For this post, I will be focusing on a hypothetical workplace conflict that has risen from a miscommunication.
The GM appoints a group of people in charge of developing the new advertising campaign for the company. The team leader is Jane and the rest of the group comprises of Rachael, Allan, Mark and Jennifer. After many months of research, the team propose many effective ideas, with Jane putting together all the proposals. However, during the final presentation, Jane keeps on referring to the ideas as her own. She does not even acknowledge the efforts of the other four team members and is harping on about her part in the final outcome.
The rest of the team is feeling as though Jane had exploited their ideas for her own benefit. They decide to approach the GM and explain the situation to him so Jane does not end up with the credit for their hard work. When Jane finds out about this, she feels hurt and betrayed by her team, because her behaviour at the presentation was unintentional. She feels as though she should confront the team and discuss the issue. However, the others have been avoiding her since the presentation although they were on friendly terms before.
Do you think the team made the right decision in approaching the GM without confronting Jane? Is Jane justified in feeling betrayed when she unintentionally took the credit for other people’s hard work? How do you think each party should approach the issue and resolve the misunderstanding without hurt feelings?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Anu,
ReplyDeleteI think both Jane and the team are at fault. They should not have approached the GM directly without listening to what Jane has to say, because it might cost Jane her job and Jane could have made amends by talking to the GM again after hearing what the rest feels about it. I don't think Jane should feel betrayed, as a working professional, I suppose many should have enough tact and social skills to be careful enough to not claim all credit.
I think what can be done is for Jane to explain to the GM and her colleagues and be sincere about it, her colleagues should try to forgive her for her slip as well.
I would agree with Jocelyn that both Jane and the team members are at fault. Going directly to the GM would be a bit too far.
ReplyDeleteThe team members should have discuss this issue as a team with Jane first and try to resolve it. I guess Jane would apologise and should be given an opportunity to explain.
Jane, on the other hand, should acknowledge the team members, having the campaign idea brainstorm is a team effort. Jane may be the team leader and representing the team but presenting ideas as her own is very unethical and unprofessional. Thus, she should not be feeling betrayed.
Hi Anu,
ReplyDeleteFrom what you said, it seems like Jane was unintentional in claiming all the credits and was trying to take the 1st step by working things out with her team but wasn't given the chance to.
So, I believe to resolve the conflict, we should start from the team. Well, they should have consulted Jane on her wrong-doings prior to approaching the GM. Like Jocelyn said, with the involvement of the GM, it could have caused Jane her job and future impressions on him.
The team should have accepted Jane's request on coming together to talk things out with her and find out how she feels and inform her that they are angry with her for claiming all the credits. This way, both parties are able to acknowledge each others' feelings and resolve the matter amicably.
Then, as a second step, for Jane to perhaps gain trust and forgiveness from her team again, she can, on her own initiative, look for the GM and tell him the truth. This way, the group can be pleased that at least now the GM knows the team claims the credit and Jane's honesty can be portrayed.
I guess words played an important part in this conflicting issue. In any situation, whenever a boss puts a team out to do an assignment or project, he is expecting some form of disagreements to happen anytime.
ReplyDeleteIn this case when Jane persistently put her in front of the group during the final presentation while the other members are around, wouldn't the GM smell something fishy going on in the first place? If Jane had all the credits in the final presentation, while her members did nothing, would they want to be there?
In this case, instead of Jane attempting to be the mediator, shouldnt the GM be the mediator instead?