Case-1-5 Office Romance: Groping for Answers – Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple Perspectives Approach : Book Guide

This Document Contains Cases 1 to 5 Scenario #1: Office Romance: Groping for Answers I. Introduction The scenario portrayed in this video segment highlights important and realistic challenges faced by managers. This case may be effectively used in a management or organizational behavior course to illustrate problem solving and decision making concepts, interpersonal communication processes, or conflict management. For a course in Human Resource Management, this scenario provides a rich background to discuss the potential risk of sexual harassment and the roles HR and managers need to play if faced with such a situation. Learning Objectives To assess students understanding of the analytical decision making approach and to apply it to a novel scenario. To assess students’ ability to detect communication strengths and weaknesses. To have students identify key issues related to inter-office romances and the legal and managerial implications, therein. III. Scenario Description: Overview: Abbe Willsby and Randall Keene are co-leaders of a 15-employee team in a retail/fashion company. Soon after Randall separated from his wife, the two began an affair… Six months later Abbe breaks off the relationship after hearing rumors that Randall still has an intimate relationship with his wife. She sends an email to the manager, Bill Schule, with complaints of sexual harassment and insists something be done. Abbe contends that her former boyfriend and co-leader is flirtatious, inappropriate and constantly discussing past intimate encounters they’d shared, while they work together. Prompted by the email sent by Abbe, Randall meets with the Manager asking for help with the situation. Profile: Bill Schule has been working in a managerial capacity for over 22 years at various companies. Presently, Bill is a Senior Sales Executive at HypeTec, managing a sales force of 40 people. He has 15 teams, each led by a pair of highly experienced salespeople. Randall Keene has worked for HypeTec for 6 years and has been one of Bill’s team leaders for the past 3 years. Together, he and Abbe Wilsby have excelled at motivating and managing their team, raising the bar for all the sales teams within the department. References: The references included in the DVD are: Concepts in Decision Making (PPT 1-3) Six Steps in Decision Making (PPT 1-5) Components of Active Listening (PPT 1-8) The Communication Process (PPT 1-9) Back History: Unbeknownst to Schule, Willsby and Keene had been engaged in a serious office romance for the past 6 months. Their romance had little effect on the office environment – the pair had gone from productive team leaders to productive team leaders in love, without any disruption……until the affair ended. A week of hostility and anger permeated the Willsby-Keene team, with a huge drop in productivity reported at the end of a 2-week period. Willsby had broken off the affair because Keene was still involved with the wife from whom he had supposedly separated. Willsby was adamant that the breakup was not the problem – she was a professional woman and any woes of heartbreak or betrayal were not going to interrupt her performance in any way. The problem was that Keene was harassing her throughout the workday, with lots of sexual innuendo, reference to their past intimacies, sexually charged emails, and veiled threats that if she didn’t “go back to him”, he would have her tossed out of their department. Willsby sends an email to Keene, cc-ing Schule, that annotates and lists the instances of harassment, excerpts from emails etc… She is insisting that Keene relocates to another team, or she will be filing a suit of sexual harassment against Keene and suit of a hostile environment against Hypetec. Scene Set-up: Keene receives the email before Schule and barges into his office. Scene Location: Schule’s office, Hypetec Wear; Tuesday morning 8.45am The Meeting - Summary: Randall walks into Bill’s office unannounced clearly agitated over the email he just received from Abbe. Randall begins to explain the situation and Bill immediately expresses concern over the use of company email for personal matters. Randall acknowledges this concern but continues to plead his case by expressing that Abbe was being irrational and should be removed from the department. Bill states that he wants to refrain from making any decisions until he has a private discussion with Abbe and talks things over with the Human Resources department. His primary motive is to ensure productivity of the team doesn’t suffer. He indicated strong disappointment with Randall for engaging in the office romance. Afterthoughts – Summary: Bill thinks that it is entirely possible to prevent litigation at this point. He plans to do some more investigation but believes that a solution can be agreed to by all parties. He reinforces his position that he needs to talk to Abbe and get the other side of the story and recommends that Randall not interact with Abbe at all until the situation gets resolved so that it doesn’t get worse. Bill does not feel that it was too soon to mention likely possible outcomes because they were outcomes typically outlined in organization’s policies (e.g., termination, transfer). Bill states that he feels that at a minimum the two leaders will be separated because they cannot continue to work together. Bill’s major concern with email is that it’s not secure and can be sent to many people and not be factual. Dossier: The specific artifacts included in the DVD are: Willsby’s email (August) Photograph showing Randall touching Abbe Randall’s “threatening” email (July) IV. Discussion Questions: The References and related Discussion Questions may be found in PowerPoint slides 1-1 to 1-12. Learning Objective #1: To assess students understanding of the analytical decision making approach and to apply it to a novel scenario. Would this situation be an example of programmed or non-programmed decision making? Why? (PPT 1-2 &1-3) Student’s responses will vary – focus should be on their thought process and justification rather than on which one they picked. It may depend on how often a manager has these situations. While this is probably not a frequent occurrence, the organization should have a lot of information to provide guidance on what to do. The employee handbook, dating policy, sexual harassment policy, etc should help the manager and HR follow the appropriate steps. However, the situation is unpredictable in that it is unclear if this can be resolved peacefully or if Abbe may pursue legal action. Therefore, both the manager and HR have to be very careful and thoughtful how they handle this situation and the solution they come up with. What would be an example of a satisficing decision in this scenario? What consequences/benefits would this approach have? (PPT 1-2) Students answers will vary. Any answer that is not mutually agreeable to HR, Abbe, Randall, and Bill could pose serious problems later. For example, a short term solution that minimizes disruption, may not fully address the problem which could arise again.  