Short Background of Wal-Mart as a Company, Its Code of Ethics - Case Study Example

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION Name Course Tutor University Date Management communication In January 2012, the life of a seventy-three year old Wal-Mart employee changed after she made a split second reaction while at her job (Bhasin 2012). The woman had worked for Wal-Mart for twenty-two years. Three days after the January 2012 incident where a manager accused her of having violated the company policy, Wal-Mart fired her (Bhasin 2012). According to (Kim & Grunig 2011, p. 153), the three basic values that guide the culture of Wal-Mart include respect for individuals, service to customers and striving for excellence. Employees, customers and other associates are encouraged to report any misconduct, indiscipline behaviour and, unfair treatment and other issues, including poor resolution of incidents or conflicts in the workplace. Wal-Mart, therefore, provides a prism of examining how unethical incidents and unfair treatment within its workplace are handled. Corporate communication is crucial for every corporation because it entails the function of communication of the corporation. Corporate communication involves aspects such as reputation management, public relations and issues management. This paper gives a short background of Wal-Mart as a company, its code of ethics, analyses the incident of the seventy-three year old employee who lost her job and finally, analyses how the issue was handled in relation to management communication theories. The mention of the name Wal-Mart gives different pictures to different people. The people who have shopped there have felt the benefits of having to save a few dollars every time they shop (Kim & Grunig 2011, p. 153). The success of Wal-Mart is attributed to the vision of the founder of Wal-Mart, Sam Wal-Mart, who had a resilient work ethic and the ability to motivate his associates (Collins 2012, p. 123). This trademark characteristic shaped the culture of the company and its internal rhetoric. Customer satisfaction, hard work and associate appreciation are the values that have permeated the work environment of Wal-Mart for long. The case of Wal-Mart is however different today. The company has earned a reputation that is constantly under scrutiny. There have been various cases of Wal-Mart where it has paid billions of dollars to employees based in the United States of America in damages (O'Sullivan & Ngau, 2014, p. 234). Wal-Mart is also opposed to any form of collective action, including when employees are seeking a little more respect. The company has faced many scandals, including bribery issues (Shin & Duncan 2011, p. 1). According to (Geisler 2012, p. 56), two to eight percent of shoppers stopped shopping at Wal-Mart due to its the negative press. One of the latest business incidents at Wal-Mart store is the case of the seventy-three year old Wal-Mart greeter who lost her job due to a split second reaction. The woman, called Jan Sullivan had worked for Wal-Mart for twenty-two years before she was fired in 2012 (Cox 2012, p. 1). According to Cox (2012, p. 1), while Sullivan was at her job station, a woman stated that she wanted to leave through the entrance door. After a brief disagreement, Sullivan states that the woman pushed her and since she thought that she was falling off, Sullivan reached out for support and clutched the woman’s sweater (Bhasin 2012, p. 1). After gaining support, she let go and the woman stomped out. Accused of having violated the company’s policy, which states that under no circumstances are staff allowed to touch customers, Sullivan was fired three days after the incident. According to Wal-Mart representatives, Wal-Mart has over two million employees globally; therefore, strict policies have to be kept to keep the employees under control (Bhasin 2012, p. 1). The spokesperson stated that, despite the intentions of Sullivan, her action of grabbing the sweater of a customer put her safety and the safety of the customer in jeopardy (Bhasin 2012, p. 1). According to the code of ethics of Wal-Mart, the spokesperson stated that they could not condone behaviours where “associates take matters in their own hands” (Bhasin 2012, p. 1). This incidence raises the issue of when common sense overrides a company’s policy, and how to solve workplace conflicts effectively considering the interests of both the company and the employee. The Sullivan incident can be classified as a workplace conflict because it occurred while she was performing her duties. Business conflicts are common, and when properly managed, a positive source of collaboration and competitiveness in the workplace is achieved (Furlong 2010, p. 23). On the contrary, when workplace conflicts are not well managed, they can lead to low morale and chaos in the same environment (Furlong 2010, p. 23). One of the causes of conflict in the Sullivan’s incident is poor communication. Poor communication is the greatest cause of conflicts in workplaces. In this case, there was clear miscommunication when one party, Wal-Mart’s manager, misinterpreted the actions of another party, Sullivan. Sullivan had clearly been instructed to restrict customers from exiting using the entrance. Sullivan was supposed to be polite and convince difficult customers not to use the entrance as an exit. One customer became difficult and demanded that she had to exit through the entrance. Sullivan tried to restrict her politely, and the customer shoved her. The manager at Wal-Mart had the same goal as Sullivan. However, the manager may have had a different work method