Special Offer!Use code first15 and
Get 15% off your first order
Table of Contents
Social role stereotypes can explain the interaction between Suzanne and Lieutenant Meyers through examining the two categories of gender established qualities. Suzanne portrays communal qualities as she is gentle while Lieutenant exemplifies agentic qualities including assertiveness and confidence in his communication manner. Evidence of descriptive prejudice is evident in Lt. Meyers’s formal compliant report where he terms Suzanne as arrogant and sloppy which is not evident in their interaction. Lieutenant Meyers does not seem to exercise self-regulation and self-awareness deeming that his harsh communication with Suzanne was not necessary; he also lacks social skills for interaction. He, however, looks motivated to pursue goals with energy judging from the manner he follows up his formal complaint. SSGT Lakey, in his turn, is empathetic to Suzanne's interaction with Meyers and seems ready not to allow the process to get out of hand. SSGT Lakey is also self-regulated and self-aware. Lt. Meyers relies on conventional message design in his interaction with Suzanne relying on his position as a superior to issue commands with arrogance. He also uses the role played by civilians as a basis for the formal complaint.
Suzanne relies on expressive design centered on her personality even in her interaction with her superiors as in the case with Lt. Meyers. MSGT Robinson relies on a rhetoric design to communicate as he thoroughly explains to Suzanne how to deal in future with Lt. Meyers. Given both Suzanne and Lt. Meyers used different message designs, they were not able to identify the communication problems between themselves. As a consequence, Suzanne attributes Lt. Meyers’s mannerism to some undesirable personal characteristics. Lt. Meyers, in his turn, is inclined to believe that Suzanne's demeanor is a result of bad intentions to disrupt his squadron’s activities (Vivian, 2009).
In the beginning, Lily’s face needs revolve around creating an impression of friendship and trust between her and Mia. However, after getting promoted, she seeks to maintain a professional face and later an unbiased professionalism when dealing with her sectors employees. At the end, her face need is to protect her professional look. All through she is creating a positive face. When first confronted with Mia Lily satisfies the prediction that a relationship is maintained only when the outcomes are better than compared alternatives.
Lily understands the importance of keeping a positive face with her superior. As such she restrains herself from taking Mia’s side even when she felt it was going to be difficult for her to lay Mia off. Lily satisfies one assumption of the social exchange theory by looking out for her welfare first. She does not side with Mia as she knows that can be harmful for her career at the organization. Mia and Lily may remain friends if Mia understands that Lily had no choice in the decision of her termination. If Mia does not understand that Lily did what was best for her without ill meaning for her friend, then the relationship may not move on well. One of the most visible internal dialectics in the story is that of autonomy and connection. Mia is autonomous from Lily as her superior but connected to her concerning their private relationship. The most notable external dialectics is that of revelation and concealment most visible in the friendly relationship between Mia and Lily (Hartley, Montgomery, Rennie, & Brennan, 2002).
The vice president uses the segmentation strategy to deal with the situation between Mia and Lily regarding job termination. Lily, in her turn, relies on segmentation as a way of dealing with the tensions created by Mia after moving into Lily’s sector of supervision. The cyclic strategy would have been better when Ben was dealing with the layoff matter while Lily should have tried integration strategy to make her juniors feel equal (Vivian, 2009). A host of private information is found in the story. Staff information and organizational gossip are some of the information shared by Mia and Lily. Cultural, contextual and risk-benefit rules exist in the story limiting how much and what kind of information was shared by the two friends.
Lily and Mia formed collective and personal boundaries to protect their interests through mutual agreement. Mia understands the boundary ownership and rights that Lily has on certain information. Lily faces boundary turbulence when Mia comes into her department, and she had shared a lot with her. She also faces challenges when she is supposed to bring bad news about job termination to her friend. Communication privacy management theory sums up the events of the story as they largely revolve around information and actions as a consequence of the information. If Lily had control on decisions made in the organization, especially regarding layoffs, the social exchange theory would be more suitable (Hartley et al., 2002).
Benefit from Our Service: Save 25% Along with the first order offer - 15% discount, you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
Cultural differences lead to different mannerism of conducting activities. The Marzu Tours, adhering to the Japanese culture, does not stick to American codes and regulations. Instead its groups push through disregarding others that is a factor that can be attributed to a low uncertainty acceptance culture. High uncertainty acceptance culture characteristics are visible in the American culture of conducting activities. Both Yushiko and Mark accommodated through divergence and convergence. Yushiko sides with the Japanese through convergence of their behavior. Mark, in his turn, uses divergence to state his displeasure with the other party’s mannerism (Vivian, 2009).
Supervisory exchange relationship predicts the outcome of actions through a systematic manner. While Mark believes in systematically going through the problem, the Marru Tours does not share the same opinion and this is one of the greatest causes of the conflict. Leadership member exchange is not viable in the situation of Mark and Yushiko because the former is a junior employee and accommodation is limited thus reducing the tension becomes difficult. Gudykunst may advise the two parties to be mindful in their interaction through effective communication and intercultural adjustments (Hartley et al., 2002).