Chatham Branch of Canadian National Bank - Case Study Example

?Executive Summary: Chatham Branch of Canadian National Bank is current engulfed in a crisis situation. This crisis situation entails an interpersonal conflict that has arisen between the manager of customer relations and a senior customer service representative. The conflict situation has evolved into a full blown complaint, made by the customer service representative against her manager to the NCEC. The bank is currently overseeing a period, characterized by intense competition. This shift in competitive framework has resulted from the government’s deregulatory practices. To cope with the pressure of this kind of environment the bank has implemented a system by the name of Customer Service Capacity Management (CSCM). This system has proposed certain parameters for each branch of the bank. The branch managers of each of these branches are expected to implement these recommendations without any exceptions. In such a situation a branch manager expects full support from each and every employee working in his or her branch. But unfortunately the branch manager of Chatham Branch has been unable to get support of one of her senior customer service representative, who is holding her own grudges against the branch manager. This has resulted in a series of ongoing tension situation existing between the manager and the customer service representative. All efforts of the manager to reconcile the prevailing differences have resulted in a failure, and thus a point has been reached where the fate of both these ladies is in the hands of a disciplinary committee. Problem Statement: The main problem which is being talked about in this case is one of interpersonal conflict. This form of conflict is arising between a young, inspirational, cooperative customer service manager and an experienced, mid aged, frustrated customer service representative. The point that is becoming the source of contention between these two ladies is that is that the later one had once applied for the position of customer service manager based on her vast experience of this field, but she got rejected on the grounds that she did not had the required qualifications for the job and her experience was not enough to undermine this deficiency. However, she got the post of customer service representative. When this lady saw a young woman with just a degree to back her in the shoes of a manager, she decided to make her life difficult. Sub problems in the Bank: Since the bank is currently operating in an environment which is characterized by deregulation, therefore the entire banking paradigm has changed. In this paradigm banks need to be very responsive to customers’ needs with regards to their financial products and services. Banks also need to utilize their resources very efficiently and undertake strategies which help them to reduce their operating costs. In this regards Canadian National bank has implemented a new system by the name of Customer Service Capacity Management (CSCM). The basic aim of this system is to match customer traffic with the number of customer service representatives. In this way the system enables a reduction in cost. Recently, Lesley has been asked by this system to cut the job of a clerk and have the responsibility of this job fulfilled by two customer service representatives. These representatives will share the work hours and work responsibilities of this job post. The responsibility to carry the task out fell on Pam Stewart and Sarah Wright, both these ladies had vast experience to back them but both these ladies were poles apart when it came to their personalities. Sarah was friendly and cooperative whereas as Pam was stubborn and uncooperative. Sarah had not problems when it came to performing these additional responsibilities, whereas Pam made a fuss about things and requested that she be relieved of these additional duties. She communicated to Lesley by means of a formal letter with a doctor’s certificate, asking her to relieve her of this additional role. Lesley rightfully took up this issue with Sarah asking her for suggestions and finally agreeing to give both Sarah and Pam to come up with a collaborative solution. When Lesley took this step, it was as if nothing had happen, the two ladies went on with the two jobs and never even complained once. Lesley rightfully thought that the matter was resolved, but in reality Pam registered another grudge against Lesley. The final blow to this interpersonal conflict came when Pam came in with a request to Lesley to allow her to attend an accounting course offered on Thursday evenings. Again she came in at a point in time when the Customer Service Capacity Management had recommended a new schedule for the employees of the bank. This new schedule increased the working hours and added new work responsibilities on the employees. Pam’s request came at an unexpected moment. However, Lesley handled this conversation with Pam in the same calm and composed manner. She tried to keep facts in front of her to justify her decision of not allowing her to attend this evening course. Pam at that moment went out of Lesley’s room without showing any sign of discontent, but later it came to the knowledge to Lesley that Pam has made a formal complaint about Lesley’s behavior and action to the NCEC. This news came in as a surprise for Lesley when the Area Manager of the Chatham Region Robert Aronson informed her about this development. Another issue that is being witnessed over here is that Pam’s insubordination is being felt by other employees also. She is not only troubling Lesley and testing her patience but also is putting extra burden on other employees but not finishing her share of work and then taking unexpected leave. From day one Pam has been a thorn in Lesley’s path; she does not completes her weekly referral sheet, she comes up with petty issues and most importantly she spreads negative energy in the environment. And most