3. What is Bill’s greatest concern? Productivity. Liability. Morale. Bill seems to be most concerned about productivity and is downplaying the likelihood of a lawsuit. This may be an effective approach to not exacerbate the situation. However, the potential legal liabilities of Randall’s behavior should be made clear to him by either Bill or HR. Assume you are Bill and you decide to use an analytical (or rational) decision making strategy to handle this situation (PPT 1-4 & 1-5). The analytical decision making approach involves the following steps: Recognize need for decision Define the problem Generate alternatives Evaluate alternatives Implement a solution Get feedback Describe in detail the specific actions you would take for each step. Be sure to address the following questions in your answer: Who would you talk to? Where would you go for more information? What relevant policies, procedures, laws are relevant here? Student’s answers will vary. It is important that they carefully think through all the options after conducting some research and gathering information (e.g., company’s policies, legal implications). They should describe some process for getting feedback that the implemented solution is working so corrective action can be taken, if necessary. Note: The following “pop-up questions” may be found on PPT 1-6  4. Bill’s first step should be: Call Abbe. Call HR. Document Meeting. Bill plans to call HR first for advice and then discuss the situation with Abbe. HR will probably coach Bill with regard to how to discuss the issue with Abbe. Since Bill manages Abbe, it seems wise to talk to her about the potential of continuing to work together or to make an alternative, mutually agreeable work arrangement. Soliciting her opinions will make her more likely to go along with the final decision.  5. Randall wants to hear Abbe’s side. Bill should: Tell him. Be confidential. Meet as group. Bill should not disclose information he receives from Abbe to Randall. At some point in the future, it might make sense to meet as a group, but currently, the individuals involved are probably too sensitive and emotional for it to be a productive group meeting.  6. Bill is discussing possible outcomes. It’s too early It’s appropriate It’s HR’s job Bill does not feel that it was too soon to mention likely possible outcomes because they were outcomes typically outlined in organization’s policies (e.g., termination, transfer). Because Bill is their manager, he should be the one to own the decision on the outcome. Having HR make the decision, may not be perceived to be in the Sales organizations’ best interest and may not be as accepted as it would be coming from Bill. Learning Objective #2: To assess students’ ability to detect communication strengths and weaknesses. Evaluate Bill and Randall’s active listening and communication skills (“Components of Active Listening” and “The Communication Process”; PPT 1-7 to 1-9). What did each do effectively? How could they have improved? Support your answers with the specific behaviors you observed. Randall interrupted Bill frequently, indicating that he was not really listening to his point of view. Randall also would not accept the fact that there was another side to the story. Instead of listening, he spent time defending his position and thinking up arguments to refute Bill to ensure he got what he wanted. Bill maintained his composure, was not flustered by Randall’s agitation. He empathized with Randall’s viewpoint without agreeing with it. While noting his dissatisfaction with what had happened, he withheld making a final evaluative judgment until more information was collected.  1. Randall’s agitated. What should Bill do? Stop Meeting. Hear him out. Call Abbe in. Discuss each option in terms of it’s relative effectiveness towards promoting supportive, professional communication. Option B: Hearing him out, while attempting to calm him down would prevent the situation from escalating. Options A and C may serve to create more disruption and tension between the parties. Abbe and Randall chose to communicate about their personal relationship via email. What are the disadvantages of using this communication medium for this purpose? What would have been a more effective way for Abbe and Randall to communicate? (PPT 1-10) Email should not have been used for personal business according to the company’s policy. This puts the company at risk if email of this nature was distributed to the general public. Tone is hard to convey in emails so it is more likely to result in a miscommunication especially when dealing with a personal, emotional situation such as this. A violation of company policy (office romance) is now documented and tangible evidence exists due to their communication via email. Abbe and Randall probably would have had a more productive communication if they had met face to face so that body language, voice inflection and other non-verbal cues could have helped them interpret each other’s meaning better.  2. What is the concern about email use? It’s not secure. It’s not efficient. Easy to misinterpret. Bill’s major concern is that it is not secure and that the content could be misinterpreted because non-verbal cues are not present. He is also concerned that the email could be received outside of the organization and be damaging to the company’s image. Learning Objective #3: To have students identify key issues related to inter-office romances and the legal and managerial implications, therein. What guidance is HR likely to provide to Bill? What future actions are Bill’s responsibilities? What actions should HR take? (PPT 1-11) HR should provide guidance in terms of the dating policy the organization has and the sexual harassment policy. Appropriate disciplinary action should be taken if it is written in a policy by Bill as their direct manager. Bill definitely needs to talk to Abbe about her side of the story. Ask her what solution would be amenable to her that preserves the goals of the department. Convey that the interoffice relationship is not condoned and that it threatens the ability of the group to achieve their goals. HR may want to interview Abbe and Randall to diffuse the situation and reinforce the importance of adhering to the organization’s sexual harassment and dating policy. Abbe and Randall were co-leading a team. Does this situation pose the potential for a lawsuit based on quid pro quo or hostile work environment sexual harassment? Why? (PPT 1-11) Because they did not have a supervisor/subordinate relationship in which one made employment-related decisions (e.g., firing, raises, promotions) that affected the other, this situation would more likely fall under the hostile environment theory of sexual harassment. Abbe would have to demonstrate that Randall’s actions created an abusive working environment. The fact that Abbe had been a willing participant in a prior relationship would make her case tougher to make. Should the fact Abby and Randall were involved in a relationship be reflected on their performance evaluation? Who should be held accountable for the lower productivity of their team? (PPT 1-12) If disciplinary actions were taken, it is probably not necessary to restate the specifics of the situation in the performance review. At that point, it is more important to focus on how effectively they have met their performance objectives. Therefore, if they are held accountable in their performance planning document for the team’s performance, then their performance evaluation should reflect the fact that the group’s performance declined (assuming the performance of the team didn’t rebound). Scenario #2: Ethics: Let’s Make a Fourth Quarter Deal I. Introduction This scenario provides a depiction of the ethical dilemmas that may arise when two legitimate organizational goals are in conflict: generating revenue and legal business practices. The manager in this situation is presented with a risky course of action that, if it worked, would have tremendous benefits for his company and department. Interpersonal communication styles and influence tactics are also demonstrated and provide a stimulus for discussion among students. II. Learning Objectives To analyze the causes of ethical dilemmas To evaluate influence techniques and communication styles To apply principles of ethical decision making III. Scenario Description: Overview: A Wall Street trading company, Smith/Blackwell, is coming to the end of their 4th Quarter. BesTel