Joyce N. Boghosian photographer. Source: www.whitehouse.gov

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Tea Party Nation Throwing Members Under the Bus

   


   Well, here is another incidence of party politics at its extreme.  The Tea Party Nation has now put out a “Hit List” on five Republicans because they have dared to cross the line and work with Democrats. As a staff writer for RTT News reveals, “Tea Party Nation named Sens. Dick Lugar, R-Ind., Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, Scott Brown, R-Mass., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn., as Republicans that need to be sent into retirement, accusing them of being Republicans In Name Only, or RINOs” ( 2010, December 27). 
     That’s right, because these Republicans, refusing to toe the party line, supported issues they believed to be in the best interest of American citizens regardless of their party’s agenda, now face ostracism.  Because they have dared to think for themselves, they are being banished from the fold.  “Tea Party Nation blasted [Representative Olympia] Snowe for her votes in favor of the health care reform bill, the START Treaty, and the repeal of ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell,’ while the group called Brown ‘the biggest disappointment of the last year.’”
     Is this an indication that separation and antagonism between the two parties is to increase?  Is this the beginning of a trend toward ultra-extremism, and will it envelop both parties?
    With more and more Independents separating from the two major parties, will the Democrats and Republicans begin to set out a very clear, specific set of guidelines for membership?  If you are to be allowed to call yourself a Democrat, you will have to be for abortion, subsidies for the poor and gun control in absolute measure?   If you are vehemently against all these positions, only then may you be admitted into the GOP family?  Will party members have to sign a contract that they will follow all party precepts or face expulsion, or even worse, civil action?
    We must beware this trend for party ideologies may become more and more extreme as well as polarized to draw a greater number of constituents.  The two parties may attempt to allow no wiggle room in setting their agenda and so will create severe positions for themselves, creating a concise, clear-cut program.  They will set themselves at the extremes of the liberal/conservative spectrum and the American citizen will be the victim in the middle – or rather, even more so than he is today.
     Take note, Americans, these are dangerous waters our policy makers are entering;  waters that could drown the welfare of American citizens throughout the nation. 
                                                      
           References
Staff Writer. (2010, December 27). Tea party group reveals Republican targets
     for 2012 [Newsgroup message]. Retrieved from RTT News:
     http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1514850

