Firing Him Too Drastic? In

¶ … Firing Him Too Drastic? In the case study, Michael Kalinsky fires an executive in his company to regain control of the company and begin reaffirming its business direction, however in the process he very nearly loses everything. Michael's mishap is due not to bad business sense as all of his instincts in this situation were correct, but instead lies in miscommunication and misunderstanding between him and his stakeholders. Throughout the case Kalinsky made decisions that were less than optimum for his company and were not far sighted.

Had Kalinsky utilized more appropriate communication and negotiating skills he perhaps would have had an easier time of building his business. The Firing The firing of Kalinsky's former brother in law was indeed warranted. Kenworthy had been appointed to the position not based on his skills, but due to his relationship with a major stakeholder. He apparently had been able to perform a relatively decent job, however his undermining actions and brash ignorance of professionalism should have been enough in and of itself to fire.

Unfortunately, he also was acting out in an insubordinate manner by operating autonomously of the rest of the company with their most important client. Kenworthy obviously wasn't performing his job to the best of his abilities as Capital One began looking for other consultants without so much as a notice from Kenworthy, who was the account manager. In addition, his abrasive nature and disregard for Kalinsky's authority was affecting not only his interactions with Kalinsky, but with the overall operations of the business as well.

In Kenworthy's defense, the relationships seemed just as onesided on Kalinski's side as well though. He did not go out of his way to send emails or phone calls for followups on the situation with Capital One. Had he not wanted Kenworthy to act autonomously, he should have assigned more account managers to the Capital One account or at least maintained constant contact with Kenworthy (especially since Capital One represented 40% of the company's revenue). Conflict Management The conflict management used in this case were lackadaisical at best in my opinion.

Kalinsky seemed like he was trying to avoid conflict, however he was going about it all wrong. He continuously put off inevitable conversations that would have helped head off confrontations before they got out of control. He also chose to talk with Kenworthy's father before speaking with him about his position with the company. While at first, this may seem like a smart move because Kalinsky is protecting his investment, that is exactly how it looks to employees and clients as well.

Rather than facing the conflict and resolving it immediately with the person causing conflict, Kalinsky leaks valuable information to a person with a vested interest in both the company and the future of the person being removed from company management. It is no wonder that the situation seemed to backfire on Kalinsky. Integrative Negotiations In this exercise, integrative negotiations were utilized through the process of principled negotiations.

Kalinsky and Kenworthy came to amicable terms with regards to cashing out both his and his father's stake in the company and they dropped the wrongfully terminated suit. The wrongful termination suit was most likely just filed in spite and was postured as a leverage point on which bargaining could begin. It was obvious that Kalinsky was not in the financial position to pay out the Kenworthys' shares immediately, however it was only fair to pay them the agreed upon amount.

Communication Problems The communication problems were numerous throughout the case. Kalinsky seemed to have communication problems from the very beginning starting with the initial investor. Kalinsky should have been in constant communication with the investor until the money hit the bank. He never should have had to be in the position in which the business depended on Kenworthy to swoop in and bank roll it. Next, Kalinsky should have had an exit interview with the CFO with regards to payroll taxes.

From there forward, the communication problems were mainly between Kalinsky and the younger Kenworthy as neither.