Was Firing Him Too Drastic

Running head: Was Firing Him Too Drastic?

Was Firing Him Too Drastic?

BUS 520 Leadership and Organizational Behavior

Abstract

From reading the integrating case study, this paper will support firing Michael Kalinsky former brother-in-law, David Kenworthy. I will discuss the style of conflict management, as well as discuss whether or not integrative negotiations were employed through the process of principled negotiations. Communication problems and issues illustrated in this case will be identified and I will recommend and alternative to the conflict styles used in this case.

Was Firing Him Too Drastic?

Introduction

Have you ever wanted something so bad that you compromised to get it? Then one day you realize that the deal you made caused you so many problems that you recognize the mistake that you had made. Well here is a case where Michael Kalinsky wanted a business so bad that he accepted funding from his former father-in-law that he needed and then found out that it came with a condition. Kalinsky had to appoint his former brother-in-law and give him a key position in the company along with making him a minority shareholder (Dahl, 2006).

Former brother-in-law

I am in support of Kalinsky firing his former brother-in-law. It appears that Kenworthy took his position as vice-president too far. He went forth like he was CEO. Here are the reasons that I believe supports the firing of Kenworthy. According to Dahl (2006), Kenworthy failed to informed Kalinsky that Empyrean was in danger of losing their largest contract; Kenworth want to incorporate his own ideas instead of following the ideas of Kalinsky; Kenworthy criticized Kalinsky’s decisions and leadership in front of Empyrean’s employees as well as Capital One staff. In my opinion Kenworthy had a personal agenda. Although it was not identified in the case, I believe the Kenworthy was looking to over throw Kalinsky and take over the company. Any time you push your thoughts and...