THE VICE PRESIDENT, THE PRODUCT

MANAGER, AND THE MISUNDERSTANDING

Submitted by:

Niña Jade D. Domoloan

Submitted to:

Joselito O.Daroy, REE

THE VICE PRESIDENT, THE PRODUCT MANAGER, AND THE MISUNDERSTANDING

Tom Brewster one of the field sales managers of Major Tool Works, Inc., was promoted
to his first headquarters assignment as an assistant product manager for a group of products
with which he was relatively unfamiliar. Shortly after he undertook this new assignment, one of
the company’s vice president, Nick Smith, called a meeting of product managers and other staff
to plan marketing strategies. Brewster’s immediate superior, the product manager was unable to
attend, so the director of marketing Jeff Reynolds invited Brewster to the meeting to help orient
him to his new job.

Because of the large number of people attending, Reynolds was rather brief in
introducing Brewster to Smith, who as vice president, was presiding over the meeting. After the
meeting began, Smith- a crusty veteran with a reputation for bluntness-began asking a series of
probing questions that most of the product managers were able to answer in detail. Suddenly he
turned to Brewster and began to question him quite closely about his group of products.
Somewhat confused, Brewster confessed that he did not know the answers.

It was immediately apparent to Reynolds that Smith had forgotten of had failed to
understand that Brewster was new to this job and was attending the meeting more for his own
orientation than to contribute to it. He was about to offer a discreet explanation when Smith,
visibly annoyed with what he took to be Brewster’s lack of preparation, announced,” Gentlemen,
you have just seen an example of sloppy staff work, and there is no excuse for it!”

Reynolds had to make a quick decision. He could interrupt Smith and point out that he
had judged Brewster unfairly; but that course of action might embarrass both his superior and
his subordinates. Alternatively, he could wait until after the meeting and offer an explanation in
private. In as much as Smith quickly became engrossed in another conversation, Reynolds
decided to follow the second approach. Glancing at Brewster, Reynolds noted that his
expression was one of mixed anger and dismay. After catching Brewster’s eye, Reynolds
winked at him as a discreet reassurance that he understood and that the damage could be
repaired.

After an hour, Smith, evidently dissatisfied with what he termed the “inadequate
planning” of the marketing department in general, abruptly declared the meeting over. As he did
so, he turned to Reynolds and asked him to remain behind for a moment. To Reynolds’
surprise, Smith himself immediately raised the question of Brewster. In fact, it turned out to have
been his main reason for asking Reynolds to remain behind. “Look,” he said, “I want you to tell
me frankly, do you think I was too rough with that kid?” Relieved, Reynolds said, “Yes, you
were. I was going to speak to you about it.”

Smith explained that the fact that Brewster was new to his job had not registered
adequately when they had been introduced and that it was only some time after his own
outburst that he had the nagging thought that what he had done was inappropriate and unfair.
“How well do you know him?” he asked. “Do you think I hurt him?”
 For a moment, Reynolds took the measure of his superior. Then he replied evenly, “I
don’t know him very well yet. But, I think you hurt him.”

“Damn, that’s unforgivable,” said Smith. He then telephoned his secretary to call
Brewster and ask him to report to his office immediately. A few moments later, Brewster
returned, looking perplexed and uneasy. As he entered, Smith came out from behind his desk
and met him in the middle of the office. Standing face to face with Brewster, who was 20 years
and four organization levels his junior, he said, “Look, I’ve done something stupid and I want to
apologize. I had no right to treat you like that. I should have remembered that you were new to
your job. I’m sorry.”

Brewster was somewhat flustered but muttered his thanks for the apology.

“As long as you are here, young man,” Smith continued. “I want to make a few things
clear to you in the presence of your boss’s boss. Your job is to make sure that people like
myself don’t make stupid decisions. Obviously we think you are qualified for your job or we
would not have brought you in here. But it takes time to learn any job. Three months from now I
will expect you to know the answers to any questions about your products. Until then,” he said,
thrusting out his hand for the younger man to shake, “you have my complete confidence. And
thank you for letting me correct a really dumb mistake.”
THE VICE PRESIDENT, THE PRODUCT MANAGER, AND THE MISUNDERSTANDING

CASE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

1. What do you think was the effect of Smith’s outburst on the other managers at the meeting?

Due to the lack of technical skill, human relation skill and conceptual skill, Mr.
Smith which is the Vice President, tongue-lash Tom Brewster directly when he failed to
answers questions asked by him. Mr. Smith’s outburst definitely had an effect on the
other managers at the meeting. The individual conflict between the Vice President and
the assistant Product Manager may cause other managers to be not motivated during
the meeting. Other managers might also be worried that they will be equally humiliated
by Mr. Smith if they will not meet the marketing strategies that were being discussed in
the meeting.
The way Mr. Smith handled the conflict during the meeting might lead to
managers refusing to cooperate with him that may result into more conflicts in the future,
the effect is hostility from the managers. Conflicts in an organization have some positive
effects. Fear was created among the managers. As stated above, the managers will not
wish to be tongue-lash the way the assistant product manager was tongue-lash. The
other managers will have to perform if they would not wish to face the wrath of the Vice
President in the future. This will therefore go a long way to increase productivity at the
Major Tool Works Inc.

