Erik Peterson\'s Case Study the Problems Facing

Erik Peterson's Case Study

The problems facing Erik Peterson

Top two problems facing Erik Peterson are his lack of the line communication from Frontline employees in provision of updates, building status and needs. This hampers Erik at his efforts of establishing the position of the 21 towers (Harvard Business Review 3). The second problem is the lack of an established and clear boundary of accountability, responsibility and authority the General Manager's role from top executive managers to floor workers. Erik makes decisions including addressing issues pertaining to potential zoning and salaries for new employees.

Later, these decisions are ignored or questioned by the head office making frequent calls to question the authority of Erik and undermines the progress of the operations. In Peterson's case, he is facing critical server situations in GMCT. This is evidenced where he does not know his boss. He was confused thinking that Jenkins was his boss only to find out that he should report directly to his supervisor, Jeff Hardy. Moreover, Erik was not allowed to receive any comments or advise from Jeff because he lacked experience of operating the system server. This forced him to be isolated in his own position, leading to the behind schedule failure of implementing the system. In addition, one of the biggest issues was Erik's immediate subordinate, Curt Andrew. Curt lacked the required skills and expertise in operating and implementing key aspects of the job of a Chief Engineer. This was the crucial role under the construction system. Therefore, the problems surrounding Erik were so challenging and tough (Harvard Business Review 6).

Underlying causes of these problems

Apparently, the lack of proper communication denied Erik critical information from Frontline employees and managers in the construction project. This is because both the managers and employees were not aware of the aggressive period of completing the construction project. In addition, they seem to lack clear communication methods in passing important information or communication their problems beyond the weekly meeting schedule. While Erik has only shown positive response in organizing these weekly meetings, there is a strong indication of the disconnect in perceptions; apparently, attendees at the construction are of the belief that these meetings are for all states including communicating emergencies; Curt and Erik appears to expect this program as a checkpoint routine without surprises (Harvard Business Review 4).

Erik's direct line manager, Jeff Hardy, has failed in clarifying the role of a General Manager or even assisting Erik to establish boundaries across lines of authority. Erik lacks someone to put brakes on his actions. Some of the Ideas proposed by Erik among them to collaborate with local officials from the public office appear to be presumable and creative if these ideas are consistent with the approaches of the headquarters. At this point, it was Jeff's responsibility to step in earlier to establish a strong communication channel. This is similar as to when Erik was not surprised when he claimed that he was meant to report to Jeff, rather than reporting directly to the CEO. Jeff Hardy is the senior boss supervising Erik; he lacks required knowledge concerning the industry and appears to be undecided over key issues including concession decisions of firing departments at different sites. Similarly, the corporate docket fails to inform Jeff about the current position of the legal negotiations with states that were under the docket of Mr. Green and Karen Cantor. The headquarters has failed to give Erik the necessary support regarding the issue of replacing Mr. Curt (Harvard Business Review 7).

Erik makes decisions about the organization assuming roles, organizational structure, and the organization works across departments. Instead of making these assumptions, he should have opened communication lines across the organization. For example, Erik found out that most of the employees including him are short of industry experience, he should have raised the issue to the top management and explaining clearly the risks of conducting the project in a fixed period. This is among the reasons why he ended up supporting and backing out various decisions such as pay reversals and termination of contractors (Harvard Business Review 5).

Erik lacks a clear and concrete plan in his project management. Even if the case has not mentioned, it is evident that there is no critical definition of milestones and the plan has not laid down clear dependencies. Before any project can be implemented, such issues must be clearly defined and stakeholders as well as the management should be informed. Failure to do this results in failure of any project. It is obvious that by creating plans, Erik would have put sufficient buffers in place and most people would have been aware that the success of the project depends on the efforts of the entire team. This is likely to result in minima delays there would be minimized dependence. Similarly, there was lack of regular status update about the project to both the senior management and team members. This would have been helpful in identifying challenges earlier enough instead of ignoring them and using fire fighting methods to address the issues (Harvard Business Review 7).

Actions that Peterson should take to turn the situation

As the case states, Erik lacked experience in the industry. In this context, he should have acquired this experience because it would have enabled him to better plan and avoid various challenges facing GMCT. Therefore, it was critical for the management to hire an experienced Chief Engineer in starting operations. For a new General Manager without prior experience in the industry, it was fundamental to accord enough management support. In this case, Erik did not receive the support hence he failed in solving the problems proactively (Harvard Business Review 12). This case demonstrates that various problems are likely to surface in the course of implementing a project because of poor communication leading to differences in employee expectations. With this notable case, which failed to empower employees through effective communication, the project shaped a downward approach in whereby communication and dialogue across beneficiaries and stakeholders was not conducted. In this context, it would be appropriate for future projects acknowledge the crucial role of all team members as part of effective loopholes of communication in planning and implementing the project (Harvard Business Review 9).