1. Introduction
In this assignment, we are going to review a real case that has happened to one of our team members. Owing to privacy reason, we have substituted the names of the people involved in the incident by fake names. The victim will be named Joey.
Joey, who was initially hired by a multinational company, has had an unpleasant experience during the employment process with the company and was eventually laid off. The conflict arouse from the exchange between Joey and her immediate manager has led to Joey's decision to file a complaint with the senior management of the company.
In the following sessions, we are going to elaborate on the case background, share the actual letter of complaint that was filed with the company's management, and state the changes in ABC Company after the complaint was filed. By incorporating the ideas proposed by previous academic researches, we hope to analyse the case and provide other possible solutions to handle the conflict that Joey has faced. We will also discuss the reasons behind ABC Company's changes. To draw a focus, we will be working down the rungs of the ladder of inference. We will also aid our analysis by applying theories from the persuasive communication field.
2. Background of the Case
Joey was very excited when she has received an offer of the position of Customer Services Officer from a multinational company. The company's Customer Services Manager, Ms. Apple Chan, asked Joey to report duty without telling her all the details of her job, for example the exact salary, her job duties, etc. Ms. Chan only told Joey that the offer would be within her expectation. She also told Joey that the Human Resources Department would inform her of the details when she has reported duty. Joey believed that a multinational company as such should have an organized employment procedure, so she decided to ask HR staff members for the details when she started to work on board.
Joey asked Ms. Apple Chan several times about her employment details since her joining. However, after working for one week, Joey has yet to meet any staff from the HR Department and knew nothing about the employment details. She tried to ask Ms. Chan again on the 5th day's morning. Joey, however, was suddenly brought into a meeting room by Ms. Chan. Ms. Chan told Joey if she felt the job was insecure without the employment contract, she probably would not be a suitable person for the job. If that was the case, there was no need for her to go back to the office after lunch, which in other words Joey was fired.
Joey felt very surprised and unbelievable about Ms. Chan’s decision. She could not believe the employment arrangement of this multinational company was so unsystematic and unorganized. As such, she wanted Ms. Chan’s boss to know about her case and give her a reasonable explanation. Since Joey was laid off by Ms. Chan, she was not able to talk to the top management directly. However, she still wished to express her feelings and comment on her experience during the short stay. She eventually decided to write a complaint letter to the Director of the company, Mr. Wong, to seek for his help on the investigation of the case, hoping to obtain an official explanation on the termination of her employment.
3. The Letter of Complaint
COMPLAINT on Your Customer Services Manager Ms. Apple Chan
Dear Mr. Wong,
Sorry to bother you, but I think you have to address the following issue.
I was informed to be employed as your staff by Ms. Apple Chan last Thursday. During the confirmation call, Ms. Chan DID NOT confirm with me the details of the job duties, job title nor even my exact salary, etc. She just told me the salary would fit in my expected range.
I then called Ms. Chan again on Friday for the details, such as the job title, salary, days of annual leave etc. Ms. Chan just told me that the details would be stated in the employment contract when I report duty on Monday. I trusted ABC Company, a large multinational company, would be very systematic and organized. I also believed that I would get my employment contract signed and all necessary information I need to know when I report duty on Monday.
When I reported duty in the morning on Monday, Ms. Chan just brought me and another colleague (who also started work on Monday) to a “tentative” seat and then walked around the office once. She did not introduce us to any colleagues and said we would know them when we start working. She only told us the names of top management. After that, she started the training. Before noon that day, I asked Ms. Chan when the employment contract would be ready. She told us that the contract was not ready yet, which at the time I did not ask further about the exact timeline. But I assumed that it would be ready on Tuesday because I haven't worked for any companies that did not give me a contract to sign on or before the 1st day of my work. She also WARNED me that I MUST NOT tell any colleagues I am studying my Master degree. Although I did not know the reason behind, I did not ask about it.
On Wednesday, I asked Ms. Chan again about my contract. Out of my surprise, she told me the same answer - "Not ready yet." To be honest, I think it is quite strange. I have a feeling whether Ms. Chan really need me for this position as a permanent staff or simply because she's lack of staff recently and would like some temporary staff to help her clear the cases on hand. She probably was not willing to sign a contract with me? I have lots of these kind of questions during these few days and did not feel good actually.
