Caso Karen Leary

[pic]









Andrew Moorhouse
Monica A. Tran





L2, 24 November 2005
Table of Contents

Table of Contents - 1 -


Karen and Ted’s Communication Breakdown - 2 -

CULTURE - 2 -
COMMUNICATION - 2 -
MOTIVATION - 3 -
CHINESE MANAGEMENT - 4 -
LEADERSHIP - 4 -
REQUEST for OFFICE -4 -
TED’S RESIGNATION - 5 -

Problem Avoidance - 5 -

Karen - 5 -
Ted - 6 -

Decision about Ted’s Future - 6 -


Karen and Ted’s Communication Breakdown
Karen Leary and Ted Chung’s breakdown escalated from a series of miscommunications rooted in cultural, communication, motivation, management, and leadership differences.
CULTURE
Karen's concerns escalate when Ted'sstock purchases deviate from the conservative financial plan that Karen had previously approved.  Karen is low-context, universalistic, and forward-looking; she is comfortable with the financial plan because it is essentially a written contract that explicitly states Ted's plans for the future of the account (a conservative purchase plan).  Although Ted is careful to document his unsolicited trades,in an attempt to abide by Merrill's universalistic compliance issues, his high-context, particularistic, and past and present-oriented relationship with the client later lead him to invest in riskier stocks.  Ted's relationship with the client is rooted in trust, which is a dynamic, unspoken contract that can be changed with the situation.  This trust has its foundation in a shared historical past(both Ted and the client come from the same village) and grows stronger by the day, requiring Ted to adjust the financial plan to the changing relationship.  Additionally, since Ted has succeeded in entrepreneurial contexts he has a lower uncertainty avoidance than Karen, who climbed the corporate ladder.  Thus, Ted and the client may be more comfortable with the ambiguous profitability of riskystocks.
Ted's adherence to standard procedures and compliance issues are a result of power distance.  Although Ted defers to Karen’s authority by never openly challenging her management practices, he considers sales-assistant work “beneath him, particularly if an underling asked him [to help].” From Karen’s low-power-distance perspective, this behavior seems “egotistical;” however, it isbetter explained by a sense Confucian dynamism where relationships are ordered by status and reporting lines observe that hierarchy.
Ted's "stiff formality" can be explained by a neutral, specific, collectivist and masculine culture; while Karen's perception of him derives from an affective, diffuse, and individualistic perspective. Karen’s high-profile position as a manager promotes a largepublic space that is accessible to other FC’s at the office. Ted, however, carefully guards both his public and private personas, thereby leading Karen to feel like she never truly knows the person behind the cool and composed professional. Additionally, Ted is more likely to consider his co-workers as an out-group and hence more likely to distance himself from the office culture.
COMMUNICATIONGiven the role of relationships and high power distance in Taiwanese culture, Ted is more likely to communicate in a way that is high-context, indirect, and formal; whereas Karen is low-context, direct, and informal. Ted’s displays of ceremony are not well-received by Karen, who prefers to manage through “informal counseling and coaching.” Additionally, Karen has a high dependence on words andcannot address Ted’s concerns if he doesn’t explicitly voice them. Her interpretation of his silence becomes a source of miscommunication.
Although Karen initially gives Ted some latitude in developing Taiwanese market, she later grows uncomfortable with his decisions due to lack of contexting in communication. Ted does not consult with Karen before making decisions (such as the one to...