Case 6 Jeffrey Smith
1. How would you characterize the problem Smith is having with Johnson? Describe the context and the issues in the case from a managerial point of view.
Smith has a substantive conflict with his subordinate Johnson; they have strong differences about IMC’s strategy. Smith only uses his formal authority to get the issue solved and his point of view intact, whereas Johnson isolates himself in his department and tries to compete with his hierarchy and Wilson’s department.
2. How could Smith have "managed" Johnson and his expectations more effectively from the beginning?
After the first session where Johnson suggested IMC should increase the mutual fund management activity, Smith did not give any news or thought about Johnson’s wish to expand the fund portfolio; leaving him waiting and thinking hard without any consideration from him. Smith only turned to Wilson and dismissed Johnson that might appear as rude, because he obviously avoided the issue. He could have respected what he said first and continue to look at Johnson’s suggestion. Moreover, he could have scheduled one or more meetings with Smith and the portfolio managers to express why the company should not expand his mutual fund management activity.
3. Analyze the case from a "power" perspective - organizational, managerial, personal, and interpersonal.
Smith
Johnson
Vertical
Authority
Control
Centrality
Size of his unit
Horizontal
Integration role
Involved in strategic contingencies
Teams (portfolio managers)
Involved in core capabilities
Perceived as useful (performance)
Personal
Formal authority
Autonomy (runs 10 portfolios)
Relevance
Effort (growth)
Attractiveness (towards subordinates)
Track record
Organizational
Culture
Politics
Success
Relationships (inside & outside)
Interpersonal
Assertive/Openly aggressive
4. How might Johnson have been more influential in getting what he wanted from Smith?
He should have tried to set up meetings with Smith and come with arguments regarding Wilson’s
Smith has a substantive conflict with his subordinate Johnson; they have strong differences about IMC’s strategy. Smith only uses his formal authority to get the issue solved and his point of view intact, whereas Johnson isolates himself in his department and tries to compete with his hierarchy and Wilson’s department.
2. How could Smith have "managed" Johnson and his expectations more effectively from the beginning?
After the first session where Johnson suggested IMC should increase the mutual fund management activity, Smith did not give any news or thought about Johnson’s wish to expand the fund portfolio; leaving him waiting and thinking hard without any consideration from him. Smith only turned to Wilson and dismissed Johnson that might appear as rude, because he obviously avoided the issue. He could have respected what he said first and continue to look at Johnson’s suggestion. Moreover, he could have scheduled one or more meetings with Smith and the portfolio managers to express why the company should not expand his mutual fund management activity.
3. Analyze the case from a "power" perspective - organizational, managerial, personal, and interpersonal.
Smith
Johnson
Vertical
Authority
Control
Centrality
Size of his unit
Horizontal
Integration role
Involved in strategic contingencies
Teams (portfolio managers)
Involved in core capabilities
Perceived as useful (performance)
Personal
Formal authority
Autonomy (runs 10 portfolios)
Relevance
Effort (growth)
Attractiveness (towards subordinates)
Track record
Organizational
Culture
Politics
Success
Relationships (inside & outside)
Interpersonal
Assertive/Openly aggressive
4. How might Johnson have been more influential in getting what he wanted from Smith?
He should have tried to set up meetings with Smith and come with arguments regarding Wilson’s