horizontal levels and (3) the acceptance of leadership approach. The key issues, therefore, can be summarized as follows:
Difference in agenda between Copley and Galvin;
Perception issues between the Director and Assistant Director;
The lack of feedback and open communication channel in the department.
The Facts of the Case
It is evident from the case, that the change in leadership for LDC department came because of a larger organizational transformation. Acquisitions and growth of Carnegie resulted in significant changes in organizational culture and composition of employees and, thus, the company needed to address these changes and become more responsive and innovative in their Human Response Management (HRM). Because of the growing misunderstanding and unexpressed frustration between Copley and Galvin, Galvin became out-group and challenges to build his relationships both, horizontally with the four members of the group, and vertically, with Copley herself. The tension between the two continued to grow, until the point where Galvin and Copley had a disagreement on the chain of command and Galvin came directly to Silver.
Leadership Theory
The case outlines outgoing personality of Corley, who is young, energetic and applies transformational leadership in terms of giving individuals the sense of belonging and responsibility. This is evident from the facts that she was always articulate and approachable, preferred addressing her colleagues and subordinates by name, informal meetings, and open-door policy. The informal business approach, coupled with encouragement of individuals to show their ideas, express their personality and preference for personal meetings and email to traditional staff meetings, adopted by Copley, talk in favor of Leader-Member Exchange (LME) Theory (Northhouse, 2015).
The LMX theory is often compared to transformational leadership in many ways as it is grounded on the assumption that the interpersonal contact and relationships with individuals are based on incentives, performance-based and personalized approach, common to transactional leadership theory. The LMX Theory, however, rejects the assumption that effective ladders treat their followers collectively and, thus, suggests the relationship-based approach based on two-way, or dyadic, relationships (Northhouse, 2015).
The Analysis
The heart of the issue, developed in the case is the relationship. The situation in which the company and Copley found themselves is not spontaneous or unexpected. The issue was growing big over the year, when in April 2006, Elizabeth Silver named Shannon Copley a Director for LDC. It is important to see the multifaceted nature of the relationships issues, which developed in the department, including the (1) job satisfaction, (2) empowerment issues, (3) conflict of interest, (4) career expectations, (5) low interpersonal leader-member exchange. On one side, the decision about the distribution of the roles in the department made Galvin, who was with the company for longer and has more senior age report to Copley, young and ambitious “new-comer". This illustrates the clear conflict of interests between Generation X and Generation Y in the case (Mabey and Finch-Lees, 2008). Secondly, it is evident that the “distribution of power” is also in favor of Copley, who works in a team of young professionals in their 20s and 30s, more inclined to LMX leadership style than traditionalistic and risk-averse Galvin. Finally, there is a clear conflict of expectation, as Galvin is seeking to more security and confidence in his future with the company while working in a part-time role. Evidently, Galvin starts feeling himself in a "shade" of Copley, building on conspiracy theory and looking for opportunities elsewhere, such as soliciting offers from other employers at the conference in March 2007.
The issue developed because of three core mistakes, which include (1) the lack of communication, (2) the lack of mutual trust and respect, (3) the emergence of the in-group and out-group phenomenon. It is not possible to clearly choose the unique one in the blame for the situation.t is clear from the case that Copley failed to build on strong leader-member when she entered the department and the company with her new rules and approach, appealing to younger generations. The success of her as a leader can be attributed not only to her excellent innovation management capabilities and project management skills but also to the fact that, working in a small team, she managed to avoid a larger-scale conflict of interests arising from the mix of generations and cultures in the company. Copley promoted diversity on the global organizational scale through "communication" program. She understood the issue of Leadership development on the institutional level, seeking for skills improvement and bringing in language and culture-based solutions. She, however, failed to benefit from the internal diversity of her own team and address the short-term benefits of over-motivated young team members, who helped to complete for the program at a lower budget, working overtime. Galvin, on the other hand, appeared weak in communicating her view and bringing her experience and diversity element to the group, allowing to become and out-group. The manager in her position and experience in HR department cannot underestimate the critical importance of communication and feedback. In conclusion, Galvin, and Copley, both failed to build on strong working relationships. Individuals with radically different personal and professional backgrounds, lacked the emotional intelligence to build on coalition and avoid a serious relationships issue (West and Turner, 2009).
Conclusion and Recommendations
First, the preparation for the difficult conversation is not a question of one day and not the even week. It is not possible to derive clearly from the case, but it is possible to assume that Galvin was not prepared for newly adopted performance review approach and mutual feedback, based on horizontal and vertical approach. Coming from the generation of traditional HR professional, Galvin naturally builds on the field of resistance to such changes, as they make her feel not respected and not trusted. To prepare for the difficult conversation and confront Galvin prior to her final challenge, I would ensure that regular feedback session between two of us is conducted and known to Galvin along with the potential improvement and change management strategy in our relationships. I would mean, that I would have to one by one address the following issues:
Galvin’s negative attitude towards the fact that she must report to Copley;
Galvin’s rebellion and refusal to follow the orders;
Consider the intrinsic issues of motivation of Galvin, such as feeling excluded and unappreciated;
The importance of the full-time position;
References
West, R. and Turner, L.H. (2009). Understanding Interpersonal Communication: Making Choices in Changing Times. London: Cengage Learning.
Mabey, C. & Finch-Lees, T. (2008). Management and Leadership Development. London: Sage Publications.
Northouse, P.G. (2015). Leadership. Theory and Practice. (7th Edn). London: Sage Publications
