Louise is a fresh graduate and a greenhorn in the workforce. Eager to embark on her new phase in life, she began her employment at MNC Electronics Corporation as a quality engineer. She has been placed under the supervision of another engineer Alex, for a three-month probation period and assigned to assist with his workload.
In the department, each quality engineer oversees the manufacturing of different products. In collaborating to incorporate a new system into her product, Louise is acquainted with Greg, a senior quality engineer in-charge of the new system.
Alex has requested her to work with Greg to solve the teething problems, while he is always preoccupied with solving other production problems. In good nature, Greg often takes Louise under his wing, teaching her various corporate procedures and sharing his work philosophy. He firmly believes that quality problems should be solved for the long term, instead of fixing problems symptomatically. Gradually, Louise realises that it perfectly describes Alex, who solves only urgent issues-at-hand to meet customer orders. Who could blame him, where time is money in the fast-paced electronics industry? This frequently strains their working relationship: Greg trying to solve Alex’s recurring problems, while the latter rejects the time-consuming solutions.
With an existing wedge between both of them, Louise is often in a dilemma having to report to two superiors. One day, Alex assigns Louise to find evidence of Greg’s miscalculation. Shortly after, Greg approaches her to iron out details of the new product, oblivious to the situation. Hard-pressed for time, she cannot accede. However, to explain her dilemma would implicate Alex, and make their dispute more severe. But keeping mum may reflect her incompetence. Yet, if she agrees to the extra work from Greg, this may offend Alex who would ultimately be assessing her performance.
What do you think Louise should do?
Hi Yanling,
ReplyDeleteGood grief, this case is so mind-boggling I don't know where to begin! haha! I honestly can't decide if there's an amicable solution to this...one which can appease both sides (Greg and Alex). If there isn't, and Louise has to choose between the two, I have no idea whom she should side either! :P
I guess it's mostly because there IS no right and wrong in this matter. Each man is (relatively) justified in his actions/work-ethic, it just depends on your perspective. Unfortunately, poor Louise is caught in the middle of it all.
Well, my take on this whole issue is that Greg and Alex, with their conflicting personalities, aren't communicating effectively with one another and this has strained their working relationship. Louise, as their subordinate, finds herself working for two masters -heading in different directions, instead of one cooperative team.
My advice to Louise would be to sit down to a meeting/discussion with both Greg and Alex; under the pretext of discussing her workload (if need be) but with the real intention of ironing out the differences between her two superiors and coming to a solid, cooperative decision regarding her tasks and assignments.
Particularly in a working environment, honesty is the best policy, and things shouldn't be done "behind another's back" as this may lead to even more problems and misunderstandings. A miscalculation on Greg's part is a legitimate mistake, and isn't something Alex (or Louise) should be secretive about checking/investigating. After all, the company's progress should be everyone's main concern.
When forced to sit down and discuss things, even if Greg and Alex have conflicting working styles, they will come to recognize that ultimately both are working towards common goals -to improve productivity without compromising on quality. And out of commonalities, a better working relationship (or at least some form of compromise) is likely to result (here's assuming they set their egos aside for a while); which in turn would make Louise's life much easier. And possibly even secure her an excellent performance rating. (Well, she deserves an award if she manages to resolve this interpersonal conflict, anyhow).
Hi Yanling,
ReplyDeleteI like how your story flows:)
Regarding the solution, problems such as this are best solved with a heart to heart talk. Strained working relationships are always harmful to the workers and the organisation.
Wyhow
Hi Yan Ling,
ReplyDeleteFirstly I would like to say that I always look forward to reading your posts as it really keeps me thinking. And to quote what Yuen May has said, “mind boggling." I am truly impressed with your writing skills. Okay, now for the analysis of the situation…
In my opinion, it all boils down to just making a choice, whether to serve Greg or Alex. No two masters can be served in this situation. Though it is a tough decision to make, it is the best solution to release her from further distress. Both Greg and Alex have different ways of doing things; it is not justified say that the work ethics for one of them is wrong.
I feel that Louise should gather both of them to have a talk with both them and describe to her problem to them during a discussion. She should make it clear that she is unable to take up her current workload as it proves too overpowering for her to handle. In the process of ironing out the differences, she could also take the chance to solve the personal problem that is happening between Greg and Alex.
If things do not work out, she should consider the last resort that is to select one master. She should consider choosing a superior to be taught under which is beneficial for her in the long run. This is due to the fact that both superiors have conflicting differences in their personalities and hence their work ethics. She should consider which superior actually matches her principles and working style. There is no point in working under one whose working styles really goes against one’s principles especially in the context of working.
Cheers,
Sylvester
Thank you, Yanling, for focusing this discussion on a serious workplace situation. Wow! What a scenario!
ReplyDeleteYou describe this very pertinent workplace dilemma well. It's concise, generally clear, and fairly completely outlined. I use the adverbs "generally" and "fairly" here for a reason. (I hope to discuss this in class, if you don't mind.) You certainly set the stage well, introducing the work setting and describing Louise. You paint a good picture of the two senior engineers, too, although I think a few more details about the guys' respective work styles, and maybe even an allusion to their ethical differences, might be useful.
The "serving two masters" theme is an important one since it is so common in the workplace, and your post has generated some good discussion. I really appreciate you sharing this with us.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThank you YanLing for this difficult and tough situation.
Your description of the scenario was your strength. The "who", "what", "when", "where" and "why" are answered in this context. Furthermore, you took few words to do all these. Very concise and clear. Good job on that. However, it is not that clear to me how exactly does the conflict between the two of them arises. You could give more examples of the situation.
Regarding the way to solve this situation. It is rather difficult to talk to both of them because she is new in the company and both of them are her superiors. One way to do this is to call them out for lunch, just get them to know a little more about each other. To me, it does not seem like this is a huge clash of personality. Apart from this, a third party could be introduced. She could talk to another colleague who is more senior about the situation. They will be in a better position to mediate the situation since, one, he has been there for awhile and, two, he has known them for longer than she does. This makes him a more suitable person to mediate the conflict. That is my suggestion. Hope to see you soon.
Cheers,
Billet