The Paul Hardy case is interesting as it clearly highlights 2 important factors:- * Paul Hardy’s behavioral definition of a manipulative employee * Mismanagement by his company P & C.
We will start by analyzing
Hardy’s behavioral tendencies:-
Hardy’s actions can be summarized in a few words:-
* Compulsive employee – Abraham Zaleznik’s definition, based on followership. Controlling followers vs submissive followers. Controlling followers want to gain control while submissive want to be told what to do. Zaleznik’s work itself was based on Freudian perspective – Sigmund freud psychotherapist who worked on unconscious mind and ego. Impulsive and compulsive employees are dominant & Controlling whereas masochistic and withdrawn and submissive employees. Impulsive and dominant is an active trait where as compulsive and withdrawn and passive traits / modes of behavior. * Therefore Hardy represents a lot of Zaleznik’s definition of a controlling employee with a lot of changes in attitude (reversal). * He didn’t know what he wanted. First he asked for a promotion. Then he asked for an equivalent position in another department. Then he was willing to look for opportunities outside of P & C. * Less accountability:- He also made his superior (Chorley) uncomfortable when he knew that his superior isn’t comfortable being asked for a commitment. In that sense he was manipulative because he did start crying at one point and he used tenure to justify his promotion. * Also a liar as on occasions he used to submit doctors notes that he’s sick when he used to be at home watching cricket.
Mismanagement by P & C:-
Chorley and Williams both failed in recognizing that Hardy was a compulsive employee who needed clear guidelines and objectives. This would help in giving him a true picture of what management expects out of him and what he needs to do to get there.
It’s an interesting case as the management at P & C would have...