She interviewed at a law firm founded by William Korman, a former state prosecutor, and was offered a job. After accepting the job offer, she contacted William via email and voicemail to decline the offer due to inadequate compensation. This greatly upset William, who had already begun preparing for her arrival by printing name cards and acquiring necessary supplies. He expressed his disappointment at feeling deceived by her actions.
Dianna criticized William for his lack of understanding that job acceptance requires a contract. In response, William cautioned Dianna about the importance of professionalism and the potential repercussions she may face as a young lawyer. Nonetheless, Dianna dismissed the entire conversation and laughed it off. Both individuals erred in their communication by being too informal and sarcastic. As a result, both parties bear responsibility for this situation.
Abdala interviewed with Mr. Korman for a job at his firm. They discussed the job and salary, and after considering both, Ms. Abdala accepted the position. Although there was no written contract, they had a verbal agreement that is legally binding. He offered, she accepted, and he trusted her word, just as she trusted his. However, there is a possibility that Mr. Korman attempted to alter that agreement by decreasing Ms. Abdala’s agreed-upon salary in order to hire another lawyer.
Ms. Abdala had agreed to a specific salary, and Mr. Korman attempted to violate their agreement later on, so she had every right to revoke her decision. It was Mr. Korman’s mistake to assume that Ms. Abdala would accept the low salary without any discussion or negotiation. He even went as far as ordering stationary and business cards for her without considering her expected salary range. Alternatively, he could have gracefully accepted her response instead of fueling the email battle. She had accepted the job under certain conditions, with salary being one of them. Therefore, Mr. Korman was in the wrong for breaking their agreement.
Despite the agreement reached, Korman violated their contract by offering her a salary lower than what was agreed upon. Consequently, she had the right to refuse the job offer. However, it would have been more professional for her to personally visit Korman’s office and explain that she accepted the job under certain conditions, including salary. She should have also conveyed that it was inappropriate for Korman to assume she would accept a low salary. Both parties are responsible in this incident and should learn from it. Moving forward, let us address question 2: Will this exchange have a negative impact on Abdala’s career or damage Korman’s firm?
It is worrisome that Abdala’s career could be negatively impacted as she was in the early stages of establishing connections in both a small town and the legal community, potentially hindering her growth opportunities. In the past, our main forms of communication primarily involved phone calls and occasional face-to-face meetings. However, with advancements in technology, email has become increasingly popular for daily communication due to its speed, cost-effectiveness, and convenience. As email gains more recognition, there are situations where it may be considered appropriate or even preferable for communication purposes.
It is crucial to understand that using email excessively or inappropriately can result in unforeseen difficulties. If you observe the situation deteriorating, it is advisable to cease sending emails and opt for a phone call or arranging an in-person meeting. In this instance, Abdala was presented with a job opportunity and accepted it, agreeing on a specific commencement date. However, she surprisingly rejected the offer via email at 9:30 PM. Abdala justified her decision by stating that the salary offered did not meet her expectations, prompting her to establish her own business for superior advantages.
In this email communication, Abdala displayed immaturity, unprofessionalism, and a negative attitude. Despite Korman’s disappointment with her, she continued to respond with impolite language. It is crucial for them to end the conversation via email to prevent further misunderstandings. Korman, the recipient, forwarded the emails to multiple colleagues, causing the information to rapidly circulate. Selective perception can create barriers to effective communication as individuals interpret information based on their personal interests, background, experiences, and attitudes.
Dianna Abdala’s difficulty in surviving in the peer and the potential damage to her career emphasizes the limitations of email. Despite being a widely used communication tool, email can be interpreted and decoded differently by different individuals. While it allows for easy management of contacts and information and instant delivery of messages globally, it also has its drawbacks. For instance, one may respond quickly in the heat of the moment, but the receiver may misinterpret the intended expression of the sender.
Email lacks the ability to convey emotions or body language, leading to potential misunderstandings. In the case of Abdala’s email, she may be attempting to apologize or express her desire for improved benefits or higher pay. However, William may have misinterpreted the message due to his anger from Abdala initially declining the offer after two interviews.
This has caused William to respond to the email in a heated state, reacting with upset or anger. In the heat of the moment, he replied without considering rereading it, creating a negative perception. The email, written in an angry tone, would not have a positive effect. If Abdala were to apologize in person with the same message and different body language, the outcome could be different. Emails sound robotic and limit the expression of emotions, often leading to misunderstandings.
The receiver of an email may interpret the message in a tone different from what was intended, potentially perceiving it as commanding or sarcastic. In conclusion, email is widely used for both business and personal communication, but misinterpreting the underlying tone can lead to significant issues. If individuals involved have different emotional states, even a small disagreement in an email can rapidly escalate into a heated argument.
Although email is convenient for communication, certain discussions are more appropriate for phone or in-person conversations. It is crucial to avoid sending additional emails if the situation worsens and instead opt for a phone call or schedule a face-to-face meeting.
REFERENCE • Pearson International Edition-Essentials of Organizational Behaviour-Tenth Edition/Stephen P. Robbins, Timothy A. Judge • http://www.marcandangel.com/2007/05/28/email-communication-problems-how-tocommunicate-effectively/
