• 100%原创包过,高质量代写&免费提供Turnitin报告--24小时客服QQ&微信:273427
    Whetten, D. A., & , Cameron, K. S. (2011). Developing Management Skills (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    The firm was incorporated in 1960 by a group of academic professionals who wanted to control the destiny of their retirement years. Through their nearly three decades in the business, they have weathered rapid social and technological change as well as economic volatility. Through it all, they have resisted opportunities to "make it big" and instead stayed with less profitable but secure investments.
    Dan Richardson is one of the original founders of EPI. The other partners, comfortable with Dan's conservative yet flexible nature, elected him to the position of CEO in 1975. Dan worked hard to make sure that all the partners were included in decisions and that strong relations were maintained. He took pride in his "people skills," and EPI's employees looked to Dan for leadership and direction.
    Dan's management philosophy is built on loyalty to the organisation, loyalty to its members, and loyalty to friends. Dan, bolstered by the support of the other founding members of EPI, continued the practice of consistent and safe investing. This meant maintaining low-risk investment portfolios with moderate income. However, EPI's growth increasingly has not kept pace with other investment opportunities. As a result, Dan began to consider the merits of a more aggressive investment approach. This consideration was further strengthened after some of the younger analysts left EPI for more aggressive firms.
    One evening, Dan talked about his concern with his squash partner and longtime friend, Mike Roth. Mike also happened to be an investment broker. After receiving his MBA, Mike went to work for a brokerage firm in New York. Everyone respected him for his knowledge, his work ethic, and his ability to predict trends. Mike knew what to do and when to do it. After only two years on the job, he was promoted to the position of portfolio manager. However, he had spent the last few years moving from firm to firm.
    When Mike heard Dan's concerns about EPI's image and need for an aggressive approach, he suggested that what EPI needed was someone who could infuse enthusiasm into the organisation – someone like him. He told Dan, "I can help you get things moving. In fact, I've been developing some concepts that would be perfect for EPI."
    Dan brought up the idea of hiring Mike at the next staff meeting, but the idea was met with caution and scepticism. "Sure, he's had a brilliant career on paper," said one senior partner. "But he's never stayed in one place long enough to really validate his success. Look at his resume. During the past seven years, he's been with four different firms, in four different positions."
    "That's true," said Dan, "but his references all check out. In fact, he's been described as a rising star, aggressive, productive. He's just what we need to help us explore new opportunities."
    "He may have been described as a star performer, but I don't feel comfortable with his apparent inability to settle down," said another. "He doesn't seem very loyal or committed to anyone or anything."
    Another partner added, "A friend of mine worked with Mike a while back and said that while he is definitely good, he's a real maverick in terms of both investment philosophy and lifestyle. Is that what we really want at EPI?"
    Throughout the discussion, Dan defended Mike's work record. He repeatedly pointed out Mike's impressive performance. He deflected concerns about Mike's reputation by saying that he was a loyal and trusted friend. Largely on Dan's recommendation, the other partners agreed, although somewhat reluctantly, to hire Mike.
    Mike took the job and performed his responsibilities in a superior manner. From the day he moved in, junior analysts enjoyed working with him very much. This caused jealousy among the other partners, who thought Mike was pushing too hard to change the traditions of the firm. It was not
    uncommon for sharp disagreements to erupt in staff meetings. Throughout this time, Dan tried to maintain an atmosphere of harmony and loyalty.
    Mike seemed oblivious to all the turmoil he was causing. He was optimistic about potential growth opportunities. He believed that computer chips, biotechnology, and laser engineering were the "waves of the future." Because of this belief, he wanted to direct the focus of his portfolio toward these emerging technologies. He rallied support for this idea not only among the younger members of EPI, but also with the pension fund managers who invested with EPI. "We should compromise on safety and achieve some real growth while we can," Mike argued. "If we don't, we'll lose the investors' confidence and ultimately lose them."