of achieving that goal than Sullivan had. Different work methods, therefore, be termed as one source of workplace conflict (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse 2011, p. 87). Sullivan used the approach the manager would have wanted, but it failed and the more the customer became difficult, the more she was pushed to try another approach to reach her goal. The manager before suspending her should have practiced good communication skills and listened to how the incident began instead of relying only on some parts of video evidence. He should also have asked Sullivan to explain her approach for him to understand better and maybe ask other employees what had ensued. Managers and employees have to identify different types of conflicts that exist and find out what brings them about. Managers then should apply the effective and constructive methods of managing such conflicts. To achieve this, managers need to have theoretical insights on the nature of the conflicts and the ways in which they can be resolved peacefully (Deutsch, Coleman & Marcus 2011, p. 132). There are various theories that could have been applied to resolve the incident by putting into consideration the interests of the company and Sullivan. The various existing theories for solving business conflicts include cooperative model, principled negotiation, Human Needs Model, conflict transformation, the circle of conflict and Lencioni’s model. The Circle of Conflict is one of the conflict management theories that give an overview of sources of conflicts and different ways of resolving them (Abu-Nimer 2012, p. 243). According to the Circle of Conflict theory, the six common sources of conflict are values, relationships, externals or moods, data, interest and structure (Deutsch, Coleman & Marcus 2011, p. 132). The circle of conflicts resembles a pie graph in which the top half consists of relationships, values and externals or moods. The bottom half of the pie chart consists of interests, data and structure (Slaikeu & Hasson 2012, p. 142). The theory of Circle of Conflicts assumes that conflicts are easily resolved by focusing on the drivers in the bottom half of the circle. By focusing on data, structure and interest, offers a more direct path in managing conflicts because they are things over which parties involved have more control (Cahn 2013, p. 13). In the Sullivan’s incidence, Sullivan managed the conflict with the customer using the data, interest and structure drivers, she focused on the interests of Wal-Mart, which stated that customers should not exit using the entrance (Singh, Jindal & Samim 2011, p. 4). She also focused on the structure driver because she was following orders from her authorities and finally, there was enough data to show that the customer was not supposed to exit using the entrance. The manager who fired Sullivan did not focus on the data and interest drivers, but focused on the structure, relationships and values drivers of resolving conflict. He was an authoritative figure in the company and, therefore, he exercised his authority to fire Sullivan freely. Furthermore, the values of the company stated that under no circumstances should a staff member touch a customer and therefore, he followed the policy of the company (Geisler 2012, p. 46). He used selective data to fire Sullivan because he did not gather more evidence from her workmates of what had ensued, and he did not listen to her explanation of the incident. When addressing the incident, the manager should have made sure that he understood the true interest of Sullivan in behaving the way she did. According to Sullivan, she had grabbed the sweater of the customer because she had been pushed and was falling off (Cox 2012, p.1). The manager, however, did not consider the fact that she was actually falling off. McCombs, Shaw and Weaver (2013, p. 132), gives another model of resolving conflicts called Lencioni’s model that has various circles concentrated on the point of conflict. This model gives an overview of four types of obstacles that make conflict resolution hard. According to Dozier, Grunig and Grunig (2013, p. 231), Lencioni’s circle proposes that the issue itself is the centre of the model and the closer a circle to the issue is, the easier the barrier is to overcome when resolving conflicts. The obstacles become more difficult to overcome as one approaches the outward of the circle from the centre. The barriers of resolving conflicts are informational obstacles, which is the closest to the point of conflict (Ting-Toomey & Chung 2012, p. 153). To strive towards resolving disputes the easiest way to begin is to exchange facts, perspectives and opinions. The second barrier is environmental, and it is the second closest to the issue (Keashly, Nowell, Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf & Cooper 2011, p. 432). The environment and atmosphere which the issue took place plays a crucial role in affecting the resolution process (Mossanen, Johnston, Green & Joyner, 2014, p. 347). The atmosphere can include office politics, physical space, company culture and individual moods. Relationships circle is the third from the centre of the circle and it relates to the issues that connect the people in conflict. The process of working through conflict can be affected by unresolved legacies between the parties involved, their positions in the company and the reputations (Rahim 2011, p. 87). Finally, the outmost circle represents individual obstacles, which refers to the issues that the specific individuals in the conflict are facing, their motives, values, self-esteem and knowledge. In the