This paper examines two human resource management challenges faced by a middle manager supervising bank tellers, using the Gallup Organization's evidence-based research as its analytical framework. Drawing primarily on Buckingham and Coffman's identification of 12 dimensions that characterize great workplaces, the paper describes a specific workplace incident involving a teller whose exceptional customer service skills were threatened by an uninformed senior manager. The paper analyzes how several of Gallup's 12 dimensions apply to the situation and proposes an improvement plan centered on realigning the employee's role to match her natural strengths, introducing 360-degree performance evaluation, and establishing regular communication between management levels to prevent similar conflicts.
The paper exemplifies applied theory analysis: it introduces a theoretical framework (Buckingham and Coffman's 12 dimensions), presents a real-world scenario, and then methodically evaluates the scenario against the framework. This technique — sometimes called framework-to-case mapping — is common in management education and shows how students can use scholarly literature to diagnose and resolve professional problems rather than just describe them.
The paper opens with a literature review justifying the chosen framework, then moves into a descriptive narrative of the workplace incident, followed by reflective analysis that maps theory to events. The improvement plan section proposes actionable steps derived directly from the framework. This mirrors a standard management case study structure: context → incident → diagnosis → recommendation.
The universe of information on effective management is enormous. A manager who desires to improve his or her skills will have no difficulty finding ideas and even guidance in the literature. Some of the most evidence-based management data has been established by the Gallup Organization. Over a 25-year period of conducting research, the Gallup Organization compiled data from observations drawn from more than 80,000 interviews. The results have been published in a series of books including First, Break All the Rules; Now, Discover Your Strengths; 12 Elements of Great Management; Strengths Finder 2.0; Strengths-Based Leadership; How Full Is Your Bucket; Wellbeing: The Five Essential Elements; and The Jobs War. These titles demonstrate that there is a plethora of literature on good management, creating good workplaces, employee skill building, leadership, and job development strategy. The work of the Gallup Organization represents an elegant mix of robust research and accessible, actionable insights.
Much of the literature on human resource management is based on theory derived from analysis of constructs and the external development of conceptual frameworks against which organizations and people are then compared. An important distinction — and essentially the reason for relying confidently on the work of the Gallup Organization — is that the theories put forth by Gallup are grounded in years of field research rather than purely theoretical construction.
This paper draws on Gallup research as its fundamental analytical platform for examining two human resource management issues. The Gallup research most frequently referenced is the work of Buckingham and Coffman (1999) — particularly First, Break All the Rules and Now, Discover Your Strengths — which identifies 12 dimensions that make all the difference to organizations and to workers, effectively describing what it takes to create a great workplace and contribute to job satisfaction.
As a middle manager in a bank supervising four other people, I sometimes find myself in the position of having to carry out directives in which I have little confidence — and, in some instances, directives that I do not support or believe are in the best interests of either the bank or its employees. That this problem exists at all is an indicator that upper management does not always ensure that supervision and evaluation are carried out in a thoughtful, reasoned, and productive manner. The following situation illustrates this dynamic.
Jill was a bank teller who was a favorite of many of the bank's older clients. She was friendly and patient with elderly customers to such a degree that they began to ask for her specifically when they came in to do their banking. If there was a line of customers, the elderly customers would step aside, give up their place in line, and wait until they could time their re-entry to coincide with Jill's availability. The effect was that the bank lobby often contained two separate lines of people conducting their banking business. One line of waiting customers would go to whichever teller was next available, while the other line — consisting predominantly of elderly customers — waited patiently for their turn with Jill.
Many of these customers were pensioners, but an equal number banked with the branch for wealth management purposes. If Jill was occupied with another customer and it was taking some time — as it often did — the elderly clients would not go to another teller, even if other tellers were standing idle or beckoning to them. If asked, they would respond, "I'm fine. I'll just wait for Jill." Most everyone was satisfied with the arrangement, which was considered simply one of the ways the bank customized its responses to customers (Bolman & Deal, 1997). The other tellers took pride in the cluster of happy customers waiting to see "their Jill."
One afternoon, a new senior manager emerged from her newly redecorated office and observed the patient line extending from Jill's teller position. She watched the proceedings briefly and then approached the first and second elderly customers in line, attempting to redirect them to teller positions that were open. She met with some resistance but continued to press the customers. The elderly clients simply looked at her or declined to move. One elderly woman — after vehemently, if somewhat apologetically, refusing to do business with anyone else — turned and walked out of the bank. Frustrated, the senior manager returned to her office, leaving an astonished cluster of customers in the lobby.
Before the tellers left at the end of the workday, the senior manager called to Jill from her open office doorway, saying she needed to see her right away. Even though it was well past Jill's eight-hour day, Jill had no choice but to comply with a directive from a senior manager. From outside the closed office door, behind the frosted windows, the other tellers and I could hear the senior manager loudly berating Jill. At that point, I knocked once sharply on the door and let myself in. The senior manager gave me a steely look and told me that she was handling a personnel matter and that I should leave. Instead, I sat down in the other chair in front of her desk and explained that supervision of the tellers in the lobby and at the drive-through was my responsibility (Lewin & Grabbe, 1945). I further stated that, as Jill was my direct report, I would stay to hear the remainder of the conversation. I also indicated that when the senior manager was finished speaking with Jill, I would take a few minutes of her time.
The senior manager then said she was done with Jill, though not with the matter. I encouraged Jill to leave and then continued speaking with the senior manager. I admit to shaking in my boots, but I was genuinely alarmed to see that the senior manager was undermining the supervisory relationship I had carefully cultivated with the tellers. On the spot, I offered an improvised solution, proposing that Jill was being moved to a new position as the "greeting teller" in the lobby. Our branch had no such position, but other banks were using a "traffic monitor / greeter" strategy in their branches to help customers accomplish their banking tasks efficiently, to reduce customer confusion or hesitation, and to establish a friendly and welcoming environment.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.