Paul Hardy Case Analysis

532 Words3 Pages
The pathetic situation Paul Hardy was in apparently cannot blame all on himself or his bosses. However, as an employee, it is true that he did not fulfill his responsibility of work position, and he adopted a particularly passive way towards work when things aren't going well. Firstly, Paul lacks of responsibilities. He worked on his own schedule, and can’t keep his commitment. This is not a current issue, but also the same comment from his old manager. Paul seems don’t have the general view of the organization, but only cares himself. What even worse is that any feedback, negative or positive, from his boss can’t change his behavior. He suddenly disappeared for four months when he had discrepancy with his boss even when he is still on the project. All these show he is self-interested, and not regarding himself as a member of a organization. Secondly, Paul shows no honesty. He submitted medical certificates and disappeared from work, but found played in local cricket match, and “achieved a good batting average.” He had caught twice watching cricket at home from his last employment. He showed more passion towards cricket than work, while insist claim that he deserves promotion. Lying drove away the sympathy from his colleagues, and aroused resentment. Thirdly, Paul allowed his wife creating disturbance in the company, spreading his abnormal behavior at home and caused him in the center of attention, which also put his bosses in dilemma of how to dealing with his issue, and challenged their management credibility. Last and most important, he denied what he had done were wrong, and blamed all faults on his boss Sean Williams. He blamed William for creating the stress that prevented him from doing anything, and refused to take his responsibilities. Paul Hardy perfectly meets Zaleznik’s definition of compulsive subordinates. Foremost, he obsessive doubts his

More about Paul Hardy Case Analysis

Open Document