Group project - Case Study Example

This paper evaluates the communication issues and communication effectiveness of Mr. Porter, Mr. Weigand, and the disgruntled teacher, where they all made communication mistakes because leaders did not establish strong relationships with their subordinates, while subordinates reacted with inadequate critical thinking. The first section of the paper assesses the e-mail communications of Mr. Porter and Mr. Weigand, which both manifested a lack of responsiveness to one of the crucial roles of leadership, the role of building relationships, which could have helped them become more perceptive of the current workload of teachers and their feelings regarding additional class requirements. Mr. Porter and Mr.

Weigand did not effectively communicate the importance of the new performance objectives because they did not understand the workload of their teachers and how they would respond to the new class requirement that they have to submit in a month. First, Mr. Porter did not consult with his principals and teachers regarding the new performance objectives. . Second, Mr. Weigand should know more about the teachers’ situation, but instead, he merely forwarded an unsympathetic e-mail to his teachers.

Apart from not expressing empathy, he did not have sufficient perception of his role as someone who could have at least tried to communicate with the teachers first regarding how they felt about the performance objectives (Lunenburg, 2010, p.5). As the principal, he should have been more aware of the potential impact of the performance objectives on his teachers because he should know more about the teachers’ everyday activities. Instead, he acted as if he was another Mr. Porter. Third, if I would put myself in the position of these teachers, I would also be surprised and frustrated after getting the e-mail.

The e-mail had a demanding tone and unrealistic perception of teachers’ workload. It would certain get angry responses because it did not consider its effects on teachers, who already had regular tasks and activities. Thus, Mr. Porter and Mr. Weigand failed to build a strong relationship with their teachers that could have given them the inkling that setting performance requirements could not be done in such a rushed manner. The second section of the paper discusses how Mr. Weigand should respond to the angry teacher, where he should reply with empathy and openness to further discussion.

In his e-mail response, Mr. Weigand must sound concerned by saying that he understood her frustration and that he would open the topic for further discussion with other teachers. He must be open to suggestions too on how the relevance of the performance objectives could be better explored and highlighted to his teachers (Lunenburg, 2010, p.7). Furthermore, I could have