5-1 Final Project Milestone Two: Analysis of Heuristics

Instructions

Based on the transcripts you read in Module Three and this module’s reading, analyze the heuristics of the transcripts and determine how they impacted the interactions in the workplace. Additionally, determine the influence of cultural differences on the conflict. The transcripts can be found in the Final Project Case Study.

For additional details, please refer to the following documents:

  • Milestone Two Guidelines and Rubric
  • Final Project Guidelines and Rubric
  • Final Project Case Study

5-1 Final Project Milestone Two: Analysis of Heuristics Instructions Based on the transcripts you read in Module Three and this module’s reading, analyze the heuristics of the transcripts and determin
WCM 620 Final Project Case Study Company Overview ABC Corporation is an electronic device company selling cellular phones and tablets. It is a global company with both sales and service departments. The technology industry is highly competitive , so ABC Corporation focuses on after -sales service levels in order to ensure it has repeat customers. It has eight call centers worldwide and each call center handles a multitude of customer issues. There is an extremely high expectation that the call centers reso lve customer issues in a timely fashion and to the customer’s satisfaction. The call center managers are focused on ens uring their center is the best and that their center handles the most calls, has the highest -rated customer evaluations , and wins the m os t recognition for performance. Customer service is at the heart of the ABC Corporation’s mission. Employees Thomas is the call center manager and runs a tight ship. Thomas has been recognized for having the most productive unit in the organization year after year. Thomas is very proud of his unit and the recognition it receive s and he holds his employees to very high productivity standards. Although customer service is critical to the organization, Thomas does not transfer that same mentality to his empl oyees. Janet is a call center supervisor, one of 10 in the call center. She has been working for Thomas for some time and follows his lead with respect to managing the center and the employees. She tends to focus on her work, rarely takes a break , and is completely dedicated to the success of the center. Michael is a customer service representative and has been with ABC Corporation for two years. He likes his job but gets frustrated when others do no t work as hard as he does. He is the first to know how hard one has to work to be successful in this cal l center. The calls come in non stop, you always have to be polite , and the customers can be very ups et at times. He prides himself o n not only surviving this environment , but succeeding. Kathy is also a cus tomer service representative. She has been with ABC Corporation for five years but at this call center for about six months. She enjoys her job but feels like the environment in this call center is competitive and hostile at times. She is always nervous th at she will lose her job. Her performance has always been good but she finds success more of a struggle since joining the new call center run by Thomas. Kathy and Kareem became friendly since they started in call center at about the same time. Kareem was hired as a customer service representative after an interview process that proved he could manage the workload, had a pleasant phone voice , and had a desire to please the customer and represent the company well. Kareem is of Indian de scent and is a practic ing Muslim. His religion requires that he pray five times a day. This involves a series of movements and recitations from the Quran and there are various standing, bending , and prostrating postures. Kareem worked for ABC Corporation for eight months before being terminated. Case Study Overview Over the duration of Kareem’s employment, Kareem’s number of calls dropped and he was often missing from his work station. Michael noticed Kareem sitting on a mat, talking to himself , and making strange movement s with his body often throughout the day. Michael thought this was odd and could not believe how ofte n Kareem was away from his workstation; he reported this to his supervisor , Janet. Kathy a lso saw Kareem leaving his workstation but since they were friends, she asked him about it. He told her he was a practicing M uslim and was required to pray five times per day. He also told her that before he prays, he has to wash his hands, face, arms , and feet to be physically pure in order to sp iritually pray. She thought this was fascinating. Janet then began to focus her attention on Kareem’s performance and the times he was absent from his desk. She determined it was excessive and spoke with Thomas. Thomas kept an eye on Kareem’s performance closely after discovering the performance deficiencies. After a few weeks, Thomas made the decision to terminate Kareem’s employment for unproductive work time, excessive breaks , and not meeting performance stan dards. Kareem was very upset and decided to consult with an attorney as he felt that he was treated unfairly by being terminated. Kareem’s attorney sent a letter to ABC Corporation’s employee relations department and you, the ER rep resentative, are taske d with investigating this concern. Complainant Trans cript ER Rep: Hi, Kareem. How are you doing today? Kareem: Fine, thank you. ER Rep: Well, first, let me thank you for meeting with me today to share your concerns. I appreciate that you are willing to discuss your concerns with me. I am here as a neutral party to objectively investigate your concerns. Now during this process, you should know it may be necessary for me to speak with others to gather additional information. It’s very important that I g ather all sides of the story before making any decisions. So now that I’ve explained my role to you, do you have any questions or concerns before we get started? Kareem: No. ER Rep: Good. I also want to assure you that I will maintain confidentiality and only discuss this information with those who have a direct need to know. I would also encourage you to keep the contents of this investigation confidential to protect the integrity of the investigation. Do you have any concerns about your ability to keep this confidential? Kareem: No, I understand, thank you. ER Rep: Great. OK. So, as we talk today, I will be looking for complete and truthful information and any specific detail you can provide me regarding dates, times, or examples that will help me better understand your