TITLE OF THE CASE : MR.

PADUA

For six years, Mr. Padua had been the Management Services Director of the
Fruit Puree Division of his corporation. With professional experience gained from
various industries, his technical expertise was undoubtedly quite valuable to the
corporation. He, however, had personal attitudes which created a wall of hostility
between him and his staff and the rest of the Senior Managers of his Division.
For one thing, Mr. Padua did not see any point in laughing at a joke which
he did not consider funny. Unfortunately, his standard to “funny” was in the line
of erudite humor, which even the other Directors found too deep for reflection.
Neither did he believe in attempting to gain the drift of others if only to gain
rapport with them. He insisted in being his own person regardless of what others
believe.
It was, also, rare for him to concede to anything. This attitude was
compounded by his difficulty by his difficulty in expressing his thoughts especially
when it came to justifying himself. This caused misunderstandings between him
and others which further aggravated his own negative perception of others as
well as their negative perception of him . He could not give allowances for
differences in his attitude with those of others. And those who differed from him,
in one sense, were treated with a degree of coldness.
He was aware of his social deficiencies, but, according to him, he simply
could not be what he was not. He often mentioned that it was already very hard
for him to change his ways.
Outside the work place, though, Mr. Padua tried hard to be friendly with his
staff. And, while he showed concern for their professional training, he himself
could not seem to be at ease in relating to them in the workplace. It was as if he
was afraid that friendship would curtail his authority.
At this time, a new problem solving system was being inculcated
throughout the corporation. To show his concern for his staff, he made them the
first trainees on the system.
 The system was designed to enable a group to identify a problem and
recommend a solution throughout the various stages of the system. The group
was placed under the guidance of Training Assistants from the Personnel
Directorate ensuring the objectivity of results. The exercise with his staff
identified three difficulties in their workplace, one of which concerned Mr.
Padua. The recommended solution was to replace him.
Needless to say, this put top management in a dilemma. Mr. Padua was an
officer of the company, and to continue to attract talent to officership, his tenure
had to be protected. Besides, the problem focused on Mr. Padua’s personality .
How exactly does one correct that ? He had already attended Dale Camegie’s
course. On the other hand, faith in the system they were endorsing was being
put to the tests results. If they could not support its results now, how could they
expect anyone to believe its merits?