annoying of all this is that she blames this behavior of her on her troubled family life, which has nothing to do with the grudge she holds against Lesley. Equity Theory: According to this theory, an employee makes comparison of her job inputs (effort, experience, education, and competence) and outcomes (salary levels, raises and recognition) relative to those of others. An employee perceives what he gets from a job situation in relation to what he/she puts into it. Then they compare their outcome input ratio with people inside or outside the organization. If this ratio comparison turns up to be on a lesser side than a state of inequity will come to exist. Whereas, if this ratio is equal to the ratio of the person with whom comparison was made than in such cases no state of inequity will come to exist (Miner, p. 94). Putting Pam in this equation of equity theory; she compared her input-output ratio with Lesley, and found it to be less than hers. The assumptions on which she made this comparison were that she was more experienced than Lesley and had contributed more to the bank’s success. She used these bases to believe that she was the rightful person to hold the post of a manager. In driving her input-output ratio, Pam did not include the most important requirement of having a degree to hold a managerial post. In this way Pam came up with a ratio that was flawed and was not considering the most important difference between her and Lesley. Pam had no grounds using which she could have compared herself with Lesley. The question that needs to be asked over here is whether Pam would accept the situation in which the bank gives Sarah Wright a position for which a post graduate diploma holder is required. Sarah is just a high school graduate with experience equal to Pam. So if this situation was to turn up would Pam be happy? The most likely answer to this scenario is “No”, Pam would not be happy with this. If this is what Pam would feel than why she is acting in such a childish manner in this current situation? She is nothing to complain because there are no basis for comparison between Lesley and her. Pros and Cons of the Situation: The most apparent advantage of this situation is that Pam can be finally exposed by Lesley. Since the case is now under the NCEC, both these parties will have to come up with their defense. Lesley has nothing to worry because she was implementing the recommendations made by the Customer Service Capacity Management. Thus she had nothing to do with Pam’s problematic situation. Also Pam had not informed Lesley about the recent initiative of hers to enroll in an accounting course, and that too on Thursday evenings. If she had informed Lesley prior to the implementation of the schedule made by Lesley, than Lesley could have been held responsible for this deadlock but since Pam had not informed her earlier therefore no one can blame Lesley for putting Pam’s shift on Thursday evening. Moreover, Pam can take in this meeting character references both from her employees and also from her area manager and prove that she acted in no such ways as described by Pam. Also Pam’s problems are not restricted to Lesley, she has issues with other employees as well, and these employees are totally annoyed with her stubborn attitude. There is no reference in the case with regards to Lesley having interpersonal conflicts with other employees of the branch other than Pam. Moreover, she has on her side established protocols that need to be followed when an employee has to report a grievance against a senior. Pam did not came to her to register her protest with Lesley’s decision, all they had was a casual conversation were Lesley described the situation to Pam and she acted as if Lesley sold her the point she want to make. After that she bypassed Lesley and the Area Manager and went directly to the NCEC. The most troubling disadvantage in this entire scenario is that it has provided the impetus for the flowing of grapevine talks amongst employees. This keep the employees distracted until this issue gets resolved. Incase in Pam came out as a winner; she will be a force to reckon with. Pam will continue to defy Lesley and her authority, looking at which other employees will get encouragement to follow the same path. This in turn will lead to the spreading of interpersonal conflict between employees. The entire branch will be divided into factions, one supporting Lesley and the other supporting Pam. This will be counterproductive for work and in this highly competitive environment the bank cannot accept such a thing. Final Decision: The bank’s NCEC needs to inform both the parties prior to the commencement of a formal trial that the losing party will face dire circumstances. This notion alone will provide a reason for both the parties to engage in dialogue outside the NCEC. Once this happens an arbitrator should be placed in the situation who will define the parameters of the discussion. He in turn will try to bring to surface the underlying points of conflicts. This arbitrator needs to be the Area manager, since he is well aware of the dynamics of the situation and knows the importance of resolving this conflict. If this method fails to achieve an end than the matter should be taken up by the NCEC, which should review the proceedings of the arbitration stage, and also conduct its own independent inquiry. Whatever the results come out to be, the NCEC needs to make an example out of this incident, it should send a message across to all the bank’s branches that such an incident would not be tolerated in such a time when the bank is facing intense competition. This message should trickle down to all the levels of the bank so that everyone should know that this committee is not to be joked with, and such incidents of interpersonal conflicts will not be tolerated by it. Work Cited Miner, John. Organizational Behavior 4: from theory to practice. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2007. Print. Read More