- Everyone, without exception, felt inadequately appreciated for his or her work.
- Clear distinctions between concepts such as ‘personal’ vs. ‘professional’ were absent.
- There was a misconception regarding the role listening plays in conversation.
- Monologue was the preferred method of speaking.
- Dialogue was perceived as giving up your power and unsafe.
- Managers expressed frustration that company rules were not adhered consistently. Union leaders expressed frustration about rules being applied unfairly and inconsistently.
- Not one person felt cared for by the other group.
- Each group had their own concept regarding what constituted appropriate working conditions for the front line employees.
- The group consistently perceived as most powerful was the one to which the interviewee did not belong.
- Each group felt that the intention of the other group was to control them.
- Everyone was concerned with backlash.
- Union leaders did not believe that senior airline managers were authentically committed to improve front line relationships or working conditions. Senior airline managers did not believe the union would willingly participate in a process that could improve the relationship.
The intensity in which the polarity of the relationship was expressed surprised us. Descriptors such as ‘toxic,’ ‘cruel,’ ‘bullying,’ ‘eat their own,’ ‘back-biting,’ ‘animalistic,’ and ‘unforgiving’ were spoken with ease. There was name-calling and tears. Two people questioned the safety of providing honest and full answers. However, none of the interviews were stopped prematurely.
A primary disconnect was role identity and the associated power/authority. The union insisted on being treated as professional equals while conducting joint business while the majority of first line managers perceived them as front line employees subordinate to them. Some managers also felt that strict adherence to rules, even if not applicable, must be agreed upon by the union before they would listen to union concerns.
Download Article 1K Club