concerns. I’ll also be taking notes on my laptop as we talk so that I can accurately record what you are telling me. OK, that was a lot of me talking. Let’s shift gears, and you tell me what happened during your employment with ABC Corp oration . Kareem: Well, I am just really upset by what happened. I really loved my job and thought I was doing a good job; I was really caught off -guard. ER Rep: OK. I’d like to understand what you mean when you say that you thought you were doing a g ood job and were caught off -guard. Tell me what specifically has made you feel that way. Kareem: Well, I thought I was doing a good job and I would get good feedback from my customers and Janet told me from time to time I was doing a good job. My numbers were good compared to the other reps and no one told me anything different. ER Rep: Did Janet ever have any performance conversations with you? Kareem: No, she really just said things i n passing like “Good job, Kareem ” or “You did a nice job with that cu stomer.” I never had any formal performance conversations since I started. ER Rep: What about Thomas? Did he ever give you any feedback? Kareem: No, he is really intimidating. He watches over the call center like a hawk. He is very focused on all of us customer service reps taking as many calls as possible and keeping our numbers up. This call center wins awards every year for productivity. At times, getting my call numbers in was sort of hard for me since I have to take many breaks throughout the day. ER Rep: Why did you need to take so many breaks throughout the day? Kareem: I am Muslim and , as part of my faith, I have to pray five times a day. I would simply sneak away from my desk and go to a hidden corner of the service center and complete my ritua l. ER Rep: Did you ever tell anyone what you were doing or that you needed to do this daily? Kareem: Well, no, I did not want to ask fo r any type of special treatment; I really thought I could sneak away and pray. I just hoped no one noticed. ER Rep: Did anyone notice? Kareem: I don’t think so. I do know that Michael walked past me a few times and gave me strange looks. I just assumed he did not know what I was doing. He never asked me about it. ER Rep: Did you ever approach Michael to tell him what you were doing? Kareem: No . ER Rep: So then what happened, how did you get term inat ed? Kareem: Well, I felt like after Michael saw me a few times praying, things started to change. ER Rep: How so? Kareem: I noticed that Janet was watching me more closely ; she asked me once where I was going when I went to pray and it was not a lunch hour or 15 -minute break time. I also felt like Thomas was walking past my cube more, standing and observing more and just pay ing more attention. ER Rep: Did you speak to Janet or Thomas about how you felt? Kareem: No. I j ust put my head down and worked. I just did not want to draw attention to myself. ER Rep: Ok, so then what happened? Kareem: I got called into Thomas’s offic e and I was told that my numbers were not up to standard for a customer service rep and that I was taking excessive breaks and my time away from my desk was causing too much unproductive time at work. ER Rep: Did you say anything to Thomas or Janet? Kare em: No, I was so shocked and so upset that I left as fast as I could. ER Rep: Did you talk to anyone about what happened that day? Kareem: No, I just left. I was so embarrassed and I was so proud of having this job and then just disappointed for being terminated. ER Rep: Ok, Kareem, thank so much for telling me what happened. Is there anything else that you want to share with me? Anything else you can thin k of that pertains to your situation? Kareem : No, I think that is it. ER Rep: Ok, I will be looking into your concerns and will follow back up with you by the end of the week. If you do think of anything else you can share with me, please call me. Kare em: Ok, I will. T hank you for taking the time to talk to me. Alleged Interview 1 Transcript (Janet) ER Rep: Hi, Janet. How are you doing today? Janet: Fine, thank you. ER Rep: Well, first, let me thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. I appreciate that you are willing to discuss a situation at ABC Corp oration with me. I am here to objectively investigate some concerns raised by a former employee. But, before we get into specifics, it’s very important that I gather all sides of the story before making any decisions. So now that I’ve explained my role to you, do you have any questions or concerns before we get started? Janet: Well , what is this all about? Am I in trouble? ER Rep: I am here to look into a situation regarding the termination of an employee here at ABC Corp oration. It is Kareem; he reported to you for about eight months. Janet: Ok, well I remember Kareem but Thomas fired him, not me. ER Rep: Oh, I understand , but i t will be helpful as I look into this situation that I get your side of the story. Janet: Alright , but you are not going to tell anyone what I say , are you? This makes me very nervous; everyone is out for themselves here and I cannot lose this job! ER Re p: Ok, that is good to know and I’m glad you asked. I want to assure you that I will maintain confidentiality and only discuss this information with those who have a direct need to know. I would also encourage you to keep the contents of this investigation confidential to protect the integrity of the investigation. Do you have any concerns about your ability to keep this confidential? Janet: No, I understand. T hank you. ER Rep: Great. OK. So, as we talk today, I will be looking for complete and truthful i nformation and any specific detail you can provide me would be appreciated. I’ll also be taking notes on my laptop as we talk so that I can accurately record what you are telling me. OK, that was a lot of me talking. Let’s shift gears; what can you tell me ab out former employee Kareem? Janet: Ah, yes, I remember Kareem. H e was not here for long, maybe eight months. ER Rep: OK. What can you tell me about his performance? Janet: Well, I thought he was doing a good job and I would get good feedback from his customer service call recordings. His numbers were fair. ER Rep: Janet, did you ever have any performance conversations with Kareem? Janet: No, he was not really here long enough. I think there were a few times I made comments to him in passing like “Go od job, Kareem ” or “You did a nice job with that customer.” I never had any formal performance conversations with him. ER Rep: Is that standard process to not have any performance conversations with employees? Janet: Well, we really only conduct performa nce evaluations once per year. ER Rep: Even for new employees? Janet: Yes, we don’t have any different process es for new employees. ER Rep: What about Thomas? Did he ever give Kareem any feedback? Janet: Not that I know of. ER Rep: So what led to Kare em’s termination? Janet: Well, I began to notice th at he was missing from his workstation several times a day and his numbers were dropping. ER Rep: Did you speak with Kareem about this? Janet: No, I did not , but Michael, another customer service rep , reported to me that he saw Kareem in the bathroom washing his hands and feet and that he also saw him on a mat in the corner of the service center making strange movements with his body and speaking softly. ER Rep: Ok, so when Michael reported this , did y ou talk to Kareem about it? Janet: No, I reported it to Thomas. You know, this is a high -productivity environment. We have to work. W e don’t have time for conversations. The expectations are very high. And I don’t know what Kareem was doing but it will no t be tolerated here; the focus is on productivity. ER Rep: Can you tell me about your conversation with Thomas about Kareem? Janet: Well, I just reported to him what Mich ael told me and what I had observed and he said he would monitor Kareem and handle it. ER Rep: Ok, so what happened next? Janet: I start ed watching Kareem more closely. I asked him once where he was going when he left his desk and it was not a lunch hour or 15 -minute brea k time. He did not say anything; he just kept walking. I also no ticed that Thomas hovered a bit around Kareem’s cube and was observing him as well. ER Rep: So when did you and Thomas decide to terminate Kareem for his performance? Janet: Well, we really didn’t. Thomas do es not really talk to any of us. H e is kind of intense and when he makes his mind up about something, we all go along with it. So, Thomas called me into his office and said that he had made the decision to terminate Kareem and he asked me to be there to witness the conversation since I was Kareem’s sup ervisor. ER Rep: What did you say to Thomas? Janet: Nothing. You don’t question Thomas; you do what he says . S o I stayed and he called Kareem in the office and terminated him. I must admit, I f elt bad that this was happening. M aybe if we talked to K areem, he could have improved… W ell, I don’t know. ER Rep: Did Kareem say anything? Janet: No, he seemed shocked and upset and he got up and left as fast as he could. ER Rep: Did you and Thomas talk after Kareem left? Janet: No, Thomas just excused me and I went back to work. ER Rep: Ok, Janet, thank so much for giving me your account of the situation. Is there anything else that you want to share with me? Anything else you can think of that pertains to Kareem? Janet: No, I think that is it. Again, I really need this job , but I think maybe we could handle these things differently . B ut who am I to say? ER Rep: Ok, Janet, is there anyone else who worked closely with Kareem or was friends with Kareem who may be able to help us with investigating his conc erns? Janet: Well, hmm. I think he was friends with Kathy. She transferred to our center from another one at about the same time Kareem came to work here. ER Rep: Ok, thank you. I will be looking into this situation this week and will give you an update by the end of the week. Thank you so much for your time. Janet: Ok, thank you. Witness Interview 1 Transcript (Michael) ER Rep: Hi Michael. H ow are you today? Michael: Good, thanks. H ow are you? ER Rep: I am fine; thanks for asking. As we talk today, I will be looking for complete and truthful information and any specific detail you can provide me regarding dates, times, or examples that will help me to better understand the situation. I’ll also be taking notes on my laptop as we talk so that I can accurately record what you are telling me. I wanted to talk to you today about a former co worker of yours, Kareem. Michael: Yeah, I remember Kareem. I haven’t seen him in a while though. ER Rep: Ok, what do you remember about Kareem? Michael: Well, I did not know him well, but he seemed nice enough. ER Rep: Michael, do you have any information about Kareem’s performance or work habits? Michael: I don’t know. He seemed to perform well; I heard him on the phone with cus tomers and he seemed pleasant and he was able to resolve the customer’s issues from what I could tell. ER Rep: Ok, anything else you can share? Michael: Well, yes, I noticed that he left his work station often. A few times, I saw him in the bathroom when I went in and he was washing his hands and feet. Seemed odd to me but who am I to question someone else’s bathroom habits? ER Rep: Michael, was there anything else you observed? Michael: Well, I also found him in the corner a few times during the day k neeling on a mat with his face down and his forehead resting on the mat and he was talking to himself. ER Rep: Did you know what he was doing? Did you ever ask him about it? Michael: No, I didn’t think it was any of my business. I guess he was doing some form of praying. I don’t know. ER Rep: Michael, did you ever report this to Janet? Michael: I did. Y ou know, this is a really tough environment and I wo rk really hard to be successful. Y ou can’t just be leaving your work station to go to the bathroom and wander around the center. That is just really not cool. And I don’t care why he was doing it , so I felt like I had to tell Janet what I saw. ER Rep: So what exactly did you share with Janet? Michael: I just told her that I saw Kareem on several differen t occasions sitting on a mat in the corner of the center with his eyes closed and his hands clasped praying. I also told her that I had seen him in different positions and talking to himself on the mat. I told her about seeing him washing his hands and fee t in the bathroom as well. I just thought she should know. ER Rep: Thanks , Michael , for your information. A nything else you can think of that I should know about Kareem? Michael: No, I think that is it. ER Rep: Ok, Michael, well if you think of anything else, please let me know. Also, I would ask that you keep this conversation confidential as we are investigating some concerns here at ABC Corporation. Can you commit to this? Michael: Yeah, sure, of course . ER Rep: Thanks again for your tim e. I appreciate it. Michael: No problem. Witness Interview 2 Transcript (Kathy) ER Rep: Hi Kathy, how are you today? Kathy: Good, thanks. H ow are you? ER Rep: I am fine, thanks for asking. I wanted to talk to you today about a former co worker of yours, Kareem. Kathy: Oh yes! I remember Kareem. I miss him. W e were friends and then one day he was gone. ER Rep: Ok, as we talk today, I will be looking for complete and truthful information and any specific detail you can provide me regarding dates, times, o r examples that will help me to better understand the situation. I’ll also be taking notes on my laptop as we talk so that I can accurately record what you are telling me. Kathy: Um, ok. W hat is going on? ER Rep: Well, le t’s just start at the beginning. W hat do you remember about Kareem? Kathy: Well, he was very nice. We kind of bonded since we started at about the same time. I transferred from another call center and Kareem asked me for my help quite a bit in the beginning. ER Rep: Kathy, you said Kar eem asked you for help. W hat can you tell me about Kareem’s performance or work habits? Kathy: He really wanted to succeed. He was so hard on himself when he made a mistake. He got the hang of it and then he seemed to perform well. I heard him on the phon e with customers and he seemed pleasant. From what he told me, his numbers were good too. ER Rep: Ok, anything else you can share? Kathy: Well, yes, Kareem was very religious. He had to pray five times per day. ER Rep: Ok, can you tell me more? Kathy: Well, from what he to ld me, he had to leave his work station often. He would go into the bathroom to wash his hands, arms, face , and feet. Then he would go and pray on a mat. He said it was a way of reminding him of God throughout the day. I thought it was pretty cool. ER Rep: Kathy, was there anything else you observed? Kathy: No, but I worried about his religious practice since it took him away from his cubicle quite a bit and I didn’t want him to get into trouble. ER Rep: Did you express your concer ns to Kareem? Kathy: We ll, in a roundabout kind of way. I told him to be careful because I did not trust the leaders around here. You just never know what might happen. ER Rep: What does that mean? Kathy: It is a really intense environment and employees are expected to be at their cubicle s and answering customer calls all day. Productivity standards are really important to Thomas. I have seen people come and go here for the littlest things. ER Rep: Do you have any specific examples? Kathy: No, just what I have heard and sometimes seen. One day you are here and the next you are not. It is ruthless. ER Rep: Thanks Kathy for your information, anything else you can think of that I should know about Kareem? Kathy: No, I think that is it. I miss Ka reem and I don’t know why he left, he seemed happy here. ER Rep: Ok, Kathy, well if you think of anything else, please let me know. Also, I would ask that you keep this conversation confidential as we are investigating some concerns here at ABC Corporation. Can you commit to this? Kathy: Oh, yes, of course! ER Rep: Thanks again for your time, I appreciate it. Alleged Interview 2 Transcript (Thomas) ER Rep: Hi, Thomas. How are you doing today? Thomas: Fine, thank you. What is this meeting a ll about? I am a busy man and don’t have time for this nonsense. ER Rep: Well, first, let me thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. I appreciate that you are busy but let me assure you this is very important. We need to discuss a situation a t ABC Corp oration . My role in this situation is to objectively investigate some concerns raised by a former employee. But, before we get into specifics, it’s very important that I gather all sides of the story before making any decisions. Do you have any questions or concerns before we get started? Thomas: No. L et’s just get to it already . ER Rep: Ok, we will. I would appreciate your patience today and we will get through the conversation as quickly as possible. I also want to let you know that I will maintain confidentiality and only discuss this information with those who have a direct need to know. I would also encourage you to keep the contents of this investigation confidential to protect the integrity of the investigation. Do you have any concerns about your ability to keep this confidential? Thomas: Nope, got it. ER Rep: Great. OK. So, as we talk today, I will be looking for complete and truthful information and any specific detail you can provide me would be appreciated. I’ll also be taking not es on my laptop as we talk so that I can accurately record what you are telling me. OK, what can yo u tell me about former employee Kareem? Thomas: Kareem? I don’t know any Kareem. ER Rep: He was an employee that worked in your call center for about eight mo nths. You terminated him about three weeks ago and he has hired an attorney to potentially sue you for wrongful termination because of religious discrimination . Thomas: What?! Well , that is ridiculous. ER Rep: OK. Well, think about it f or a moment. H is name is Kareem; I have his personnel file here . W hat can you tell me about his performance? Thomas: Ah yes, he was the boy we fired for poor performance. ER Rep: Yes, that is him. What specifically about his performance? Thomas: Well, Janet, one of the call center supervisors, told me she began to notice that Kareem was missing from his workstation several times a day and his numbers were dropping. ER Rep: Do you know if Janet spoke with Kareem about this? Thomas: No, I don’t k now. I trust her to manage her employees appropriately and to my expectation. ER Rep: Ok, so when Janet reported this , did you talk to Kareem about it? Thomas: No, he is Janet’s and she knows what to do. I don’t have time for those types of conversations. I run the best call center in this company and we work hard. We need to do our jobs, work the phones, and get our numbers up. It’s as simple as that. ER Rep: Ok, so did you observe Kareem or look into his performance numbers? Thomas: Well, I decided I would monitor Kareem and check things ou t. I have no patience for under performers and my customer service reps need to be at their desk s at all times except for designated lunch or break times. ER Rep: What did you discover? Thomas: I started watching Kareem more closely. I hovered a bit around Kareem’s cube and was observing him as well. ER Rep: So when did you decide to terminate Kare em for his performance? Thomas: Well, I saw him leave his work station several t imes over the course of the day . And his numbers were dropping. I have no tolerance for this and Kareem knows the expectation. So, I called Janet into my office and said that I had made the decision to terminate Kareem. I asked her to be there to witness the conversation since she was Kareem’s supervisor. ER