You are on page 1of 8

Karen Leary Case Study

Prepared For: Dr. Todd Thomas Prepared By: Karen M. Phelps


Northwood University MBA 612 - Leadership
February 20, 2011

Problem Statement: Ted Chung has requested a private office. Karen Leary is hesitant to honor his request for fear it may harm the morale, motivation and performance of other consultants. Hypothesis 1 It may be the cultural differences between Karen Leary and Ted Chung were creating substantial obstacles to effective teamwork Analysis 1 Cultures differ enormously when it comes to decision making particularly, how quickly decisions should be made and how much analysis is required beforehand (Brett, Behfar, Kern). Originally Leary was okay with the latitude Chung requested in developing the Taiwanese market. However, when he had not opened an account after three months she became increasingly uncomfortable with Chung. Leary has a very aggressive approach to sales and compliance (the American system) while Chung operates according to the Taiwanese culture. Chung spends a considerable amount of time attending social events away from the office in order to build trusting relationships with his prospective clients. Likewise, the Taiwanese culture tends to make agreements by general trust which is indicated by Chungs statement that his client was from the same village and would only be willing to work with him. This is opposite of the American culture which tends to conduct business on a very specific contractual basis. While Leary is considering Chung to have a stiff personality as it pertains to his desk and the items he has brought in for display, Chung uses these displays of his importance as a tool of trust and professionalism with his Taiwanese clients. Chung displays himself as a formal, business professional and does not really ever have a reaction to Learys informal meetings. Chung never questions Learys management practices, but his silence and distancing himself leaves her claiming to never really know the whole person. Further, it is evident that frustration was starting to set in as well as interpersonal conflicts beginning to arise between Leary and Chung due to the cultural language barrier. Even though Chung assures Leary that his account is being handled appropriately and that his Taiwanese client is fully aware of the details, Leary insists on meeting with the customer. During this meeting, Leary cannot communicate with the client except through Chung who has to translate. This meeting proved to be very ineffective in what Leary was trying to accomplish (to confirm with the client the extent of his involvement with the

account) and only hindered the relationship between her and Chung. Because Leary is unfamiliar with the culture norms and the language; she becomes more suspicious of Chung and checks his trades every morning. In turn, Chung becomes annoyed and angry. Also, as a result of the differing cultural norms, Chung may feel he is being treated disrespectfully, which is counterproductive. Hypothesis 2 It may be Karen Leary and Ted Chung has different linguistic styles. Analysis Linguistic style refers to a persons character speaking pattern. It includes features such as directness versus indirectness, pacing and pausing, word choice, and the use of such elements as jokes, figures of speech, stories, questions, and apologies (Tannen, p.139). Throughout the case study, there are examples of differences in the way Leary and Chung express themselves. For example, Leary becomes upset with Chung when he is asked to sit at the sales assistants desk and he finds a way not to fulfill the request. When Leary confronts Chung, she discovers that his feelings are hurt and that he considers the request to be beneath him, particularly if an underling asked him. A common linguistic style of men is to resist being put in a one-down position by others. Reflections of linguistic styles can place individuals within a hierarchy. It is clear that Chung views himself higher in the hierarchy than other field consultants but lower than Leary. It is possible that he finds ways out of sitting the sales assistants desk as a way of placing himself one-up upon the other field consultants. He is compliant if Leary asks him to do it because he recognizes himself as lower in the hierarchy than she is. It is also important to realize that not only is linguistics a way of communicating what we mean, but it is also how we interpret what other people mean and also a way in which we evaluate one another as people. According to the case study, Leary was not ever really able to read Chung as indicated by her interviewing him eight times prior to hiring him; and statements such as I felt I didnt really know the whole person and Leary sensed there was a wide gulf between them. Leary indicates she was always available to him if he needed consultation. While this may be true, the linguistic style of men is mostly to avoid asking for direction or help because it puts them in a one-down position. Also, if men have to admit to

faults or weaknesses they tend to do it indirectly which Leary may not have picked up on. Likewise, Leary perceived Chung as displaying his ego and felt his request for a private office was totally inappropriate. Men tend to minimize their doubts and focus on status which may be why he felt the need to communicate to Leary that he was certainly going to be one of the most important producers in Learys branch, and therefore, he deserved his own office. Leary also tends to speak indirectly when addressing Chung. For instance when he would not sit the sales associates desk, she pulled him in and said lets talk about that and you are here to learn and to develop, and I would like you to do that. In linguistics, females tend to talk indirectly. Leary speaking indirectly to Chung may be taken by him as her lacking assertiveness and clear thinking. Thus, Chung is judging her directives as unimportant. Hypothesis 3 It may be Karen Leary and Ted Chung did not have effective dialogue. Analysis 3 One of the biggest communication problems is the assumption that a message has been understood (Sirota, Mischkind, Meltzer, p.5). Most workplace communication takes place between two people so it is vitally important that messages are comprehended. The case study mentions on several occasions that Leary met with Chung one on one, but it is evident by the ongoing issues between the two that the dialogue was not effective. The first reason it was not effective is because Leary did not know her audience. Even though Chung was westernized in many ways, he still fell back upon his Taiwanese culture in the business setting. Leary did not spend any amount of time trying to learn the Taiwanese culture to know how her words, actions (such as allowing people to use his desk) and/or inactions (lack of formality in meetings) would affect her dealings with Chung. Learys micro-managing of Chungs actions by daily monitoring his trades caused him to eventually resist her questioning and to pretty much shut down the dialogue between the two. Because of this shut down, Leary was not able to understand Chung and thus could not perceive what his reactions or objections might be prior to conducting her informal meetings with him. Learys sole purpose in hiring Chung was to develop the Taiwanese market and because she is results oriented driven she failed to engage in active listening when Chung would give her underlying insight that he tends to be motivated by prestige, and the possibility of promotional opportunities. Body language is another form of

active listening. Chungs body language of preparing his desk and straightening his coat prior to sitting down for a meeting should have provided insight to Leary as well. Another component of effective dialogue is to determine how an individual views you as a manager and what his/her perceptions of the company are. Leary never made any attempt at this. She kept attempting to let Chung know what her viewpoint was (to develop further Taiwanese markets) but her efforts stopped there. She chalked the unknown up to him being Asian. Trust and commitment are created by effective dialogue. Chung and Leary eventually did not have either between them. Hypothesis 4 It may be the feedback Karen Leary provided to Ted Chung was not continual, specific, or concrete. Analysis 4 Feedback is an important tool for shaping behaviors and fostering learning that will drive better performance. Feedback works best when its a continual process rather than a formal session once or twice a year (Phoel). Leary met with Chung occasionally throughout the year and then during lunch she reviewed his performance for the year, making note to herself that several elements in Chungs performance over the past year worried her. During the meetings, Leary always started out by mentioning Chungs strengths such as good trades and his well preparedness before mentioning what Leary considered a weakness (spending too much time on one account and failure expanding to other Taiwanese customers). While Learys intent may have been to save face for Chung, the unintended consequence of her action appears to be that Chung concluded areas needing improvement werent all that important. Performance feedback should be given as close in time to the occurrence as possible which was not always the case with Leary. When providing feedback to an employee, the contents should be specific and factual and directed at performance. At no time did Leary give Chung specifics as to what she wanted improvement on. She would encourage him to expand his accounts but never gave him a timeframe or direction in how to accomplish what she wanted to see from him. Leary failed to gather concrete data prior to meeting with Chung that would support her conclusion that he needed to learn and develop. Thus, when meeting with him, Leary did not describe the specific behavior done/not done; how the behavior, actions/inactions are impacting other employees and

the organization; and explicitly explain what/how things need to be done differently. It is also possible that Chung ignored Learys disconfirming feedback (growth and development) because he wanted to conclude only positive things about himself. Hypothesis 5 It may be Karen Learys management style was not compatible with multicultural teams. Analysis 5 When Leary hired Chung, she opened her office up to a multi-cultural environment. Yes, Chung was westernized in many ways but his genetic endowment and family culture are established and are going to play into the organizational culture of Merrill-Lynch. There are four categories that can create barriers to a teams ultimate success: direct versus indirect communication; trouble with accents and fluency; differing attitudes toward hierarchy and authority; and conflicting norms for decision making (Brett, Behfar, Kern). Direct versus indirect communication as well as Learys inability to comprehend Chungs native language has been analyzed in earlier hypotheses. However, it is evident from the study that Leary and Chung have differing attitudes with regards to hierarchy and authority. Leary wanted to build a winning team and foster a culture that would allow growth through informal coaching and counseling. She expects her employees to learn from each other, explaining why she persuaded her more experienced employees to mentor her younger brokers/trainees. Chung considered his coworkers as an out-group and continually distanced himself from them. Chung recognized his obligation to Leary as his boss, but did not respond to her desires of informal coaching and counseling. Chung also would not be comfortable with the flat structure that teams often have because he is status oriented. Leary expected strict compliance from all employees with the accounts. Chung began testing the waters by investing in takeover stocks and margin borrowing, and made decisions that were at times outside of his level of experience in the eyes of Leary. There also seems to be an absence of ground rules that should have been set by Leary from the beginning. Chung is being allowed to operate under one set, while the other FCs are operating under another. This is evident by his lack of accountability at the office, not participating in making cold calls, etc. The above instances are all examples of challenges presented to managers when trying to manage multicultural teams.

Recommendations Leary to educate herself on the Taiwanese culture via a mentor or education. Leary to write a purpose statement to give employees a reason for being there. Leary to issue a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) to Chung providing specific, concrete details about what needs to be improved and how this should include an allotted time period for the improvement. This should also be backed up by specifics instances of Chungs unacceptable behavior. Follow-up/Reinforcement must be done. Leary to address Chung in a very direct manner versus indirect to show assertiveness and confidence. Leary to schedule regular employee meetings that serve no purpose other than two way communication to enhance information sharing and camaraderie. Leary to assess which FCs work best together and include Chung within one of those teams. The teams should be self managed to reinforce camaraderie. Leary to educate herself on the different linguistic styles between males/females to take advantage of the talents of her employees as well as make herself more flexible and adaptable in evaluating/mentoring employees and helping them to advance their career. Leary to impose a managerial intervention to implement a set of ground rules. Leary to engage in active listening and encourage Chung to continue dialogue by repeating to him what she understood him to say (What I am hearing you say is.). Establish a policy and procedure manual which includes a mission statement, core values and an organizational chart to reinforce compliance and the hierarchy. Provide cultural diversity training to all employees. Establish a list of achievements that must be met in order to be considered for a private office. Along with the achievements, management input on the employees performance could play a part in the final decision.

References Brett, Behfar & Kern.: Managing Multicultural Teams: Harvard Business Review Sirota, Mischkind &Meltzer: Stop Demotivating Your Employees! Harvard Business Review Tannen, Deborah. The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why Harvard Business Review

You might also like