Building Common Ground

Building Common Ground

Utility of The Open-Ended Questions

Questions play a significant role in maintaining a conversation. Notably, people deliver their best conversation participation when asked specific questions (Johansson, 2017, p. 4). Additionally, open-ended questions are essential in getting different viewpoints from a group of people. The conversation between the ER Rep, Kareem, and various employees from ABC Corporation includes using open-ended questions to acquire helpful information about Kareem’s conduct at work and how he related with other employees. For example, the ER Rep asks Kareem, “I’d like to understand what you mean when you say that you thought you were doing a good job and were caught off-guard.” The question focuses on eliciting information about why Kareem thought his final performance evaluation did not reflect his actual performance at the company. The ER Rep then proceeds to acquire more information to understand Kareem’s point of view by asking him, “Did Janet ever have any performance conversations with you?” The response to the question gives the ER Rep an idea of what to ask Janet when eliciting information about Kareem’s performance. For example, Kareem’s response prompts the ER Rep to ask Janet, “What can you tell me about his performance?” so that he can compare responses and conclude whether the decision to fire Kareem was justified.

Instances of Verbally Summarized Key Ideas

Communication between managers and employees should be clear, iterative, transparent, proactive, and conversational (Janson 2015, p. 1). One way to achieve this is by summarizing key ideas that the conversation should focus on. Summarizing key ideas can also help paraphrase the information shared in a conversation to elicit information. Essentially, paraphrasing is the first step in developing a powerful question (Green, 2013, p. 118). Accordingly, the conversation between Kareem, the ER Rep, and other employees includes various instances where the ER Rep summarizes key ideas. One of the instances is when the ER Rep is informing the employees about the purpose of the conversation. When beginning the conversation with Janet, the ER Rep states, “I am here to objectively investigate some concerns raised by a former employee. But, before we get into specifics, it’s very important that I gather all sides of the story before making any decisions.” This statement is essential to the conversation because it informs Janet of the information the ER Rep expects from her. The second instance when the ER Rep summarizes key ideas in the conversation is when he asks Janet, “So when did you and Thomas decide to terminate Kareem for his performance?” The importance of this to the communication is that it helps the ER Rep get clear information on whether Janet was involved in deciding to fire Kareem without creating an opportunity for Janet to avoid the question because she had to defend herself.

Contrast between the Impact of the Former Employee’s Actions and His Intent

Determining how the impact of Kareem’s actions was at odds with his intent can be achieved by focusing on why he behaved the way he did and why he chose the actions that led to his termination by applying the 5 Why’s technique. The technique begins by reviewing the individual or company’s problem and continues asking why until the root cause is discovered (SNHU, 2018). Another technique that can be used is appreciation. Appreciation is a question-based technique that reviews the importance of a fact (Mind Tools, 2023, p. 9). The impact of Kareem’s actions was at odds with his intent because he intended to stay committed to the company by completing assigned tasks and reporting to work as required and also remain committed to his religious beliefs, but his commitment to his religious beliefs exceeded his commitment to the company leading to poor performance. For example, in the interview, he admits that his religious beliefs affected his performance when he says, “I am Muslim and, as part of my faith, I have to pray five times a day. I would simply sneak away from my desk and go to a hidden corner of the service center and complete my ritual.”

Practices by which the Affected Department can Rebuild the Trust

Rebuilding trust in an organization can be achieved by using the sense-making approach. The approach includes explaining what went wrong and why (Gillespie & Siebert, 2018, p. 7). Notably, the affected department can rebuild trust using the sense-making approach alongside other conflict resolution practices such as negotiation and collaboration. Negotiation includes deliberately entering into a conversation with clear but different goals and interests and a mutual reliance toward a decision that will be taken at the end of the conversation (Alavoine et al., 2013, p. 35). ABC Corporation can use the sense-making approach to help the employees in the affected department understand how Kareem’s issue may have been caused by a lack of a clear policy on practicing religious rituals in the organization so that they do not feel betrayed when Kareem is reinstated to his position. The company can then use negotiation and collaboration to find a long-term solution to the problem and create a policy that clearly defines how employees are expected to behave at the workplace to prevent an incident such as what occurred with Kareem from happening again.

References

Alavoine, C., Kaplanseren, F., & Teulon, F. (2013). Teaching (and learning) negotiation: Is there still room for innovation? International Journal of Management & Information Systems (IJMIS), 18(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.19030/ijmis.v18i1.8337

Desai, S., & Reimers, S. (2018). Comparing the use of open and closed questions for web-based measures of the continued-influence effect. Behavior Research Methods, 51(3), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1066-z

Gillespie, N., & Siebert, S. (2018). Organizational trust repair. The Routledge Companion to Trust, 7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323686432_Organizational_Trust_Repair

Green, M. E. (2013). Painless performance conversations: A practical approach to critical day-to-day workplace discussions. John Wiley & Sons.

Janson, K. (2015). Conversations that unleash employee talent. The Journal for Quality & Participation, 1.

Johansson, A. (2017). 7 ways to start a conversation that leads where you want it to. https://www.inc.com/anna-johansson/7-ways-to-start-a-conversation-that-leads-where-you-want-it-to.html

Mind Tools. (2023). 5 Whys getting to the root of a problem quickly. MindTools. https://www.mindtools.com/a3mi00v/5-whys

SNHU. (2018). WCM-620 the 5 why’s problem solving method (CC) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZUen0vupy8.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Prompt: Based on the case study transcripts provided, look for instances in which the characters employed communication to manage the situation, collect relevant information, and build common ground. Then, identify practices through which the team can rebuild trust. Finally, determine the best course of action for resolving the conflict and provide your recommendations for moving forward.

READING RESOURCES

Textbook: Painless Performance Conversations, Chapter 7

Library Article: Conversations That Unleash Employee Talent Opens in New Window “Examine high-performing organizations, and you will find that an important part of their success is fantastic communication. The communication is clear, transparent, iterative, conversational, and proactive.” This article details several effective conversation techniques that help managers unleash their employee talent.

Article/Video: 5 Whys opens in new window (2:02) This article addresses the 5 Whys approach of getting to the root of a problem quickly. In also includes a video overview on the benefits of using the 5 Whys.

Link: https://www.mindtools.com/a3mi00v/5-whys