Knowlton’s departure is indeed problematic for the organization (Simmons Securities) and specifically the Millenium group. The most obvious is the lack of identity, mission and values with both Fester and Knowlton moving on. The millennium group’s identity was based on the existing values and leadership that Knowlton brought to the group which was undermined by Fester over a period of time. The case states rather directly that “The whole millenium group, following Jerrold's lead, talked, if not practiced, the theory that small teams were the basis for effective research.” Fester directly attacked this mode of operation, insisting that true creativity resulted from individual innovation. The case states that in “discussions he had been on the point of rudeness, refusing to pursue an argument when he claimed it was based on another person's ignorance of the facts involved.” In my experience, whenever a new team is assembled, be it a small working group or the formation of a new division or organization, one of the first and most important exercises is to determine the mission and values of the new team. This sets the standard for how the team operates and new members of the team are expected to embrace and adapt to these values. Fester not only did not embrace these values, he actively attacked them and was allowed to undermine them by Knowlton. While this issue is endemic when a leadership void exists, the fact remains that Fester is still with the organization. Based on the case, it was obvious that at each step of the way, Knowlton was acutely aware of the negative affects Fester was having on the team and failed to intervene, address or at a minimum communicate these issues to management. Management’s perception of Fester is at an all time high and this, along with his promotion, is problematic for the organization. With all of that being said, I would like to note that while I feel Knowlton’s departure is problematic for the organization, I don’t believe there is a high severity to the issues involved, and there are straight-forward, discrete steps that can be taken to course-correct these issues going forward. I will address those in question 5. Knowlton’s resignation is due to his inability to cope with and intervene and correct the issues that resulted from the addition of Fester to his team. He allowed Fester to intimidate him and systematically breakdown his values and control of the team. Knowlton’s insecurity crippled his decision making capabilities and his departure is ultimately a reflection of his failure to act. Fester’s encroachment and usurping of the millenium group is due, in part, to Knowlton’s role perception - defining that precise role for him. The case illustrates numerous examples to the point of calling the behavior characteristic, including the party where Knowlton “praised Fester to Jerrold and to others, and remarked on the brilliance of [his] work.” There is also a very high amount of emotional labor involved for Knowlton when he is outwardly displaying behaviors and attitudes that contradict his true feelings. Using the attribution theory to understand Knowlton’s behavior, we can say that in this case his actions showed high consistency, low consensus and low distinctiveness. High consistency is proven through the repeated praise of Fester despite Knowlton’s internal admonishment of his actions. The case states that Knowlton “spoke privately with Davenport and with Oliver, and it was quite clear that both of them were uncomfortable because of Fester,” showing low consensus. Low distinctiveness is proven through Knowlton’s sincere acknowledgement of much of the work that Fester did produce. As a result of these factors, the theory allows us to draw the conclusion that Knowlton’s behavior, including his resignation, can be attributed to internal factors. The internal factors that contributed to Knowlton’s resignation are his personality, attitude and abilities (or perceived abilities). Knowlton lacked self-efficacy when it came time to make a presentation to management, stating that “he must avoid making the morning presentation at all cost. His reasons for this were that he could not trust himself to present the ideas and work that Fester had advanced.” His insecurity led him to believe that he was unfit for the role he held within the company, clearly a motivator to resign. Knowlton’s personality showed a high level of agreeableness which is consistent with his success in a firm that valued teamwork and working with others. His work environment was altered when he allowed Fester to challenge the value system, demean and make other team members uncomfortable. Knowlton’s emotional stability was also on the lower end of the spectrum as he was easily discouraged and embarrassed. Fester referred to an unknown concept and Knowlton, “who had no idea what Fester was referring to, grinned back and nodded, and immediately felt uncomfortable.” When you couple this with his “internal” locus of control, it follows that Knowlton probably blamed himself for much of the dissatisfaction he was experiencing. All of these factors led to a high amount of job dissatisfaction. Despite the situation being largely created by his own behaviors and attitudes, Knowlton’s organizational commitment could be characterized as continuous. This proved out when a better opportunity arose, and by better I mean an opportunity to leave Fester and the caustic environment he was in behind – and he took it.

