Road to Hell

Description:

John Baker is the chief engineer at a company in Barracania. John is being promoted and Matthew Rennals taking over John’s current position. During their final meeting and evaluation for Matthew, John tried to “give some advice” on how his successor would be more successful.  John was insensitive and almost derogatory towards Matthew with his comment about overcoming his cultural diversity during this meeting. Matthew had addressed the issue more on the basis that he has no previous prejudice and stated the situation in which the complaint has arose. While in this case we do not have enough information to go off of as to whether this could truly be a discrimination issue on Matthew’s side, it seems that his only issue is being poorly treated and reacting accordingly. I understand that this could be misconstrued as aversion to “Europeans” however; this does not seem to be the case. He has been successful in a “highly European” population of staff members. If he indeed did have biased against these people, there is no way he would have been able to stay with the company and move up as well as he has done. Due to the conversation with John, Matthew resigned from the company.

Diagnosis:

In business regardless of any personal biases, employees need to be educated on being culturally diverse and understand that no biases will be tolerated. Ignorance to different culture is no excuse to behave in such a manner. This behavior is not only a direct problem with management but can be considered an issue for the company. It goes to show that management is not monitored the way it could be. It is obvious that the managers are allowed to do and say what they have on their mind with very few consequences. Perhaps the issues may have needed to be addressed with Matthew, however they were addressed inappropriately. They should have been addressed with legitimate solutions. It seemed as if John had a preexisting bias against Matthew regarding his cultural background. This case is an example of a manager that lacks insight and lack of organizational control and sensitivity.

Theory:

Many organizations have adapted some form of “organizational Sensitivity” training into their human resources curriculum in an attempt to help teach their managers the value of both ethnic and cultural differences in the workplace.  In today’s workplace, companies are employing individuals from all walks of life and from countries all over the world.  Managers have to be able to effectively manage employees with different religions, cultural values, and work ethics.  In theory, managers should be trained to look at every individual as a separate but equal part of the puzzle.  Everyone is motivated by something different and no one model or management style will apply to every employee.  It is our job as managers to recognize cultural differences and adapt our behaviors to effectively manage each one.  “In essence the goal is to teach managers and lead to more constructive and beneficial behavior” (Dansky).  In this case, even though John thought that he was excellent at building relations with the locals, in reality he failed to take into account the values of the Barracanians.  Had he been able to put himself in their shoes he would have seen how condescending his remarks to Matt actually were.  For example, in looking at values, John had assumed that industrial advances were just as important to Matt as they were to himself, not stopping to think that Matt’s culture may have valued spirituality to a higher degree.  Because of this assumption, John came across as very presumptuous and even insulting.  The fact that Matt had tendered his resignation as a result is yet another example of how failed organizational sensitivity can create negative goodwill and potential financial losses for the company.

“Diversity Management” is a concept built around the notion that managers must learn to promote and value diversity if they wish to survive in the global economy.  “Organizations that seek global market relevancy must embrace diversity-in how they think, act and innovate.” (Forbes). Global companies are so large and spread out over so many different countries, H.R departments are being taught to seek out these cultural and geographical differences between individuals and respect them.  While John had thought of himself as being culturally diverse, he lacked the managerial skills to truly understand or even appreciate the cultural differences that Matt was able to bring to the table and as a result, the company was forced to suffer financial and human capital losses.

“Workplace Stereotyping” was a central theme in John’s attitude towards Matt. The concept of stereotyping has just as damaging of a negative impact in the workplace as it does on the outside.   Often referred to as the “silent productivity killer” (Huffington Post), stereotyping can be a very dangerous and costly behavior.  Stereotyping can lead to job tension, stress and dissatisfaction, as well as absenteeism and job turnover.  Such stereotyping does not have to take any one specific form, it can occur in multiple areas including but not limited to; age, sex, marital status, and race.  In this particular case, John was engaging in multiple forms of stereotyping with Matt.  He had made reference to Matt’s cultural background, his native lack of industrial experience and own assumption that Matt’s behavior was a result of racial tension which resulted in stereotyping, moral degradation, and a loss for the company.

Prescription

Because of several identifiable problems between John and Matt, there are several varying solutions to the conflict in the story. There is a possibility of discrimination claims and lawsuits, it is critical that Matt’s resignation letter be addressed immediately. In addition to executives and human resources meeting with John, the organization’s attorney should as well.  At the end of the day, the business must protect themselves and stakeholders from any potential fall-out.  Furthermore, if all parties agree, a conflict resolution meeting could be called to address their last meeting. Having the men sit down together could possibly result in a resolution.  If John understands the role he played in the resignation, admitting this to Matt could be a start.  Linda Stamato, of the Center for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution states, “Apologizing by admitting a mistake –to co-workers, employees, customers, clients, the public at large-tends to gain credibility and generate confidence in one’s leadership” (Fugate). Lastly, according to the case, Matt appears to be a highly skilled and valuable employee that the company would not want to lose.