Monday, December 20, 2010

Delivering News to a Problematic Employee

    
      Organizational communication, as with any form of interpersonal communication, must be handled with the many tools provided the knowledgeable communicator.  He must be aware of the technical issues involved, as well as the several nuances that contribute to (or detract from) successful communication.  If I am to solve conflict within my organization, I must implement the optimum strategies and techniques to garner success.
      As a department manager for my company, discovering an employee producing at an unacceptable quality level and worse, with allegations of aggressive behavior, I would have to approach the employee with a solid plan of action.  It would be necessary to examine the situation thoroughly and decide upon the most effective tactics.  I would, of course, ensure that I have sufficient documentation to confirm both the production issues, as well as the co-worker conflicts before planning my resolution of this conflict.
      Setting is important for discussing potentially negative content, so it would be important to meet with the employee, Adam, in a very private setting such as my office.  I would arrange for the meeting in advance.  This imparts to Adam that the subject for discussion is a reasonably serious issue, and so establishes a sense of importance. Adam will come to the meeting knowing that it is of significant import. 
     Establishing the correct tone for such a meeting is also important; I want Adam to understand the potential gravity of the meeting, but do not want to create a defensive situation for him.  Creating a safe environment in which to communicate lessens the chance that a logical discussion becomes for him a personal attack.  I want my employee in a state of mind to objectively discuss the problems and not feel he must defend himself from an attack upon his personal self.  It is often advisable to begin indirectly, beginning with neutral, general topics to set the employee at ease (Roebuck, 2006, p. 88).
      My approach at this juncture would be to reinforce to Adam the importance of the company and its success.  Establishing the concept of teamwork will give the discussion a solid point of view from which to operate, emphasizing that we (all of us employed at this organization) all have as a primary goal, the well-being and success of the company.  Building on the team analogy, I could continue with the concept that if there is a weak link, if all are not working in concert to the same goal, the organization suffers.
      Here my approach must transition into a more direct one.  I do not want Adam to question the gravity of my message.  I shall then state the concrete issues that have arisen with regard to his performance, citing specific comments from vendors if possible.  I must make it clear to him that there is no ambiguity here, for the natural inclination from my employee will be to deny or rationalize.  This is why it is vital to come to such a meeting prepared with us much information, and as many facts as possible.
     It is key that Adam be allowed to refute the allegations at this point, as it conveys that this is indeed a two-way conversation, and not a personal attack.  He must be made to feel that he has participated fully in the discussion so that he will be better able accept the final resolution.  I want him to walk away knowing that he was given a fair opportunity to speak his piece, and provide any defense he might have.  Hopefully, his arguments will be valid ones, though traditionally employees in this situation tend to rationalize their actions, or blame others.
      At this point, it might be appropriate to ask my employee if there are any stress factors contributing to his recent decline in positive productivity and clashes with vendors.  Authors Cahn and Abigail elaborate on the destructive effect of stress.  “The stress we are feeling in our lives often erupts into conflict with others” (2007, p. 197).  Specifically, distress evolves over a period of time, and results from a feeling of loss of control (p. 198).  This line of questioning will open the door for Adam to add any personal issues as variables contributing to the recent decline.
     To empower Adam with finding he can still turn things around, I would now implement a scheduled performance evaluation.  This will clearly spell out for him the expectations that he must meet if he is to continue with the organization.  This allows him to control the situation and his future status.  It allows him to recognize that with this dilemma, he has been given an opportunity for redemption.  In implementing this performance evaluation schedule, however, I must do so in a very assertive manner; there must be no doubt in Adam’s mind about the ramifications of failure, dismissal. 
       This strategy is one of collaboration and is ideal as it produces a “win-win” scenario in which each member of the conflict feels he has gained from the exchange. They achieve a mutually satisfying goal (Cahn & Abigail, p. 83).  With this approach, Adam has the opportunity to salvage a potentially damaging situation; and I have the opportunity to repair weaknesses within my organization.
    Now, the more serious issue of confrontations with employees must be broached.  It must be explained to Adam that any form of interpersonal hostility is tantamount to bullying and will not be tolerated.  It is a violation of an employee’s personal rights.  In fact, a fMRI (functional MRI) study by Kip Williams of Purdue University showed that verbal abuse triggers neuronal pain pathways ( Namie & Namie, 2009, p. 13), so insults literally hurt.  Moreover, it can be legally actionable, and as such, the employer can be held equally culpable.  His actions put the organization at risk.
     With regard to this issue, I must take what Ralph White and Ronald Lippitt labeled the autocratic style of leadership.  In 1960 they created a continuum of leadership styles from autocratic to democratic and based on a “leader’s assumption about what motivates people to accomplish goals” (Shockley-Zalabak, 2009, p. 220).  Within this continuum are variances for differing degrees of passive versus aggressive managerial approaches.  Normally, the more mid-range approaches are preferred.  However, in a serious situation such as this, I believe the autocratic one appropriate.  I would make it extremely clear that any future incident involving hostile, confrontational or aberrant behavior toward another employee of the company would result in immediate dismissal.  Further, I would have Adam sign a document stating the conditions agreed to herein regarding the behavior expected of him in the future.
     In being aware of the many elements that comprise communication, I will have resolved a conflict in what I believe to be the optimal approach.  I will have been sensitive to the other participant in this conflict’s attempted resolution, and applied those tactics I believe to be most apt for the situation.  Only time will tell if the conflict will have truly been resolved.
 
References
 Cahn, D. D. & Abigail, R. A. (2007). Managing conflict through communication. Boston: Pearson.

Namie, G. & Namie, R. (2009). The bully at work: What you can do to stop the hurt and reclaim your dignity on the job. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc.

Roebuck, D. B. (2006). Improving business communication skills. Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. (2009). Fundamentals of organizational communication: Knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values. Boston: Pearson.