Inc. has offered to invest 4 million dollars with Smith/Blackwell which would not only save the department from lay-offs but would create year-end bonuses for the manager’s team, which in recent months has been plagued by very low morale. In order to process the investment before year’s end, some procedural steps would need to be ‘abbreviated/skipped/ignored’. The shareholders of BesTel will not meet until mid-January and therefore will not approve the investment until then. Therefore, Gina presents a situation in which she plans to side-step procedure to arrive at the advantageous outcome for the department and wants Jason’s support. While the Chairman of the Board, Jack, has assured Gina that the vote will pass and that he’s talked to the key shareholders personally, the truth is, he does not have the power to make this decision without the boards’ actual vote. Profile: Jason Powell, Director of New Accounts, manages a team of 25 people. Held position for 4 years but in the past two years, investments have fallen by over 50% department-wide. Gina Travers, Assets Manager. Gina has been working in the financial industry for over nine years. She has been with Smith/Blackwell for four years and was hired by Powell. To date, for the year 2002, Gina has brought in 3.5 million dollars in investments. References: The references included in the DVD are: Concepts in Ethical Behavior (PPT 2-3) Source for Code of Ethics (PPT 2-5) Three Principles to Guide Ethical Conduct (PPT 2-9) Approaches to Social Responsibility (PPT 2-11) Back History: As the economy worsens, the new accounts department is facing layoffs and downsizing. If the 4th Quarter numbers do not improve substantially, up to 50% of their department will be laid off and the year-end bonuses will be foregone for the entire department. The environment is stressed and morale is low. Scene Set-up: Travers makes an appointment with Powell to discuss some recent opportunities. Scene Location: Powell’s office. The Meeting - Summary: Gina, the account representative approaches Jason with a “deal” from BesTel that will save the department and allow everyone to earn their bonuses for the year. Jason is reluctant to jump on board with this plan because the transaction would not be approved by the company’s shareholders in time for the 4th quarter. Jason attempts to figure out a way to ensure that they “do things right” by getting the deal in writing and talking to Jack personally with Gina. Gina argues that following procedure is not going to work in this case and that sidestepping the rules will serve the greater good. She also suggests that taking risks is critical to success. The conversation escalates and Gina clearly becomes agitated and stressed. She threatens to go over Jason’s head, gives him an ultimatum, and tries to appeal to their long-time working relationship to influence Jason. Eventually, she storms out of the room leaving the situation unresolved. Afterthoughts – Summary: Jason did not think the meeting went well. He was concerned with Gina’s insistence on rushing to action without thoroughly thinking through the consequences. He noted that there is always tension between the salesperson and accounting/legal department’s roles in an organization. He suggested that he was playing the accounting role to ensure that they did not engage in an illegal deal. Dossier: The specific artifacts included in the DVD are: Document outlining the “restructuring” of the New Accounts Department, should they not reach their financial goals for the 4th Quarter. Gina’s notes on the financial impact the deal will have – if were to go through, and if it were not. BesTel Chairmans’ voice-mail assuring Gina that “all systems are go” and that he’s counting on her to make this happen. IV. Discussion Questions: The References and related Discussion Questions may be found in PowerPoint slides 2-1 to 2-11. Learning Objective #1: To analyze the causes of ethical dilemmas What is the source of this conflict and what role has the organization played to contribute to this dilemma? (PPT 2-2) The account representative is very motivated to make this deal go through because the organization has tied her bonuses and salary increases to the dollar amount of investments she brings to the company. The manager also is rewarded if his department makes sales. On the other hand, he has the responsibility to protect the company’s assets and reputation by engaging in lawful business agreements. Thus, these competing goals set-up difficult ethical decisions for the manager and employees.  1. Why is Jason skeptical? Client isn’t reliable Gina isn’t reliable Deal seems fishy Deal seems fishy - Jason is skeptical because the initial approach and information provided by Gina raises some red flags regarding the legality and appropriateness of pursuing this deal. Which of the “Concepts in Ethical Behavior” are relevant to this scenario? Why? (PPT 2-2 & 2-3) Most would be considered in this scenario, students’ answers will vary. Certainly Professional ethics would be a driving factor in this case because there are rules and procedures that individuals in this profession are bound to. Also, organizational stakeholders should be considered because if the company engages in an unlawful deal, the reputation and ultimate longevity of the company could be at risk – on the other hand some of the employees may lose their jobs if revenue doesn’t come in this quarter. Organizations can effectively help their employees to behave and act ethically by creating and communicating a code of ethics. What factors in this scenario should be considered if you were to develop the code of ethics for Smith/Blackwell? See “Sources for Codes of Ethics” PPT 2-4 & 2-5. Students should address each of the three aspects affecting the organization’s code of ethics and provide relevant examples based on the information provided in the case. Learning Objective #2: To evaluate influence techniques and communication styles Describe Gina’s initial approach with Jason. What influence tactic does she use initially? Was it successful? (PPT 2-6). Initially, Gina relies on the common goals she and Jason share with regard to making their 4th quarter numbers to save the department from potential lay-offs. Her emotion and elation at the solution is an attempt to appeal to Jason emotionally so that he’ll gloss over the important details that may prevent the deal. Clearly, she was not successful as he began to examine the deal more closely.  2. Jason’s behavior demonstrates: a. caution b. distrust c. nit-picking Jason appears cautious because he is trying to understand the legitimacy of acting on the deal before the shareholders have voted. How does Gina handle Jason’s hesitation to move forward on the deal? How does her reaction affect Jason? (PPT 2-6) Gina gets flustered and does not use rational case to argue her point. She begins to get defensive and uses a “bull-dozer” approach to influencing Jason rather than a thoughtful, rational one. This causes Jason to become even more skeptical of the deal and becomes increasingly reluctant. He does effectively to stay calm and does not raise his voice.  