Communication competency

1. The problem in this case seems to be stemming from interpersonal and intergroup issues. The manager, Lee and the employee Chris West seem to have disagreed on the delivery of stuff to customers. The intergroup conflict crops in due to the fact that the company as a group has failed to meet the customer group’s demands. In this sense, the company is set to be in conflict with its customers. Though the conflict between the manager and the worker is not personal, the fact remains that the two individuals will deal with it at a personal level though in their respective official capacities. Role conflict is also an emergent issue in this case. The fact that Chris has a role to deliver goods to the customer, something that he has failed to achieve, brings to the surface the conflict in role execution. The interpersonal conflict is taken out of control as the manager seems not to be keen on hearing what Chris had to say on the issue at hand (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2007).
2. Chris has a role to deliver goods to customers within a specified time. Chris is also charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the supplied services or goods meet client needs. Chris is thus in a conflict as it arose in this case. Chris made an attempt to meet client demands within the specified time. In this process Chris compromised on the quality of servicers. Role ambiguity is captured by the fact that Chris is supposed to beat both the dateline and the quality mark. Equally, the manager has a role to ensure that all clients receive quality services and all his members of staff execute their duties as expected. Chris was also reliant on other people’s actions as there was group work (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2007).
3. Lee seems to be quite personal as he refuses to listen to the kind of explanation that Chris offers. This is a pointer to personal issues that may be underlying their relationship. Chris employs the use of interpersonal compromising conflict style to strike an understanding with the manager (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2007).
4. Lee comes up as an ineffective manager in this case. As a manager he is supposed to provide good leadership. He wants to super-impose his views on his members of staff. He also pays little attention to details. This may be the primary reason why Chris hurriedly shudders and decides to take the manager’s side. By rubbishing important suggestions, it is clear that the manager is not up to the task (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2007).
5. On the basis of this case study, Chris had failed to meet the quality demands set by the company. But it is true that Chris had made an effort to ensure quality was met. However, the demand that timelines should be observed must have forced Chris to deliver poor quality products. Converse to Chris’s focus on quality the manager appears to be interested in meeting timelines. Though Chris is doing a good thing, he has failed the company objectives if the managers’ views are to be taken seriously. Personally, Chris is the ultimate employee that every employer should seek. He focuses on what will serve to ensure success of a business not in the short term but in the long term.
Reference
Hellriegel, D. & Slocum, W. (2007). Organizational behaviour. USA: Cengage Learning.