By reading the Southfield Case, one can quickly realize that there is definitely lack of direct communication and goal expectations between both Mark Sanders, Vp of account services and Frank Belby, Reginald manager. I believe, there was a lack of supportive communication between Mark and Frank since in the case it was mentioned that Belby viewed professional guidance from Sanders as threatening and it usually caused Belby to distance himself from Frank, which it negatively resulted production.
Based on the reading of chapter four of Developing Management Skills, there is a fine line between coaching and counseling and it is extremely challenging for managers to effectively perform both and in the same time make sure that they are not directly ignoring the other persons feelings and confidence. When Frank needed professional advice or when professional criticism was required, instead he mostly got coaching instead of counseling, which resulted in the distance relationship between them, which frank interpreted as a criticism attack on his character.
Furthermore, we also learn that in one incident Mark had intervened in a problematic situation between Frank and one of his customers and was able to save that clients contract. By not allowing Frank to resolve the situation, Mark is stretching his duties far too thin and does not allow other employees to delegate effectively, which results in low productivity over all.
Based on chapter four readings, the best relationships are based on congruence, which one cannot really find between Mark and Frank’s relationship. Frank is not being clear about his expectations from Mark. It was mentioned in the case that Frank didn’t get the promotion partially because he never directly communicated to frank that he wanted the promotion.