Joanne supervised 36 professionals in 6 city libraries. To cut the costs of unnecessary overtime, she issued this one-sentence memo to her staff:
When workloads increase to a level requiring hours in excess of an employee’s regular duty assignment, and when such work is estimated to require a full shift of eight (8) hours or more on two (2) or more consecutive days, even though unscheduled days intervene, an employee’s tour of duty shall be altered so as to include the hours when such work must be done, unless an adverse impact would result from such employee’s absence from his previously scheduled assignment.
the 36 copies were sent out, Joanne’s office received 26 phone calls asking what the memo meant. What the 10 people who didn’t call about the memo thought is uncertain. It took a week to clarify the new policy.
Memos are the primary means of in-house communication in US businesses.
After reading the case, answer the following questions:
1.What are the major mistakes in this memo that led to workers’ misunderstanding?
2- What are some of the techniques Joanne might follow to improve this memo?
3- Describe a situation in your experience where the communication went wrong. Analyze that situation taking the following criteria into your consideration:
The type and the medium of communication
The communication barriers
While the reuse of secondary data can allow new interpretations to emerge there are some challenges. Mauthner et al (1998) warn of the role of the researcher in construction of the data which even reflexivity cannot take full account of. Hammersley (1997) has referred to this as the ‘relative lack of contextual knowledge’ that is ‘seen, heard, and felt, during the data collection process’, but points out primary researchers operating in teams often face similar issues. Indeed Bishop (2007) points out that the primary researcher also ‘produce(s) some (usually most) of their data through engagement with these artifacts’ referring to what is lost to the recording device and transcriptions. I did not have field notes to contextualise data and the inability to clarify details in the real-time of the interview has resulted in some losses of meaning, e.g the meaning of a BCCSR brochure in P30 has been inferred. I further cannot account for the use of visual prompts (‘pictures of the neighbourhood’) by the original researchers to facilitate the original interviews and how these may have shaped discussion. There is also a dimension of ethical challenge, is using data which participant’s have not granted me access to in full knowledge of my research project. Miles (1979: 590) refers to qualitative data as an ‘attractive nuisance’ in its simultaneous richness and the complexity of finding analytical routes. I therefore selected the grounded theory model by Corbin and Strauss for it’s degree of prescription. The use of secondary qualitative data makes a coding based technique desirable so that concepts can be generated directly from the text which was my only source of data. The fairly structured nature of the questioning across different interviews, lacking in follow-up questions meant I considered it not disposed to narrative analysis. However many criticisms have been waged at grounded theory. Glaser (1992) has written of the selective application of GT methodology into Qualitative Data Analysis research methodology results in a mixed method approach that actually blocks theory. Other criticisms include the ability to conduct complex analysis without comprehension of the pillars of grounded theory (Weitzman 2000; Bringer, Johnston, and Brackenridge 2004). While reflexivity has been under accounted for in many grounded theory studies, a position which researchers are now seeking to address (Gentles et al, 2014). The vast majority of sociological projects which take grounded theor>GET ANSWER