Monday, December 13, 2010

An Example of Party Politics

    
    This is a terribly unsettling time in our history with many important issues that will affect the short-term and, more importantly, long-term welfare of hundreds of thousands of Americans; and yet these important issues are being used as pawns in the game of “Risk” being played by our legislators.  The first Stimulus Package, for example, was voted down because of just this kind of bipartisan bickering.  Finally, this much needed legislation was passed, but with strong and blatant Republican resistance.  With a strong pro-Republican slant, writer Christopher Beam of Slate Magazine states, “at this moment, unanimous opposition was the smartest stance House Republicans could have taken—both politically and ideologically. Voting against the bill was good politics because it shows that the GOP can't be persuaded by charm alone, presidential or otherwise” (2009). Here is an example of ignoring the potential benefits of the issue, and showing more concern for “the party line” and an attitude of resistance for its own sake.
     “A nearly $820 billion stimulus package passed the House of Representatives Wednesday without a single Republican vote. The bill now moves to the Senate, where it stands a better chance of picking up at least a modicum of bipartisan support,” says Russell Grim of the Huffington Post (2009).  How can this be?  A bill introduced to aid Middle America amidst one of the greatest financial crises of the last hundred years, and yet those comprising one of the parties in the House all believe that it is bad for the country?  What is the rationale here? Are the members of one party blind to the realities of a bill while the other clearly sees its actual relative worth?  Is it logical that all members of one “club” have a superior grasp of a concept, and can foretell the future, while the other is ignorant to its shortcomings?  Is one party, and one party alone, in possession of a magic pill that grants the ability to clearly see truth and consequences?
     The original Bailout Plan was presented to the House in September of 2008 and was crushed by the opposing party.  “Following the bill’s failure, both parties embarked on a round of bitter finger-pointing.  Congressional Republicans cited a speech by Ms. Pelosi [Democrat] on the House floor that blamed the economic crisis on years of Republican economic policies, including deregulation. … Democrats, dismissing complaints about Rep. Pelosi’s speech, immediately blamed Republicans for failing to deliver enough votes on their end” (Lueck, Paletta & Hitt, 2008).  Bickering and more bickering, like two teams of second-graders arguing whether Gerry Kowalski crossed the goal line before going outside the birch tree which is clearly out of bounds; this is our Congress.
                                                                    
                                                                References

Beam, C. (2009, January 29). Partisan now, bipartisan later: The logic behind Republican opposition to Obama's stimulus package. Retrieved from http:// www.slate.com/id/2210082/
Grim, R. (2009, January 28). Stimulus package passes with zero Republican support.
Lueck, S., Paletta, D. & Hitt, G. (2008, September 30). Bailout plan rejected, markets plunge,   forcing new scramble to solve crisis. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122270285663785991.html


The Story Beyond the Still - "Corridors" - Chapter 8 from Vincent Laforet on Vimeo.


"Beyond The Still" Final Chapter Behind The Scenes Video from Vincent Laforet on Vimeo.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

What's the Problem?

  
 When the Constitution was written, it did not specify that members of two separate and incompatible parties populate Congress; and yet that is what we have today.  Our elected officials are supposed to be concerned solely with the welfare of American citizens, and yet instead, they have adopted a philosophy of narrowly following the tenets of their chosen party, regardless of the specific issue at hand.  Rather than looking at each issue on a case-by-case basis and searching for the merit contained therein, they respond in an immediate knee-jerk reaction determining where it rests within the parameters of their individual party philosophy. 
      Whatever happened to the supposed sincere belief in Bipartisanship so sought after during the Clinton years?   That is, after all, the ideal, is it not?  -- to have all members of the legislature working together for the betterment of the life and spirit of the American people.  In a perfect world, this would be the case, Congress as an altruistic body motivated to unselfishly improve the quality of life for its constituents – all its constituents.
     Unfortunately, this is not the case.  We, the people, do not have a body of highly moral and objective decision-makers working for “the greater good.”  Instead, we have both Senators and Representatives bickering and nitpicking like children with the aim of shoring up the bragging rights of their individual parties.  They are more interested in an “us versus them” stance rather than with looking objectively at each issue and making their choices based on the good of the people.  This approach is weakening our country and all who reside herein.
    It is imperative that “we, the People” determine a way to entirely disband these two irresponsible parties, and implement a healthier, more realistic alternative.
   (more to follow)