I think at least I have to know how much is my salary. However, she just told me she should be able to give me the range I stated. I started working without signing the contract just because I believed that ABC Company is a large company. But even in a good company, are all staff (or maybe managers) in the company are professional about employment issues? I doubt. I know a staff who has not seen the employment contract even after 2 weeks' work in this company. Since I don't want to affect her, I would not state her name here. However, I think you can check it with HR if Ms. Chan has passed the information to HR.
I believed that it is my rights to know when I can have my employment contract. It is absolutely normal that I felt insecure with the job without the employment contract and all details about employee benefits. I asked Ms. Chan again on Thursday at around 6pm when my contract would be ready and what my exact basic monthly salary is. Same answer again, Ms. Chan said the contract was not ready yet. Then I continued to ask if it is possible for me to get it next week, while she told me NO. I then asked in general how long would it take for the contract to be ready. At that time, Ms. Chan showed extreme intolerance and said she did not know. She said she would ask HR if I really want to know. I sincerely requested her to do so, and told her that, I felt very insecure of my job without the employment contract.
Today I met Ms. Chan at the corridor before lunch, so I asked her if she has helped me to ask HR or not. She then brought me into a meeting room and told me that I am not suitable for this position and I don't need to continue with working here starting from this afternoon. Is it really just because I told her I felt insecure? Or there's any other reasons behind? I wondered because she did appreciated my performance in the early stage before I urged for my employment contract.
May I seek for your help to investigate this case?
For your information, I have told Ms. Chan that I am consulting the Labour Department about my case. I'd appreciate if you can get back to me about your investigation within one month.
Just a little comment on your recruitment arrangement: ABC Company is a MNC. I suppose it is an "organized" and "systematic" company. I think at least HR should let the team head know the approximate preparation time for an employment contract, so that when a newly employed staff asked his/her immediate supervisor or manager about the contract, they can provide the time to the employee. Otherwise, employees would feel helpless and frustrated if he/she has to work for a company by knowing nothing about the employment details.
4. Changes in ABC Company after Joey's Complaint
After receiving the complaint letter in the section above, Mr. Wong replied to Joey and told her that her salary would be transferred to her bank account by Autopay within a week. Mr. Wong also told Joey that the company has realised the problems she mentioned prior to her complaint and they were planning to make some changes that were yet to begin.
Mr. Wong thanked Joey's suggestions and agreed to impose the first round revision of the company's recruitment policy as follows:
- Ms. Apple Chan will no longer be responsible for any recruitment issues;
- All recruitment issues will be handled by the HR Department;
- Employment contract will be given to new staff members after they have passed the probation period and this information will be communicated before they come on board;
- All new staff members will be informed clearly about their employment package; and
- Training of the Customer Services Team will be passed on to another Customer Services Manager instead of Ms. Apple Chan.
Although the termination of employment of Joey cannot be changed, the complaint letter has at least made some impact on ABC Company. Joey also managed to take back what she deserves to receive -- her salary -- even she was only employed for a very short period of time.
5. Previous Academic Researches
In this section, we will be reviewing previous academic researches on the Ladder of Inference as well as persuasive communication theories in order to support our analysis in the later sections.
5.1 Ladder of Inference
The Ladder of Inference is a metaphor used to describe the way we interpret data and construct meaning (McMillan, 2010). The thinking stages are shown as rungs on a ladder, and would bring us closer to a conclusion after several stages. However, when we climb the ladder, we often convert what we presume to be objective data into subjective opinion (McMillan, 2010). We are so skilled at thinking that we jump up the ladder without knowing it (Frank’s notes). Therefore, the ladder of inference provides a method to follow for reasoning and decision-making.
From the diagram, we may see the “Thinking Process” of the Ladder of Inference. From the beginning, there are several realities with infinite data. The main concern is "How do we choose the data and interpret it?" In the first rung of ladder, we observe the data in the pool. After that, we would select the data that we want from our experiences and beliefs. Together with our personality or some bias, we would interpret and add meanings on top of the selected data. In the fourth rung of ladder, we make assumptions based on the meanings, while sometimes without considering what they are. Afterwards we would draw conclusions by incorporating our interpretations and assumptions. In last two rungs of ladder, we adopt our beliefs and take appropriate actions based on our beliefs.
