Respond to two (2) Colleagues D1W3

Discussion 1: Reflection and Shared Practice

As a leader or manager, you will be making decisions regarding what information to include and exclude from your messages.  From there, you will make a decision on how to phrase the message emphasizing certain points and how to organize the message to achieve the purpose of the communication.  Ethical issues in workplace communication can involve concealing or misrepresenting information, using manipulative arguments or language, or presenting the work, ideas, or words of others as your own.  There are both legal and ethical dimensions of communication decisions and you must consider the impact of the message to ensure that the receivers are not deceived. 

To prepare for responding to two (2) colleagues discussion, pay particular attention to the following learning resources

Review this week’s Learning Resources, especially:

· Quintanilla, K. M., & Wahl, S. T. (2020). Business and professional communication: KEYS for workplace excellence (4th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

. Chapter 9 – Business and Professional Writing

· DeMars, N. (2017). Following your ethical compass. Officepro, 77(6), 20–23.

· TED. (Producer). (2016). Adam Galinsky: How to speak up for yourself [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/adam_galinsky_how_to_speak_up_for_yourself

Assignment

Respond to at least two of your peers' postings in one or more of the following ways:

· Consider the dangers of unethical communication and how your peers communication efforts may have helped avoid this

· Share an insight about what you learned from having read your peers’ postings and discuss how and why your peer’s posting resonated with you professionally and personally.

· Offer an example, from your experience or observation that validates what your peer did within their communication efforts

· Offer specific suggestions that will help your peer build upon the communication actions he or she took

· Share how something your peer discussed changed the way you view ethical communication

· 3 – 4 paragraph response per each colleagues

· No plagiarism

· APA citing

Bottom of Form

1st Colleague – Jennifer

Discussion 1 - Week 3

Top of Form

Jennifer Timmons 

RE: Discussion 1 - Week 3

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

Several years ago, it came to my attention that another department was spending grant funding in an irresponsible manner. Within the grant that I manage, we had set aside a specific amount of funding for this department to utilize for the year. However, it became very clear to some in that department that the leaders were indiscriminately using the funds in a way that would expend them much earlier than the twelve months their budget was to last them. The individuals who recognized this were subordinates of new directors, who tried speaking up but were not listened to – so they reached out to someone they knew who they thought had more power than they did; however, when this individual tried to address it, the response was that the service was required so if the grant money ran out, the department would “just find the money somewhere.”

Since their efforts were also unsuccessful, those individuals then reached out to me as the grant manager. Though the department had claimed they would just find the funds necessary, I was less confident of that possibility, though it could have been viewed as not my problem. I was faced with a decision of how to move forward and what to do with this information regarding a department over which I did not have any purview, and in relation to the person I needed to reach out to regarding the rapid expense of funds, I had much less power. One strategy to increase your power differential when speaking up is to utilize expertise (TED, 2016), and that is something I could offer. I crafted an email (cc-ing other related individuals and another director) that diplomatically (i.e. without throwing the other subordinates under a bus) referenced my awareness of the situation, and I then outlined in detail how the funds would be expended in a matter of two or three months if it continued at that rate, and offered to work with the director to come to a workable solution. This email was not answered, and every day without a response increased the expending of funds without a solution. I followed up with another email, this time with stronger language and updated figures (and cc-ing my boss), and then had to follow again, both to no avail. By the time of the third email in a two and a half week period, I had estimated that the department was going to overspend their allotment by nearly one million dollars, which they would be responsible to fund. I had to request that my boss bring her boss in to address the boss of this other individual who never responded to the emails. Despite our efforts, this department by the end of the year did overspend by one million dollars, the director was fired after less than one year on the job, and our organization had to participate in an investigative audit.

While this communication was not successful in that it did not stop the other department from overspending by an excessive amount, it was successful in the first and third points of the ethical compass, taking care of both me and my boss (DeMars, 2017). I did not know at the time that we would end up in an audit situation, and I could have figured that this other department had made the mess and they’d have to clean it up – since they seemed confident they could. In crafting the email communications and alerting others to the gravity of the expense projections, I was attempting to also protect the organization; however, in this aspect I was not as successful. In the process of this experience, I learned that I had formed a new ally in the form of the CFO who made it known that she wished I had reached out directly to her at the beginning so that she could have been more involved on the front end. At that time, however, I did not know the CFO (she had come from outside the organization and had just been placed in a position that had been vacant for a year); it also would not have occurred to me at that time to reach directly out to the CFO since that was well outside my “acceptable behavior” (TED, 2017) in the communication hierarchy.

