This email was sent to managers throughout a large technology company in an effort to change employee behavior. Before I analyze this for supportive communication, I would like to reflect on the use of appropriate Netiquitte within the email. Perhaps this leader has never read Virginia Shea's (1994) "Core Rules of Netiquette" (p. 32):
- Remember the Human
- Adhere to the same standards online that you follow in real life
- Know where you are in cyberspace
- Respect other people's time and bandwidth
- Make yourself look good online
- Share expert knowledge
- Help keep flame wars under control
- Respect other people's privacy
- Don't abuse your power
- Be forgiving of other people's mistakes
Clearly, the leader did not have regard for the human on the other end of the computer, hopefully they do not interact in the same manner in person as they do online, they did not think their email would end up as a prompt for my coursework, flame wars were fueled and promoted and there is a definite abuse of power in the tone of the email.
When someone receives online communication, there is an inability to see the facial expressions and hear the vocal intonation changes in the expression of the words. The only method to indicate yelling is by putting words in all caps and/or italicizing or putting all letters in bold font. Emoji icons are becoming more widely used to indicate emotion, but I would imagine a flaming, scowling, angry emoji being offered in conjunction with this email if it were sent in the modern day style of electronic communication.
Now on to supportive communication analysis. According to Whetten & Cameron (2016), there are eight attributes to supportive communication (p . 194):
- Congruent, Not Incongruent
- Descriptive, Not Evaluative
- Problem-Oriented, Not Person-Oriented
- Validating, Not Invalidating
- Specific, Not Global
- Conjunctive, Not Discjunctive
- Owned, Not Disowned
- Supportive Listening, Not One-Way Listening
While the leader was definitely congruent in the communication of their heated feelings, they did so at the expense of making employees feel belittled and like scolded children. There is a much greater level of tact that could be used to convey a message of adherence to a 40 hr/wk schedule at the office while maintaining integrity and respect of employees. The use of evaluative and non-descriptive language continues the angered tone of the email and squelches any potential for two-way supportive communication. To combat this, I would initially apologize profusely for my impulsive in sending such a message and then offer descriptive data through an objective lens. Perhaps employees were fraudulently marking on their time sheet that they were in the office from 8a-5p, when there were multiple instances of the employees not arriving until well past the normative initiation of the work day.
This scathing email does not pick out any one individual and does list problems, yet it is a general understanding that the collective "YOU" is the group of managers to which the email was sent. Perhaps allowing managers to reflect on how they have promoted a culture in which a lax work schedule is permissible would be more effective. The next area of validation would be a huge task to reconcile after sending such an email. Let us now switch angles and approach this from a stance where this email was never sent and validation would be provided to deter such behavior from ever occurring. While it is important to see what I would do in the instance where I myself had such a large "oops" moment as a leader, trying to offer validation in a relatively short time from the sending of this email would be high futile given the strength of the language used. In order to validate managers, I would discuss those instances where the team has provided a great deal of unity in following through with standards and customs/norms of the organization. Perhaps managers ensure a 1-hour lunch break is strictly followed. I would validate those instances of adherence to standards and reinforce those that are able to get as close to a 40/hr work week out of their employees.
In order to communicate the depth of the concern to the managerial staff, I would need to have a great deal of data collection and analysis about the behaviors prior to giving specific, not global, information. I would want my HR director to monitor employee behavior. I would want a report of those employees that arrived/left work according to contractual standards as compared to those that did not. I would then need a comparative analysis to those that requested PTO. Perhaps the reason for an empty parking lot was largely attributed to a nationally recognized holiday in which many employees would be with family on paid leave. Once the data is received and if it does provide clear support for the argument that employees are not upholding the 40 hr work week, I would subdivide the data for each manager to allow them the necessary information to handle their own department. Perhaps managers are too busy working through larger problems than being a hall-monitor or a security guard of the company parking lot.
This email is unified and conjuctive, though something a little more positive and less berating would be more widely received and obtain improved results from managerial staff. I would ensure that whatever message is provided to one department manager is consistent with that information provided to another department manager in the case that managers decide to compare analytical findings within my communications. Moreover, to promote ownership in the supportive communication, I would use I statements in nearly all of the beginning sentences to explain how my behavior has contributed to the current problem at Cerner.
Finally, in order to provide supportive listening, I would not use any of the statements contained in the original email. I would use open ended questions, perhaps even delivering a survey to managers, calling for their input and data. Maybe managers have implemented a work-from-home incentive program in which those that have productivity standards met on a weekly basis are rewarded the subsequent week by being able to work from home during peak commute hours. I would encourage managers to provide any data that would pertain to the underlying reasons for the workplace behavior.
Whether these techniques would be ideal in fostering supportive communication would be unknown until implementation. That being said, these techniques would be significantly more supportive in comparison to the original communication offered within the prompt. While I have had my own experiences of hitting the "Send" button while under the influence of emotion, I am now more aware of the repercussions and less likely to engage in such behavior as a manager/leader. I hope!
Whetten, D., & Cameron, K. (2016). Developing management skills (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment