1.

What, in your opinion, did Baker hope to accomplish as a result of conversation with

Rennalls? Did he succeed? Why or why not?

According to the case, management at Caribbean Bauxite wanted Baker to groom Rennalls to

be his successor. Baker’s purported goal in the last interview with his successor was to encourage

and uplift Rennalls to transition smoothly and “face the challenge of his new job” (Case 13.1), but it is

likely that Baker had a more pressing need to overcome what he perceived as a weakness in himself,

his inability to break down the “invisible, indefinable, ever-present” barrier of race that “had prevented

their relationship from being as close as it should have been” (Case 13.1). From the description of

the case, one can assume that there is racial tension among the employees of the company, and

Baker wanted Rennalls to admit to his racially biased motivations and prove his own perception

correct. The “plus and minus” feedback Baker communicated during the meeting was overshadowed

by what he failed to communicate, and Rennalls subsequently reacted, i.e. made a decision, based

upon incomplete or inaccurate information.

As Baker prepared for his meeting with Rennalls, he subconsciously stepped through the

various functions of communication: 1) Baker wanted to provide knowledge to Rennalls about the

new role, company goals, and acceptable behaviors. 2) He intended to motivate Rennalls, and 3)

Baker utilized the final interview as an opportunity to control and coordinate group activities, exerting

his control by proxy in the expectations he set for Rennalls. However, Baker neglected to apply the

function of expressing feelings and emotions. If Baker had made his feelings explicit in a way that

engaged Rennalls more effectively, they could have addressed the “elephant in the room,” Baker’s

perception that Rennalls was behaving rudely toward Europeans due to some underlying attitudes or

beliefs. Although Rennalls expressed that the impression of not getting along with expatriates was

false; Baker chose to not “let it rest at that” and neglected to ask Rennalls for feedback or

understanding (Case 13.1). Instead, Baker laid out his perception of the behavior, Rennalls not “being

able to get on with Europeans,” as an irrefutable fact. Rennalls gave the indication that the

information presented to Baker was false and merely a rumor as he said “It is quite extraordinary, isn’t
it, how one can convey an impression to others so at variance with what one intends?” (Case 13.1).

However, Baker was not convinced by the “earnest” explanation Rennalls gave, and they did not

have the necessary level of trust to explore why Baker did not believe Rennalls’s explanation. This

remaining ambiguity may have been the result of cross-cultural linguistic styles, or simply due to

Baker’s poor listening; unfortunately, the noise caused the communication to end before the message

was complete and clarified.

Baker took time to consider his message, and he selected the best medium for an important

and complex topic, i.e. a face-to-face meeting with Rennalls. The major flaw in the communication

was that the message Baker encoded was incomplete. While he asserted his belief that Rennalls

interacted differently with Europeans than with Barracanians, the message was filtered through

Baker’s perception of Rennalls’s motivations, a potentially flawed perception which was based on

Baker’s past experiences with other cultures. Attribution theory could explain Baker’s perceptions:

because he believed that Rennalls was motivated by racial sensitivity, Baker discounted the

explanation Rennalls gave for his negative interaction with some Europeans – i.e. they actually were

haughty and brusque. As explained by George and Jones, “only when these attributions are accurate

(that is, only when the real cause of a behavior has been determined) are good decisions likely to be

made and appropriate actions taken” (p. 113). Although he accused Rennalls of being overly

sensitive to condescension, Baker’s tone could be considered condescending by most people when

he expressed, “I am 10 years older, so you can accept the idea that I may be able to give you the

benefit of my long experience” and proceeds to address what he sees necessary before he leaves

(Case 13.1).

In this case, Baker erroneously applied the anchoring and adjustment heuristic, assuming that

he could account for Rennalls’s behavior due to some underlying racial motivation. A significant

amount of research has been conducted on Theory of Mind and egocentric perspective taking, the

ability to communicate with others by “representing” their meaning. “According to this model, in taking

other people’s perspectives (e.g. in verbal communication), our own, egocentric perspective works as
an automatic default that needs to be deliberately corrected by a sequential mechanism of

perspective adjustment” (Rubio-Fernandez, 2008). In many cases, that “adjustment” is insufficient to

truly understand or explain the other person’s perspective. Because Baker believed himself to have a

“knack” for integrating with local cultures and likely had encountered racial friction during assignments

he held in Asia and Africa, he felt confident that Rennalls was hiding or repressing his true

motivations. As Epley and Gilovich elaborate, “One way to make judgments under uncertainty is to

anchor on information that comes to mind and adjust until a plausible estimate is reached. This

anchoring-and adjustment heuristic is assumed to underlie many intuitive judgments, and insufficient

adjustment is commonly invoked to explain judgmental biases.” The “well-repressed sense of racial

consciousness” (Case 13.1) that Baker attributed to Rennalls could have been non-existent, was

rather a construct of Baker’s past experiences and expectations, and consequently impacted Baker’s

ability to apply active listening during his communications with Rennalls.

It seemed that Baker wanted Rennalls to share his deepest-held beliefs, which was the

opposite of behavior that I have experienced on the job. I remember that my supervisor was quite

private about her personal life. We, the co-workers, would ask about her children or her family, and

she would simply say, "that's personal." Some employees took offense that our supervisor didn't want

to divulge any information about her family or life, but it was just the way our supervisor was. She was

only concerned with getting our job duties done.

The meeting between Baker and Rennalls was important to the company not only because of

Rennalls’s background, but also because of his political influence, as his father was the minister of

finance and economic planning. I believe that Rennalls’s advancement was a political move used by

the company to gain favor with Barracania’s influences and to promote diversity. Although, it is noted

in the case that Rennalls was not interested in politics, he was interested in Caribbean Bauxite’s

impact on Barrancania as the company was responsible for almost half of the export trade. This is a

good indication that in spite of his stated disinterest in politics, Rennalls was concerned for the

financial and economic well-being of Barrancania. Based on the case, Baker believes that there is a
barrier between himself and Rennalls, which supports the idea that Baker does not understand or

know Rennalls’s values/beliefs. The communication between the two was filtered and distorted and

as a result, values and beliefs were offended (Tay, 2008). While Baker meant to compliment Rennalls

on his success, Rennalls felt insulted that Baker was boastful and condescending; as a result

Rennalls felt ashamed and betrayed, and chose to resign.

2. Did nonverbal communication play a part in this case? Be specific and give examples?

Nonverbal communication helps to escalate the transfer of information between sender and

receiver; it is defined as the sharing of information through body language and mode of dress

(George and Jones, p. 411); it also consists of facial expressions, hand and eye movements, and

gestures which should be interpreted along with speech (Skills You Need, 2011). Non-verbal

communication played an important role in the case as was evident while Baker held his discussion

with Rennalls. Because the verbal communication occurred face-to-face, both parties had the

advantage of reading nonverbal cues. Prior to starting the meeting, the difference in their positions

was highlighted as Rennalls was summoned via intercom, and instructed to “sit.” While the scene

highlighted their unequal status, from Baker’s perspective, he likely was attempting to put Rennalls at

ease by engaging in an activity that they both enjoyed, cigarette smoking. Baker mainly

communicated verbally and initiated the conversation with the ways in which his own experience and

age could benefit Rennalls. Unfortunately, Baker disregarded the non-verbal cue of Rennalls tensing

up in his chair, an indicator that Baker’s input was unwelcome. Baker suggested that the need for

informal feedback was the justification and waited until Rennalls nodded acquiescence. When

Rennalls did not verbally object to his plus and minus feedback approach, Baker took it as silent

agreement. When he was offered positive feedback, Rennalls returned a smile. It is unclear how

genuine this reaction was because the overall tone of dialogue contained a sense of derision,

sarcasm, and condescension. The phrase "that's very good indeed of you, John" suggested that,

cheekily, Baker did a good job grooming him. By the end of Baker’s feedback, Rennalls had

progressed from slightly stiff in his chair to “tense” and silent. A pause in conversation often lends
weight to the speaker’s next comments, and in this case, Rennalls responded strongly, denying

Baker’s perception of his behavior toward Europeans. In addition to interpreting the remainder of the

conversation as cheerful (despite having unintentionally insulted Rennalls’s family and country),

Baker read Rennalls’s smiles as a sign that the communication was positive instead of

acknowledging the silence. Usually, a person’s receptivity to responses is reflected non-verbally, such

as facial expression, gestures, and body language (Tay, 2008), which Rennalls demonstrated a few

times. For example, Rennalls remained silent for long periods of time during conversations: if one’s

values/beliefs are infringed, there’s a strong tendency for the receiver to remain silent or cut the

conversation short (Tay, 2008). Baker tried to use persuasive communication to get Rennalls to

accept his perception or agree with him, and Rennalls’s non-verbal reactions clearly showed that

Rennalls was not receptive of the message that was attempting to be communicated.

I believe that the non-verbal communication that occurred during the conversation in this case

led to frustration from Baker and caused the situation to get worse. From my experience, non-verbal

communication has caused many problems in my department. My director tends to show up to work

maybe two days out of the week. When she returns to work, it takes her a long time to even

communicate with the rest of the group. She walks in and is very short with the group. Many times,

we don’t know how or when to approach her because we are not sure what is bothering her or

whether we have done something to upset her. This has become routine, and it usually takes her

about half of the day of silence until she decides to talk to the group. One of my co-workers decodes

her behavior as though she has some kind of personal problem she is dealing with, while others think

she is feeling guilty for being out of the office so much. This non-verbal communication currently

occurring in our department causes low morale and influences others in the department to believe

that they don’t have to go in if the director is not there either. Our department is suffering in that many

share the feeling that nobody cares anymore so why show up to work. Our department recently has

shrunk from six to three people and just this past week, another person gave their two weeks’ notice.

So in a couple of weeks our department will consist of myself and the Director.
 Following what Baker viewed as a “friendly” conversation, it was clear that Rennalls reacted

badly by the description Baker’s assistant gave of his nonverbal communication the next morning.

Rennalls was perceived as impatient due to his early arrival (already waiting at the door), he “seemed

very angry” (as evidenced by both verbal and nonverbal cues) and “paced about the room” (Case

13.1). Because Rennalls had to wait outside of a locked office to make his point, it was clear that he

had less status and power than Baker. After expressing his feelings in writing (or, in this case verbal

to written communication), Rennalls did not take time to review the letter he had dictated; he hurriedly

signed it and left. Even without reading the letter, description of Rennalls’s nonverbal communication

gave Baker cause for concern. However, because Rennalls responded in writing rather than a two-

way conversation, Baker did not have the opportunity to immediately clarify any remaining ambiguity.

Although it seems that Baker and Rennalls were talking past one another due to cultural

differences and misperceptions, this struggle to communicate beyond surface friendliness and smiles

is a challenge for many people. For instance, my son encountered a similar miscommunication at his

first job in a laboratory. As an only child and science geek (picture Sheldon from the Big Bang

Theory), he does not read social cues well, whether verbal or nonverbal. When his co-workers began

to send the usual friendly signals by smiling, engaging in casual conversation, and working in close

proximity, my son took it as an invitation for friendship. Unfortunately, he misread the situation. His

co-workers already were friends outside of the work environment, and they did not want anything

other than a colleague-to-colleague relationship with him. Because he decoded their messages

incorrectly, my son was resentful when he ultimately realized that his supposed new friends did not

want to go out for coffee with him. At that point, he did not even want to work with them and withdrew

from communication altogether. Unfortunately interpreting non-verbal communication can be

complex. It is influenced and driven by the context in which it occurs; including both the place and the

people concerned, as well as the culture (Skills You Need, 2011). For example, a thumbs-up gesture

in America is a sign of approval, but the same sign is considered offensive in some parts of the

Middle East. The case does not describe Baker’s tone or facial expressions during the meeting, but
the pauses and gestures such as leaning back in his chair easily could be interpreted as

condescending. It is sad to see how misinterpretation and unrealistic expectations can impact a

working relationship, much as they did with Rennalls and Baker. Perhaps Rennalls did not want to

confide his more personal thoughts and feelings to Baker and as a result, Baker felt that Rennalls

was acting upon some hidden agenda.

3. What could Baker and Rennalls have done to improve the situation described in this case?

In order to improve the situation Baker could have asked Rennalls to verify his point of view.

Rennalls complied with Baker’s points of view verbally, and Baker was not observant of any changes

in Rennalls’s tone of voice, eye contact, facial expressions, gestures and other aspects of his body

language (Tay, 2008). Baker should have communicated his point clearly and invited Rennalls to

voice his thoughts. Baker could have improved the interaction by bringing awareness to the non-

verbal cues that Rennalls expressed. Knowledge of these signs could have encouraged them to talk

about their concerns and led to a greater shared understanding (Skills You Need, 2011).

Baker delayed in letting Rennalls into his office the morning of their meeting because he was

still considering what he was going to say and how he would present his message. He should have

prepared prior to the meeting, but instead he was faced with disjointed thinking resulting in messy

speaking. As a consequence (of failure to prepare), listeners are taken on long, convoluted journeys

filled with contradictions, extraneous information, and premature conclusions (Lewis, 2016).

Baker could have made sure to have credible accounts of Rennalls’s behavior; but instead,

Baker based his case on complaints from Ms. Jackson and on the “barrier” he believed to exist

between himself and Rennalls. Baker even stated that he got along with people of all nationalities but

just not Rennalls. Diversity training could have helped this situation. Many times when a person does

not understand a culture or linguistic style it can create a hindrance. Linguistic style is defined as a

“person’s characteristic way of speaking that included tone of voice, volume, speed, use of pauses,

directness or indirectness and choice of words” (George and Jones, p. 418). The situation that
occurred in this case could have been a misinterpretation of a man’s personality and culture. The

same can be said of Baker because there may have been a misinterpretation of his perceptions.

Misunderstandings arise due to poor word choice and the failure to realize that communication

includes two equally critical components: the speaker and the listener, or the writer and the reader.

Red Auerbach said, “It’s not what you tell them…it’s what they hear.” Communications are effective

when the recipient of a thought understands the meaning intended (Lewis, 2016). There were many

elements of communication that could have gone wrong in this scenario. For example, Rennalls could

have been in the same situation as Baker in that he did not have a full understanding of the

Europeans’ culture and linguistic style. I believe that one of Baker’s options should have been to

consult Human Resources before this conversation took place. Many times supervisors make

mistakes because they are unaware of the rules and procedures of an organization. An expert in the

field of human resources could have coached Baker on what kind of approach to follow. In addition, it

might have been best for a human resource representative to be present in a case like this one.

If the goal of the meeting had been merely to give constructive feedback, Baker would have

listened and tried to understand the explanations Rennalls offered regarding his interactions with

European expats. Instead, Baker was blinded by his egocentric perspective and unwilling to explore

his own biases. Baker recognized that Rennalls was keen and enthusiastic as well as popular with

the staff, even described Baker’s “ease of manner that stood him in good stead when dealing with

expatriate seniors”, and on the surface their relationship was agreeable; yet Baker had the illusion

that he and Rennalls maintained an invisible, indefinable barrier (case). Baker never discussed this

barrier with Rennalls; instead he was loath to accept the weakness that frustrated him. In his

discussion with Rennalls, Baker could have benefitted from applying communication characteristics

that are commonly attributed to women (Valenti, slide 37): “rapport talk” instead of “report talk”, giving

advice indirectly rather than quickly and directly (why would Rennalls consider that condescending?),

asking for information (rather than emphasizing that “what is believed is stronger than what is true”),
and finally by reading nonverbal cues and accurately decoding and believing even part of what

Rennalls’s nonverbal cues were conveying.

Ultimately, the receiver of his message, Rennalls, upon decoding the message, became

incensed by the underlying implications, and rather than engaging in an effective feedback loop to

reach a common understanding with Baker, he fired off an emotional written communication to close

the loop. To improve the situation, Baker could have further investigated the perspective Rennalls

offered for the negative interactions he had experienced with Europeans. He could have described

some of his past experiences and explored the reasons for his perception of Rennalls. Perhaps that

level of honesty would have caused Rennalls to re-evaluate his own biases and share more of his

own personal feelings. For his part, Rennalls should have used a different medium to express his

displeasure with Baker’s assessment. Rather than a one-way, written communication, he should have

shown sufficient trust to address his concerns to Baker. Although they had a seemingly informal

relationship, it was based upon a power structure, and neither Baker nor Rennalls was effective at

communicating their underlying emotions and needs.

