Eric Peterson (a) and (b)

Erik Peterson (A & B)

Key Problems

The key problems facing Erik Peterson are his lack of industry knowledge, his lack of clarity on the reporting structure above him and the problems that existed when Peterson first took over the project and the lack of a good plan to start with.

Peterson lacks industry knowledge and does not have adequate backup in his own team with sufficient knowledge of starting up a new cellular division. Curt Andrews, his chief engineer had poor planning capabilities and lacked the system operating knowledge and expertise to help Peterson out by providing advice or guidance. But Peterson was unable to convince headquarters to do away with Curt. Peterson finally had to end up doing a lot of hand-holding for Curt.

Peterson lacks clarity on the reporting structure of the organization and he is not assertive enough to get this clarified with Jenkins with whom he had his interview discussion. Ideally he should have got this clarified as soon as he joined. But surely after he had problems dealing with Hardy, he should have approached Jenkins to get this resolved.

Peterson took over the division with a truck-load of problems on hand like the non-performing and non-co-operating sub-contractor already behind schedule and unable to meet agreed upon deadlines. Equipment delays by Headquarters added to the mess. These were neither effectively managed nor were these communicated to the higher management in time which left senior management unaware of it.

Other problems that Peterson faced included lack of support from Hardy on decisions he made for the good of GMCT like with the agreements with local governments, brewing conflict and uneasiness within team (Curt-Trevor, Curt-Stevana), antagonizing higher-ups like Cantor and Green early in his company tenure.

Underlying Issues and recommendations

The key underlying issues are the assumptions that Peterson makes about the organization, the assumed rules, the assumed organizational structure and the assumed way of working within the organization. Instead of just assuming it, he should have opened lines of communication with others in the organization. E.g. when he finds that he and his team lacks industry knowledge, the same should be raised to the senior management and expressed clearly as a risk to the project if not fixed immediately. This is what resulted in him having to back-out of so many decisions including pay-reversals and resistance for so many of his decisions including the termination of the contractor.

Another key underlying issue is a lack of sufficient contact with and reporting to Senior Management. Peterson is doing a pretty good job of managing the day to day management problems. But just keeping the higher management in the loop with regular contact would have helped him get greater authority in making decisions on GMCT. That would have also helped him get his decisions through in case there was resistance from Hardy for flimsy reasons. Peterson should showcase his performance to the Senior Management and be more in touch with the Senior Management (Jenkins et al). His lack of contact with Jenkins after his appointment is a big mistake considering all the problems

...