    Most of the senior partners disagreed with Mike, stating that the majority of their investors emphasized security above all else. They reminded Mike, "The fundamental approach of the corporation is to provide safe and moderate-income mutual funds for academic pension funds to invest in. That's the philosophy we used to solicit the investments originally, and that's the approach we are obligated to maintain."
    Many months passed, and dissension among the managers grew. Amidst a rapidly spreading undercurrent of tension, one of the founding partners, Tom Watson, approached Dan one day.
    "Dan, I speak for most of the senior staff when I say that we are very troubled by Mike's approach. We've expressed ourselves well enough for Mike to understand, but his actions defy everything we've said. He's a catastrophe just waiting to happen."
    "I can understand your concern, Tom," replied Dan. "I'm troubled, too. We have an opportunity to attract new business with some of Mike's new ideas. And the younger staff love working on his projects. But he has stirred up a lot of turmoil."
    Tom agreed. "The real issue is that EPI is no longer presenting a unified image. Mike is willfully defying the stated objectives of our organisation. And some of our oldest clients don't like that."
    "That's true, Tom. On the other hand, some of our newer clients are really encouraged by Mike's approach and his track record is extremely impressive."
    "Come on, Dan. Mike must either conform to the philosophy and management practices of this organisation or else resign."
    Reflecting on the situation, Dan realised he faced a difficult challenge. He felt a strong personal investment in helping Mike succeed. Not only had he hired Mike over the objections of several colleagues; he had personally helped him "learn the ropes" at EPI.
    Finally, bowing to the pressure of his peers, Dan called Mike in for a meeting.
    DAN: I gather you know the kinds of concerns the senior partners have expressed regarding your approach.
    MIKE: I guess you've talked with Tom. Well, we did have a small disagreement earlier this week.
    DAN: The way Tom tells it, you're wilfully defying corporate objectives and being insubordinate.
    MIKE: Well, it’s just like Watson to see progressive change as an attempt to take away his power.
    DAN: It's not quite that simple, Mike. When we founded EPI, we all agreed that a conservative stance was best. And right now, with the economic indicators looking soft, many experts agree that it may still be the best alternative.
    MIKE: Dan, what are you going to rely on—predictions or performance? These concerns are just smokescreens to deflect attention away from the weak performance of other portfolio managers.
    Old views need to be challenged and ultimately discarded. How else are we going to progress and keep up with our competitors?
    DAN: I agree we need to change, Mike—but gradually. You have great ideas and terrific instincts, but you can’t change a 30-year-old firm overnight. You can help me promote change, but you’re pushing so fast, others are digging in their heels. The rate of change is just as important as the direction.
    MIKE: You’re telling me. And at this rate, it doesn’t make much difference which direction we’re headed in.
    DAN: Come on, Mike. Don’t be so cynical. If you’d just stop rubbing people’s noses in your performance record and try to see things from their perspective, we could calm things down around here. Then maybe we could start building consensus.
    MIKE: I’ve always admired your judgment, and I value your friendship, but I honestly think you’re kidding yourself. You seem to think you can get this firm to look like it’s progressive without taking any risks or ruffling any feathers. Get off the fence, Dan, before your butt’s full of slivers.
    DAN: Mike, it simply isn’t that easy. I’m not EPI, I’m simply its caretaker. You know we make decisions around here by consensus; that’s the backbone of this organisation. To move ahead, the confidence of the others has to be won, especially the confidence of the seniors. Frankly, your reputation as a maverick makes it hard to foster confidence in, and loyalty to, your plans.
    MIKE: You knew my style when you hired me.
    DAN: Well, that may be true. But your flamboyance ...
    MIKE: Dan, performance is what counts. That’s what got me this far, and that’s my ticket out. You know I could walk into any firm in town and write my own plan.
    DAN: Well, there’s no reason to be hasty.
    MIKE: Do you honestly believe this can be salvaged? I think not. Maybe it’s time for me to be moving on. Isn’t that why you called me in here anyway?