Question

Ron Davis, the relatively new general manager of the machine tooling group at Parker Manufacturing, was visiting one of the plants. He scheduled a meeting with Mike Leonard, a plant manager who reported to him.

RON: Mike, I’ve scheduled this meeting with you because I’ve been reviewing performance data, and I wanted to give you some feedback. I know we haven’t talked face-to-face before, but I think it’s time we review how you’re doing. I’m afraid that some of the things I have to say are not very favorable.

MIKE: Well, since you’re the new boss, I guess I’ll have to listen. I’ve had meetings like this before with new people who come in my plant and think they know what’s going on.

RON: Look, Mike, I want this to be a two-way interchange. I’m not here to read a verdict to you, and I’m not here to tell you how to do your job. There are just some areas for improvement I want to review.

MIKE: OK, sure, I’ve heard that before. But you called the meeting. Go ahead and lower the boom.

RON: Well, Mike, I don’t think this is lowering the boom. But there are several things you need to hear. One is what I noticed during the plant tour. I think you’re too chummy with some of your female personnel. You know, one of them might take offense and level a sexual harassment suit against you.

MIKE: Oh, come on. You haven’t been around this plant before, and you don’t know the informal, friendly relationships we have. The office staff and the women on the floor are flattered by a little attention now and then.

RON: That may be so, but you need to be more careful. You may not be sensitive to what’s really going on with them. But that raises another thing I noticed—the appearance of your shop. You know how important it is in Parker to have a neat and clean shop. As I walked through this morning, I noticed that it wasn’t as orderly and neat as I would like to see it. Having things in disarray reflects poorly on you, Mike.

MIKE: I’ll stack my plant up against any in Parker for neatness. You may have seen a few tools out of place because someone was just using them, but we take a lot of pride in our neatness. I don’t see how you can say that things are in disarray. You’ve got no experience around here, so who are you to judge?

RON: Well, I’m glad you’re sensitive to the neatness issue. I just think you need to pay attention to it, that’s all. But regarding neatness, I notice that you don’t dress like a plant manager. I think you’re creating a substandard impression by not wearing a tie, for example. Casualness in dress can be used as an excuse for workers to come to work in really grubby attire. That may not be safe.

MIKE: Look, I don’t agree with making a big separation between the managers and the employees. By dressing like people out on the shop floor, I think we eliminate a lot of barriers. Besides, I don’t have the money to buy clothes that might get oil on them every day. That seems pretty picky to me.

RON: I don’t want to seem picky, Mike. But I do feel strongly about the issues I’ve mentioned. There are some other things, though, that need to get corrected. One is the appearance of the reports you send into division headquarters. There are often mistakes, misspellings, and, I suspect, some wrong numbers. I wonder if you are paying attention to these reports. You seem to be reviewing them superficially.

MIKE: If there is one thing we have too much of, it’s reports. I could spend three- quarters of my time filling out report forms and generating data for some bean counter in headquarters. We have reports coming out our ears. Why don’t you give us a chance to get our work done and eliminate all this paperwork?

RON: You know as well as I do, Mike, that we need to carefully monitor our productivity, quality, and costs. You just need to get more serious about taking care of that part of your responsibility.

MIKE: OK. I’m not going to fight about that. It’s a losing battle for me. No one at headquarters will ever decrease their demand for reports. But, listen, Ron, I also have one question for you.

RON: OK. What’s that?

MIKE: Why don’t you go find somebody else to pick on? I need to get back to work.

Discussion Questions

1. What principles of supportive communication and supportive listening are violated in this case?
2. If you were to change this interaction to make it more productive, what would you change?
3. Categorize each of the statements by naming the rule of supportive communication that is either illustrated or violated.

4. Conduct a role play. Handle the key issues that exist between Ron and Mike.

5. Identify the principles that you used to make this a productive conversation. If you were Ron, what would you do in your follow-up meeting with Mike?

i want answer all these 5 question with references that you take the information and principle’s from it   

Answer 1

Out of 5 different questions, I am giving you the answer to the first two questions:

Question 1: What principles of supportive communication and supportive listening are violated in this case?

Problem orientation, specificity, congruence principles of supportive communication are violated in this case. Supportive communication should be problem-oriented, not the person-oriented. This communication is more person-oriented. It also lacked the principle of specificity and one specific issue should have been descriptive enough to communicate the right message and there were too many issues being discussed over short telephone call, which might have been discussed during the meeting as the supportive communication must be specific and descriptive in nature. A supportive listening principle like agreement and trust in communicator was missing and Mike was on defensive mode throughout the conversation, He was not ready to listen to what Ron was telling him.

Question 2. If you were to change this interaction to make it more productive, what would you change?

Feedback should be specific and immediate to correct the action or change the behavior. I would change the way Ron was speaking to the Mike, He wanted to give the feedback but his tone of communication was more like giving judgment. In order to communicate with the people you have to understand the person and his listening skills, feedback should not be given as a decision rather the conversation should be more specific and rather than talking too many issues at one go, it could have been prioritized and only the most critical issue should have been highlighted that too when there was face to face meeting rather than while asking to schedule the meeting, Ron went on telling the entire issue which he wants to discuss in form of conclusion about Mike's behavior and performance.