لخّصلي

Victimized Faculty Dr. Forester exhibited signs that she was frustrated and had been victimized by the change in her assignments. Her frustration irose from a shift in management styles as a result of the recent reorganization. She was consulted about either the change in assignment nor the shift in her expected priorities by the administration. She was perplexed, leading her during the course of the meeting to figuratively throw up her hands and ask, "What do you expect?" This case then presents the management challenge of balancing the staff member's expectations with her ability and effort. Recognizing this expectation gap early simplifies the redirection or resolution of the conflict. Relevant Management Concept: Expectancy Theory. Interpersonal conflict is evident between Dr. Forester and her chair. Compounding the problem is her intrapersonal (internal) frustration in being unable to define or accept the expectations of Dr.Marino. Expectancy theory provides some insight into this dilemma. Expectancy theory addresses relationships between performance and satisfaction. Satisfaction for many is internalized as an outcome of reward and effort expired. This reward: effort ratio determines effort. Effort subsequently is influenced by abilities and values, and it determinances performance. The cycle of performance may be exemplified by the employee who is satisfied that an effort of 10 percent yielded a 5 percent reward. Because of the low reward: effort ratio, one might expect the employee to demonstrate the same ability and values, yet the effort may be proportionally lower. A second scenario is common. Frequently, all employees in a group receive equal percent salary increases. The employee may translate this reward of effort as average, while assuming individual efforts have been high. Management may interpret the equal rises as a gesture of fairness for a group all of which performed similarly if excellent Egypt average. In either case, there is a discrepancy in which the employee's internal reward system reaches a conclusion of excellence, whereas the external rewards system of management judges performance as mediocre. Employees' internal assessments may be sharply affected by the internal values ​​of energy expired and length of a CV, while management's external rewards support the intrinsic value of teamwork and outcomes instead of effort or ability. In either situation, communication is required to channel the employee's efforts and abilities to achieve the externally moderated rewards that are valued to the organization. The leadership challenges are diverse for the principals in this case. Dean Markin should have been aware of the potential for conflict. She should have initiated reinforcing communication to ensure that Dr. Marino understood, communicated, and motivated His subordinates. Dr. Marino's leadership challenge was to recognize and be sensitive to the intrapersonal strife of Dr. Forester. He should then have initiated further communication and evaluation sessions for reinforcement. And, finally, Dr. Forester should have taken the initiative to meet with Dr. Marino with a specific agenda to clarify her role and expectations.

Victimized Faculty
Dr. Forester exhibited signs that she was frustrated and had been victimized by the change in her assignments. Her frustration irose from a shift in management styles as a result of the recent reorganization. She was consulted about either the change in assignment nor the shift in her expected priorities by the administration. She was perplexed, leading her during the course of the meeting to figuratively throw up her hands and ask, "What do you expect?" This case then presents the management challenge of balancing the staff member's expectations with her ability and effort. Recognizing this expectation gap early simplifies the redirection or resolution of the conflict.
Relevant Management Concept: Expectancy Theory. Interpersonal conflict is evident between Dr. Forester and her chair. Compounding the problem is
her intrapersonal (internal) frustration in being unable to define or accept the expectations of Dr.Marino.
Expectancy theory provides some insight into this dilemma. Expectancy theory addresses relationships between performance and satisfaction.
Satisfaction for many is internalized as an outcome of reward and effort expired. This reward: effort ratio determines effort. Effort subsequently is influenced
by abilities and values, and it determinances performance. The cycle of performance may be exemplified by the employee who is satisfied that an effort of 10 percent yielded a 5 percent reward. Because of the low reward: effort ratio, one might expect the employee to demonstrate the same ability and values, yet the effort may be proportionally lower. A second scenario is common. Frequently, all employees in a group receive equal percent salary increases. The employee may translate this reward
of effort as average, while assuming individual efforts have been high. Management may interpret the equal rises as a gesture of fairness for a group
all of which performed similarly if excellent Egypt average. In either case, there is a discrepancy in which the employee's internal reward system reaches a conclusion of excellence, whereas the external rewards system of management judges performance as mediocre. Employees' internal assessments may be
sharply affected by the internal values ​​of energy expired and length of a CV, while management's external rewards support the intrinsic value of teamwork
and outcomes instead of effort or ability. In either situation, communication is required to channel the employee's efforts and abilities to achieve the
externally moderated rewards that are valued to the organization.
The leadership challenges are diverse for the principals in this case. Dean Markin should have been aware of the potential for conflict. She should have
initiated reinforcing communication to ensure that Dr. Marino understood, communicated, and motivated His subordinates. Dr. Marino's leadership challenge was to recognize and be sensitive to the intrapersonal strife of Dr. Forester. He should then have initiated further communication and evaluation
sessions for reinforcement. And, finally, Dr. Forester should have taken the initiative to meet with Dr. Marino with a specific agenda to clarify her role and
expectations.