One for all, all for one

The situation that I chose to discuss is fictional from the comedic show, Modern Family.  For those of you who are not familiar with this TV series, it follows three very different families, and each episode revolves around some sort of family problem.  The three families are all related and interact with one another; however, they are also individual entities.

In one particular episode, one of the characters, Mitch, wants to quit his legal job.  Mitch is unhappy with the work environment and the lack of respect he receives at work, and he decides he wants to leave the firm.  The kicker is that Mitch can’t muster up the courage to actually quit.  He has trouble communicating with his supervisor and every time it appears as if he’ll actually quit his job, Mitch chickens out and his supervisor assigns him a new task.  In the end, he finally ends up communicating his desire to quit and leaves the firm.

In this situation, communication is one of the main problems.  Mitch does not communicate with his higher up about his desire to quit or his unhappiness at the firm.  He simply carries on and completes his assigned tasks.  On the other hand, Mitch’s higher up also has a problem when it comes to communication.  He is clearly not observant or interested in the happiness of his employee, and therefore, fails to realize that there is a problem.  A crucial part of communication is listening and engaging those around you, and his supervisor fails to do this. 

The lack of communication also reveals inefficiency within this team relationship.  Since Mitch feels as though he cannot communicate openly with his supervisor, Mitch may have also passed up previous opportunities to relay new ideas, opinions and viewpoints.  Conversely, his supervisor should have been more open and accessible so that this situation would have never occurred. 

In reference to chapter 8 in Bolman and Deal, another road block in Mitch’s relationship with his supervisor is their inability to “recognize that group effectiveness depends on members’ ability to understand what is happening and contribute effectively” (184-185).  Both members in this conflict were unaware of the others’ needs.  They knew their own personal desires, however, they did not listen, communicate and build a general consensus on how to deal with the issue. 

This situation could have easily been avoided.  Had Mitch and his supervisor had a more open, honest relationship, Mitch may not have wanted to quit in the first place.  If Mitch had conveyed his goals, needs and hardships to his employer, he would have enjoyed his job much more.  Similarly, if Mitch’s supervisor had initiated ground rules that promoted open communication, listening and some sort of way to discuss conflict, the situation could have also been avoided.

I think that this situation demonstrates how important it is to set rules and guidelines for group work early on in a group relationship.  When an environment is presented as one that is open, honest, cooperative and respectful, I have found that group members respond more positively and have a better experience overall.

This definitely relates back to the work experience that I mentioned in my last post.  Before I began my internship, guidelines for communication and general expectations were discussed.  I think it was crucial that my employer promoted open communication and regularly checked in on us to make sure that not only our project was going well, but also that we happy.  This type of concern for one's employees promotes a healthy, communication-friendly relationship at the work place.