Rep: Did you ever have a conversation with Janet about why Kareem was leaving his workstation and why his numbers were dropping? Thomas: No, o f course not. I could care less. A ll I care about is the productivity of this center and if I have an employee who is not cutting it, then that employee must go. ER Rep: So what happened next? Thomas: We called Kareem into the office and told him he was taking excessive breaks, was not productive because of those breaks , and his numbers were down. ER Rep: Did Kareem say anything? Thomas: No, he did not , so I excused him and he left. ER Rep: Did you and Janet talk after Kareem left? Thomas: No, Janet and I went back to work. ER Rep: Ok, Thomas . T hank you so much for giving me your account of the situation. Is there anything else that you want to share with me? Anything else you can think of that pertains to Kareem? Thomas: No, I think that is it. We have very high standards here and some people can’t hac k it. Kareem could not handle the work so we let him go. ER Rep: Ok, I will be looking into this situation this week and will give you an update by the end of the week. Thank you so much for your time. Thomas: Ok.
5-1 Final Project Milestone Two: Analysis of Heuristics Instructions Based on the transcripts you read in Module Three and this module’s reading, analyze the heuristics of the transcripts and determin
WCM 620 Milestone Two Guidelines and Rubric For this m ilestone, you will co mplete a draft of S ection III of your final project based on the final project case study . Based on the transcripts you read in Module s Three and Five, you will analyze the heuristics of the transcripts and determine how they impacted the interactions in the workplace. Additionally, you will determine the influence of cultural differences on the conflict. Yo ur draft must include these critical elements: III. Analyzing Heur istics to De -escalate Conflict In this section, you will analyze the heuristics in the transcripts of the final case study provided and determine how they impacted the interactions in the workplace. A. Appraise the heuristics you found in the transcripts that were the most relevant to the conflict in this case. Support your appraisal with specific examples. For example, was there a bias such as “more i s better” or “faster is better”? B. Determine how this heuristic resulted in impressions of bias that negatively impacted workplace interactions in this case. Support your determination with specific examples. Fo r example, did a heuristic of “p eople who look like me do a better job” result i n a perception of discrimination? C. Determine what techniques your colleague might recom mend to help the stakeholders use their past experiences to positively benefit similar interactions moving forward. Support your determination with specific examples. Guidelines for Submission: Your paper should be 2 to 3 pages in length with double spacing, 12 -point Times New Roman font , and APA format ting . Critical Elements Proficient (100% ) Needs Improvement (70% ) Not Evident (0% ) Value Analyzing Heuristics: Heuristics in Transcripts Appraises the heuristics found in the transcripts that were the most relevant to the conflict in this case and supports appraisal with specific examples Appraises the heuristics found in the transcripts that were most relevant to conflict and supports app raisal with examples, but appraisal is cursory or contains inaccuracies, or examples are not specific or relevant to argument Does not appraise the heuristics found in the transcripts that were most relevant to conflict 30 Analyzing Heuristics: Impressions of Bias Determines how this heuristic resulted in impressions of bias that negatively impacted workplace interactions in this case and supports determination with specific examples Determines how this heuristic resulted in impressions of bias that negatively impacted workplace interactions and supports determination with examples, but determination lacks c larity or contains inaccuracies or examples are not specific or relevant to argument Does not determine how this heuristic resulted in impressions of bias that negatively impacted workplace interactions 30 Analyzing Heuristics: Positively Benefit Determines what techniques colleague might recommend to help stakeholders to use past experie nces to positively benefit similar interactions moving forward and supports determination with specific examples Determines what techniques colleague might r ecommend to help stakeholders use past experiences to positively benefit similar interactions movi ng forward and supports determination wit h examples, but determination lacks c larity or contains inaccuracies or supporting examples are not specific or relevant to argument Does not determine what techniques colleague might recommend to help stakeholders use past experiences to positively benefit simi lar interactions moving forward 30 Articulation of Response Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas 10 Total 100%
5-1 Final Project Milestone Two: Analysis of Heuristics Instructions Based on the transcripts you read in Module Three and this module’s reading, analyze the heuristics of the transcripts and determin
WCM 620 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric Overview Advising colleagues, employees, managers, and senior leaders on actions that minimize organizational discord is key in creati ng a more effective organizational culture. For the final project for this course, assume you are an employee relations specialist . You have been asked by a senior human resources business partner to create a “summary of findings ” that conveys key information from a fact -finding assignment related t o a former employee ’s potential law suit. Your task is to read the final project case study that includes a transcript of interviews previously conducted by your colleague and produce a paper that analyzes the emotional cause of the employee conflict, details the personal biases of each conflict participant, identifies best practices by which the affec ted department can rebuild trust, addresses the legal context of the issue, and recommends actions to mitigate the problem. =t is i mportant to cultivate the expertise necessary to productively engage in a conflict situation and effectively facilitate its resolution. This expertise is critical both to cre ating positive change in the workplace and in advancing a human resource professio nal ’s career. The project is divided into three milestones , which will be submitted at various points throughout the course to scaffold