3. Gina’s over-excited. Jason should: Calm Gina Acknowledge her point Request written proposal Jason may want to show Gina that he shares her goal of helping the employees of the department earn bonuses and keep their jobs. By agreeing with some aspect of her proposal he may decrease her defensiveness and show her that he’s willing to consider alternatives that do not jeopardize the organization. Jason ends up requesting a written proposal which agitates Gina further because she doesn’t see how that will accomplish her goal. Upon realizing the Jason will not easily sign-off on the deal, Gina attempts a variety of different influence techniques. Describe them and evaluate how effective and appropriate they were given the situation. (PPT 2-7) Gina tries to threaten Jason by saying she will go over his head and make the deal happen with Jason’s boss. Depending on the culture of the organization, this may have a negative consequence for Gina because she is skipping organizational levels. In addition, senior management are likely to have the same reaction as Jason which, again, will have a negative effect on her reputation. Gina also tries to appeal to Jason based on their friendship and says that she cares about him. After using a threat, this approach is quite ineffective because the sincerity on which this strategy relies is questionable.  5. How should Jason respond to a threat? Ignore it Reprimand Gina Get to Ralph first The threatening, or retribution, approach to influence is only appropriate under certain circumstances. For example, when the initiator has complete control, the issue is extremely important (e.g., safety), and the relationship is relatively unimportant. In this case, Gina is the subordinate (relatively less power) and the relationship with Jason is important. Therefore, her choice of this influence strategy is poor and proves to be ineffective. Jason should reprimand her and explain the inappropriateness of her comments. Learning Objective #3: To apply principles of ethical decision making Consider each of the principles to guide ethical conduct (PPT 2-9). Analyze this situation from both Gina’s and Jason’s perspectives using these principles. Which model did Gina rely on most heavily? Jason? (PPT 2-8) Answers will vary. An argument could be made for any of the models. Gina’s comment about the “greater good” resembles the Utilitarian model. However, the negative consequence of the action could impact even more people than those who might enjoy positive consequences. Jason might argue the Moral Rights position in that not allowing the shareholders to vote before the deal is done violates their rights.  4. What are the risk factors? Losing deal Misleading shareholders Making illegal deal In terms of consequences for the company’s reputation and potential losses, making an illegal deal is a significant risk. Losing the deal would be unfortunate but is part of doing business. Misleading shareholders in and of itself may not have any direct consequences but one should consider the whether they will be uncomfortable in the long run with that decision (i.e., will you be able to sleep at night). Review the “Approaches to Social Responsibility” (PPT 2-11). Which approach is most closely aligned with Gina’s behavior? Which approach most closely matches Jason’s? Explain your choices. (PPT 2-10) Gina’s behavior seems to resemble the Obstructionist approach because she is not concerned with the legality of her actions. Jason is initially taking a defensive approach because he does not want to break the law. However, he demonstrates willingness to explore other options which matches the Accommodative approach.  6. What should Jason do next? Let Gina make deal Call Jack himself Look for a new job Jason can’t really let Gina make the deal without finding out more information. If he calls Jack himself, he may make the company look disorganized and may discredit Gina who Jack knows and likes. Looking for a new job may be long-term plan, but it won’t address the current issue. Jason may want to let Gina cool down and then talk to her again. Perhaps thinking about alternative courses of action together may solve the problem. If the driving force behind her need to close this deal is revenue generation, perhaps there is another creative, yet legal, way to accomplish that goal. Or there may be a legitimate approach to this deal that they have not explored. Scenario #3: Negotiation: Thawing the Salary Freeze I. Introduction This scenario depicts a negotiation between labor and management. For an Organizational Behavior or Management course, this vignette will stimulate a discussion on negotiation skills and, potentially, ethics. Instructors of HR-related courses will find this vignette useful in discussing the labor-management negotiations process. II. Learning Objectives To assess students’ understanding of the negotiation planning process and effective execution. To analyze a negotiation and identify effective and ineffective strategies and behaviors that occurred during the negotiation. To have students identify key issues related to labor-management negotiations and the legal and managerial implications, therein. III. Scenario Description: Overview: An upper management executive of a magazine publishing company, JBL Publishing, is negotiating with a Union representative regarding production workers’ contract. The main issues are salary increases, health benefits, and flexible work schedules. The Union representative is irate, because she just found out, prior to this meeting, that the executive board has received enormous bonuses for the year, at the same time they are refusing to budge on salary increases for the production workers. Profile: Katherine Knudsen has a degree in Marketing and Management and a law degree. At JBL Publishing she is Vice President of Production, managing operations and production. In addition to overseeing these departments, Katherine handles all contract negotiation and labor relations. Alisa Jackson holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology. She has been a union organizer and representative for over eight years, with efforts focused on re-negotiation at the local level. Alisa has a renegotiation success rate of 95%, winning better terms in one or more categories per contract. The renegotiation with JBL publishing is her first in the printing industry. References: The references included in the DVD are: Bargaining Zone for Negotiation (PPT 3-3) Concepts in Negotiating (PPT 3-5) Integrative Bargaining Strategy (PPT 3-6) Key Negotiator Behaviors (PPT 3-11) Back History: Knudsen and Jackson have been meeting and talking frequently regarding the contract renegotiation for the unionized labor force working in the printing press/production building. Jackson is a new representative for Local 1087, coming from an airline workers union where there were always very tough negotiation meetings. Knudsen has been the VP of Production at JBL for 10 years and has negotiated all the contracts over that time. The renegotiation thus far has addressed the following issues: A 7% wage increase for workers with seniority An improved benefits package across the board More personal days and schedule flexibility to accommodate family needs Knudsen has said flat out “no” to the wage increase – the company has a salary freeze for all employees – labor and management included. Knudsen has slightly improved the health package and is considering the schedule issues. Scene Set-up: Jackson has called an immediate meeting. She wants to discuss the executive bonuses and win more money for the union employees. Scene Location: Knudsen’s Office; JBL Publishing; Wednesday 3:00pm The Meeting - Summary: Alisa described her surprise that executives were receiving large bonuses when Katherine had said there was no money for salary increases. She immediately threatens to go the newspapers with this perceived inequity. Katherine explained that the money allocated for bonuses was based on last year’s performance even though the checks were cut this year. Alisa comes close to accusing Katherine of not disclosing this information that she feels is pertinent to the current contract. Katherine explains that it is not pertinent to the current contract because that money was budgeted last year and does not pertain to this year’s cash flow situation. Alisa then pursues the option of reallocating the bonus money so that the workers may receive a share of the money currently allocated only to upper