Healthy relationships and healthy work environments are just two components of a productive work place. This case deals with workers who felt in danger of losing their jobs because co-ops were doing almost the same job and gaining more responsibilities. Instead of trying to find some way to confront this problem, managers chose not to deal with it and work around it.
[...] One of two things will happen: the feedback will be helpful or it will be useless. An example of useless feedback is “Hancock employees don't know anything." The helpful feedback will allow managers to pinpoint the problem and the process of solving differences can begin with weekly social activities, such as attending baseball games and forcing employees of different sections to interact and mingle. The next step is to collect feedback one more, and see if the useless feedback has [...]
[...] The two co-op students approached one of their direct managers about the problem but the response they received was to work around them and that they were too much of a headache to deal with. The co-ops then started to be a little more aggressive trying to obtain the files by picking them up at the Getalife employees' work area. However, these attempts failed. In fact the response they received was much more hostile. The Getalife employees' blatantly expressed that they thought co-ops were inferior and in-capable of handling their work, even though the co-ops at one point had handled their own complaints successfully the whole way through the entire process. [...]
[...] Is it as likely that if a question such as, “could it be the fault of the integration process,” would be asked, would there also be a response where people tended to follow their social instincts and agree with the majority? Recommendations: The managers should take a more active role in dealing with uncooperative workers. They can do this by communicating the value Manulife employees have to the company and providing regular feedback to Manulife employees about their attitudes towards other members in the group. [...]
[...] This in turn leads to a negative work environment because the department is not working as a team but as isolated bodies; this is even shown with the organizational structure of the department: the Hancock and Manulife employees are seated separately from one other. There is also no productivity at work because the Manulife employees are taking on all the workload by themselves and refusing to delegate and ask for help. The work environment also sets up a bad precedent not only for the organization, the workers, and the co-ops but also for their relationship with Northeastern University's co-op department and potential co-ops. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee