Dynamic Display, ironically enough, shows a dynamic display in the case of Thomas Green and Frank Davis. Looking at leadership, Frank Davis shows a “Team Management” style in the Blake Mouton Managerial Grid; however, his leadership style does not match well with Thomas Green’s worker readiness. Additionally, Frank Davis holds high personal power with his team, but he still needs to develop with Thomas Green. In relation to conflicts, Frank Davis and Thomas Green have blaring conflicts that need resolution; such as, Thomas Green’s disagreement with Frank Davis’s Budget Plan. These interpersonal conflicts arise from three main sources, affective, cognitive, and groupthink. By communication, Frank Davis and Thomas Green can resolve their conflicts
…show more content…
Green’s worker readiness can be classified as low to moderate readiness, referring to his low ability to perform tasks, but confidence in performing those tasks. Davis’s follows a telling leadership style; which would prove successful with Green if he lacked in confidence. Green’s lack of experience, but extreme confidence contradicts themselves and prove a challenge for Davis. Davis’s should use the selling leadership style as it will prove most successful for Thomas. Thomas showed dissent with Davis’s 2008 Budget Plan of 10% estimated growth (Beckham 4). Therefore, Davis would find most success in trying to sell Thomas on his objectives, instead of finding conflict with outspoken …show more content…
In the budget plan, Davis fails to get Green abroad and to accept the 10% expected growth. Davis would find great success in recalibrate that goal as an ongoing process, and not relying on his previous information to only set goals. However; in Davis’s first informal evaluation, he outlines the corrective measures and goals for Green to improve on. Davis comments in the email that, “(Green) assured me he will do what is necessary to succeed in his position,” showing that Green accepts the goals (Beckham 9). Davis could more success by addressing the email to Green, and asking for his response, a way of participating with employees, and they therefore feel included in the process. In the final meeting, Davis has success in Green conceding to his criticism. However, the goals are not specific as stated in Davis’s email, “He pledged to develop creative marketing approaches and keep me updated on his progress (Beckham 9).” Outlining specific goals like Davis did in his first email would help Green in his efforts to improve.
When looking at Thomas Green and Frank Davis, at lot of mistakes were made on either side. Ultimately though, much of the blame can be attributed to Green’s behaviors and actions. McDonald’s actions to put Green in the position are to blame too. If the conflicts are not resolved and Green leaves this position, Frank Davis should use
Green’s worker readiness can be classified as low to moderate readiness, referring to his low ability to perform tasks, but confidence in performing those tasks. Davis’s follows a telling leadership style; which would prove successful with Green if he lacked in confidence. Green’s lack of experience, but extreme confidence contradicts themselves and prove a challenge for Davis. Davis’s should use the selling leadership style as it will prove most successful for Thomas. Thomas showed dissent with Davis’s 2008 Budget Plan of 10% estimated growth (Beckham 4). Therefore, Davis would find most success in trying to sell Thomas on his objectives, instead of finding conflict with outspoken …show more content…
In the budget plan, Davis fails to get Green abroad and to accept the 10% expected growth. Davis would find great success in recalibrate that goal as an ongoing process, and not relying on his previous information to only set goals. However; in Davis’s first informal evaluation, he outlines the corrective measures and goals for Green to improve on. Davis comments in the email that, “(Green) assured me he will do what is necessary to succeed in his position,” showing that Green accepts the goals (Beckham 9). Davis could more success by addressing the email to Green, and asking for his response, a way of participating with employees, and they therefore feel included in the process. In the final meeting, Davis has success in Green conceding to his criticism. However, the goals are not specific as stated in Davis’s email, “He pledged to develop creative marketing approaches and keep me updated on his progress (Beckham 9).” Outlining specific goals like Davis did in his first email would help Green in his efforts to improve.
When looking at Thomas Green and Frank Davis, at lot of mistakes were made on either side. Ultimately though, much of the blame can be attributed to Green’s behaviors and actions. McDonald’s actions to put Green in the position are to blame too. If the conflicts are not resolved and Green leaves this position, Frank Davis should use