Analysis of Interpersonal Communication - Case Study Example

Case Study Analysis of Interpersonal Communication Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction 2 1.1 Brief Summary of the Case Study and Outline of this Report 2 1.2 Issues Raised by the Case Study 2 2. Literature Review 3 2.1 Interaction Adaptation Theory 3 2.1 Influence of Culture and Gender 5 2.2 Linking Concepts to Interaction Adaptation Theory 6 3. Transcript of an Effective Conversation 7 4. Recommendations 9 References 10 Executive Summary This report examines a dysfunctional communications environment at the Griffith Hotel, which is exemplified by a poor customer interaction between Samantha, a front desk clerk, and Mr. Branson, a guest. The problem fundamentally is very poor managerial communications on the part of the Front Office Manager, Simon, who takes a hierarchical, directive approach that is wholly ineffective in communicating with the staff, with the results being interpersonal conflicts and poor customer service. The reasons for the problems in communication are explained by interaction adaptation theory, which describes the ways in which people choose how they will interact with others based on their own needs, expectations, and desires (Berger, 2005). When this orientation closely matches other people’s reciprocal, productive communication can occur; when it does not, it leads to conflict as in the present case. A significant factor in the ability of people to adopt an interaction position that meshes well with others is the ability to recognise the factors that affect the way others communicate, such as gender, the emotional demands of the job positions they fill, and their cultural background, including their professional culture. Unfortunately, the biggest failure in this understanding at the Griffith Hotel lies with the manager, Simon. A first step in correcting this problem and applying some of the valuable theoretical concepts to management practise is to encourage feedback and more two-way communication between the staff and the management. This will reveal where specific communications problems exist, and where employee perceptions and goals differ too greatly from the hotel’s. 1. Introduction 1.1 Brief Summary of the Case Study and Outline of this Report This report examines the communications issues revealed by a problematic customer interaction with the front desk staff of the Griffith Hotel. Mr. Branson, an attendee at a conference being held at the hotel, arrived for check-in after a long journey only to be told by Samantha, a front desk clerk, that his reservation for a room at the special conference rate could not be found in the hotel’s reservation system. In the sections that follow, a number of key issues and problems in interpersonal communication, are identified and examined in a theoretical context, and evidence from the research literature is presented to fully illustrate the main problem, which is an overall ineffective communications framework within the department, beginning with Simon, the Front Office Manager. A hypothetical example of how the conversation with Mr. Branson should have been conducted is then presented, followed by a few recommendations for improving communications amongst the front desk staff and managers. 1.2 Issues Raised by the Case Study By working backwards from the outcome of the incident with Mr. Branson, which was a complaint raised to the General Manager of the hotel, the issues in communications that need to be addressed can be identified. First, there was a conflict between the information Mr. Branson had, and the information Samantha the front desk clerk had; Mr. Branson was certain he had a reservation at the special conference rate, while as far as Samantha could tell he did not. Second, this conflict seems to have been aggravated by the emotional approach both parties had to the exchange; Mr. Branson was tired and impatient from a long journey, and Samantha, besides being busy and somewhat stressed with her work at that time, was affected by her own past experience with difficult customers and her perceptions of her own work expertise, which caused her to form a prejudice against Mr. Branson. Samantha’s attitude was evidently aggravated if not entirely caused by an environment of tension within the front office department. There is personal conflict amongst the front line staff, conflict between the staff and the supervisors, and conflict between all of those and the manager, Simon. Although Simon has the right goals in mind – excellent customer service and meeting or exceeding revenue targets – he is unable to communicate those effectively to his department. The entire pattern of communication within the front office is one-way and directive, beginning with the training of new employees, and Simon justifies taking this perspective because of his experience and position; when resistance is offered to his direction, his way of countering it is to remind his employees of his superiority. So while the immediate problem is that Samantha did not know what she should do “if” she encountered a situation like Mr. Branson’s – a situation that one might assume is very likely to occur in a hotel – the larger problem is a failure of managerial communication (Brownell, 2003). Much of the conflict within the front office department can be explained by interaction adaptation theory (Berger, 2005, 419-420), which is explored in detail below. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Interaction Adaptation Theory Interaction adaptation theory was developed as a means of combining a number of earlier theories that sought to model or predict when interaction would occur between people, and what the nature of that interaction might be (Berger, 2005, 419). It recognises that there are several factors in social interaction, and that reciprocity and compensation – in other words, behaving as others expect in response to their behaviour meeting one’s own expectations – is expressed in communication. Interaction adaptation theory also holds that while it is natural for people to adapt to new social situations, to find a “comfort level”, Berger (2005, 420) points out that “such factors as the consistency of one’s communication style may limit adaptation during social interaction.” The case study gives several examples of interaction adaptation theory at work. New employees are described as quickly adopting the same poor attitude as their trainers. And Simon’s “consistency” in his communication style, in which he lectures or directs his staff instead of conversing with them, is an example of adaptation being limited. Berger (2005, 420) explains that the process of adaptation involves a person’s developing an “interaction position”, a manner in which he or she will behave with others, based on that person’s needs, expectations, and desires; the outcome of the interaction, whether positive or negative, is based on that person’s comparing the feedback from another person to his own interaction position. If the two match closely enough, the interaction will be reciprocal; if they differ too much, however, the person will compensate and usually conflict will arise. While interaction adaptation theory can explain what is happening in the Griffith Hotel’s front office, it does not provide any suggestions of how Simon might apply the knowledge of the theory to the practise of organisational socialisation for his staff (Brownell, 2003; Seibold, Lemus, Ballard & Myers, 2009, 333). It does not, for example, explain to him how he might identify the needs, expectations, and desires of his staff to understand their interaction positions and communicate with them more effectively. 2.1 Influence of Culture and Gender Focusing on the two key players in the case, Simon and Samantha, illustrates differences in culture that lead to a number of unproductive stereotypes. These cultural differences are not necessarily ethnic but based on the cultures created by their professional orientations (Scollon, 2001, 135-137). Simon’s professional/cultural background is more of a gemeinschaft, one based on common traditions, and expressed by his strong beliefs in “working one’s way up the ladder,” maintaining a strict hierarchy in the workplace, and adhering to certain rules of professional behaviour. Samantha has more of a gesellschaft orientation, in which her relationship to her work is more contractual and utilitarian; she has a high opinion of her abilities, and chafes in a situation where her perception of which orientation is appropriate is different from her superior’s (Scollon, 2001, 136). Because the cultural orientations determine the means by which one communicates, in the context of Luhmann’s systems theory the culture of the Griffith Hotel will continue to be dysfunctional because of the inability to develop a ‘common language’ (Leytesdorff, 2000). And while the case study does not directly suggest that there is a gender-related explanation for the general problems in the front office, evidence from the literature suggests a partial explanation for Samantha’s behaviour in interacting with Mr. Branson. In a recent study, significant differences in perceptions of customer service goals between men and women were discovered; men tend to be more outcome- or results-oriented in their perceptions of customer service, while women tend to seek positive emotional outcomes and mutually-satisfying results (Mathies & Burford, 2011). This might explain Samantha’s reaction to Mr. Branson. First, his appearance reminded her of an Indian customer who had given her a difficult time in the past; this would put her on guard that the imminent interaction might be emotionally stressful, and this was reflected in her defensive way of communicating with Mr. Branson – not making eye contact, being somewhat brusque, and disengaging from the exchange as quickly as possible by first appealing to a lack of control (“I can’t override the computer.”) and then going to find her manager at once without further comment when Mr. Branson asked to see him. In other literature, the importance of recognising ‘emotional labour’ is not necessarily gender-specific, but is considered a critical factor in hospitality industries; the service rendered by a hotel or a restaurant is more personal to the customer (involving basic survival needs like food and shelter) than other sorts of transactions, and the communications exchange is as a result more personal and emotional as well (Anderson, Provis & Chappel, 2002; Pantelidis & Wrobel, 2008). 2.2 Linking Concepts to Interaction Adaptation Theory As explained above, the shortcoming in interaction adaptation theory is it does not offer much help in correcting the poor communications environment. Understanding cultural, emotional, and where appropriate, gender influences in that environment, however, might help the manager practise and encourage more ‘mindful’ communication, which can be defined as communication that breaks the expected pattern, and causes the receiver of a message to formulate a response outside of that pattern (Burgoon, Berger & Waldron, 2000, 110-112). Simon’s constant criticism and lecturing of the staff has become the predictable pattern to them, and so they become ‘mindless’ or ‘tune him out’ as the case study describes. And since the nature of his communications to the staff represents a very big difference between their individual interaction positions and his, there is little mutual support amongst the staff for a strong customer orientation (Susskind, Kacmar & Borchgrevink, 2007). And the result is a poor and unproductive exchange between Samantha and Mr. Branson. 