Critical Incidents: Not Fair, Giving More And Getting Less

Critical Incidentits Not Fair Giving More And Getting Lesselaine

Critical Incident: It’s Not Fair! Giving More and Getting Less! Elaine Pierce had worked for the city of Metropolis in the water and sewer department for over two decades. She began working at age 17 when she was a junior in high school but she never graduated. Her 20-some years of hard work paid off when she was promoted to second shift supervisor two years ago.

She had taken some management training programs offered by the local community college and felt that she had honed her management skills and was deserving of the promotion. She was proud of her accomplishments and was known as being thorough and conscientious to train and develop new hires. She was pleased with her success as a supervisor, but knew she still had a lot to learn. She reflected on the events of the past 24 hours. In recent years, the city had struggled in balancing its budget. Therefore, there had been no raises, and employees were paying a higher medical premium.

The local area was known as a place that attracted a large number of Bosnian, Asian, and other refugees. With the help of churches and social service agencies, the city had brought a large number of them into city employment. These employees were offered English as a second language course and other professional development and social skills courses. In addition to paying the cost of these courses, the city paid each employee for four hours of training each week.

Last night, Elaine was approached by Faith Newman, who expressed her concern about not having a raise for the last two years and her disagreement and frustration with the city’s pay policies. Newman was upset because she had learned that Hu Twong was making $0.50 per hour more than she. According to Newman, Twong had been employed by the city for four months, and she had been employed for 12 years. In addition, Twong was getting four extra hours of pay each week because he did not speak English well. “I was under the impression that pay is a reward for doing the job well and working for the city a long time,†Newman said.

“Experience doesn’t seem to matter. It’s not fair!†After consulting HR director Evan Maloney, Elaine was really confused. Maloney explained that the HR department determined all pay rates. The mayor and the city council had dictated that no raises would be given in the last two years. Each job classification had a wide wage range, but seniority and experience differences had become nonexistent.

Maloney confirmed that some of the new employees had been hired at higher rates than longer-term employees. Maloney explained to Elaine that city administration looked unfavorably on discussing wages with current employees. Maloney reminded Elaine to reaffirm that the city administration had been pleased with Newman’s work performance and that the pay situation was beyond the city’s control at this time. In conclusion, Maloney asked Elaine to try to soothe her employees’ feelings about pay as much as possible and to be patient. “Things will change sooner or later, and the more senior employees will be taken care of,†Maloney assured Ellen.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Elaine Pierce highlights several critical issues related to wage fairness, employee motivation, legal considerations surrounding wage discussions, and organizational communication strategies. Analyzing these elements through the lens of relevant motivational theories and legal frameworks provides insights into how organizations can effectively manage employee relations and foster a fair work environment.

Legal considerations play a significant role in how employers structure wage policies. In the United States, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects employees' rights to discuss wages and working conditions (National Labor Relations Board [NLRB], 2020). Employee confidentiality or non-discussion policies are often scrutinized for potentially violating labor laws. According to the NLRB, policies that explicitly prohibit wage discussions can be considered unlawful if they are found to suppress employees' rights to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid or protection (NLRB, 2020). Studies show that many U.S. companies uphold policies that discourage wage discussions; a 2015 survey by the NLRB indicated that approximately 44% of private-sector employers had policies restricting employee conversations about pay (NLRB, 2015). While some policies are justified for maintaining workplace confidentiality, overly broad restrictions can infringe on workers’ legal rights.

The rationale for such policies often centers around protecting management from potentially disruptive conversations rather than safeguarding legitimate business interests. However, critics argue that these restrictions can foster secrecy and distrust, obstruct transparency, and contribute to perceptions of unfairness—especially among long-term employees like Elaine and Faith Newman who feel undervalued. The argument that wage discussion bans are merely to shield supervisors from explaining discrepancies lacks merit, as transparency about pay scales and criteria is crucial for employee morale and motivation (Kuhn & Mosiaden, 2019).

Regarding the specific case, Elaine Pierce believed that Maloney’s response was inadequate. Maloney’s advice—to reassure employees that the pay situation was beyond the city's control and to exercise patience—missed an opportunity to foster trust and transparency. Effective communication in such scenarios involves legitimacy and acknowledgment of employee concerns. A better approach would have been to openly explain the rationale behind wage policies, clarify how pay differences are determined, and possibly discuss future prospects for raises or promotions. This approach aligns with the principles of transformational leadership, which emphasize honesty, inspiration, and fostering a collective sense of purpose (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

The Motivation-Hygiene Theory (also known as Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory) offers relevant insights into this case. Herzberg posited that factors like pay, company policies, and working conditions (hygienes) can cause dissatisfaction if absent or inadequate but do not necessarily motivate employees when improved. Instead, motivators like achievement, recognition, and growth are responsible for higher satisfaction (Herzberg, 1966). Elaine and Faith’s frustration stems from the absence of perceived fairness and recognition, leading to dissatisfaction. Management’s failure to address these motivators and openly communicate can result in decreased motivation and engagement, underscoring the importance of aligning organizational policies with motivational factors.

In conclusion, the case illustrates the importance of legal compliance regarding wage discussion policies, transparent communication, and understanding motivational factors that influence employee satisfaction. Organizations should balance confidentiality with employees' right to discuss wages, foster trust through honest dialogue, and address intrinsic motivators to improve morale and productivity. Implementing equitable pay practices, along with transparent communication strategies, can mitigate perceptions of unfairness and promote a more motivated and committed workforce.

References

• Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage Publications.
• Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. World Publishing Company.
• Kuhn, T., & Mosiaden, S. (2019). Transparency and trust in employee communication. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 19(3), 45-59.
• National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). (2015). Employee rights to discuss wages: Survey report. NLRB Publications.
• National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). (2020). Workplace rights and employer policies. NLRB Official Website.