My double-bind in this situation is that I had very little power, so in speaking up I was poised to be either ignored or seen as a tattletale/whistle-blower. If I had utilized more strategic allies and perhaps been stronger in my advocacy for protecting the division’s assets (TED, 2017), I might have been more successful at getting the other department to put the brakes on the spending or getting others to get the department to do so. The communication did serve as documentation that was used specifically in the audit and verified that my boss and I had done all that we could to proactively address the situation – so in that sense the communication was successful. Since that time, I have gained a bit more power and a few more allies; if a similar situation were to happen again, I would have much less difficulty reaching out to more powerful allies for assistance.

 

References

DeMars, N. (2017). Following your ethical compass. Officepro, 77,(6), 20-23.   

TED. (Producer). (2016). Adam Galinsky: How to speak up for yourself. [Video file].

https://www.ted.com/talks/adam_galinsky_how_to_speak_up_for_yourself   

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

2nd Colleague – Anthony

Discussion 1 - Week 3Top of Form

Top of Form

Anthony Blount 

RE: Discussion 1 - Week 3

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

An organization I was a part of committed human rights violations.  A government agency investigated them, and on more than one occasion, the investigator was biased by either having a direct conflict of interest with the organization or omitting key evidence.  The agency, on several occasions, had displayed arbitrary and capricious actions in adequately addressing the violations and refused to justify their actions.   The investigating governmental agency director issued a report that was plagued with missing information, inaccurate statements, and the testimonies by members of the organization were even questionable.  The report omitted more than 15 witnesses, and one of the three witnesses cited was referred to as a man on several occasions.  However, that individual was a woman, so it was unclear if the witness actually testified.  Further, the report omitted the complete timeline of events.  Even more concerning, the director of the investigating agency solicited donations for her political campaign to one of the parties involved. 

“Hold yourself and each other personally responsible and accountable for the company’s standards” (DeMars, 2017 p21). What do you do when you find yourself amid a scandal? Moreover, what do you do when you find that many of the ethics and culture of leadership have been put in the garbage?  These are fundamental questions, especially when the organization’s behavior demonstrates that these are the standards.  Where is the shining light of hope for leadership and equality?  The Russian philosopher Solzhenitsyn said, “One person who stops lying can bring down a tyranny.”  The truth breaks the tyranny.  I felt convicted to at least address the incorrect statements which misquoted me.  When an organization’s standards have been eroded, I must still hold myself accountable and live with myself.  In telling the truth, I reaffirm my commitment to being an evolving leader.   Will my actions result in others telling the truth?  I do not know, but I have a responsibility to give the truth a chance.  I must be the change I want to see.  To quote Solzhenitsyn again, he said, “The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. "One word of truth outweighs the world.” By not being ethical and evading the truth, undeniably, an individual fosters a toxic culture.  DeMars et al. 2017 states, “Organizations… fail because they lose their commitments, and that happens when senior management fails to be the ethical standard-bearer.” When this happens, we, as evolving leaders, must still demonstrate ethical standards.  Accordingly, I told the truth.   However, I was in a situation that Galinsky calls the “low power of double bind.”  The investigating agency acknowledged receipt of my statement, and the rest is to be continued.  Perhaps, when an investigating agency allows an organization to be unethical, they do so knowing it will limit the organization's growth.  I learned from this that in organizational communication, one must repeat the truth many times.  Organizations do not always accept the truth, especially when it is not attractive, even when we do it after Galinsky’s perspective-taking.    

The organization knew how to respect human rights.  This was recently demonstrated when they took advantage of a recent incident where another person’s human rights were violated at a prestigious organization.  Will they provide the expected ethical standards to the individual they recruited?  I do not know.  Previously, they have promised women equality and roles in leadership and not delivered.  Historically, they have been rigid.  There are numerous incidents in the organization with many Albertos.  In fact, they settled a case involving six women who were sexually assaulted.  They had a similar case with the same number of victims some ten years earlier.   Senior management decides the organization’s actions, but we can hold a mirror to these actions by being truthful.  We saw this nationally when the late great Dr. John Hope Franklin authored his book entitled “Mirror to America.” DeMars describes these actions as being “the first responder.”  Galinsky talks about our staying in our range of acceptable behavior. 

When composing a communication, all perspectives must be considered.  It is also essential to decide what message we want to send.  Further, we must compose a message that represents who we are.  Lastly, the communication must be presented in a way in which it can easily be received.  Employing mindfulness helps us to do this effectively.

 References:

Abrams, M Think Fast, Talk Smart: The Podcast.  https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/podcasts/think-fast-talk-smart

DeMars, N. (2017). Following your ethical compass. Officepro, 77(6), 20–23.

Kerns, C. D. (2016). High-impact communicating: A key leadership practice. The Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 18(5), 11–22

Galinsky, A. (2016). How to speak up for yourself [Video file]. TED. (Producer). Retrieved from  https://www.ted.com/talks/adam_galinsky_how_to_speak_up_for_yourself

Quintanilla, K. M., & Wahl, S. T. (2020). Business and professional communication: KEYS for workplace excellence (4th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form