Higgins case
Mgmt 3600- Theories of Management
Case Study: John Higgins
The Central Issue:
Why did Prescott think that his executive assistant, John Higgins, lost his effectiveness in representing the U.S parent company, while also having a strong identification with the Japanese culture? Why is Prescott having conflict dealing with Higgins about the issue?
Recommended Course of Action:
Prescott and Higgins should come to some kind of mutual understanding with each other as soon as possible
Basis of Recommendation:
Prescott and Higgins attitudes towards implementing the U.S personnel policies in the Japanese operation were both different. Prescott and Higgins should come to a mutual understanding, which would be important for the organization in resolving the conflicts between the two, to ensure the operations are running smoothly. The situation for both companies were to work together to increase the international market segment of Weaver, but before all of that, Prescott spend over 25 years in weaver, which he served in other countries and has a better experience than Higgins in handling international issues. Prescott sees Higgins activities are not for benefiting for the organization but rather for personal objectives. Higgins should not forget that he’s representing the U.S parent company in Japan and not his deep interest with japan itself. Therefore, Prescott being so high up in the corporation, he should really have an understanding of how to manage conflict and manage change in a corporation.
Reasonable Alternatives:
1) Prescott should fire Higgins. This is rejected because that would not solve any kind of problem. Firing Higgins would make the company one less employee shorter overseas, plus would not help Prescott nor Higgins with any leadership skills that need to be worked on.
2) Prescott should relocate Higgins. This is rejected because that would result in more problems occurring. Higgins knows that there is issues going on and for him
Case Study: John Higgins
The Central Issue:
Why did Prescott think that his executive assistant, John Higgins, lost his effectiveness in representing the U.S parent company, while also having a strong identification with the Japanese culture? Why is Prescott having conflict dealing with Higgins about the issue?
Recommended Course of Action:
Prescott and Higgins should come to some kind of mutual understanding with each other as soon as possible
Basis of Recommendation:
Prescott and Higgins attitudes towards implementing the U.S personnel policies in the Japanese operation were both different. Prescott and Higgins should come to a mutual understanding, which would be important for the organization in resolving the conflicts between the two, to ensure the operations are running smoothly. The situation for both companies were to work together to increase the international market segment of Weaver, but before all of that, Prescott spend over 25 years in weaver, which he served in other countries and has a better experience than Higgins in handling international issues. Prescott sees Higgins activities are not for benefiting for the organization but rather for personal objectives. Higgins should not forget that he’s representing the U.S parent company in Japan and not his deep interest with japan itself. Therefore, Prescott being so high up in the corporation, he should really have an understanding of how to manage conflict and manage change in a corporation.
Reasonable Alternatives:
1) Prescott should fire Higgins. This is rejected because that would not solve any kind of problem. Firing Higgins would make the company one less employee shorter overseas, plus would not help Prescott nor Higgins with any leadership skills that need to be worked on.
2) Prescott should relocate Higgins. This is rejected because that would result in more problems occurring. Higgins knows that there is issues going on and for him