It also shows up as a poor attitude about quality. Quality is viewed as an add on, inspected in, and is an impedance to doing their job. Proper training is not viewed as a prerequisite to start a job which leads to unqualified people performing processes. This fundamental problem also creates an entire host of other problems. These problems, as stated in the case study, include: lack of purchasing, design, and testing processes, inspections that are after the fact with out in-process controls or feed back loops.
Under this situation, the hard working did not earn any appraise for him, instead of reward, the unexpected discontinue made him feel not being fully respect. Therefore, he felt “lose face” and being distrust. However, on the other side, Charles Tang perceived different message through the lack of communication. In Charles mind, Yong Li, as a talent manager, disobeyed the corporate norms and culture. In reality, stereotypes are sufficiently subjective that emotions can negatively distort the meaning of an opponent’s actions, thereby gradually generating perceptions of conflicts (Sandra, 2009).
This created confusion of reporting responsibilities, political tension, and reluctance to take responsibility and action. To address the main problem Erik Peterson is inexperienced and this shows in his incapacity to handle various situations in the case. He lacks the support of the upper management (Jenkins and Hardy), and does not reach out for help among his peers( Green,Cantor) He also has to face insubordination,Curt Andrew being the prime accused in this case. He also faces the Turn on Deadline 1) Lack of communication from frontline workers to Curt Andrews (and thus Erik) in providing tower building status, updates, or needs. Erik seems hampered at quickly knowing exactly where the 21 towers stand.
Since this system was organized by an internal authority, it did not work too well. People in controls were on the same level so alliances were formed. They were not honest with reviews and the average workers were fearful to report and wrong doing to the superiors in fear of angering the higher ups. This dishonesty started the downward spiral of the unstable culture. 2) Discuss whether Enron’s officers acted within the scope of the authority.
As a result, sender was upset over not receiving the information he actually needed. | Subordinate did not run the report he was asked to run and instead began to run another one, the Daily Transaction Report, believing that this alternate report would give him the same information as the one he was actually asked to reference. In reality, these reports do not disclose the same information. Consequently, the inventory balances were off. | How could the misunderstanding have been avoided?
What Arendt is inherently saying about Eichmann when she states that he acted out of sheer thoughtlessness is that he is not thinking or what can also be said is that he suffers from lack of thought. Eichmann was thoughtful as an administrator to which it’s true that he could deal with lots of complicated details, but overall to her, Eichmann is not thinking. For Arendt, thinking involves on the spot judgment and the ability to take another’s viewpoint into consideration. This is something that she thinks Eichmann lacks. For instance, in her book she states that this is a flaw where he, Eichmann, cannot take another fellow’s point of view and her example is in relation to when he was working in Vienna.
This made them lose to Reliant in every concession and they gave up too easily due to the fact that they had not prepared.Also, they gave the power to Reliant early on in the negotiation which affected them as they were doing whatever Relaint asked of them.Another blaring flaw in their negotiation strategy was that even though they knew that the forcast figures stated by Reliant were overstated, still they didn’t do anything. In short there negotiation strategy was nothing, as they had not prepared for such an outcome so they did not have a negotiaiton strategy in such a
As such, I feel that Ford and Firestone handled stakeholder issues poorly, and although certain measures were implemented after the incident, I feel that they were insufficient, tardy and unhelpful in regaining customer loyalty. As a result, outcomes of the crisis were less than desirable. From this, we are able to gain many valuable lessons so that these mistakes would not have been made in vain. The largest shortcoming of how Ford and Firestone handled the situation was that they refused to accept responsibility for the product failure. Instead, they shifted the blame to each other, citing the wrong tyre pressure as a reason.
They are also the know-it-alls we meet everyday who really know very little and add little value. In trying to address these questions, I come upon a possible answer, the Dunning-Kruger effect. David Dunning and Justin Kruger identified a problem in the perception of incompetents that causes them to overate their abilities and not be able to recognize mistakes. This can weaken the real competent folks' self-confidence, since they may falsely assume that others have equal abilities. David Dunning and Justin Kruger