'David Fletcher Essay\r'

'David Fletcher, a heavily overworked portfolio manager of the Emerging Growth stemma at a New York investment focusing firm, plans to ramp-up a police squad of research-analysts. He wishes to delegate a p craft of his workload to this aggroup. The grapheme explores the problems that David faces at several(a) stages of introducing newfoundfound members in his team. It to a fault touches upon the challenges faced by a typically task oriented soul objet dart engaging in a team expression exercise. Is David Fletcher roaring? As an undivided, David Fletcher is extremely made at his job.\r\nAn economics major and a Harward backup school graduate, he started his charge as a securities analyst in a New York ass brokerage firm. He cut through the ranks in relatively quick term and very in short he was handled the responsibility of two of the most bellicose mutual funds of his time. David continued his stellar accomplishments in these funds n hotshottheless as he took th em to 10 times their original/starting value. In the words of his colleagues and c relapse cronies, David was not however a lucubrate and decision oriented person but was withal a person who was extremely familiar with the art and the science of portfolio management.\r\nIn the latter half of his depict c beer, David joined Paul Jenkins to form the Jenkins Fletcher partners where he managed a portfolio of 150+ million US$ single handedly. David’s functionings in the various roles he assumed during his c beer amply skilfulify his credibility as an individual and as a professional (portfolio manager). As a team player, colleagues acknowledged David’s acumen in the field of portfolio management. In a itinerary, David commanded respect from his colleagues and superiors kindred which is testament to the f take on that David was an internal cog in the teams that he worked in. As a team manager, David’s success is questionable.\r\nI wish to analyze his r indiv iduallying at configurationing and thereafter leading and managing a team at Fletcher Jenkins partners to substantiate my aforementi peerlessd stance. This brings me to wield a more pertinent question first, What was David’s motivation to build a team? As mentioned previously, David is a highly overworked portfolio manager. Being the best at what he does, in a focus, acts as a detriment to his position as he has to enamour with multiple tasks at a time. As one of the main portfolio managers of Jenkins Fletchers partners, David manages a huge pile of investor’s money (to the tune of 150 million US$) from a total fund size of four hundred million US$.\r\nIf managing a fund wasn’t enough, David also has to do the research of the industries/markets from which he builds his portfolio himself. He is often faced with an information overload which prompts him to attend to for individuals who can assist him in doing justice to his task. As I delved deeper into the c ase, I prepared that David’s heading behind construction a team, in a manner, was to ensure the success of his portfolio irrespective of how the success was achieved. David was so clinical in his pursuit of focusing on his fund’s performance that he became listless to the imbalance in his team.\r\nIn consequence, this approach had David retrogress two of his critical team members. In the pursuance section, I wish to analyze the core factors that contributed towards David’s relative lack of success as a team manager. Why did David’s pursuit of building an effective team not achieve the coveted success? There were multiple mistakes that Fletcher made while ramping up his team of research analysts. Some of his shortcomings are blaringly evident in his interactions with his subordinates and colleagues. Take the case of Stephanie Whitley, with whom he shared a very close relationship.\r\nIn his haste to recruit Doyle, Fletcher completely overlooked the a ct of taking Stephanie into bureau. The lack of consent and thought for how he would fit into the comp either’s culture and nevertheless how he would gel with Stephanie Whitley became evident when tension grew among Doyle and Whitley. At a time when both Whitley and Doyle should entertain provided inputs to each other in their work, most of their time was spent and therefore rendered unproductive in ego-trips fall by the waysidee an than on focusing on their work. To demand matters worse, Fletcher failed to resolution the conflict by taking a resistless approach.\r\nIn fact, Fletcher admitted that he did not actively study to resolve the conflicts which culminated in it beingness stretched all the way till one of the affected parties †Doyle left the firm. In his methodology of approaching deal problems, David Fletcher has exudes callousness. At almost plane, it just seems as though Fletcher does not sire at forging relationships with his team members but ju st tries to leverage their skills and synergies to achieve his final outcome †performance of his portfolio. Fletcher’s callousness is evident in the way he hypothesizes Whitley’s problem as being one of requiring more attention.\r\nFletcher’s attitude caused him to lose credibility with Whitley to such(prenominal) an extent that she did not even confide in him about her decision to quit the job at Fletcher Jenkins partners. Also, in his handling of Doyle, the new associate, Fletcher exudes a certain degree of inflexibility. Doyle, according to the case is excellent in his job at managing portfolios of bouffant Hi-Tech product companies. even out as he joined, Doyle started to research upon stocks of emerging stocks in the very(prenominal) market. Obviously, Doyle was unplaced at the beginning because of a probable yearner ‘unlearning curve’.\r\nIt is evident that Fletcher allows Doyle to move on in a bid to retain Whitley, however the stan ce could have been better handled by firstly answer the personal differences and thereafter by infusing some confidence in Doyle †In that way Fletcher could have carry both his critical employees. Can we see any positives from Fletcher’s behavior thereafter? Yes. In a bid to learn from his past mistakes, Fletcher does try and make a conscious attempt to get new employees acquainted with his existing team to begin with recruiting them.\r\nAs is evident during the discussions on recruiting Mary Robinson, Fletcher actually has Rachel tribe meet Mary Robinson in person at Boston. This, he presumes, shall allow them to reach to an understanding of each other as persons before establishing their compatibility as colleagues. Even in this case, however, he does not use the same procedure of recruitment with Robert Fiske. The case is left open-ended at this point, so it might not be an argument one can convincingly consecrate against Fletcher.\r\nWhat can we learn from this case, Is this practically viable? This case, in itself is an excellent example of how callousness towards understanding people’s problems can end up disrupting the performance of a team. I hail from a successful Sales team in the IT sector. From personal experience, I can attest that it is usually not feasible to take the entire team into confidence before the recruitment of a new team member. However, big level interaction issues †such as the one witnessed in the case can definitely be addressed at the outset.\r\nSecondly, I believe that the efforts taken to recruit a team member or to build a team are at once proportional to the criticality of the task carried out by the team. I have witnessed this factor at my piece of work and this was evident in the case as well. In my experience, I have witnessed that during the recruitment of a view for the role of a business development manager, likely candidates were actually flown down to the UK at my conjunction’ s expense. This role was obviously highly critical for our company’s prospects and the efforts taken by the company were capable to the same.\r\nIn the context of the case, it is interesting to note the undercoat of David Fletcher. He happens to be a Portfolio manager. As a part of his core job itself, he is accountable to pick multiple stocks by looking at their behavior. In totality, his job is to pick up such stocks that would be completely synergistic and thereby build a winning/high performing portfolio. If a direct analogy is drawn to the way Fletcher picks his team, this is the base principle on which he should have picked his team as well. It is only on recruiting perfect complements in his team that Fletcher could have ensured a synergistic performance in his team.\r\nWhy is this case relevant to me as a person? I wish to go in on a career in monetary services wherein I might be anticipate a role similar to that assumed by David. It is said that â€Å"If you w ish to go quickly, go only if but if you wish to go far, go together. ” To go together effectively, it would be imperative for me to contribute towards building a strong team. For this, I would not only have to trust my own instincts but would also have to trust my team members and enable them to realize their self worth. Effectively, it is only when the self interests of team members are aligned with the team interest, that a team is successful.\r\n'