Case Study 1: Failure in the Workplace
The Head of Quality (called Mr. L) of a company needed to improve the planning and programming of the machining and tooling department. They already had someone programming this department (Mr. M), but they needed someone who could do it in much more detail and in advance.
After all, the supervisor of the machining department (Mr. S) was chosen as the best person for this job, so the CEO decided that Mr. M. had to train Mr. S and explain the method that followed for planning. It is known that Mr. M is someone who likes to work the way he wants to work. In other words, he is not known to be someone who listens to other people’s opinion, so Mr. S had some difficulty getting information from Mr. M.
Mr. S was unsatisfied with the training received by Mr. M and more than once explained that he would not be able to start programming the machines if he had not received more information from Mr. M. After explaining this simple point to the CEO, he almost lost his job and was told that “there are other people who can do his job.” Mr. S was about to leave the company, but finally decided to continue and asked other members of the company for help and realized that important elements were missing. He had very poor tools that couldn’t help him understand what needed to be scheduled, there was no method, and MRP (Material Requirement Planning) was missing most BOMs. Without this information, there was no way he could receive the correct data from the MRP and start planning.
Mr. M. was removed without notice. The first and perhaps the main slip-up was performed by the CEO. He wasn’t sure why there was a need to expand productivity in the preparation and didn’t convey as expected this need to Mr. M which had been doing it for more than 10 years. The communication issue with Mr. M was not adequately thought about by the CEO nor by the head of value.
What should have been done instead? The communication issue with Mr. M ought to have ascended toward the start, in the absolute first meeting, and ought to have been confronted straightforwardly clarifying what everybody anticipated from him. Likewise, there must be a superior job definition and objective setting. Who does what and when. If everybody had a reasonable thought of the means needed before Mr. S could take responsibility of his new duty, presumably they would have gained from the earliest starting point that there were significant data missing. They would have saved a ton of time and presumably Mr. S wouldn’t have nearly lost his employment for reasons unknown. What everybody did was focus on the relationship with Mr. M and accepted that the undertaking couldn’t proceed as a result of him and not on account of the absence of devices to appropriately plan the machines.
Anyways, Mr. S ended up losing about 3 months without planning. The organization lost a ton of time and cash on something that would have required a couple of days to sort out. Mr. M and Mr. S didn’t further develop their relational abilities. The head of value quit following the venture and didn’t work with the participation between the two. Communication proceeded to fizzle and different tasks didn’t meet the outcomes anticipated. The CEO trusted that Mr. S was not appropriate for the work and most likely never changed thought. Production effectiveness diminished. These “disastrous” outcomes were brought simply by a communication issue.
Case Study 2: Nationwide Building Society
Nationwide Building Society is a great example on how important it is to keep track of the outcomes as well as the action of the company. Nationwide Building Society held an award- winning five-week BIG Conversation, gathering thoughts from all its 18,000 employees in a company-wide cooperation. The point was coordinated to reviving Nationwide’s feeling of direction.
The movement included TalkBack occasions, online surveys, and an enormous listening activity, giving employees and individuals the opportunity to add to its future. By executing a company-wide communication survey, Nationwide opened a free-flowing discussion with its labour force.
The outcome has been a revived procedure and a showcasing effort dependent on the new idea of ‘building society, nationwide’ – assisting individuals with improving the quality of their lives. This business communication contextual investigation exhibits the power of actively listening and following up on employees’ ideas.