Discussion Questions for Part (A)
1. Is Peter Smith micromanaging Keith Schmidt?
Reading this case, I believe that Peter Smith was not trying to micromanage Keith Schmidt. Conflict accrued due to Smith’s desire for his power as a chairman to be recognized and taken into consideration, rather than control Schmidt’s work. Since parties had different viewpoints on the financial abilities of the museum and the rate it should grow, they failed to cooperate to reach the results that satisfy the interests of both sides.
2. What type of conflict are they experiencing?
Smith and Schmidt experiencing power conflict that is based on individual differences. Schmidt believes that being an executive director and having 12-year work experience as a director …show more content…
This should eliminate the conflicts on how the final decisions should be made and who has the final authority in executing them.
4. How should Peter Smith react when his advice is not followed by the board?
Peter Smith should not take any board decisions personally. Every board member is here to support the museum’s mission statement and has the best intentions for the future of the museum. If board did not follow Smith’s advice, he needs to respect their vote power as much as he expects for his decisions to be respected in return. In my opinion Smith acted very unprofessionally by disappearing from the Chicago art community and not answering calls.
5. How are the roles of board chairman and an executive director different in an organization such as the MCA?
Executive director is responsible for daily operations of the facility and to make proposals to the board when it comes to making major decisions. A board chairman’s role is to keep executive director accountable and represent boards votes when executing major decisions for an …show more content…
She would have to based her case on the fact that unfulfilled $ 5 million pledge is the reason why the museum is in the financial crisis that potentially can lead to its bankruptcy. Even though from the legal viewpoint the case sounds reasonable, the fact that Fischer is aware of the Smith’s major health problems should be a big factor in making the decision to take this to the court. I totally agree with Jennifer Lee and John Stuart that not only this will ruin relationship Smith has with the museum and his future donations, but it could also influence how the other donors perceive MCA. Focusing on the relationships rather than current cash collections will help the museum financially in the long run.
Other step Peggy Fischer could take is to approach Smiths personally after hearing better news about Peters health. Meanwhile she should stop the construction of the new building that they cannot afford and try to find other donors or resources to finance their future vision for the museum.
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
1. Is Peter Smith micromanaging Keith Schmidt?
Reading this case, I believe that Peter Smith was not trying to micromanage Keith Schmidt. Conflict accrued due to Smith’s desire for his power as a chairman to be recognized and taken into consideration, rather than control Schmidt’s work. Since parties had different viewpoints on the financial abilities of the museum and the rate it should grow, they failed to cooperate to reach the results that satisfy the interests of both sides.
2. What type of conflict are they experiencing?
Smith and Schmidt experiencing power conflict that is based on individual differences. Schmidt believes that being an executive director and having 12-year work experience as a director …show more content…
This should eliminate the conflicts on how the final decisions should be made and who has the final authority in executing them.
4. How should Peter Smith react when his advice is not followed by the board?
Peter Smith should not take any board decisions personally. Every board member is here to support the museum’s mission statement and has the best intentions for the future of the museum. If board did not follow Smith’s advice, he needs to respect their vote power as much as he expects for his decisions to be respected in return. In my opinion Smith acted very unprofessionally by disappearing from the Chicago art community and not answering calls.
5. How are the roles of board chairman and an executive director different in an organization such as the MCA?
Executive director is responsible for daily operations of the facility and to make proposals to the board when it comes to making major decisions. A board chairman’s role is to keep executive director accountable and represent boards votes when executing major decisions for an …show more content…
She would have to based her case on the fact that unfulfilled $ 5 million pledge is the reason why the museum is in the financial crisis that potentially can lead to its bankruptcy. Even though from the legal viewpoint the case sounds reasonable, the fact that Fischer is aware of the Smith’s major health problems should be a big factor in making the decision to take this to the court. I totally agree with Jennifer Lee and John Stuart that not only this will ruin relationship Smith has with the museum and his future donations, but it could also influence how the other donors perceive MCA. Focusing on the relationships rather than current cash collections will help the museum financially in the long run.
Other step Peggy Fischer could take is to approach Smiths personally after hearing better news about Peters health. Meanwhile she should stop the construction of the new building that they cannot afford and try to find other donors or resources to finance their future vision for the museum.
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