Paul Hardy Case

Paul Hardy’s case is a really intriguing dilemma. Hardy clearly meets Zaleznik’s definition of a compulsive employee: he has excessive doubts about his career and his future. He exhibits a reversal of attitude pattern: first he wanted a promotion , then he wished for an equivalent position and finally he wanted to know more about opportunities outside P&C. Moreover, by blaming Williams for his situation, Hardy was clearly refusing to accept responsibility for his own actions . Most importantly, he is a manipulative subordinate. Not only did he keep asking questions when Chorley was clearly uncomfortable with the situation but he also spiced things up when he started crying and effectively casted doubt on Chorley . Also, Hardy’s past behaviour as evidenced by the Coventry incident when he fouled his superiors twice is another clear sign of manipulation. On top of that, Hardy sent multiple medical notes to justify his stay at home due to depression, but was found playing cricket and achieving a good batting average for his village team.
Although Hardy is a problematic analyst, he is clearly a victim of mismanagement.
While managing my business, I was confronted twice to the same situation. I had two subordinates ; X and Y, who were compulsive, problematic and casted doubt on me. Their job was satisfactory in terms of quality , but not productivity. We wanted to get rid of them, but couldn’t because of their empty “dossiers”. As a result we had no choice but to keep X and Y. We deviated from our management style (autonomy) to accommodate their needs by closely monitoring and guiding them; thinking it would align them with the rest of our employees. After 6 months, the plan worked extremely well for X who became more productive and independent. However, despite our rehabilitation efforts, Y’s situation deteriorated and we fired him thanks to the dossier we had