5.2 The Heuristic-Systematic Model
In the studies of contemporary social psychology, the heuristic-systematic model is seen as a dual-processing model that discusses the changes in people's attitudes under two different information processing modes -- heuristic processing and systematic processing (Ledgerwood, Chaiken, Gruenfeld, & Judd, 2006). The model is often used for analysing persuasive communication processes.
For heuristic processing, it is more of an automatic process that requires less cognitive resources and is less affected by the variation in situational or personal capacity (Ledgerwood, Chaiken, Gruenfeld, & Judd, 2006; Gawronski & Creighton, 2013). It could be interpreted as the first instinct that comes up in a person's mind upon receiving new information. On the other hand, systematic processing would require more thorough logical thinking by taking as much relevant information into consideration as possible so as to come up with the attitudes, judgements and behaviour (Ledgerwood, Chaiken, Gruenfeld, & Judd, 2006). In other words, variables such as knowledge or time constraint would be factors among others that could influence the outcome of the later processing mode.
Although the two modes of processing operate quite differently, they can co-occur in people's information processing (Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989). As suggested by Ledgerwood, Chaiken, Gruenfeld and Judd (2006), the degree to which people make use of the two information processing modes resulting in persuasion would be dependant on three classes of motivation, namely accuracy, defence and impression. For accuracy, people will focus on the correctness of information. For defence, people will focus more on their self interest. Impression, however, would be focusing more on the relationship with others including facts and people (Ledgerwood, Chaiken, Gruenfeld, & Judd, 2006).
To incorporate the ideas of the two modes of processing and the three motivations in order to resolve conflicts, Ledgerwood, Chaiken, Gruenfeld and Judd (2006) suggested the key is to "move parties towards open-minded, accuracy-motivated processing" (p. 471).
6. Case Analysis
In the following parts, we will analyse this case by making use of the Ladder of Inference to identify areas to which Joey could improve on the development of her thinking process in order to better deal with this conflict if she had a second chance. We will also be referencing persuasion theories to explain Joey's success in creating change in ABC Company's employment policy.
6.1 Interaction with Ms. Apple Chan
As observed from the case background, Joey was very angry, disappointed and frustrated about her experience with ABC Company. She never knew that asking about her salary would be a trigger to be fired. Based on her first instinct without really interpreting it, she thought the main problem lies in Ms. Chan. Since she was so frustrated, Joey has obviously jumped into a conclusion that ABC Company is not a good one to work with.
In the infinite pool, what Joey observed at first was that she got the offer but knew nothing about her package. However, Joey believed that ABC Company is a multinational company so the employment contract should be ready on her first employment date. Unfortunately, her contract was not ready still on Monday. Furthermore, her supervisor, Ms. Apple Chan did not give her an accurate answer about when the contract would be ready. At that point, Joey selected the data as "Ms. Chan escaping from answering her questions" and thus she felt insecure.
With the selected data, Joey has added a meaning to it -- "Ms. Chan has some secrets to hide". It might be ABC Company actually did not want to hire a permanent staff but temporary staff only. The fact that Joey only got a temporary seat in the company has acted as a side proof of what she perceived as the possible truth. After she got fired by Ms. Chan, she got the impression that Ms. Chan actually had no intension to hire her. She has rest on a conclusion that Ms. Chan is not a professional supervisor who has used an unbelievable excuse to fire her.
During the exchange process with Ms. Chan, Joey's sentiment was heated up one time after another by the repetitive negative response from Ms. Chan. The conversation initially started off as being a rational request but has eventually turned into a situation where both parties has lost their patience on each other. Joey has also developed a negative impression of Ms. Chan, so did Ms. Chan having the same thought on Joey. The presence of the defence and impression motivations have created an unfavourable communication context for the two. It is likely that these two drives would override the accuracy motivation for information processing, and that both parties' behaviour were based largely on their emotions and personal interest, thus resulting in the hostile ending at last.
6.2 Interaction with Mr. Wong
Joey believed that she has the right to know about her salary and other information. Besides, she totally had no idea about why she was fired by ABC Company. Therefore, she wrote a complaint letter to the General Manager as ABC Company owed her an explanation.