management. Katherine agrees to draft a bonus distribution plan and present it to Alisa within the week. The two shake hands and are gracious to each other at the conclusion of the meeting. Afterthoughts – Summary: Katherine admits that the executive bonuses were more relevant to the current negotiation than she let on. She had held out on mentioning the bonus distribution option because she represents the company and didn’t want to have to do that unless it was absolutely necessary because that was the only concession she had to make. Alisa’s threat to go to the press to disparage the company concerned Katherine but she did not want give up too much. Now that they will create a bonus-sharing plan, Katherine says she will work very hard to make that solution work because she recognizes the value of hourly workforce to the revenue of the company and strongly believes in working towards a fair solution that will reward the employees if the company does well. Dossier: The specific artifacts included in the DVD are: Email Summary of Knudsen and Jackson’s previous meeting Email sent to Jackson re: the ‘sweet deal’ JBL Execs will be receiving Excerpts from previous contract IV. Discussion Questions: The References and related Discussion Questions may be found in PowerPoint slides 3-1 to 3-12. Learning Objective #1: To assess students’ understanding of the negotiation planning process. The “Bargaining Zone for Negotiation” (PPT 3-3) shows where the potential area of agreement may be. However, without planning and determination of one’s initial offer, target point, and resistance point, a negotiator may be at a disadvantage during the negotiation. What evidence of planning was demonstrated by Alisa and Katherine? See answer for #2 For both Alisa and Katherine, describe how planning impacted their ability to successfully negotiate. Alisa received an email from a friend saying that he heard that executives at JBL Publishing were receiving large bonuses. She planned to use this information as leverage in the negotiation process as well as threaten to talk to the newspapers about the perceived inequity. This strategy did work to Alisa’s advantage because it caused Katherine to concede on the distribution of future management bonuses. She also insinuated that Katherine was engaged in an unfair labor practice because she did not bargain in good faith when she did not disclose the executive bonuses. This approach was not that effective because Katherine took it personally and could have ceased or significantly hindered future negotiations. From the “Afterthoughts” it was clear that Katherine had investigated every option that she would have during the negotiation process. Because she did not have much, she did everything she could to not give-in to the union’s demands. Katherine’s plan was to focus on the exact issue the union asked for – salary increases – instead of finding alternatives that would satisfy the union. Katherine’s plan was successful in that the union representative seemed satisfied with the tentative agreement, did not ask for more, and did not intend to go to the newspaper to create bad press for the company. Learning Objective #2: To analyze a negotiation and identify effective and ineffective strategies used and behaviors that occurred during the negotiation. What aspects of the distributive and integrative bargaining approaches (see PPT 3-5 & 3-6) did Katherine demonstrate during the negotiation? Justify your answer with examples from the scenario. While in the end Katherine supports an integrative approach that is fair to all employees, she initially takes a distributive approach because she wants to give in to the union as little as possible. She does not mention other alternatives and “hides” behind financial logistics by saying the money that is being paid was from a different pool of money. An integrative approach is characterized by discussing the various options that would create a win-win outcome from the beginning.  1. What strategy should Katherine take? Continue to clarify Apologize for omission Change subject Katherine should continue to clarify the situation. Apologizing for the omission may make her appear guilty of an unfair labor practice by not bargaining in good faith. If she changes the subject she will also appear to be insincere in her bargaining and it will avoid the issue the union is most concerned about.  2. Why does Katherine offer to show her pay stub? Proof of salary freeze Exert power Change subject She wants to make it clear and irrefutable that salaries of management have not been raised either.  5. Why didn’t Katherine offer this [bonus distributions] earlier? Just thought of it Just persuaded Was stonewalling Katherine didn’t want to offer her only point of leverage too soon because she had nothing else to offer. Therefore, she held out on this solution until she absolutely had to – she was stonewalling. What aspects of the distributive and integrative bargaining approaches (see PPT 3-5 & 3-6)) did Alisa demonstrate during the negotiation? Justify your answer with examples from the scenario. Alisa’s goal is to get more money for the workers she represents. While initially she tried for salary increases, she was open to other alternatives. Her approach of threatening the management and accusing them of withholding information, however, was not indicative of an integrative approach because she focused on the person, not the problem.  4. What should Alisa argue? To split bonus money Union will strike Get better benefits plan The union could strike on a mandatory issue, which salary and benefits are. This, however, would emphasize the union’s position, rather than the common interests of both parties. Offering to split the bonus money would present an alternative solution that would meet the needs of the employees (more money) and prevent a disgruntled workforce. If Katherine had outright rejected the idea to split the bonus money, threatening to strike may be the only alternative. Getting a better benefits plan was already in the works. What is the superordinate goal (see PPT 3-5) in this situation? How would a discussion of this goal aid the negotiation process? The superordinate goal is the company’s success. If the company is not successful, neither management nor the union will have jobs. Establishing a common goal will aid the negotiation process because the ideas and issues discussed should be linked to the company’s ultimate success. Therefore, data and information presented during the negotiation as to how salary increases, management bonuses, benefits, etc. will benefit the company directly will have the most impact on the negotiation outcome. Learning Objective #3: To have students identify key issues related to labor-management negotiations and the legal and managerial implications, therein. Katherine discussed a potential solution (bonus sharing) that had not previously been discussed before. Is this an example of “unlawful circumvention” according to labor laws? Why or why not? No, because she was discussing this with the union representative. If Alisa had been an employee who was not explicitly representing the union, this would have been a case of unlawfully circumventing the union. Assume Katherine refused to make a concession to Alisa’s request. According to the National Labor Code, could Alisa organize a strike? Yes, because the two parties were negotiating a new contract and salary and benefits are “mandatory subjects” that have to be bargained in good faith. Refer to the “Key Negotiator Behaviors” (PPT 3-11). Assume you are representing management (like Katherine in this scenario). What exactly would you do in this situation? Indicate a specific example for each of the key negotiator behaviors. Answers will vary. Students should identify opportunities to use an integrative approach.  