Bridging the Two Worlds -

¶ … Bridging the Two Worlds - the Organizational Dilemma

The case study clearly presents issues regarding bad communication in the workplace. In this case, this altered communication takes place between management and the shop floor employees. Communication is a very important part of the work process. The lack of communication between managers and their subordinates creates a series of negative issues that will further affect this relationship and the overall activity of the company. In this case, deficient communication between managers and shop floor employees was due to a series of barriers that interfered with the communication process. Communication barriers can be encoding, transmitting, decoding or responding related. The first barrier observed in this case study refers to the lack of sensitivity shown to receiver. Management's message was not adapted, was not suitable for the shop floor employees. Workers' needs and status are not understood by the management, which makes it impossible to send the right message. Regarding transmitting barriers, in this case one may observe the channel barrier. Managers send memos to the shop floor employees. This transmitting channel is not the right channel for workers, who would probably prefer a more direct mean of communication, and also, an interactive one, so that they can respond immediately. Also, these memos are overloaded with information, given the fact that these memos at AEC are very long, over 2 pages most of the times. As theory states, a good memo must have one page, or 2 pages maximum. Another communication barrier observed in this study regards the responding part of the communication process. In other words, there is no provision for feedback. Communication between managers and shop floor employees does not take place in a direct manner. Therefore, it is difficult for the employees to give their feedback to the memos. In order to overcome these communication barriers, the author understood from the beginning that he must get to know the people he is working with, in order to improve communication, on the one hand, and to improve work efficiency, on the other hand. The author started spending a great deal of time among the workers, to see how they work, what their problems are, and what needs they have. Also, he started to improve communication between managers and shop floor employees, by becoming the messenger between them. He is representing the management, which means he is able to speak managers' "language," but he also understands workers, which makes it very easy for him to talk to both managers and workers in a suitable manner. His communication method was obviously a successful one, given the fact that they managed to reduce new order turnarounds from four to five weeks to one or two days.

In the final part of the study, George, the AEC vice president, tells John that the company would like to send him to a management skills seminar, as a reward for improving the company's activity. However, John is upset by this proposal. The reason why the proposal upset John is again related to bad communication, to misunderstanding actually. Managers did not change their communication style following the author's example. Therefore, when John hears about this proposal from George, he thinks the company is sending him to training sessions because he is not skilled enough. John does not realize that this is a reward. Instead, he thinks the company is not satisfied with his work, that he is not skilled enough. In this case, the author should explain the situation very clearly to John, in a manner that is best suitable from him, from employee to employee, not from manager to subordinate. The author must make John understand that the company is rewarding him and is trying to help him develop other skills.

Case Study 12.1 Rhonda Clark: Taking Charge at the Smith Foundation

Technically, Clark does possess some sort of power, granted by her position as a CEO. However, this power is limited, and it only depends on the foundation's board members. Her power can mostly be exerted on her subordinates. Clark does not have any power over the board members. In fact, her power is established by these board members. However, Clark tries to increase her power by collaborating with female board members. This was not an unconditioned collaboration, since these board members only helped Clark gain more power by asking certain favors from Clark.

This case study presents the situation of a nonprofit foundation CEO whose power of action is extremely limited. Even more, Clark does not have the vote of confidence from board members. It seems that certain board members are trying to keep Clark from doing her job. Maybe they are worried that some negative aspects might come out regarding their activity. In these given circumstances, it was quite difficult for Clark to exert any kind of influence on the board members. However, Clark probably did the only thing possible in these conditions. She figured out in the beginning that board members were not in her favor and that it was practically impossible for her to convince all the board members, or the majority, from the beginning. Clark thought that female board members might sympathize more with the causes she is trying to get involved in. She further thought that by influencing female board members, they could themselves influence other board members and things might start to change. Her reasoning was correct. However, the female board members were willing to help Clark only if Clark helped them. For example, Clark had to employ friends of female board members in the foundation staff, and to implement some of their ideas. Of course, this is not a technique that management manuals approve of. At the time, it seemed to be the only approach that Clark could follow in order to get some results from the foundation's work. Clark tried to influence some members of the board, thinking that they would influence other. She also had to compromise in order to do so. Eventually, this approach turned out to be working only in the beginning. Clark managed to put some of her ideas into practice. But this happened only for a short period of time. The foundation's financial difficulties were not overcome and Clark's activity was questioned by several members of the board.