2. Was it necessary for Smith to apologize to Brewster? Why?

Yes, it is necessary for Mr. Smith to apologize to Brewster, because according to

the behavioural theory of leadership, an effective leader has respect for employees’
ideas and with regards for their feelings. Mr. Smith forgot about Tom was just promoted
to be an assistant product manager while Mr. Reynolds had given a brief introduction
about Tom, so Mr. Smith committed a mistake- a minor mistake indeed. We are not
giving reason to make his mistake proper, but he is a Vice President of the company, he
is responsible for the overall management of the organization, such as the policies, the
long term aims, the marketing strategies and important decision making.
Even if Brewster is lack of technical skill, on the other hand, Mr. Reynolds has a
fault too because even if he knew that Brewster could not qualify the job, he still invited
him to the meeting in as much as the product manager could not attend. In the first
place, Mr. Reynolds must introduce Brewster to Mr. Smith and tell him the fact more
detail instead of briefly, by doing this act it shows that Mr. Reynolds is lack of human
relation skill. Without knowing the fact more detailed Mr. Smith’s outburst happen which
is acceptable because he was hot-tempered not to think that Tom is just new to his job
and probably he saw that Brewster’s lacks technical skill, performance, orientation and
his colleague’s opinion but the mere fact also that Mr. Smith lacks of conceptual skill due
to his direct outburst.
3. How would you respond to the kind of apology that Brewster received?

As for me, I will be thankful because of what happen in the meeting it is an

honest mistake that serves as a lesson even though it was embarrassing to be tongue-
lash while everybody is there eyeing and hearing the outburst of Mr. Smith. Hence, If I
was on the shoe of Tom I myself know that I was wrong because I lack knowledge and
proficiency in my specific field though I am new to that position still it is not an excuse
that I didn’t know about the answer to a question about the product in our assigned
department. By lacking technical skills he was tongue-lash by his superior whom also
lacks conceptual skills through his direct outburst without knowing the whole fact, and
his superior even call him name like “sloppy staff”.
Despite of that misunderstanding due to lack of human skills in which Mr.
Reynolds must have so that Mr. Smith won’t react like that. Still in the end Mr. Smith was
taken back about the situation during the meeting and realized that it was his bad to
tongue-lash Tom without knowing that he is just new to his job. After all, it is a lesson for
all of them; Mr. Smith who lacks conceptual skills, Mr. Reynolds whom lacks human
skills and Tom Brewster who lacks technical skills.

4. What would it be like to have Smith working for you? To work with Smith?

Mr. Smith one of the company’s vice-presidents, the one who called the meeting
of product managers and other staff to plan marketing strategies in the case. He forgot
about Tom was just promoted to be an assistant product manager while Mr. Reynolds
had given a brief introduction before. Here, Mr. Smith might have a mistake but after the
meeting Mr. Smith made things clear by talking with Mr. Reynolds because he felt he
had hurt Tom, his young subordinate. So Mr. Smith then apologized to Tom and
encouraged him. Misunderstanding was broken and finally leaded to a more complete
knowing.
As for me, it might be challenging to work with him because I need to keep
myself always ready to any possible questions that he might asked so that if possible I
won’t be tongue-lash by him like he tongue-lash Tom. Even if Mr. Smith is a crusty
veteran with a reputation for bluntness he is sensible and good as a superior to work
with after all.

5. How does Smith define Brewster’s responsibilities as an assistant product manager? How
does he define his own role as a top manager?

Tom Brewster, one of the field sales managers of Major Tool Works Inc., had
been promoted to his first headquarters assignment as an assistant product manager for
a group of products with which he was relatively unfamiliar. Brewster’s superior, the
product manager was unable to attend, so the director of marketing, Jeff Reynolds
invited Brewster to the meeting to help orient him to his new job.
In the meeting, Mr. Smith-a crusty veteran with a reputation for bluntness began
asking a series of probing question that the most of the product managers were able to
answer in detail. Suddenly, he turned to Brewster and began to question him about his
group of products but Tom confessed that he did not know the answer with that Mr.
Smith was annoyed and announced, “Gentlemen, you have just seen an example of
sloppy staff work, and there is no excuse for it.”
Mr. Smith defined Brewster’s responsibilities as an example of sloppy staff work
due to misunderstanding and miscommunication.
He defined his own as a crusty veteran with a reputation for bluntness and doing
some stupid things to Tom without knowing that Tom is just new to his job.