sun41178
Job Resignation at the Social Service Agency A small social…
Job Resignation at the Social Service Agency
A small social service agency employed three women to coordinate and plan projects that a large group of volunteers carried out. The agency was a relatively informal, non-hierarchical organization. The employees did not have written job descriptions; instead, an informal set of expectations about the agency’s objectives guided their day-to-day work routines. The co-workers assumed they had an equal say in the projects that the office conducted. None of them held the role of director or boss; all three answered to an agency board.
One of the workers, Kathy, was a single parent in her mid-forties who had worked at the office for a little over three years. The other two workers, Lois and Jim, were in their early twenties, had just graduated from college together, and were good friends when they were hired. They had been at the office for less than a year. The younger employees had a great deal of energy to devote to the agency, in part because they had few personal commitments outside work that would direct their time or attention elsewhere and, in part because they had a well-developed and somewhat idealistic view of the path, they wanted the agency to follow. Kathy, on the other hand, found it challenging to support and raise a child while working. Also, because she had been working at the agency for three years, she was not as enthusiastic about her work as the other two staff. The job had become routine for her and was primarily a way of making ends meet. However, earlier in the week, the Social Service Agency had been notified they were the recipients of a $25,000 grant that Kathy had written for earlier in the year.
Over several months, Lois and Jim became increasingly dissatisfied with Kathy’s work at the agency. They felt she did not complete project reports on time or in sufficient detail, so they tried to complete or revise a considerable amount of her work. They felt that Kathy had a different perspective on what their jobs entailed and the agency’s goals. They were frustrated by the additional work they were forced to do & their belief that Kathy was not allowing the agency to change and move in new directions.
In a fairly short time, Lois and Jim became more vocal about their dissatisfaction with Kathy’s work. Although they would occasionally give specific criticisms about her performance, the larger issue of how much say they would have in moving the agency in new directions brought them to a quick and defiant stand against Kathy. The issue that “Kathy is not doing her work right” quickly became “we want Kathy out.” Kathy was aware of her co-workers’ feelings and realized they had different conceptions about the agency and their roles in it. On a day-to-day basis, however, she tended to avoid confronting the issue as much as possible. When questioned about her work, she would typically respond with a question that mirrored Louis and Jim’s resentment and hostility, such as, “How could I do everything when I’ve been trying to deal with a sick child at home all week!” Kathy felt that Lois and Jim had very little understanding of her situation. She knew that the two younger workers saw her as a “bad person” and she felt they did not seek the information that would allow them to see why her view of the job and agency differed from theirs.
Louis and Jim eventually confronted Kathy with the problem by bringing it up to the agency board.
As a board member, how might you assess the conflict between Lois, Jim, and Kathy – and help the organization through this tense and disruptive period?
What are your key considerations in the following areas that might help you guide the parties through this conflict:
GRIP
Consideration #1
Consideration #2
Consideration #3
Six Dimensions of Attribution / Attitude Formation
Consideration #1
Consideration #2
Consideration #3
Power
Consideration #1
Consideration #2
Consideration #3
How might these considerations help you guide the parties through this conflict?
