Eric Peterson

1st source

Case Analysis: Erik Peterson (A) (B)

The most serious underlying problem of Erik Peterson is his incompetency in handling his current job. Peterson had no prior experience of constructing a cellular mobile telephone system that he was assigned to manage, and yet he couldn’t get along with many of his colleagues within the organization. In addition, Peterson’s immediate supervisor, Hardy, was also inexperienced to the industry, meanwhile Peterson had a hard time managing his team.

The reporting relationship between Peterson and Hardy was not clearly defined before their first encounter and thus has caused some awkward interactions between them. This situation signaled ambiguity in the company’s structure. Furthermore, Hardy was not able to provide any practical advices to Peterson when he needed it the most. As it was implied in the case, Peterson was often doubt Hardy’s competency as his boss, and on the other hand, Hardy often would become paranoid and be reluctant to accept Peterson’s suggestions. The first sign occurred when Hardy rejected Peterson’s idea to replace the Chief Engineer. The second sign appeared when Hardy insisted on changing the “frequency reuse pattern” even though Peterson strongly objected the change due of adaptation problems, Hardy insisted on the change. The third sign showed up when Hardy was unwilling to sign off on the agreements that Peterson had drawn up with the GMCT local governments to use the fire department communication tower as GMCT cell site, even when the deal could mean great potential benefit. The tension between Peterson and Hardy revealed weaknesses in the organization – there is no effective channel for communication between the headquarter and the remote subsidiaries, and the local managers are not authorized with enough autonomy to tackle the local problems effectively.

Apparently, Peterson was not an effective manager. He chose to tackle all of the technical difficulties on his own rather than...