1. Katherine is accused of lying. She should: Demand apology End negotiation Refute accusation This is an example of a person, not problem oriented behavior. Katherine should refute the accusation and indicate that personal attacks will not facilitate the negotiation process.  6. In this negotiation…. JBL gave too much JBL gave too little Nothing was resolved Katherine and Alisa seemed pleased with the outcome of the negotiation. It seems that both parties were bargaining in good faith and would come up with a mutually beneficial solution. Scenario #4: Privacy: Burned by the Firewall? I. Introduction The interaction in this scenario lends itself to a rich discussion of the role of Human Resources and their interaction with line management. Issues related to email privacy and appropriate disciplinary actions given certain situations are brought to the forefront. For those seeking careers in HR, this scenario provides an example of what not to do to be a strategic business partner. II. Learning Objectives To assess students’ understanding of issues with company property use and the appropriate disciplinary process when company policies are violated. To analyze the role of HR in enforcing company policies. III. Scenario Description: Overview: An employee, Willy Kushing, has been put on administrative leave by the HR department for misuse of company property [internet service and telephone]. His Manager is just returning from vacation and had no prior notice that Willy would be put on leave. The Manager goes to meet with HR to find out what has happened. Profile: Lynn Couchara is the Director of Distribution for Bank Street Films, a film distribution house. Lynn manages a team of 30 people and is responsible for the film distribution in 40 states, distributing over 75 films per year. Janet Pierce is the Director of Human Resources and has been working with Bank Street Films for eight years and was promoted to Director five years ago. Since becoming Director, Janet has restructured her department and revamped many policies at the company. Janet has known Lynn since she hired her six years ago. Janet was not involved in the hiring of William Kushing. References: The references included in the DVD are: EPolicy Do’s and Don’ts (PPT 4-3 to 4-6) The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (PPT 4-8) 2003 E-Mail Rules, Policies and Practices Survey (PPT 4-10) Back History: Willy Kushing has been working at Bank Street for just over two years [recruited from Bank Street’s #2 competitor]. He has proven to be a vital employee for Couchara, handling the largest accounts in the distribution department as well as being the ‘go-to man’ for many others in the office when they are in need of advice, support or help. While Couchara was on her annual two-week vacation, Kushing was called for an immediate meeting with the head of HR, Janet Pierce. Pierce informed Kushing that he was being put on administrative leave for misuse of computer property, effective immediately. HR had reviewed all of his internet and phone usage, as is their right to do, and found numerous and regular abuses. There were “constant’ calls being made to Iowa, to a number having no business relation to Bank Street Films. In addition semi-regular calls have been made to Gloucester Massachusetts and Schenectady, New York. The internet abuses consisted of many hours logged on various news and auction sites, that also fall outside the realm of Bank Street business. Kushing had explained to HR that he’d been making more personal calls from work to his mother in Iowa and siblings in Gloucester and Schenectady because his father has been seriously ill for months, in and out of emergency rooms and hospitals. He assured them these calls had not interfered with his ability to do his job and that his performance had been consistent and solid. This information was deemed to be irrelevant by Pierce, and Kushing was sent to tie up loose ends and prepare for his leave. Scene Set-up: Couchara has made an appointment with Pierce to discuss the Kushing situation. Scene Location: Pierce’s office, HR department, Bank Street Films, Inc, Monday 11am The Meeting - Summary: Lynn Couchara meets with Janet Pierce to discuss the surprising punitive actions taken against one of her employees, Willy Kushing. Lynn is very concerned that this action was taken while she was on vacation and without notifying or discussing the situation with her. She also values Willy’s contributions very much and notes that he has had no performance issues. Janet defends her actions based on the company’s policies and says that it was merely coincidence that this happened when Lynn was on vacation and that she was very sorry for that. When Lynn tries to suggest that Willy be reinstated, Janet becomes defensive and then goes on to suggest that Lynn has also misused company property. Lynn wants to resolve this issue by having Willy, a key employee, return to work and suggests going over Janet’s head to the VP of HR if she needs to. The situation remains unresolved at the end of the scenario. Afterthoughts – Summary: Lynn does not think the meeting went well because the HR Director did not understand her point of view. She notes frustration with the way the HR enforced the company’s policies absent of management involvement. Specifically, she is upset that she was not consulted or informed about the pattern of misuse or the punitive action. She also doesn’t agree that email or phone use should be entirely forbidden for personal use if it doesn’t impact productivity or the budget. She plans to go to Janet’s boss with the intent of explaining her feelings about the way this was handled and to figure out how to get Willy reinstated. Dossier: The specific artifacts included in the DVD are: Excerpts from Kushings’ computer/telephone usage report Excerpts from Coucharas’ computer/telephone usage report Company Policy on use of company property IV. Discussion Questions: The References and related Discussion Questions may be found in PowerPoint slides 4-1 to 4-10. Learning Objective #1: To assess students’ understanding of issues with company property use and the appropriate disciplinary process when company policies are violated. Lynn is shocked by the action taken by HR and does not feel the violation of company policy warranted the punitive action that was taken. In the long-term, what actions does the company need to take to prevent this situation from occurring in the future (see PPT 4-3 to 4-6)? Training employee’s to ensure that they understand the company’s policies and the penalty for violating them is imperative. Simply signing the employee handbook is not enough to ensure that company resources are not wasted on non-business-related matters.  1. Lynn’s key concern should be: HR Protocol Workflow Willy’s wrongdoing Lynn’s key concern seems to be workflow because she continually mentions how important Willy is to her department. Therefore, her focus is to reinstate Willy so that the workflow is not disrupted further. She is interested in Willy’s wrongdoing to understand why such drastic measures were taken without her input and to attempt to refute the action on the basis that it was not warranted. The ePolicy Do’s and Don’ts suggest that some personal email and internet use may be tolerated by U.S. companies. What are the pro’s and con’s of this approach? Pro’s – don’t have to worry about invasion of privacy when monitoring electronic systems, less risk of viruses, less use of the system’s resources because fewer emails and attachments to handle Con’s – employees who are expected to work long hours do not get the chance to communicate with friends and family or do occasional “errands” on-line. This can cause them stress and potential dissatisfaction with the organization. Employee privacy becomes a concern when monitoring the system.  