Observation Paper #3 – Liz Horgan March 15, 2010

Email Exchange:
From: Jack
To: Connie
Subject: FW: Feedback regarding the new hire process:
Nice mail bomb… She has passion but she is not helping herself to improve what was a break
down in process. I would be surprised if she received any response.
From: Gail
To: Tom ; Bridget ;Frank ; Ed
Subject: Feedback regarding the new hire process
Hello
Thank you in advance for reading this message from my perspective as your customer, but also
as a colleague looking to improve our service in these strapped times. This is feedback related to
new/transfer employee set up, purchasing and doing more with less. I have shared some of this
information with most of you individually over the past months and years, and know that we are
trying to improve these processes.
I was fortunate enough to be able to hire two new people this past Dec/Jan, but was disappointed
to learn that the process had not improved since my last new hires in May of 2007. My
experience has left me to wonder what non-IT managers and employees’ experience, and
initiated my emailing you as an owner of a portion of this process. Below is just a sampling of
my experiences in this regard.
! I initiated the December purchase for Tina in advance to ‘ensure’ the hardware and
accounts were ready day one, only to find the email I was asked to send to ‘IT Ordering’
email ID had been completely ignored.
! From an IT perspective it is embarrassing to have phones and IT equipment delivered
weeks after my May hires (also teleworkers) had already started, and unfortunately the
December hires have experienced the same.
! The only incident related to Lisa’s transfer from xxx to Corporate relates to imaging her
new laptop, so pieces of the request are being lost in the current process. As the email trail
below indicates, as a manager I am being asked to double and triple approve requests. This
has occurred for at least five of my last six hires.
! I just got a call from Ops in response to the email trail below letting me know that
desktop needs to log a ticket once the AD account is created. I let the person who called me
know that I could call DTS to do this, or they could short circuit the process and call DST
themselves. My next call is to DTS as Ops informed me that the email below has nothing to
do with them until they get a ticket from DTS. While this may technically be true, I hope
you can understand how frustrating it is to experience this volley without anyone but the
customer (in this case me) taking ownership of our internal, multi-team processes.
 ! In response to the request from Ops I logged ticket #x for desktop asking them to
transfer the request to Ops once Lisa’s AD account transfer is verified and for verification of
the remainder of the new employee transfer request.
! Each of my new hires has been delayed in preparing for and fulfilling their new
responsibilities.
! Most recently, I was asked to specify what printer hardware to order, but without any
input regarding what hardware the company has been purchasing or might recommend.
! On the flip side, we specified the exact cable needed for the teleworker phones, only to
have a different type ordered/delivered and went to the store to purchase the item ourselves
(at a cost savings to the company).
The replication of effort and lost time on the part of so many is unfortunate given we have little
spare time and limited resources to go around. I am not pointing fingers or seeking to place
blame, but sharing this very frustrating experience with you so we can better understand the
impact this has on our collective reputation and our colleagues’ ability to do their job.
I look forward to working with you to automate new employee/transfer/termination processes in
service desk once a new system or direction is established. Thank you.
Gail

This email exchange highlights the interpretive and socially constructive nature of

communication. A frustrated IT manager (Gail) strafed off an email to the IT procurement area

of a large Company highlighting her problematic experiences with them. The email was

forwarded to an IT Director (Jack) who forwarded it his peer, another IT Director (Connie).

From Jack’s comment, I infer that Gail has a reputation for exploding over things – she erupts,

tries (and fails) to be diplomatic, and expects things to change because of her detailing a flawed

experience.

This example makes me think of our readings on Bourdieu (Ihlen, van Ruler, &

Fredriksson, 2009). Gail is using her power and position to bolster her message to another part of

the Firm. She uses language as a weapon, and is looking to have her voice heard and her ideas

acted upon. However, from the response generated from peers, it indicates to me that her
assessment of her capital and her selection of email as her field were poor choices. Gail should

have more effectively analyzed the hierarchy and structure of the Company and, in light of her

true/real power and prestige, selected another approach to resolving her issues.

As Belasen noted, there are inherent paradoxes between competing values within this

workplace communication. “The key to effective corporate communication is striking a balance

among four perspectives” (Belasen, p. 24): integration, innovation, regulation and information.

In Gail’s email, the ideas were practical and the information was decisive and action-oriented,

but was not sensitive to the receiver’s perception or of their needs, nor was the communication

insightful or transformative (rather it was dictatorial in tone). Her message was delivered heavy

handedly and with mixed signals; it did not balance the competing tensions within the corporate

communications structure and so will likely garner poor results. Jack’s (one of the Directors)

comments lead me to believe that if anything, a problem just got bigger, as it now includes the

new hire issues and difficult personality concerns (Gail). The forwarded email, sent by one

Director to the other, picked up on all of this. By adding a gloved but biting comment, this series

of communications ended up adding to Gail’s reputation – not in a good way at all.

Thus Gail has knowingly and unknowingly constructed her reputation within a group at

work. Feedback went one-way, from Gail to the IT people, while effective communication

requires open feedback from all parties – Gail’s peers (the Directors) failed to go directly to her

and share their comments, but instead commented behind her back. Venting frustration with

“constructive” suggestions is not a valued strategy at this Company for accomplishing change.

Gail may or may not be able to benefit from the Director’s honest feedback, but she was not

given the opportunity. This is a case on all sides of poor corporate communications.
References

Belasen, A. T., (2008). The theory and practice of corporate communication. Los Angeles.

SAGE Publications.

Ihlen, O., van Ruler, B. & Fredriksson, M., (2009). Public relations and social theory. New

York, Routledge.