Given her previous experience with Ms. Chan has resulted in the termination of her employment, Joey realised that she needs to take another approach so as to communicate the incident with Mr. Wong more tactfully. If she has written the letter of complaint solely based on her own feelings, Mr. Wong might judge the case differently. It is possible that he would draw conclusions such as Joey's complains not making any sense or were biased because of the emotional reactions that were triggered by her unfortunate experience. Therefore, to prevent the conflicting ideas that might arise from wrong conclusions made by herself or Mr. Wong, Joey has made use of the Ladder of Inference to to map out the process of moving from what she has observed to what she eventually concluded.
Joey thought carefully by using the ladder of inference before she wrote the letter, and she paid attention to why and how she came to her own conclusion. Also, knowing the importance of accurate information in persuasive communication, Joey has planned cautiously on her action so that it was decided based on strong reasoning and reality. Thus, her evidence was powerful and accurate enough to convince Mr. Wong that there is a need for a thorough investigation of the employment issue. And because Ms. Chan has not given any official explanation to Joey's dismissal, which is against the law, ABC Company has the responsibility to get back to Joey with a proper explanation.
Apart from the reasoning, Joey also took care of the emotional reactions that Mr. Wong could have upon receiving the letter. The relational factor has suggested that Joey should consider about leaving a positive impression on Mr. Wong to gain a bigger chance of getting him to buy into her idea. Therefore, she has praised the company as a multinational company which she perceived to be structural and systematic when handling matters. Such mentioning would implant an impression on Mr. Wong that Joey's perception would be a general expectation of many others. Failing to meet people's expectation could possibly result in damaging the company's reputation, which obviously would be a threat to the company's operations. In this sense, Joey's complaint was actually a timely reminder to the management level so they can address the existing issues before it gets even bigger.
Also, because of the authority withhold by Mr. Wong is more powerful that Ms. Chan, Joey has more trust in Mr. Wong's ability to deal with the issue than Ms. Chan. Without encountering any direct contact with Mr. Wong before, Joey has not built up any negative impressions nor anger on him. The context for communication was much healthier than that with Ms. Chan as the communication would be focusing more on factual data than personal emotions or biased decisions, which would facilitate conflict resolution.
Structural wise, Joey has followed the best practices of drafting complaint letters by including the background, the problem (cause and effect), the possible solutions, a warning statement with deadline, and closing message that has asked for ABC Company's action -- the five essential elements of an effective complaint letter (English Language Centre of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2006). Such approach has made the communication more effective and straight to the point of what is expected by her.
By seeing the benefits and urgency of knowing the case of Joey with strong reasoning behind, Mr. Wong would likely be acting more proactively towards the follow up actions. To both parties, it would be a win-win situation, where ABC Company is able to pin point its problems for improvement and Tracy is able to obtain feedback from the company quickly.
7. Conclusion
From Joey's case, it is for sure that the conflict between Ms. Apple Chan and her was irreversible as she has already been fired by the company. However, her letter of complaint did contribute to changing ABC Company's employment process for future staff. Joey also managed to learn from her previous experience and took more cautious approach in her thought development process before drafting the letter of complaint to Mr. Wong. If she could realise the possible issues with how she communicated with Ms. Chan and has avoided leaning too much towards the defence and impression motives, perhaps the situation would not be so bad that she got dismissed from her duties in ABC Company. Anyhow, this is still a good opportunity for Joey to learn from the experience and better communicate in conflicting situations in the future.
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. (1989). Heuristic and Systematic Information Processing within and beyond the Persuasion Context. In Unintended Thought (pp. 212-252). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
-
Gawronski, B., & Creighton, L. (2013). Dual Processing Theories. In The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition (pp. 282-312). Madison Avenue, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
Ledgerwood,
Alison; Chaiken, Shelly; Gruenfeld, Deborah H.; Judd, Charles M. (2006). Changing minds: Persuasion in negotiation
and conflict resolution. In The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 455-485). Hoboken, NJ, US: Wiley Publishing.
- McMillan M. (2010). The Ladder of Inference: How Presumptions Can Serve Productivity. Blue Mesa Group
- Senge P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Deckle Edge
