Mobichair

...

Assess McKinnon’s handling of his interaction with the HR manager. How should he respond to her tirade?

I believe he has handled it well by staying calm amidst Blumenthal’s tirade. He should have however addressed it immediately by personally talking with Blumenthal and took on the points she is trying to bring in the table and try to really see if they have merits. There have indeed been immediate changes that McKinnon is trying to implement without him really knowing the extent of the current company culture. Two weeks is a short amount of time in the eyes of the existing employees and immediate change will be met with strong resistance during this point. Change is always hard to communicate especially if there is friction between two parties. With the current situation with Blumenthal, I believe that it was correct to assume that this could indeed be an opportunity for McKinnon to gain ground with a critical employee. To continue being diplomatic at this point should be ideal so long as an amicable understanding is found at the end.

McKinnon should also consider finding out if there are any merits pertaining to Blumenthal’s comment that everyone thinks they are screwing up with the company. This can be addressed by discussing planned changes with all employees through a general meeting and asking for feedback regarding the plans put forward. The activity should clear any concerns if done correctly and could be grounds to gain better insight on what the employees are expecting from new management. A trial run for any directives could be considered to appease Blumenthal’s hesitations at this point. A replacement will be a last resort should she still refuse any directive from McKinnon despite all these compromises. One could only bend so far in order to meet an individual at his/her level. Should the other person refuse to meet eye to eye then there is no point to further compromise.

What would you say in response to Larabrand’s question, “Do you want to do this the easy way or the hard way?”

This for me is a form of black mail. If there is one thing I have learned from my CEO, it is that no one is indispensable in any organization. Larabrand has already decided to leave and the options she has presented will not necessarily transpire as was offered. Even if McKinnon were to find a suitable replacement, Larabrand might not hold her end of the bargain and will just render the two month service for the sake of being paid. Worst, she will continue to hold the department hostage and inflict more damage within the said two months.

I would still meet with her however to listen to her terms and listen first hand her reasons as to what led him to decide on this. More importantly, I would like to discuss with her as to why management saw fit to terminate Drazen. Deliberately “hiding” employees to preserve headcount sends signals that compromises trust and confidence which is the cornerstone of upper management.

Should she be adamant with her position despite the conversation above then what my response be regarding her message should be clear at this point. She should start preparing the necessary documents for turnover and hand them to me within the week if she hopes to be properly cleared of her employment with the company. Although neither Ahn nor I have a high level of comfort with this function, it does not necessarily mean that we cannot hold the financial house temporarily while scouting for a replacement the soonest possible time. To give into Larabrand’s easy way proposal might set a precedent for the rest of the upper management which could put the company at a direr situation in the foreseeable future. The hard way is a risk in itself as mentioned earlier especially of there was no positive improvement regarding her stance on the matter even after talking with her.

Assume that you plant to terminate three managers in Santa Clara and four in New Jersey, plus four members of the Woodbridge customer service team. Should all firings occur on the same day, over a 2-week period, or be executed more gradually? Explain your thinking.

There is now an ongoing rumor that the Sunnyvale office is poised to be shut down by the co-CEOs, hence, to terminate employees on a single day or even in a 2 week period sends a negative message across the organization. What employees will see is that here are two CEOs, mass firing employees and yet they are barely two weeks into their role. Morale will take a hit for no amount of explanation will be sufficient to defend the action mainly due to the abruptness of the action and the tenure of the new CEO’s.

A more gradual approach of retrenchment backed up with correct performance evaluation should be the more appropriate tactical move given the current situation. This should show employees that the new top management has taken the time and the necessary considerations before terminating a colleague with basis. Hiring qualified replacement for terminated employees will likewise alleviate fears of any rumored shut down while mitigating the effects of McKinnon’s concerned credibility hit for pushing through with this layoffs despite her previous assurance that everything is ok.