Sullivan case, it was difficult to resolve the conflict between Sullivan and difficult customer because the customer chose to ignore the information given to her about not using the entrance for exit. The customer should have respected the fact that Wal-Mart rules did not allow her to exit through the entrance. To resolve the conflict, the manager should have accessed the available information about the incident. He should also have gotten more information from the customer in question and some of the employees who were present. Wal-Mart’s manager could have solved the Sullivan’s incident through many ways. Some of the strategies that he could have applied include mediation, incremental, negotiation and effective communication (de Wit, Greer & Jehn 2012, p. 360). Principled negotiation strategy is the discussion carried between parties who are in conflict and are trying to work out a solution (de Wit, Greer & Jehn 2012, p. 360). Negotiations strategy can occur at personal, corporate and international levels. Parties who negotiate strive to work out a solution whereby both parties have to make sacrifices to resolve their dispute. Rather than fighting openly, they prefer to search for an agreement through the process of give and take (Ting-Toomey & Chung 2012, p. 153). Both small and large corporations have a chance of resolving conflicts when they show willingness to compromise. In the Sullivan case, the customer who wanted to exit through the entrance did not show a willingness to compromise, despite efforts by Sullivan to convince her that it was against the rules of Wal-Mart to exit through the entrance, she did not understand and started demanding for it. Sullivan did not have a chance to compromise because it was her job description not to restrict people from exiting through the entrance. She could have asked the customer to wait for the manager to solve the misunderstanding in a negotiation process. The customer clearly did not give Sullivan, a chance to compromise her values because she resulted to pushing her. Sullivan could not have let the customer exit through the entrance because she would have been violating the rules of Wal-Mart willingly. Furthermore, the manager who called Sullivan to investigate the incidence should have compromised his strong beliefs in following the policies of the company, having been made aware of what ensued in the incident. He failed to negotiate with Sullivan and understand her reasons for behaving the way she did. Instead, he followed the laws of the company and fired her. It is the responsibility of managers to manage conflicts in an organization with the purpose of creating a healthy and dynamic working condition. Solving conflicts effectively can only be achieved if the manager understands the interests of the employees, their problems, main motivators and limitations (Ting-Toomey & Chung 2012, p. 153). One of the theories managers can use to handle workplace conflicts effectively is human needs model. Wal-Mart’s manager could have used the Human Needs Model to handle the conflict in a manner that benefited the needs of the involved parties (Ting-Toomey & Chung 2012, p. 153). The major need of Wal-Mart in that case, is for employees to adhere to company policies. Sullivan’s needs were to either continue working for Wal-Mart because at her age, she could not get a new job or to be given her benefits because she had worked faithfully for twenty two years. Wal-Mart could have considered the needs of Sullivan before sacking her. The Human Needs Model theory would have effectively solved the conflict and benefited both Sullivan and Wal-Mart. Incrementalism is another strategy for solving conflicts in large corporations. This process involves finding solution over time. This strategy involves taking time and involving other people when trying to solve the conflict (Ting-Toomey & Chung 2012, p. 153). Solutions sometimes need a long time to find and involvement of other parties. Many people have to be working independently and in concert to solve an existing conflict and avoid further conflicts (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse 2011, p. 87). In the Sullivan case, Wal-Mart should have realized that it deals with millions of customers who have diverse beliefs and values. In addition, it has millions of workers who have unique values and personalities. After this acknowledgment, Wal-Mart should then have noted that Sullivan’s case was not very special, and many such cases could occur. Through incrementalism, they should have used that case to find out the right method to handle such a case in order to avoid such incidences in the future. They should have considered that Sullivan had been working for them for over twenty years, and during that period; customers appraised her services a lot. In this case, incremental steps should have been taken to work out the conflict, taking into consideration the status of Sullivan and whether she was protecting the interests of the company or hers, at the time of the incident (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse 2011, p. 87). Mediation is the third strategy that is taken to solve conflicts. In this strategy, a third party is called upon to assist in resolving the dispute (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse 2011, p. 87). The mediator in this process is to facilitate communication between the parties in conflict (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse 2011, p. 87). The mediator also assists in helping the parties focus on the dispute and come up with options that meet the interests of both groups (Abu-Nimer 