responses to a case about workplace communication

In light of the new information provided in the case, it is clear that both sides have legitimate concerns. Max is concerned about employee morale as well as productivity. Sue is also concerned with employee morale and productivity, but also organizational culture. Although Sue’s communication style seems abrasive and defensive, she makes some valid points that should be heard rather than dismissed out of hand. For one, Sue is correct that simply asking others if she can help them should not be misinterpreted as criticism. If Sue is faster and more productive than her colleagues, her supervisors should commend her behavior and call upon the other members of the team to improve their performance outputs, rather than asking Sue to change. Second, Sue is right that some of the engineers have been setting an artificially slow pace. In so doing, the workers are not just harming productivity and outputs for the company, but also undermining workplace culture by creating a “boys club.” Sue is experiencing a toxic work environment and likely more gender-based discrimination than a superficial reading of the case might suggest. Already in a male-dominated field and workplace, Sue is getting shut out systematically, as she is outnumbered. The men on the team set the tone and the pace, and Sue has few allies, which is why she has to come to her own defense. Sue is in a supervisory role that should garner her far more respect than she is currently experiencing either from her team or from Max.

Therefore, Max did not do a great job overall. He did not enter into the conversation with Sue conversationally but more in an authoritarian way by saying things like, “You’re going to have to be patient with them and not publicly call them out on their performance.” Max also states, “This is a good group of engineers, and their work over the years has been more than acceptable,” without acknowledging Sue’s contributions or her outperforming her teammates. If Max wants a win-win solution, he needs to listen more closely to Sue and recognize that the problem is a lot deeper than he thinks—the problem is with organizational culture. The transportation case substantiates what Max and Sue are going through because it shows how information and communication gaps can “cause friction and frustration,” (Aranda, 2000, p. 3). Likewise, Aranda (2000) points out the problems inherent in a workplace that does not embed showing appreciation as a normative behavior. Showing appreciation boosts employee morale and inspires all workers to improve productivity further.

These types of situations are never easy to resolve, though. What I do about the situation depends more on my position and role in the organization than on my values. If I were in a senior management position, I would take great strides in changing the organizational culture. I would make sure that Sue’s voice was heard, and the voices of other women. Likewise, I would check in with minorities or anyone else who might be systematically excluded from the organizational culture. I would create ways to empower each person, establishing a system of rewards or bonuses that might encourage increased productivity. Then I would create ways of creating solidarity and camaraderie, such as organizing social events. This way, the members of the team can get to know each other and gain respect and trust for one another. Unlike the Aranda (2000) case, the engineers are being compensated well; their frustration is more related to interpersonal communications breakdowns than to workplace environment issues, too. Just as the managers in the Aranda (2000) case had to make global, organization-wide changes to the budget in order to solve human resources problems, I would also have to consult with my partners in senior management to come up with comprehensive solutions to the problem. When we clarify our overall goals, we can achieve desired outputs as well as cultivate a healthier and more supportive culture.