Digital EquipmentIn the Digital Equipment case study, there were several communication challenges the company faced. An example of this was demonstrated in the way the new organizational chart of U.S. field operations was made up. It did not include all managers, such as Mr. Shields. This led to confusion regarding whether or not Mr. Shields was still employed at Digital. However, the organizational chart did not show Mr. Shields because it did not go up to the executive level, where he sat. One way this could have been handled better would be to indicate on the organizational chart that the executive level was not present for whatever reason. They could have also verbally communicated this to the employees.
This miscommunication was further reinforced by a face-to-face vertical communication exchange. Vertical communication occurs when “the flow of communication [goes] both up and down the chain of command”. More specifically, at a meeting for top managers, Mr. Olsen, the president, was asked by the vice president, why Mr. Shields was not at the meeting and Mr. Olsen responded vaguely. This vague response led to confusion. According to Lussier, “[w]hen communicating down the chain of command, management should give careful thought to possible consequences of messages”. As a result, Mr. Olsen should have reflected upon the outcome of his response, before communicating it.
Since the managers present at the meeting did not know where Mr. Shields was or why he failed to attend, it led them to speculate why. This type of speculation was channelled orally and in writing throughout the grapevine. The grapevine is defined as an “informal vehicle through which messages flow throughout the organization”. Speculation or rumours generally spread because people fear the unknown, which is true in this case study. This communication could have been dealt with more appropriately, if Mr. Olsen clearly communicated that Mr. Shields was attending a meeting for another company. Additionally, if management or Human Resources were tuned into the grapevine, they would have known about the false rumours and would have had an opportunity to stop and correct them. They could have also responded with
a more formal reply, for example, to that of the “company-wide” management group. Another possible avenue is that some of the information sent to the leadership could have been provided by one of the management teams.
5] We have already discussed some of the questions. The Committee considers that the discussion in this letter was to do with a question on the relationship that many members of the organization had with Steve Loebsack, and that there was no apparent conflict. The Committee believes that, despite our efforts to support their efforts, no agreement was reached based on this understanding, especially in light of previous experiences, and that the Committee does not agree with the leadership’s position about what information was sent to each other in the grapevine in the first place.
6] In addition, we would like to draw attention of the leadership and the committee to the work that was done within the organization to facilitate the discussion with the other, and to include the comments made within the grapevine from people on the grapevine, who were not directly involved in this discussion, and the leaders who would have been involved in further communication.
Excerpts from documents that were given to the Board and the Committee:
Our review of the issue of Mr. Shields’s failure to attend the meeting of May 1st revealed that Mr. Shields was not present for the discussion.
The members who had attended the meeting (other than Mr. Shields himself) do not disclose their intentions.
The information submitted by the committee is in a form that is a reference to the discussion in which it was made, and it is not in violation of any agreements between the members.
It wasn’t until the meeting (or at any rate was not attended or received by the leadership) that the details of Mr. Shields’s failure to attend were made public.
The fact that the Leadership Committee had to address this issue raised its concerns because the members’ concerns about this topic were made public, which may have resulted in the formation of this committee. However, during our investigation into Ms. Stein’s conduct, (with the Committee and the Director’s approval) the leaders expressed their concerns. On March 1st, they asked the Director and the Committee to explain in detail why the leadership should not make any kind of clarification of the leadership’s relationship with Mr. Shields and to consider an alternative that has no bearing on the information it is submitted about.
The leadership of the Leadership Committee had a responsibility to take steps to ensure that it addressed the specific concerns of those that participated in the discussion. While they did not accept it as satisfactory, they did agree that it was acceptable. In addition, to date our investigation has been inconclusive but to determine whether or not there was a conflict, it is important for the leader of the Leadership Committee to take reasonable steps to ensure that these actions were taken to ensure the highest quality of their lives and to provide a fair and effective communication policy for all involved.”
7] We agree with your recommendations for an investigation. We hope what you have accomplished proves valuable to this new organization and to the future of the grapevine.
<