DR A was appointed as the head of department in an NGO in the south western part of Nigeria in February. Even though he had four colleagues who were senior to him, the outgoing head of department recommended him as the new head of department and the decision was ratified by the Overall company head.

During the first week of his tenure as head of department, he called a meeting of all staff to articulate his vision for the department and to solicit staff cooperation to achieve his goals. At the meeting, of the 20 staff only 12 attended the meeting which started one hour later than scheduled. No single colleague that was senior to him attended the meeting.

Dr A suspected that the colleagues that were senior to him were not happy that he was appointed as HOD instead of them. He reached out one on one to each of the four colleagues to solicit thier support and cooperation during his tenure.

One month to into his tenure , it was obvious to Dr A that despite his attempts to reach out to the aggrevied colleagues, they were unwilling to support him as HOD. They constantly challenged his decisions and instigated other members of staff to oppose his every move.

Dr A has since identified members who were supportive of him and resolved to work strictly with them in delegating tasks while excluding those who were in the camp of the aggreived lecturers.

The situation became so bad that the OVerhead had to call a meeting twice in two months to mediate among members of staff. Despite this , there has been no improvement in the department as there is constant bickering among staff.

What do you think should be done to resolve this issue?

Thou preparest a table befor me, in d presence of my enemies....

5minsmadness:
DR A was appointed as the head of department in an NGO in the south western part of Nigeria in February. Even though he had four colleagues who were senior to him, the outgoing head of department recommended him as the new head of department and the decision was ratified by the Overall company head.

During the first week of his tenure as head of department, he called a meeting of all staff to articulate his vision for the department and to solicit staff cooperation to achieve his goals. At the meeting, of the 20 staff only 12 attended the meeting which started one hour later than scheduled. No single colleague that was senior to him attended the meeting.

Dr A suspected that the colleagues that were senior to him were not happy that he was appointed as HOD instead of them. He reached out one on one to each of the four colleagues to solicit thier support and cooperation during his tenure.

One month to into his tenure , it was obvious to Dr A that despite his attempts to reach out to the aggrevied colleagues, they were unwilling to support him as HOD. They constantly challenged his decisions and instigated other members of staff to oppose his every move.

Dr A has since identified members who were supportive of him and resolved to work strictly with them in delegating tasks while excluding those who were in the camp of the aggreived lecturers.

The situation became so bad that the OVerhead had to call a meeting twice in two months to mediate among members of staff. Despite this , there has been no improvement in the department as there is constant bickering among staff.

What do you think should be done to resolve this issue?

He should sack them, if he has the power to, or report to a higher authority to either sack them or transfer them somewhere else and then appoint people who are willing to work with him in their positions

hahn:


He should sack them, if he has the power to, or report to a higher authority to either sack them or transfer them somewhere else and then appoint people who are willing to work with him in their positions

He doesn't have the power to sack them outright, but he can report to the overhead. Three reports make them eligible for a sack.

But he's not looking for trouble either, trying to see if there is still any way to solve the problem amicably.

5minsmadness:

He doesn't have the power to sack them outright, but he can report to the overhead. Three reports make them eligible for a sack.

But he's not looking for trouble either, trying to see if there is still any way to solve the problem amicably.

But he's already in trouble. There's nothing worse than having subordinates who don't respect you and even go as far as trying to ridicule you in front of other junior staff. This is already a war. He should take them out. Point blank

He needs to act fast by sacking them,or they will make his tenure ungovernable,which can lead to his own sacking by the superior..

In summary,the stubborn surbodinates should be shown the exit door.

5minsmadness:
What do you think should be done to resolve this issue?

I think he needs to employ a number of strategies - both short and long-term.

He needs to go about making it his kingdom. His rule. Remember how when David became king - he replaced many governors and "heads of" with his own people. Many of the replacements were his close relatives or in-laws. A new president makes his own appointments.

I hope he has good leverage with his superiors? He should of course always reach out to the four - which I believe he has - and be unrelenting in his efforts. If they have specific, legitimate grievances - other than "it should have been me" - they should be addressed. These expereinced hands may prove a good resource.

If such efforts continue to prove abortive, he can think about getting rid of one of the seniors - using any "legal" recourse open to him. He is replaced by someone loyal to him. Either someone external who knows who the boss is, or someone internal who's fealty is unquesioned. If at all possible target the leader of the "fumbling four".

If possible, he can cause dissension amongst them by forming a new layer of management and making one of the four manager/senior to the other 3. He can move to reduce their visibility and powers, or promote others - his supporters - to their level to weaken their power base. Only legally of course.

He can sanction them through reviews and appraisals. Ensure conduct and co-operation are integral to the expectations set for them. If they don't meet them, they get hurt in the pocket and by stalling careers/opportunities.

He needs to continue to map, publish and execute his strategy for his department. Continue to increase his number of loyalists with strategic hires and promotions.

He should build a broad network - especially at the peer level and ensure his own profile and esteem in the organisation is high.


TV

TV01:

I think he needs to employ a number of strategies - both short and long-term.

He needs to go about making it his kingdom. His rule. Remember how when David became king - he replaced many governors and "heads of" with his own people. Many of the replacements were his close relatives or in-laws. A new president makes his own appointments.

