Trusted by 2+ million users, 1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 3 of 7 pages
Running Head: CASE STUDY 1Conflict ManagementCourse NameSectionAssignmentGroup Members
CASE STUDY 2Provide a synopsis of the key facts of the caseFrom the case study “Anita Jairam at metropole services” it can be seen that Anita was a senior project manager at Metropolis Services who handles various kinds of software projects and with the help of the team members provides better services to the clients. The organization Metropole is mainly focused to perform well in the healthcare business by providing better software applications to the health centers. The responsibility of Jayram was not only to provided better solutions by solving the errors but was also to help in the better growth and development of the organization among its competitors. She was also successfully in developing and maintaining good relations with both the seniors as well as theteam mates. She was even capable of performing various kinds of tasks such as business development, human resource etc. She even developed and implemented various strategies sothat the targets can achieved within the stipulated time. From the case study, it can also be seen that before joining the metropole services of information technology, she was working in a large manufacturer organization of India. The company used to develop and sell packaged goods to the customers. Though she and her colleagues were not provided better training and development programs but still she had good knowledge about the marketing and sales plan. So, it was easier for her to prove herself and gain good position in the organization through various promotions and new responsibilities. Jairam not only proved herskills, knowledge and performance in the sales but also within the accounts department. It is because she was able to increase the product sales by solving the identified problem with proper solution and techniques. In the previous company she was the leader of both the sales and accounts team (Gonçalves, Reis, Sousa et al, 2016). The group members were also responsible and good. They even respected and listened to Jairam and decisions were taken after proper discussion and consultation with the embers. So, after sometime she became one of the strong competitors for promotion in the previous organization. However, due to her
CASE STUDY 3good performance she got various offers from various organizations, one of which was the metropole organization. She was provided with the valuable information at the time of joining Metropolis by the head of the firm Mr. Sharma and was immediately made the head of the software developers team. There were eight male software who were already working in a project. She even felt that she had to prove herself by performing well with the team so she tried to build good relations with the team members. She even monitored the works of theteam members but whenever she wanted to know or ask anything she was interrupted by one of the team members named Vivek. She was not only monitoring the performance of the teammates but was also handling the clients by promising to better results. However, before submitting the deadline project, instead of her, Vivek talked with the client about the progressed. She was also shocked to know that the team members had already planned various aspects based on which the client will be handled. So, it can be clearly understood from the study that some misunderstandings and problems had aroused within the team. She even realized that she was not able to develop a good relation with the team members leadingto the failure in forming better dynamics (Choi, 2013). She was even shocked as she was not involved in important team meetings So, she had to identify the issues and solve them with proper measures as then it would be easier to perform various tasks efficiently and effectively.Symptoms: Explain the series of events that lead to Anita thinking something had gonewrong with her leadership of the group Ans: The activities that forced Anita to think that something had gone wrong with her leadership style while leading the team are—first, the team members did not discuss their works and progress with her. They distributed their works among themselves only. Third, after sometime she was not communicating directly with the team mates for gaining knowledge about the project progress. Fourth, her team was behaving with her casually when
Found this document preview useful?
You are reading a preview Upload your documents to download or Become a Desklib member to get accesss