2012, p. 243). In the case of Sullivan and Wal-Mart, a mediator would have been involved in making sure that there is good communication between Sullivan and the manager. The manager would be made to understand the reasons why Sullivan acted the way she did. The manager would then have the mediator explain the policies of Wal-Mart to Sullivan and advice her on how she could have reacted (Abu-Nimer 2012, p. 243). Conflict transformation theory is very effective in transforming the kind of communication happening in a workplace. When there is a conflict, the kind of communication used to solve it determines the solution (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse 2011, p. 87). When there are negative attitudes involved, it becomes very hard to come to a workable solution. Conflict transformation theory, therefore is centred on building peace by replacing negative attitude and communication with positive and constructive communication patterns (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse 2011, p. 87). In the Sullivan’s case, Wal-Mart’s manager could have helped Sullivan to understand her wrongdoing in the incident. He could also have encouraged her to listen to the needs of the customers and recognize their situations. Finally, he could have come up with more options for handling the kind of situation she had with the customer. In conclusion, the communication function of a company is critical. Every organization has its disputes, and there are ways of solving them. Wal-Mart, being the largest retail corporation in the world today, boasts of employing the largest number of employees worldwide (de Wit, Greer & Jehn 2012, p. 360). The company, despite making huge profits and customer liking it due to discounted prices, has been under scrutiny for some years now due to the ways in which it treats its employees (de Wit, Greer & Jehn 2012, p. 360). Wal-Mart boasts of an effective code of conduct, which protects both employees and customers. Ethics was not exercised in the case of Jan Sullivan, a seventy-three years old woman who had worked for Wal-Mart for twenty-two years only to be sacked in January 2012, having been accused of violating the company’s policy. This dispute could have been solved using the different conflict solving and communication theories as discussed. References Abu-Nimer, M. (2012). Dialogue, conflict resolution, and change: Arab-Jewish encounters in Israel. SUNY Press. Bhasin, K 2012, ‘This 73-year-old Wal-Mart Greeter’s Life Was Ruined by One Split-Second Reaction,’ Business Insider, retrieved online on 17 July 17, 2014 http://www.businessinsider.com/73-year-old-walmart-greeters-black-friday-incident-changes-her-life-2012-7 Cahn, D. D. (Ed.). (2013). Intimates in conflict: A communication perspective. Routledge. Collins, D. (2012). Business Ethics. John Wiley & Sons. Cox, JW 2012, Black Friday ruckus, firing changes 73-year-old Wal-Mart greeter’s life,’ Tampa bay Times, viewed online on 17 July 2014 http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/black-friday-ruckus-firing-changes-73-year-old-walmart-greeters-life/1237349 de Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360. Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., & Marcus, E. C. (Eds.). (2011). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons. Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (2013). Manager's guide to excellence in public relations and communication management. Routledge. Furlong, G. T. (2010). The conflict resolution toolbox: Models and maps for analyzing, diagnosing, and resolving conflict. John Wiley & Sons. Geisler, M. (2012). International Marketing and Walmart’s Missed Opportunity (Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas). Keashly, L., Nowell, B. L., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (2011). Conflict, conflict resolution, and bullying. Bullying and harassment in the workplace developments in theory, research and practice, 423-445. Kim, J. N., & Grunig, J. E. (2011). Problem solving and communicative action: A situational theory of problem solving. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 120-149. McCombs, M. E., Shaw, D. L., & Weaver, D. H. (Eds.). (2013). Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory. Routledge. Mossanen, M., Johnston, S. S., Green, J., & Joyner, B. D. (2014). A Practical Approach to Conflict Management for Program Directors. Journal of graduate medical education, 6(2), 345-346. O'Sullivan, P., & Ngau, O. (2014). Whistleblowing: a critical philosophical analysis of the component moral decisions of the act and some new perspectives on its moral significance. Business Ethics: A European Review. Rahim, M. A. (2011). Managing conflict in organizations. Transaction Publishers. Ramsbotham, O., Miall, H., & Woodhouse, T. (2011). Contemporary conflict resolution. Polity. Shin, Y., & Duncan, M. (2011). What are the costs that follow Wal-Mart’s motto:" Always low prices"?. Singh, H. P., Jindal, S., & Samim, S. A. (2011). Business Ethics: Relevance, Influence, Issues and Practices in International Business Scenario. Special Issue of the International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management, 19(1), 1-5. Slaikeu, K. A., & Hasson, R. H. (2012). Controlling the costs of conflict: How to design a system for your organization. John Wiley & Sons. Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L. C. (2012). Understanding intercultural communication. New York: Oxford University Press. Whelan, C. J., & Ziv, N. (2013). Law Firm Ethics in the Shadow of Corporate SocialResponsibility. Geo. J. Legal Ethics, 26, 153. Read More