learning and ensure quality final submissions. These milestones will be submitted in Modules Three, Five, and Seven. Th e final product will be submitted in Module Nine . =n this assignment, you will demonstrate your mastery of the following course outcomes:  Analyze perceptive and communicatory elements of interpersonal conflicts for how they could be changed to de -escalate conflict between employees  Analyze heuristics based on beliefs, past experiences, and cultural norms that impact workplace interactions for informing co nflict management strategies  Recommend individual strategies for managing differing cultural perspectives applying contemporary conflict resolution concepts  Analyze stakeholder communications for their implications in building trust among organizational stakeholders in conflict sit uations  Assess the legal context of organizational conflicts for r ecommending appropriate risk -minimizing strategies Prompt For this final project , you will construct a su mmary of findings paper , based on the case materials provided. Your paper should be well -structured , clear, and concise, containing each of the sections below. To complete this assignment, you will use information in the Final Project Case Study document as well as these guidelines. Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed: I. Overview : Summarize the pattern of facts leading up to this interpersonal conflict, identifying the stakeholders in the conflict. II. Conflict Analysis: =n this section, you will analyze the transcripts provided and determine how stakeholders ’ self -perceptio n and communication practices influenced the conflict. Be sure to address the following : A. Assess how the stakeholders’ self -perception influenced the conflict. Provide specific examples to support your assessment. In other words, how might the involved stak eholders’ self -perceptions be at odds with how others see them? B. Describe the communication practices, implicit or explicit, that were used. What implications did they have for the conflict? C. Assess how communication practices might be changed to de -escalate the conflict . Provide specific examp les to support your assessment. III. Analyzing Heuristics to De -escalate Conflict: =n this section, you will analyze the heuristics in the transcripts provided and determine how they impacted the interactions in the workpla ce. A. Appraise the heuristics you found in the transcripts that were the most relevant to the conflict in this case. Support your appraisal with specific examples. For example, was there a bias such as “more is better ” or “faster is better ”? B. Determine how th is heuristic resulted in impressions of bias that negatively impacted workplace interactions in this case. Support your determination with specific examples. For ex ample, did a heuristic of “people who look like me do a better job ” result in a perception o f discrimination? C. Determine what techniques your colleague might recommend to help the stakeholders to use their past experiences to positively benefit similar interactions moving forward. Support your determ ination with specific examples. IV. Creating a More Effective Organizational Culture: =n this section, you will analyze the transcripts provided to determine the influence of cultural differences on the conflict. A. Analyze how the stakeholders ’ cultural perspectives affected their points of view in this conflict. Support your analysis with relevant examples. B. Describe instances in which you see a match or gaps between the former employee and organizational culture . Support your desc ription with specific examples. C. Rec ommend strategies that individual stakeholders can use to deal with employees who have disparate cultural perspectives. Hustify your recommendation(s) with appropriat e conflict resolution concepts. V. Building Common Ground: =n this section, you will primari ly analyze the transcripts provided to find instances when your co worker employed communication skills to manage the situation, collect relevant information, and build common ground. Then, you will identify practices through which your team can rebuild tru st in the affected department. A. Referring to the transcripts provided, assess the utility of the open -ended questions that were used for eliciting useful information. Support your ass essment with specific examples. B. =dentify the points during the transcrib ed conversations in which the interviewer verbally summarized key ideas , describing the importance of each occurrence to the co mmunications in the interviews. C. Determine how the impact of th e former employee ’s actions was at odds with his intent . Support your determination with specific examples bas ed on the transcripts provided. D. =dentify practices by which the affected department can rebuild trust. Support your identification with accepted conflict resolution practices. VI. Dispute Resolution and Legal Ramifications: =n this final section, you will determine the best course of action for resolving the conflict and provide your recommendations for moving forward. A. What laws are applicable in this situation and how are they appl icable? Support your r esponse with specific examples. B. Describe the benefits and risks of direct negotiations , mediation, and arbitration between the stakeholders. Support your desc ription with specific examples. C. Recommend appropriate risk -minimizing strate gies for your conflict negotiations based on your analysis of potential means of dispute reso lution and legal ramifications. Milestones Milestone One : Overview and Conf lict Analysis In Module Three , you will submit a draft of the first two sections of your summative assessment . Read the transcripts provided for you for this case analysis. This milestone wil l be graded with the Milestone One Rubric . Milestone Two : Analysis of Heuristics =n Module Five , based on the transcripts you read in Module Three and th e Module Five reading, you will analyze the heuristics of the transcripts and determine how they impacted the interactions in the workplace. Additionally, you will determine the influence of cultural differences o n the conflict. This milestone wil l b e graded with the Milestone Two Rubric. Mile stone Three : Building Common Ground =n Module Seven , based on the transcripts provided, y ou will look for instances in which the characters employed communication to manage the situation, collect relevant information , and build common ground. Then, you will identify practice s through which the team can re build trust. Finally, you