After reading Wardle’s article, I understand why Alan’s practices and way of leading the department were not beneficial to himself or anyone else within the company He was cocky and felt the company revolved around him. We all know an “Alan” or someone similar to him. Someone with the “my way or the highway mentality”, wanting to be in the center of everything. What I’ve learned about someone that is like Alan, is they only act this way to fill a void that is inside of them. This void may be a feeling of a lack of purpose, or wanting to be seen. However, I feel that sometimes a company needs an “Alan” in order to make everyone around him want it more. This may not happen most of the time, but this attitude can force other workers to work harder in order to show their worth. When someone like Alan comes into the workplace, acting as if all the workers beneath him are tools, he makes those workers just want to work harder to prove him wrong. I would say confidently, that I am not Alan and don’t feel his approach is the right approach in any setting. The changes that Wardle identifies that could’ve changed Alan’s outcome are not adapting and making an effort to communicate with his new workplace. Alan instead continued on with his dominant approach, and this was the reason for his downfall. He felt entitled to the position he was in and didn’t earn the authority he wanted to portray.
Leave a Reply