Michael Hinske Case Summary

The case is about an employee by the name Michael Hinske who has been employed at St. Charles University in Calgary, to help with the Student Learning and Writing Services (SLWS) program. However, after being hired Hinske, does not perform according to the expectations and his job description. His interrelationship skills with other workers seem to be very poor. Hinske puts Tracy Chan, the managing director of SLWS at the University, in a difficult situation. After months in his work, Hinske emails Chan a list of faculty members he claims to have contacted for the SLWS graduate writing. However, to Chan’s surprise, the names emailed to her were what had already been started and very few of these names were Hinske’s work, from the faculty he had his Master’s degree. It was clear from the names on the list that Hinske had put very little effort in discussing the program with the departments in the campus as was expected. When he was hired six months earlier, Hinske was required to create workshops and links with the faculties within the university. This would greatly provide guidance while performing his responsibilities in the SLWS program. Nicole Duncan who is the Deputy Director in the Faculty of
Education Development Office (FEDO) seems to have conflict of interest on having Hinske employed and retain his position. Duncan’s influence starts when she restructures a funding request Chan had submitted earlier. In her funding request, Chan had requested for financial support for an extra employee to help with the SLWS, but the restructured funding request would see the newly hired employee working in both the SLWS and FEDO programs each week. Considering that the funding is made under Duncan’s name and has to oversee it, Duncan wanted to directly be involved in the recruitment. After Chan receives a list of resumes from potential candidates from the human resources office, Duncan sends her details of another candidate, Michael Hinske, whom she says has to be included in the group of potential candidates. After the interview, the most suitable candidate according to Duncan was Hinske, but Chan showed hesitation because he lacked some of the needed requirements such as formal training particularly on writing theory. While performing his work, Hinske seems not to actually know what is expected of him, but Duncan keeps praising him for his good work at FEDO which is not reflected while working at SLWS. Based on Hinske’s inability to fulfill his job expectations as given in the job description, Chan needed to carefully plan on the best course of action prior to confronting him.
Analysis of the Problem
Conflicts are inevitable in workplaces or situations where people spend a lot of time together. For this reason, it is very important to identify and manage conflicts to keep activities in the workplace running smoothly. From the case, one of the main factors that have contributed to the existing conflict is poor communication skills among the faculties in the campus. For instance, Chan was the first to make funding requests for the SLWS program from the VP’s office. Therefore, one would expect that any suggestions to changing the funding would be communicated to Chan, a discussion would then follow to agree the best way forward. However, this is not the case because after Duncan convinced VP on the need to collaborate units to share resources, the VPs office resubmits the funding through Duncan’s name without involving Chan in the process. Chan comes to learn of these changes almost a month later from FEDO, where Duncan is an assistant director. This could be translated as giving more authority to Duncan, who misused this authority for personal interest. Being in control of the budget, Duncan sends details of her preferable candidate, insists on being in the recruitment team, and finally makes sure that Hinske is hired for the position.
The VP’s office should be held responsible for the conflict. After receiving the restructured funding request that encouraged collaboration and resource sharing in the campus, Chan ought to have been informed of the suggested changes before implementation. The VP ought to have asked both Duncan and Chan to decide the best way the funding would be submitted and managed. By giving Chan and Duncan equal control of the funds, the VP would have helped in eliminating or reducing conflict of interest that Duncan seemed to have in the case.
Decision Criteria and Possible Options
 Cost effectiveness of the solutions
 Value of employee to the company and ability to complete tasks on time
 Demonstrate good team working skills
 Demonstrate good communication skills
 Addresses immediate and long-term issues
Possible Options
 Firing the underperforming employee.
By firing the employee who is unable to perform as expected in the workplace, this will offer a good opportunity to recruit another employee who fits in the position that Hinske is holding. The problem of this solution is that the offered funding could be taken away or the department would incur more expenses for repeating the recruitment process.
 Offering training to the employee. By offering the underperforming employee with the training he needs to improve performance, this could positively reflect on better fulfillment of tasks and responsibilities as given in the job description.
Recommended Solutions and
Justification
The problem has already been identified, Hinske’s poor performance, and the key player in this case is Chan. Solutions for this case could include using coaching approach, creating performance goals together, and adopting coercive style (Benincasa, 2012). Hinske is having trouble connecting with other workers and people in the university which is making it hard for him to perform as expected. As a result, using a coaching approach would present a good opportunity for reinforcing appropriate work behavior in the program. While coaching Hinske, Chan should provide clear feedback with respect to their behavior and inappropriate professional communication with other workers. In the case, Hinske makes irresponsible comments against Chan, but Chan fails to respond to irresponsible comments immediately. To help Hinske improve on his behavior, performance and the way he relates with other employees, it would be important that Chan addresses any negative issues (actions or behaviors) she would notice from him immediately. Similarly, Hinske’s poor performance can in a way be attributed to lack of adequate training since being hired in that position. For this reason, Chan could offer more training and coaching (when available) to Hinske.
It is also important that Chan sits down with Hinske to create performance goals and continuously monitor his progress. Chan should talk to Hinske and try identifying the skills and goals he would want to learn and achieve. This level of engagement will definitely motivate him to work harder for betterment. Finally, firing Hinske may not be a good solution considering the time it would take to advertise the vacancy until recruitment of a new employee. However, by applying coercive style, Chan would greatly contribute to improved performance. Since he was employed, Hinske has not been able to perform as expected and a different leadership approach could yield better results. There is a probability that Hinske does not see Chan as a legit authority figure which is affecting his performance, and Chan needs to be hard on him.
Implementation and Contingency Plan
The execution of the plan should take place immediately because inability of Hinske to perform as expected will have adverse effects on the program if not handled on time. The contingency plan should include the following steps.
 Identifying reasons that could be making the employee to underperform
 Planning to meet the underperforming employee.
 Confronting the employee for poor performance
 Changing the employee’s behavior and actions for better performance, and
 Monitoring the employee to assess his progress (How to manage poor performance in the workplace , 2017).
Conclusion
The main problem in this case is finding the best plan of confronting an employee who is underperforming based on his job description. Based on the case, Hinske was employed despite his lack of required qualifications. Duncan played a big role in ensuring that Hinske secured the job and this could suggest conflict of interest. The suggested solutions for this case include using coaching approach, creating performance goals together, and adopting coercive style.