Essay, Pages 6 (1493 words)
Debbie is the Front of the House Manager of the Limoges Hotel and has been for six months. Her Assistant Front Office Manager, Judy has been there since the opening and is leaving to go to another city. Debbie then has to find another Front Office Manager. She has narrowed the candidates to three internal employees; Art, Megan, and Mona.
Art started eight months ago as a Front Desk Clerk at the hotel. He has limited experience, and never held a management position that was full time, although Debbie noticed his performance with customers, and feels confident in him.
Megan is a front desk clerk that has worked with the hotel since opening. She started in the accounting department and was then transferred to the front desk, then to senior clerk. Before the opening, she was unsuccessful in getting a managerial job in different departments at this hotel.
Mona is a reservationist that applied for the assistant front office manager. She has worked at the hotel longer than Art but only for three months.
She has previous managerial experience and error-free work in the reservations department. She thought that she was a shoe-in for the job.
Debbie interviewed each candidate and awarded the assistant front office manager to Art. She did not make a formal announcement to all the employees about Arts’ promotion, although he told the other candidates individually. Megan was upset but understood, although Mona was heated and attempted to argue that she was the best candidate for the job.
Mona argued that she was better because of performance, more experience, and she had been there longer. During the interview, Mona thought that Debbie was not listening and thought that the decision about the position was already made up. She was surprised that seniority was not the main factor in the decision, because at her previous job it was an important criterion. Mona also said the qualifications for the job were never made clear to the applicants.
The employees then found out that around the time of the promotion, Art moved into the same apartment building where Debbie lives. Mona then efficiently convinced most of the other front desk employees that she should have been promoted not Art. Art was known as an individual that was outspoken but not well liked by the employees. Although, Mona had a great connection with the employees and when she complained they listened and believed her.
She also made a rumour that Art and Debbie were romantically involved based on his recent apartment move, although we don’t know if this is true or not. Then, other employees were angry that they did not get the job even though they had not applied for the position. Anger and Frustration continued to fill the office and the reputation of both Art and Debbie were seriously harmed as well as their respect (Hinkin, 2006).
The Stake Holders are; Debbie, Art, Mona, Employees under Debbie, Megan, Guest of the hotel, the General Manager, and future guests of the hotel.
Challenges that were in the case are:
- 1. Respect between the employees was lost and is getting worse.
- 2. Qualifications for the job were not announced and clearly stated, Debbie should have disclosed that she was living in the same building as Art, although it had nothing to do with the promotion.
- 3. Debbie did not announce the promotion to all of the staff members after she hired Art.
- 4. Debbie should have pulled Mona to the side and spoke with her and mentioned that it was not appropriate to undermine her and if she felt that something was wrong then she should have come and talked to her.
- 5. Mona is constantly talking badly about Debbie and undermining her authority to the other employees.
Leadership Solutions to the Challenges
The first challenge that was within this case was that the employee lost respect for Debbie and Art. When Mona talked bad about both Art and Debbie the other employees began to respect them less. With this challenge, I would implement the “Respect for Persons Theory” (Brannmark, 2017). This theory states that you need to have, “Concerns involved in Respect for Person; autonomy, dignity, integrity, privacy, and vulnerability” (Brannmark, 2017). I chose this theory because it says that you have to have these qualities to be a great leader. The biggest quality that you have to have that fits this case is Dignity. Debbie should have disclosed that she was living in the same building as Art, although it did not have anything to do with her decision. I also think that Mona needs to learn how to be respectful, and speak with Debbie and figure out why she did not get the job instead of just attacking her because Debbie and Art probably lost respect for her. Moving forward if they implement this theory then Debbie will gain more respect from her employees and she can begin to repair the relationships with her employees, as well as handle Mona before she got out of hand and started telling lies and talking bad about her bosses.
The second challenge within this case was the lack of communication. Debbie did not communicate with her employees about the qualifications that were needed for the job. My leadership solution is the Lasswell’s Communication model. This model says that “Who said what, in which channel, to whom, with what effect?” (Sapienza, 2015). I selected this solution because the way that she communicates with her employees needs to be changed. The implications for this solution in the future will be, bettering communication with the employees and management. At the end of the case study, Mona talked bad about Debbie and undermined Art. If Debbie implements a better communication system then the employees would know what was expected from the job. They would also know that Art was promoted from Debbie and not Mona, who was talking bad about Art and Debbie.
The third challenge this case had was that Debbie did not announce that she promoted Art. For this challenge, I choose referent power. Referent Power is defined as, “the subordinate’s loyalties to that leader and the desire to please that leader” (Berger, 2014). Kudisch also says, ” followers submit to a leader because the follower identifies with the leaders’ personal qualities” (Kudish,1995). Before Debbie began the process of hiring a new assistant FOM, her employees respected her and everything ran smoothly. I picked this solution because she needs to gain her power back. She was not respected in her job and that hurt the hotel. The implications for this solution is that she will regain power, and the employees will want to work under her and will respect her and Art again.
The fourth challenge in this case was Mona. Debbie should have pulled Mona aside and talked to her and discussed why she decided to go with Art. For this challenge, I chose the Hersey- Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory. This theory states, “the conduct of the leader should be based on the situation variables that affect the relationship between the leader and the followers” ( Ogbeide, 2011). I chose this theory because Debbie should have pulled Mona to the side to speak about how she is acting. Debbie should have spoken with her on multiple occasions. When she told her that Art was being promoted Mona was not happy although she walked away after fighting. As Dr Hein states in her lectures, “this style of leadership is based upon the maturity of the subordinates” (Hein, 2019), I believe that Mona was not mature about the situation, so Debbie has to act according to how Mona is acting. As the situations changes, she has to change her leadership styles. The implications in the future will be the ability to change that way that you speak, the ability to speak, and what you say on the situations that have changed the relationships. This will better the situations and better the relationships that were broken.
My last challenge, is that Mona is constantly talking bad about Debbie and undermining her authority and decisions that Debbie made. For this challenge I chose the Leader-Member Exchange Theory. This theory says, “the LMX is determined by a number of antecedents, and in turn, influences a wide range of individual and organizational outcomes (Liden, 2014). I chose this theory because it says that whatever is entered into the organization is going to come out the same. For example within the case, Mona starts talking bad about Debbie and then the rest of the group begins to think the same and get angry that they didn’t get the job even though they didn’t apply. By implementing this theory you have to find the negativity and cut it off. You can’t allow someone to constantly speak ill of you to other employees when they are angry because they will begin to feel the same, even if they have no part of it.