2. The concern over phone [and internet] use is: Budgetary Performance related Misuse of property Janet’s concern over the phone use seems to be that it is in violation of the policy on the appropriate use of company property. She did not present any data on the budgetary or performance impact of Willy’s actions. How do the stipulations provided in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (see PPT 4-8) affect your view of personal email and internet use at work? If companies allow the use of the internet and email for personal reasons, then the company will likely monitor those communications to prevent viruses and to detect excessive use or draining of bandwidth, etc. Therefore, privacy becomes a key concern. However, if companies don’t allow any personal use of email or the internet, then privacy becomes less of a concern when monitoring the system, but satisfaction of employees may suffer. Companies create disciplinary processes to meet their business needs. What is your reaction to the disciplinary process that occurred in this scenario? Typically, organizations have a disciplinary process that is gradual and calls for progressively increasing punitive action unless there is an extremely grievous act (e.g., possession of a weapon, embezzlement, etc.). In this case, Willy’s records were being monitored but no action was taken until his usage of company property “reached a threshold”. Counseling and warning the employee (the typical first steps in a progressive discipline process) were skipped. Once the threshold was passed, serious punitive action was taken. Allowing the employee to explain his situation and being sure that he/she understands the consequences of their actions serves to prevent misuse and retain valuable employees.  4. What justifies Janet’s decision? Existence of policy Fair warning given Nothing Technically, the existence of the policy justifies Janet’s decision. In reality, however, her action not only caused harm to a valuable employee, it also damaged the relationship with line management whom HR is there to serve. Learning Objective #2: To analyze the role of HR in enforcing company policies. Evaluate the actions taken by the HR director in this scenario. What was done well, poorly? Janet apologized to Lynn for her actions, but beyond that the HR Director’s actions did not take into consideration the big picture or the organization’s business needs. While violating the company policy may impact the organization’s bottom line, putting the employee on leave without a fair warning will likely be perceived as unfair to the employee and cause him to be disgruntled. HR’s role should be to provide advice and guidance to line management on disciplinary actions – not take them themselves. Thus, not including Lynn in the decision was a mistake and will damage Janet’s relationship with Lynn.  3. Why does Janet bring up Lynn’s records? To warn Lynn Enforce the policy Intimidation Bringing up Lynn’s records was inappropriate in this context. If there was a valid concern, then Lynn should be counseled about this issue and given fair warning. Bringing this up to prevent Lynn from going over Janet’s head is a form of intimidation. This behavior indicates to Lynn that Janet’s interests are not aligned with achieving the organization’s goals, but rather are more self-interested. Janet’s actions will not effectively support line management in achieving the organization’s goals.  5. Lynn’s next step should be: Meet VP of HR Reinstate Willy herself Meet Janet again From the interaction in the scenario, it doesn’t appear that Janet is willing to work with Lynn to reinstate Willy. Also, the disciplinary process that was taken and it’s impact on line management should probably be communicated to the VP of HR. However, going over the HR Director’s head may not be appropriate depending on the organization’s culture. Perhaps Lynn could wait a day and try to work with Janet again before approaching the VP of HR. Reinstating Willy herself would make the organization appear fragmented and to be “stepping on each other’s toes”. Scenario #5: Whistleblowing: Code Red or Red Ink? I. Introduction This scenario depicts a perceived ethical dilemma for an employee who has discovered information about a client that could be putting human lives in danger. His management wants to delay any action on the matter until future investor funding is secured. This scenario may be used for instructors teaching Management because it presents a challenging problem for a middle manager in an ethical bind and caught between two opposing points of view from the levels above and below her. II. Learning Objectives To assess student’ understanding of the role of the middle manager when faced with difficult ethical dilemmas. To analyze Whistleblower statutes and understand their purpose and value for employees and managers. III. Scenario Description: Overview: An employee at a hospital management company files a report with his supervisor on patient injury and death caused by staff errors. There is an investor meeting scheduled for one month following receipt of the report and our manager has been told by her superiors not to release the report until after that meeting. The employee who created the report disagrees with this decision, puts up a fight, and threatens to leak the report directly to the media. Profile: Susan Novrotsky is a Senior Account Executive managing up to 15 accounts per quarter and supervising a team of six people. Susan’s main functions include new account development, client management, and managing the planning processes for hospital restructuring. Daniel Yoshi has been working with Woodland Management Services for five years within Susan’s department. His functions include research and analysis of hospital structure, general competency, cost-efficiency, human resource assessment, and liability issues. Daniel’s research reports are used as the basis for the Woodland’s restructuring plan and capital allocation. References: The references included in the DVD are: Concepts in Whistleblowing (PPT 5-5) The Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (PPT 5-7) Whistleblower Provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley (PPT 5-8 to 5-10) United States Protection Policies (PPT 5-11) Back History: Novrosky and Yoshi have been working at Woodland for over five years. Novrosky is managing a new account for Hillshire Hospital. The current objectives are to analyze the efficiency of the staff and the organization as a whole and generate a restructuring plan. Yoshi was directed to research these issues and generate a status report. Yoshi sent Novrosky a progress email with his findings, highlighting his concern over the exorbitant number of accidents, injuries and unnecessary deaths that have occurred at the hospital over the past four years. The numbers greatly exceed the national rate of accidental harm to patients. Yoshi strongly believes that immediate action is necessary. [Artifact 1 – Yoshi email] Novrosky forwards the email to her supervisor, Walsh. Novrosky has never come across such severe findings and is unsure how to proceed. [Artifact 2- Novrosky email] Walsh responds via email, instructing Novrosky and Yoshi to hold off on sharing the research. Hillshire Hospital has an investor meeting in exactly one month, and if the meeting goes poorly, which it would should this report circulate, there would be no funding for a restructuring project. Walsh agrees that this is a serious issue, but insists it would be foolish and more detrimental to act on it immediately. [Artifact3- president email] Novrosky leaves a voicemail with Yoshi relaying Walsh’s instruction –Artifact 4 –Novrosky’s voicemail recording] Scene Set-up: Yoshi is agitated by the voicemail and barges into Novrosky’s office. Scene