life separate. This bothered Keller. Keller wanted Petrou to be more out-going and to cultivate deeper relationships with employees and clients. Petrou wanted nothing to do with this strategy.
Emotions, attitudes and stress ran high throughout the case. As discovered in performance appraisal meetings between Keller and Petrou, Petrou always felt that Keller got involved where he shouldn’t. This upset Petrou, causing higher emotions and stress.
Getting back to the MARS model, we analyze the four factors that attribute to an employee’s individual behavior and performance: motivation, ability, role perceptions, and situational factors.
Motivation: It was made very clear in the beginning of the case that Keller was unhappy with Petrou’s performance. …show more content…
They both bring different positive influences to the company, but their different approach to business has caused a rift in their relationship. Keller has a more hands on approach and Petrou prefers to delegate some of his work to his subordinates and he also tends to over analyze his assignments for a extended period of time which causes deadline to expire. Keller has legitimate power because of his position and the mutual agreement of his authority. He also has reward power over Petrou because he has influence on rather or not Petrou can receive a salary increase. Finally, Keller has coercive power because he has the ability to apply punishment which he is contemplating on taking termination actions against Petrou. He also can apply unflattering performance reviews inside Petrou personnel file which can be viewed by leadership at the company headquarters. On the other hand Petrou has expert power because of his experience in the business and his analytical skills. Petrou also has substitutability because of the inexperience of Chorufas which means they have limited alternatives for someone to take over for Petrou. Furthermore, Petrou constant delegation his caused his subordinates to gain more experience and building relationships that may eliminate Petrou power of …show more content…
Keller wanted to convey his multi-faceted disappointment in Petrou, and Petrou though he deserved exemplary feedback on his review. Unfortunately, poor communication during the performance appraisal process helped pave the way for even more trying times between Wolf Keller and Dimitri Petrou. The performance appraisal is a codified process designed to communicate strengths and opportunities to employees. It serves as the primary performance interface between the individual and the organization. At Konigsbrau-Hellas, Wolf Keller was responsible for the performance review of his troubled manager, Dimitri Petrou. The performance review that Keller provided to Petrou only fueled the fire between the two employees and created more of a rift between them. Keller did not provide specific feedback and examples to support his negative comments of Petrou. His negative comments were generic, broad, and not supported by specific events. This made it easy for Petrou to disagree and hard for him to see specific ways to improve his performance. Furthermore, Keller hardly highlighted any of Petrou’s strengths, making the review overwhelmingly negative. By not offering timely, specific feedback, and by not balancing the appraisal with positive and negative comments, Keller put Petrou on the defensive right
Emotions, attitudes and stress ran high throughout the case. As discovered in performance appraisal meetings between Keller and Petrou, Petrou always felt that Keller got involved where he shouldn’t. This upset Petrou, causing higher emotions and stress.
Getting back to the MARS model, we analyze the four factors that attribute to an employee’s individual behavior and performance: motivation, ability, role perceptions, and situational factors.
Motivation: It was made very clear in the beginning of the case that Keller was unhappy with Petrou’s performance. …show more content…
They both bring different positive influences to the company, but their different approach to business has caused a rift in their relationship. Keller has a more hands on approach and Petrou prefers to delegate some of his work to his subordinates and he also tends to over analyze his assignments for a extended period of time which causes deadline to expire. Keller has legitimate power because of his position and the mutual agreement of his authority. He also has reward power over Petrou because he has influence on rather or not Petrou can receive a salary increase. Finally, Keller has coercive power because he has the ability to apply punishment which he is contemplating on taking termination actions against Petrou. He also can apply unflattering performance reviews inside Petrou personnel file which can be viewed by leadership at the company headquarters. On the other hand Petrou has expert power because of his experience in the business and his analytical skills. Petrou also has substitutability because of the inexperience of Chorufas which means they have limited alternatives for someone to take over for Petrou. Furthermore, Petrou constant delegation his caused his subordinates to gain more experience and building relationships that may eliminate Petrou power of …show more content…
Keller wanted to convey his multi-faceted disappointment in Petrou, and Petrou though he deserved exemplary feedback on his review. Unfortunately, poor communication during the performance appraisal process helped pave the way for even more trying times between Wolf Keller and Dimitri Petrou. The performance appraisal is a codified process designed to communicate strengths and opportunities to employees. It serves as the primary performance interface between the individual and the organization. At Konigsbrau-Hellas, Wolf Keller was responsible for the performance review of his troubled manager, Dimitri Petrou. The performance review that Keller provided to Petrou only fueled the fire between the two employees and created more of a rift between them. Keller did not provide specific feedback and examples to support his negative comments of Petrou. His negative comments were generic, broad, and not supported by specific events. This made it easy for Petrou to disagree and hard for him to see specific ways to improve his performance. Furthermore, Keller hardly highlighted any of Petrou’s strengths, making the review overwhelmingly negative. By not offering timely, specific feedback, and by not balancing the appraisal with positive and negative comments, Keller put Petrou on the defensive right