will determine the best course of action for res olving the conflict and provide your recommendations for moving forward. This milestone will be graded with the Milestone Three Rubric. Final Submission : Summary of Findings =n Module Nine , you will submit your final project. =t should be a complete, polished artifact containing all of the critical elements of the final product. =t should reflect the incorporation of feedback gained throughout the course. This submission will be graded with t he Final Project Rubric. Deliverabl es Milestone Deliverable Module Due Grading One Overview and Conflict Analysis 3 Graded separately ; Milestone One Rubric Two Analysis of :euristics 5 Graded separately ; Milestone Two R ubric Three Building Common Ground 7 Graded separately ; Milestone Three Rubric Final Submission: Summary of Findings 9 Graded separately ; Final Project Rubric Final Project Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Your summary of findings paper should be 6 to 8 pages in length , double -spaced, using 12 -point Times New Roman font and APA format ting . Critical Elements Exemplary (100% ) Proficient (90% ) Needs Improvement (70% ) Not Evident (0% ) Value Overview: Pattern of Facts Meets “Proficient” criteria and summary demonstrates a complex grasp of the pattern of facts lead ing up to the conflict Summarizes the pattern of facts leading up to this interpersonal conflict, identifying the stakeholders in the conflict Summarizes the pattern of facts leading up to this interpersonal conflict, identifying the stakeholders in the conflict, but summary is verbose or contains inaccuracies Does not summarize the pattern of facts leading up to this interpersonal conflict, identifying the stakeholders in the conflict 5 Conflict Analysis: Stakeholders’ Self – Perception [WCM -620 -01] Meets “Proficient” criteria and examples provided demonstrate a complex grasp of how stakeholders’ self – perception influences conflict Assesses how the stakeholders’ self -perception influenced the conflict and provides specific examples to support assessment Assesses how the stakeholders’ self -perception influenced the conflict and provides examples to support assessment, but assessment is cursory or contains inaccuracies, or examples are not specific or relevant to argument Does not assess how the stakeholders’ self -perception influenced the conflict 6 Conflict Analysis: Communication [WCM -620 -01] Meets “Proficient” criteria and descriptions make especially cogent connections between the communication practices and the conflict Describes the communication practices, implicit or explicit, that were used a nd their implications for the conflict Describes the communication practices, implicit or explicit, that were used and their implications for the conflict, but description is cursory or contains inaccuracies Does not describe the communication practices, impli cit or explicit, that were used 6 Conflict Analysis: De – escalate the Conflict [WCM -620 -01] Meets “Proficient” criteria and examples provided demonstrate a complex grasp of how altering communication practices can de -escalate conflict Assesses how the communication practices might be changed to de -escalate the conflict, providing specific examples to support assessment Assesses how the communication practices might be changed to de -escalate the conflict, providing examples to support assessment, but assessment is cursory or contains inaccuracies, or examples are not specific or relevant to argument Does not assess how the communication practices might be changed to de -escalate the conflict 6 Analyzing Heuristics: Heuristics in the Transcripts [WCM -620 -02] Meets “Proficient” criteria and examples provided demonstrate a complex grasp of what makes heuristics relevant Appraises the heuristics found in the transcripts that were the most relevant to the conflict in this case and supports appraisal with specific examples Appraises the heuristics found in the transcripts that were most relevant to conflict and supports app raisal with examples, but appraisal is cursory or contains inaccuracies, or examples are not specific or relevant to argument Does not appraise the heuristics found in the transcripts that were most relevant to conflict 6 Analyzing Heuristics: Impressions of Bias [WCM -620 -02] Meets “Proficient” criteria and supporting examples make sophisticated connections between impressions of bias and workplace interactions Determines how this heuristic resulted in impressions of bias that negatively impacted workplace interactions in this case and supports determination with specific examples Determines how this heuristic resulted in impressions of bias that negatively impa cted workplace interactions and supports determination with examples, but determination lacks clarity or contains inaccuracies, or examples are not specific or relevant to argument Does not determine how this heuristic resulted in impressions of bias that negatively impacted workplace interactions 6 Analyzing Heuristics: Positively Benefit [WCM -620 -02] Meets “Proficient” criteria and supporting examples demonstrate a complex grasp of how stakeholders can use prior experiences to positively benefit workplace interactions Determines how the stakeholders in the interactions could have used their past experiences to positively benefit workplace interactions and supports determination with specific examples Determines how the stakeholders in the interactions could have used their past experiences to positively benefit workplace interactions and supports determination wit h examples, but determination lacks clarity or contains inaccuracies, or supporting examples are not specific or relevant to argu ment Does not determine how the stakeholders in the interactions could have used their past experiences to positively benefit workplace interactions 6 Organizational Culture: Cultural Perspectives [WCM -620 -03] Meets “Proficient” criteria and examples make sophisticated connections between stakeholders’ cultural perspectives and their points of view in the conflict Analyzes how the stakeholders’ cultural perspectives affected their points of view in the conflict and supports analysis with specific examples Analyzes how the stakeholders’ cultural perspectives affected their points of view in the conflict and supports analysis with examples, but analysis is cursory or contains inaccuracies or examples are not specific or relevant to argument Does not analyze how the stakeholders’ cultural perspectives affected their points of view in the conflict 6 Organizational Culture: Employee and Organizational Culture [WCM -620 -03] Meets “Proficient” criteria and supporting examples demonstrate keen insight into what does or does no t make employees a good fit for organizations Describes instances in which a match or gaps can be found between the former employee and organizational culture and supports description with specific examples Describes instances in which a ma tch or gaps can be found between the former employee and organizational culture and support description with examples, but description is cursory or contains inaccuracies or examples are not specific or relevant to argument Does not describe instances in which a match or gaps can be found between the former empl oyee and organizational culture 6 Organizational Culture: Strategies [WCM -620 -03] Meets “Proficient” criteria and justification makes especially cogent connections between conflict resolution concepts and employees who have disparate cultural perspectives Recommends strategies that individual stakeholders can use to deal with employees who have disparate cultural per spectives, justifying recommendations with appropriate conflict resolution concepts Recommends strategies that individual stakeholders can use to deal with employees who have disparate cultural perspectives, but recommendations are cursory, illogical, or are not justified with appropriate conflict resolution concepts Does not recommend strategies that individual stakeholders can use to deal with employees who have disparate cultural perspectives 6 Building Common Ground: Open -Ended Questions [WCM -620 -04] Meets “Proficient” criteria and supporting examples demonstrate a complex grasp of the utility of open -ended questions in eliciting information Assesses the utility of the open -ended questions that were used for eliciting useful information and supports assessment with specific examples Assesses the utility of the open -ended questions that were used for eliciting useful information and supports assessment with examples, but assessment is cursory or contains i naccuracies or examples are not specific or relevant to argument Does not assess the utility of the open -ended questions that were used for eliciting information th at was useful or your colleague 4.5 Building Common Ground: Summarized Key Ideas [WCM -620 -04] Meets “Proficient” criteria and description demonstrates a complex grasp of the importance of summarization in negotiation Ide ntifies points during transcrib ed conversations in which interviewer verbally summarized key ideas, describing the importance of each oc currence to communications in the interviews Ide ntifies points during transcrib ed conversation in which interviewer verbally summarized key ideas, describing the importance of each occurrence to communications in intervi ews, but description is cursory or response contains inaccuracies Does not iden tify the points during transcrib ed conversation in which interviewe r verbally summarized key ideas 4.5 Building Common Ground: Impact and Intent [WCM -620 -04] Meets “Proficient” criteria and supporting examples demonstrate a complex grasp of how employee actions and the intent of those actions can be at odds Determines how the impact of the former employee’s actions was at odds with the intent, supporting determination with specific examples Determines h ow the impact of the former employee’s actions was at odds with the intent, supporting determination with examples, but determination lacks c larity or contains inaccuracies or examples are not specific or relevant to argument Does not determine how the imp act of th e former employee’s actions was at odds with the intent, supporting determination with examples 4.5 Building Common Ground: Practices [WCM -620 -04] Meets “Proficient” criteria and supporting conflict resolution practices demonstrate a complex grasp of what makes practices relevant in different situations Identifies practices by which the affected department can rebuild trust and supports identification with accepted conflict resolution practices Identifies practices by which the affected depart ment can rebuild trust and supports identification with accepted conflict resolution pra ctices, but support is cursory or conflict resolution practices are not relevant Does not identify practices by which the affect ed department can rebuild trust 4.5 Dispute Resolution and Legal Ramifications: Laws [WCM -620 -05] Meets “Proficient” criteria and supporting examples exemplify connections between relevant laws and the specific situation Determines what laws are applicable in this situation and how they are applicable, supporting response with specific examples Determines what laws are applicable in this situation and how they are applicable, supporting response with examples, but determination is cursory or contains inaccuracies or examples are not specific or relevant to argument Does not determine what laws are applicable in this situation and how they are applicable 6 Dispute Resolution and Legal Ramifications: Negotiations [WCM -620 -05] Meets “Proficient” criteria and supporting examples demonstrate a complex grasp of the complexities involved in direct negotiations, mediation, and arbitration Describes the benefits and risks for direct negotiations, mediation, and arbitration between the stakeholders and supports description with specific examples Describes the benefits and risks for direct negotiations, mediation, and arbitration between the stakeholders and supports description with examples, but description is cursory or contains inaccuracies or examples are not specific or relevant to argument Does not describe the benefits and risks for direct negotiations, mediation, and arbitration between the stakeholders 6 Dispute Resolution and Legal Ramifications: Strategies [WCM -620 -05] Meets “Proficient” criteria and recommended risk -minimizing strategies make especially cogent connections between the conflict negotiations and the analysis Recommends appropriate risk – minimizing strategies for the conflict negotiations based on the analy sis of dispute resolutions and legal ramifications Recommends risk -minimizing strategies for the conflict negotiations, but recommendations are cursory, inappropriate, or not based on analysis of dispute resolutions and legal ramifications Does not recomme nd risk – minimizing strategies for the conflict negotiations 6 Articulation of Response Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is prese nted in a professional and easy -to- read format Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas 5 Total 100 %