Location: Novrosky’s Office, Woodland Management Services; lunch time The Meeting - Summary: Daniel Yoshi approaches Susan in her office clearly agitated about the email and voicemails he received indicating that no action will be taken on his research findings until after the investor’s meeting in one month. Susan tries to convince Daniel that no action should be taken at this point because that would prevent further funding that is required to restructure the hospital. Daniel contends that taking action now would save lives. Susan reminds Daniel of what the business goals are and to stay focused on that. Daniel’s conscience will not let him accept Susan’s position and he threatens to go to the media if Woodland Management Services does not notify the public and shareholders of Hillshire Hospital’s problem. The scenario ends with Daniel’s ultimatum. Afterthoughts – Summary: Susan believes that Daniel is so emotionally involved with his work that he can’t see the bigger picture and what consequences his actions would really have. She indicates that Daniel needs to feel valued and that his work is important so that he doesn’t go to the media. Although Susan admits she can’t prevent Daniel from going to the media, she let others in the organization know about his intentions. She feels she needs to balance her obligation to Daniel to reach his career goals with the needs of the organization which is to get the funding. Dossier: The specific artifacts included in the DVD are: Yoshi’s email to Novrosky detailing the research findings, and calling for immediate action. Novrosky’s email to Walsh forwarding Yoshi’s email, and asking for advice on managing the situation. Walsh’s email to Novrosky replying with instructions to hold back the info. Novrosky’s voicemail to Yoshi instructing him to hold the report until after the investor meeting. IV. Discussion Questions: The References and related Discussion Questions may be found in PowerPoint slides 5-1 to 5-11. Learning Objective #1: To assess student’ understanding of the role of the middle manager when faced with difficult ethical dilemmas What competing organizational goals are present in this scenario? The organization clearly has a goal of receiving funding so it can continue operations and ultimately reach its goal of restructuring the hospital. Another goal is to research hospitals in order to have quality information on which to make decisions about its management. In this scenario, the research called for an action in conflict with receiving funding. What could the organization do to guide managers and employees in handling situations like this one? The organization should have clearly defined mission and vision statements. In addition, well-communicated values would serve to guide employee behavior when dealing with situations such as these. Missions, visions, and values are an important part of an organization’s culture and can be used during conversations among employees regarding difficult decisions.  1. Susan’s strategy seems to be to: Minimize problem Re-assign research Commiserate Susan seems to minimize the problem by suggesting that Daniel’s research is incomplete. She suggests that Daniel research the situation further as a way to stall Daniel from taking action before the investor meeting. Daniel was clearly not satisfied with Susan’s explanation. What could Susan have done differently to convince Daniel to wait? Susan should probably have used a strategy based on reasons that Daniel would appreciate and understand. For example, she could have pointed to aspects of the research that do not show a clear link between his findings and accidental deaths. She could have provided alternative explanations and provided a plan for testing those before jumping to conclusions. While Daniel was emotional and passionate about his work, his stated repeatedly that his primary concern was the health of the hospital patients. Susan seemed to think Daniel was upset because he didn’t feel his work was valued. Therefore, Susan didn’t address Daniel’s exact concern and how her plan would also serve to protect patients. She seemed to be very focused on the business objective of making money rather than the endangerment of people in the hospital. Thus, not correctly interpreting Daniel’s concern caused her to use an ineffective influence strategy.  2. Primary reason for communication failure: Danny’s not listening Susan’s not listening A misunderstanding Student’s answers will vary. Discussion could focus on behaviors that indicated where active listening broke down. Susan did not seem to address Daniel’s primary concern directly (see answer to #3 above).  3. What is Susan’s key reason for “holding off’? Incomplete research Funding at risk No need for disclosure Susan’s motives are unclear. From her email, she initially seemed to agree with Daniel’s findings and interpretation. She says she met with Walsh and then supported his position with Daniel. It’s difficult to ascertain whether she truly believes the research is incomplete or whether she is more motivated by the fear of lack of funding. Learning Objective #2: To analyze Whistleblower statutes and understand their purpose and value for employees and managers. If Daniel went to authorities with his information, would he be making a “good faith allegation”? Refer to “Concepts in Whistleblowing” (PPT 5-5) for your answer. Yes, Assuming his research is thorough and accurate. Susan states that there is nothing she could do to stop Daniel from “blowing the whistle.” Do you agree there is nothing she can do to stop Daniel? Why or why not? While she can’t physically restrain him or threaten him in any way, Susan could make an attempt at a compromise solution that would appease Daniel’s concerns and meet the needs of the organization.  4. Why does Susan focus on goals? Establish “big picture” Distract Daniel Outline Daniel’s job Susan focuses on goals because she is trying to get Daniel to see the bigger picture in that taking action now would actually be detrimental to his ultimate goal of saving lives. However, she doesn’t make that point very convincingly. Susan does indicate that she would tell others in the organization of Daniel’s intentions to blow the whistle. What are the pro’s and con’s of this action? Pro’s - others should know that bad press or a public relations disaster could occur and be prepared for it. Con’s - someone could take an adverse action toward Daniel in retaliation for his intended or committed actions. He may be protected under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act and could file suit which would cause even more bad press.  5. Susan’s response should be: Acquiesce to demand Fire Daniel Call Walsh Susan should probably call Walsh to discuss the issue further. She and Walsh may be able to come up with a compromise action that would meet both Daniel’s and the organization’s needs. Given what you saw in this scenario, if an adverse action was taken toward Daniel in retaliation, would Daniel be protected under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (see PPT 5-7)? Why or why not? It would be illegal for the company to take an adverse action against Daniel because he alleges a problem that could affect one’ health and safety. However, it is unclear whether he is protected by this law. While he did report this to his supervisor he wants action taken immediately which may or may not be perceived as a reasonable amount of time. Further, the organization does seem to want to correct the problem, they are just concerned that taking immediate action now will prevent real improvements in the future due to lack of funding. Solution Manual Case for Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple Perspectives Approach Ian Palmer, Richard Dunford, David A. Buchanan 9780073530536, 9780073404998