3. Transcript of an Effective Conversation The following is a hypothetical transcript of Samantha’s conversation with Mr. Branson, wherein she practises mindful, customer-oriented communication with her customer: Samantha: “Good evening, Sir, sorry to keep you waiting. Are you checking in this evening?” Samantha looks Mr Branson up and down, and thinks he appears to be of Indian descent. She remembers an incident from the week before with an Indian gentleman who was very rude and arrogant when he was making an enquiry to hold a function at the hotel. However, that man was not Mr. Branson, so Samantha dismisses the memory and concentrates on the task at hand. Mr. Branson: “Yes, my name is Mr. Branson.” Samantha: “Thank you, Mr. Branson. Let me check our system for your reservation.” Samantha begins checking for his reservation in the PMS. She can’t see the reservation initially so she offers a smile to Mr. Branson to wordlessly apologize for the extra delay, and spends a bit more time checking again. Still not finding the reservation, Samantha makes eye contact with Mr. Branson and sincerely states: Samantha: “I’m sorry, Mr. Branson, but I can’t seem to find your reservation. Can you tell me when it was made, and did you receive a confirmation e-mail?” Mr. Branson: “My assistant made the booking over two weeks ago. I also received a confirmation email.” Samantha: “I’m very sorry for the mix-up, Mr. Branson. I’ve checked the system twice, and it does not appear that we have your reservation.” Samantha gives Mr. Branson her full attention, letting him know that she is concerned about his problem, but since she doesn’t know what to do about it just yet, waits for his response to give her some idea of how to proceed. Mr. Branson: “Perhaps you could check again?” Samantha is mildly annoyed that he is questioning her work, but reminds herself that Mr. Branson is in an unfamiliar place after a long trip, and probably feeling quite stressed by the situation. Checking again will not help, but it will not hurt, either. Samantha: (after making one more check of the system) “I apologise, Mr. Branson, but it really is not in the system. Do you have your confirmation email?” This time Mr. Branson sighs heavily. Samantha senses that Mr Branson is starting to get annoyed with her which makes her feel even more agitated by this guest. But she also realises he is not getting what he wants, so his annoyance is understandable. Also, the missing reservation is not her fault; she shouldn’t take it personally, so long as she does her best to help him. Mr. Branson: “No, I didn’t think that it was necessary. I can go online to find the confirmation, but at this late hour, I would just like to check-in as I have had a long day.” Samantha: “Yes, I understand. Let me see what we can do to get you into a room so you can rest from your trip. I am not sure if we have availability as we have a large conference in house. Let me check…yes, I have a room which I can offer you for $400.” Mr. Branson: “I know, I am attending the conference. I must have a room but I’m not paying $400, when I made my reservation I was quoted $275.” Samantha: “I see. Unfortunately, that is the only room we have. It is a very nice room, however, much nicer than the one you’re booked for (Samantha quickly describes the features of the higher-priced room), perhaps you would like an upgrade?” Mr. Branson: “No, I’m just here for the conference, I don’t need anything fancy. I would just like a room at the rate I reserved, $275.” Samantha: (Again, making eye contact and giving Mr. Branson her full attention) “Okay, I understand. I’m sorry, but I can’t override the computer system on my own, I’ll have to get my manager for that. I don’t wish to delay you any longer, Mr. Branson, but if you’d like to wait for the manager I’ll be happy to get him for you. But we do have an option to get you into your room right now. If you’re paying with a credit card, we can check you in at $400, and then later when you have a chance to get the confirmation e-mail, we’ll be happy to correct the rate to the $275 you’re expecting. Mr. Branson: “I don’t want to wait any longer. I guess I’ll just take the $400 room for now, but I expect that rate to be corrected very soon. This is very annoying.” Samantha: (Smiles, and begins preparing the check-in procedure) “I understand, Mr. Branson, and I apologise for the inconvenience. As soon as we’re done here, I will let my manager know about your problem, and I’m sure we’ll get it straightened out right away.” 4. Recommendations The management of the Griffith Hotel seems to have only two options in this case. The first option is simply to fire Simon, as his communication style appears to be wholly unsuitable to the work environment, and is not producing good results. That, however, will not solve the problem of a poor communications framework; whether Simon or another person manages the Front Office, the priority should be to learn the communications styles of the staff by eliciting feedback. The customer service goals and standards of the hotel are fixed, so they should be compared to how the employees themselves perceive their customer service responsibilities and job roles. By doing this, the conflicts between the message the management transmits to the staff and what the staff actually understands can be revealed, and solutions found. References Anderson, B., Provis, C., and Chappel, S. (2002). The Recognition and Management of Emotional Labour in the Tourism Industry. Queensland: The Cooperative Research Council for Sustainable Tourism. Berger, C.R. (2005). Interpersonal Communication: Theoretical Perspectives, Future Prospects. Journal of Communication, 55(3), 415-447. Brownell, J. (2003). Applied Research in Managerial Communication: the Critical Link between Knowledge and Practice. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 39-49. Burgoon, J.K., Berger, C.R., and Waldron, V.R. (2000). Mindfulness and Interpersonal Communication. Journal of Society Issues, 56(1), 105-127. Leydesdorff, L. (2000). Luhmann, Habermas, and the Theory of Communication. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17(3), 273-288. Mathies, C., and Burford, M. (2011). Customer Service Understanding: Gender Differences of Frontline Employees. Managing Service Quality, 21(6), 636-648. Pantelidis, I., and Wrobel, S. (2008). London’s Hospitality Workforce: Cultural Diversity a Choice or Necessity? London Journal of Tourism, Sport and Creative Industries, 1(1), 13-21. Scollon, R. (2001). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell. Seibold, D.R., Lemus, D.R., Ballard, D.I., and Myers, K.K. (2009). Organizational Communication and Applied Communication Research: Parallels, Intersections, Integration, and Engagement. In: L.R. Frey and K.N. Cissna (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Applied Communication Research. New York: Taylor & Francis, 331-354. Susskind, A.M., Kacmar, K.M., and Borchgrevink, C.P. (2007). How Organizational Standards and Coworker Support Improve Restaurant Service. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 370-379. Read More