Knowlton may have been able to pull the wool over Jerrold’s eyes, but reading the case there is no mystery as to Knowlton’s departure. Evidence in this case points to Knowlton engaging in disingenuous behavior and ignoring red flags that allowed Fester to undermine his team and seed dissatisfaction amongst the team. With Fester as the catalyst to Knowlton’s departure we should examine his role. There doesn’t appear to be a clandestine effort on Knowlton’s part to orchestrate his own departure, but a series of learned behaviors that follow the contingencies of reinforcement. Fester would routinely exhibit undesirable behavior as in Knowlton’s description, “it would not be beyond Fester at all, in his blunt and undiplomatic way -- if he were at the meeting … to comment on his presentation and to reveal Knowlton's inadequacy.” The problem is that Fester received positive reinforcement for this behavior as Knowlton put forward that “immediately … he agreed: Fester should be present … much of [the] work he had done, and this would be a nice way to recognize Fester's contributions and to reward him.” Contingencies of reinforcement tell us that this increases the likelihood that the behavior is repeated, and indeed it was. Knowlton showed strong signs of the Halo affect. His initial impressions of Fester characterized him as a “Genius”. This initial impression dramatically affected all of Knowlton’s subsequent judgments of Fester and his behavior and results. As an example, Knowlton proved this when he “caught himself feeling apprehensive about the reaction that Fester might have to some of his work” and that “Fester might easily show that the line of research they had been following was unsound or even unimaginative.” Unfortunately this tainted judgment led, in large part, to the job dissatisfaction of Knowlton and much of his team. Because of this and Knowlton’s insecurity, I would posit that his approval motivation and self-monitoring sky-rocketed. There are pivotal moments in this narrative where Knowlton could have chosen to address the issues he had with Fester but instead praised him. At the cocktail party a “lively discussion took place concerning the application of Fester's theory. All of this disturbed Knowlton” but yet Knowlton “joined the circle [and] praised Fester to Jerrold and to others.” A final note on Jerrold: The case clearly states that Jerrold was “stunned” but he also remarks that Knowlton’s departure exhibited “very strange behavior and [was] quite unaccountable.” This demonstrates that there is a clear cognitive dissonance for Jerrold in that Knowlton’s rationale and stated reasons for his resignation are not consistent with the relationship and interactions they had. So despite the supposition that this was a mystery, Jerrold clearly acknowledges underlying issues that, when analyzed, could illuminate why Knowlton resigned. I would argue that Knowlton is both responsible and accountable for the flaws in the management system at the lab. If the management system were functioning effectively, the outcome would have been the behavior modification of Fester. This behavioral modification could have been a result of applying OB Mod. As an example I will take one of Fester’s behaviors and run it through OB Mod. In this case I will use Fester’s rudeness and refusal to “pursue an argument when he claimed it was based on another person's ignorance of the facts involved.” We actually completed step one, identifying the behavior to change. While subjective, it is observable and measurable (it either happened or it didn’t). Next we analyze the frequency, which from the case seems to be often enough “during morning meetings or in smaller discussions.” Then we are supposed to analyze the existing reinforcers, which we have already done using the contingencies of reinforcement in question 3. The next step is, in my opinion, the absolute most crucial step and key flaw in the management system described in the case – intervention. The case provides no evidence that any intervention occurred to address Fester’s behavior, despite Knowlton’s first hand knowledge and second hand accounts from members of his team. The intervening process in OB Mod involves developing an intervention strategy, applying it and then measuring the frequency of the behavior post-intervention. Almost any strategy could be applied, because after this process there is a toll-gate in the process where you determine if the behavior was modified. If the strategy didn’t work you essentially go back to the beginning of the intervention process and try again until the behavior is modified successfully. The final steps in OB Mod involve maintaining the modification using the schedules of reinforcement and evaluate for performance improvement. The changes I would recommend are not ground-breaking in nature, and simple course corrections should be able to get the Millenium group and Simmons Securities back on track. The first set of changes is regarding re-structuring the Millenium group. The new leader, perhaps with higher emotional intelligence, should be prepped with a role perception demonstrating the need to recognize and remediate inter-personal issues and build team cohesion. Setting the foundation for that cohesion would be drafting a new mission statement and set of values upon which the team will operate going forward. Fester is still a part of Simmons Securities and his disruptive behavior has not been addressed. I would recommend using the OB Mod method to alter Fester’s behavior so he adapts better to a team based environment, becomes more inclusive and uses his strengths to help his teammates instead of demeaning them. Furthermore, using Vroom’s expectancy theory, I would increase the instrumentality associated with team-based decision making and expectations of performance. Finally, I think that as an organization it is important for Simmons Securities to tie rewards to performance. This means that performance needs to be objectively measured and leveraging the goal-setting theory is a great means to accomplish that. In this particular case there seems to be a great deal of intelligence and ability in the organization so goal difficulty and specificity should focus on how things are accomplished in addition to what should be accomplished. This should also be driven by the organizations values and mission statement.