Erik Peterson Case Analysis

1604 Words4 Pages

3. Analysis 3.1 Lack of expertise and engagement from project leadership Erik Peterson faced a number of challenging situations with Jeff Hardy, a high level employee with CelluComm, the parent company of GMCT. At first we see an awkward relationship with Jeff Hardy whom Peterson had been assigned to work under by Ric Jenkins, partly due to the lack of concrete relationship guidelines between the two (Sami, 2013). Hardy had very little operational experience, and Peterson felt that he was unable to receive constructive guidance from Hardy. As a subordinate to Hardy, Peterson should have instead attempted to resolve this problem early on as it was a critical relationship within the GMCT Company. Consulting Hardy by letting him know of his concerns would have been a more efficient and respectful manner in handling the situation. This relationship building would also have been integral in facing the Peterson-Hardy communication issues with respect to the local municipalities and fire department. Operant Learning Theory (Johns & Saks, 2014, p.54) suggests that as a result of this negative consequence Peterson should be able to improve his interpersonal skills specifically with superiors within the organization moving forward. As a subordinate to Hardy, Peterson should have instead attempted to resolve this problem early on as it was a critical relationship within the GMCT Company. 3.2 Peterson had run-ins with higher ups from an early stage of the project. Peterson also had conflicts with Scott Green and his staff assistant Karen Cantor. On the first meeting with Peterson, Cantor gave some suggestions on how to run the organization. When Peterson challenged her statement because he believed her suggestions were incorrect. Cantor bec... ... middle of paper ... ...th head office employees, Peterson could implement some of their ideas into his plans and give credit to these employees, bolstering future relationships with these credited individuals. Works Cited Adams, John S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal ` and, Social Psychology, 67(5), 422-436. Greenberg, J. (1988). Equity and workplace status: a field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 606-613. Johns, G., & Saks, A. M. (2014). Organizational behaviour: understanding and managing life at work (9th ed.). Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall. McLean, M. (2014,May 21). Personality and Learning. Com 220.Lecture conducted from University of Victoria, Victoria. Sami, M. (2013, January 12). Eric peterson wac. Eric peterson wac. Retrieved July 27, 2014, from http://www.slideshare.net/menakhan/eric-peterson-wac

More about Erik Peterson Case Analysis

Open Document