I hope he has good leverage with his superiors? He should of course always reach out to the four - which I believe he has - and be unrelenting in his efforts. If they have specific, legitimate grievances - other than "it should have been me" - they should be addressed. These expereinced hands may prove a good resource.

If such efforts continue to prove abortive, he can think about getting rid of one of the seniors - using any "legal" recourse open to him. He is replaced by someone loyal to him. Either someone external who knows who the boss is, or someone internal who's fealty is unquesioned. If at all possible target the leader of the "fumbling four".

If possible, he can cause dissension amongst them by forming a new layer of management and making one of the four manager/senior to the other 3. He can move to reduce their visibility and powers, or promote others - his supporters - to their level to weaken their power base. Only legally of course.

He can sanction them through reviews and appraisals. Ensure conduct and co-operation are integral to the expectations set for them. If they don't meet them, they get hurt in the pocket and by stalling careers/opportunities.

He needs to continue to map, publish and execute his strategy for his department. Continue to increase his number of loyalists with strategic hires and promotions.

He should build a broad network - especially at the peer level and ensure his own profile and esteem in the organisation is high.


TV

Spot on TV. The best advice you can possibly get is this.

TV01:

I think he needs to employ a number of strategies - both short and long-term.

He needs to go about making it his kingdom. His rule. Remember how when David became king - he replaced many governors and "heads of" with his own people. Many of the replacements were his close relatives or in-laws. A new president makes his own appointments.

I hope he has good leverage with his superiors? He should of course always reach out to the four - which I believe he has - and be unrelenting in his efforts. If they have specific, legitimate grievances - other than "it should have been me" - they should be addressed. These expereinced hands may prove a good resource.

If such efforts continue to prove abortive, he can think about getting rid of one of the seniors - using any "legal" recourse open to him. He is replaced by someone loyal to him. Either someone external who knows who the boss is, or someone internal who's fealty is unquesioned. If at all possible target the leader of the "fumbling four".

If possible, he can cause dissension amongst them by forming a new layer of management and making one of the four manager/senior to the other 3. He can move to reduce their visibility and powers, or promote others - his supporters - to their level to weaken their power base. Only legally of course.

He can sanction them through reviews and appraisals. Ensure conduct and co-operation are integral to the expectations set for them. If they don't meet them, they get hurt in the pocket and by stalling careers/opportunities.

He needs to continue to map, publish and execute his strategy for his department. Continue to increase his number of loyalists with strategic hires and promotions.

He should build a broad network - especially at the peer level and ensure his own profile and esteem in the organisation is high.


TV

Noted.
Thanks!

OK thanks all. I appreciate.

You can't believe I faced the same thing in my company as the acting head and some powers that be didn't want that. My driver was also rude to me but......
I wasn't nice as most would prescribed - I identified the very top bosses that gat my back and would stand by me anytime and took off.
I made the driver move to another company under the group away from mine , made all communication by mails copying very top(on my side bosses they feared) , changed a lot of rules and kept them busy , made it clear that I don't tolerate rubbish and had to even scold one of them before everyone and right now am rocking my show and churning out results.
I don't care - I was preferred!

DWJOBScom:
You can't believe I faced the same thing in my company as the acting head and some powers that be didn't want that. My driver was also rude to me but......
I wasn't nice as most would prescribed - I identified the very top bosses that gat my back and would stand by me anytime and took off.
I made the driver move to another company under the group away from mine , made all communication by mails copying very top(on my side bosses they feared) , changed a lot of rules and kept them busy , made it clear that I don't tolerate rubbish and had to even scold one of them before everyone and right now am rocking my show and churning out results.
I don't care - I was preferred!

Thanks.

The issue is that the senior guys in question have been working for the company for not less than 10yrs each. The oldest has been around for close to 15yrs. Unfortunately they were not chosen cause it was felt they lacked commitment and were kind of old fashioned in thier ideas. Also they were a little too familiar with authority. So this young vibrant guy got the HOD job instead. And it hasn't been easy.


Some folk are saying he should just resign and leave the work for them shikena. Most others are looking at the Nigerian factor (they are your elders, you should defer to dem, show respect, you don't know where you'll see them again etc.)

But he feels it would be very unfair if he has to resign cos some lazy elders could meet up to demands. Then again what happens when he's no longer Hod (tenure lasts 2yrs) won't he get backlash etc?

5minsmadness:

Thanks.

The issue is that the senior guys in question have been working for the company for not less than 10yrs each. The oldest has been around for close to 15yrs. Unfortunately they were not chosen cause it was felt they lacked commitment and were kind of old fashioned in thier ideas. Also they were a little too familiar with authority. So this young vibrant guy got the HOD job instead. And it hasn't been easy.


Some folk are saying he should just resign and leave the work for them shikena. Most others are looking at the Nigerian factor (they are your elders, you should defer to dem, show respect, you don't know where you'll see them again etc.)

But he feels it would be very unfair if he has to resign cos some lazy elders could meet up to demands. Then again what happens when he's no longer Hod (tenure lasts 2yrs) won't he get backlash etc?

I won't lie - it wasn't easy
Most people under me earn more than I do
With better qualifications but I was preferred for a reason.
Yes I prayed and fasted too and sort for strength and it came.
He shouldn't resign - he should concentrate on making the best of his tenure. Alittle politics will be involved(as he will have to make his camp a strong one but he shouldn't resign. If I did it - everyone can