In my current organization, the leaders sometimes have a preference for electronic

communication to reach decisions rather than scheduling additional teleconferences or face-to-face

meetings. While there is a need for efficiency with a remote workforce, I have noticed a tendency to

rely upon the Delphi decision making model for issues that really need verbal discussion. For

instance, we are distributing an employee engagement survey (impersonal written communication)

with the expectation that employees will provide personal, written responses. In the meantime, we are

working on a summary of improvements that were made as a result of input on the last survey

(continuous organizational learning). Rather than bringing the group together, my supervisor

requested that HR partners send email summaries to one of our team members, who would then

consolidate the ideas/thoughts into one document, which will be presented to senior leaders for their

review and input. My personal belief is that we lost an opportunity for best practice sharing by utilizing

a wheel network (although somewhat modified if users chose to “reply all”) and written
communication rather than verbal discussion. The practices may trickle down from senior leaders if

deemed value-added, but the message lost some of the persuasive power of those closest to

implementing the practices. Although efficient, the process lost the richness of a face-to-face

communication, and we potentially failed to share some good ideas in the process, much like

Rennalls lost his opportunity to enlighten Baker.

Baker could have improved his discussion with Rennalls by explaining the phrase "What is

important is not what is true, but what is believed" (Case 13.1). I believe Baker was trying to say that

even though the truth was that Rennalls treated everyone the same or had no racial consciousness,

he was perceived to be the opposite. Because Rennalls was perceived that way, maybe he had to

take extra steps to overcome that perceived bias. Baker was focusing on the breakthrough, instead of

helping Rennalls understand that he may have to change his perceived behavior to expatriates.

Rennalls should have recalled his history with Baker to see if there was any congruency in his

perceived racist comments. If there was no historical evidence of racist comments, then Rennalls

should have given Baker the benefit of the doubt. Rennalls should have given Baker the chance to

explain his comments, to reach a mutual understanding. I remember working in a pharmacy where

two pharmacists were constantly seeking opportunities to get each other fired. The pharmacy

manager had to get the district manager involved, but instead of fairly addressing the issues with both

pharmacists (A & B), she took a lenient approach with pharmacist A. After some time and repeated

write-ups, pharmacist B concluded that the manager was against her due to cultural differences;

however, I perceived that there was a lack of communication because the issues/write ups were

never discussed verbally. The write-ups may have been intended to address and change the

pharmacist’s behavior, but the medium was inappropriate for such a serious matter. Even good

intentions are inadequate to deliver meaningful, purposeful communication when messages are

encoded and decoded based upon misperceptions and biases. As demonstrated by Baker and

Rennalls, such flawed communication is not clear and does not lead to a common understanding.
 Resources

Case 13.1: The Road to Hell. Chicago: Industrial Relations Center: The University of Chicago, n.d.
PDF.

Epley, N. and Gilovich, T. “The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic Why the Adjustments Are
Insufficient.” 04/2006. Psychological Science.
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/onlyhuman/anchor_adjustment.pdf?q=perspective-taking-as-
egocentric-anchoring-and-adj

George, J. and Jones, G., (2012). Understanding and Managing Organizational Behavior, Sixth
Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lewis, Michael. "6 Causes of Miscommunication – How to Use Plain Language Effectively." Money
Crashers. Spark Charge Media, 2016. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. <http://www.moneycrashers.com/causes-
miscommunication-use-plain-language/>.

"Non-Verbal Communication." Skills You Need. Skills You Need, 2011. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.skillsyouneed.com/ips/nonverbal-communication.html>.

Psychological Projection. (2016). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Rubio-Fernández, P. (2008). ‘On the automaticity of egocentricity: A review of the Egocentric

Anchoring and Adjustment model of perspective taking’. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 20, 247-
274. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/pals/research/linguistics/publications/wpl/08papers/Rubio_final

Segal, Jeanne; Smith, Melinda; Boose, Greg; Jaffe, Jaelline. (2016). Nonverbal Communication.
http://www.helpguide.org/articles/relationships/nonverbal-communication.htm

Tay, Patrick. "When Communicating, Be Mindful of Others’ Values and Beliefs." COMMUNICATE
WITH EXCELLENT WRITING SKILLS. WordPress, 03 Nov. 2008. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.
<https://patricktay.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/when-communicating-be-mindful-of-others-values-and-
beliefs/>.

Valenti, A. “Communication,” slide 37. 2006. Thompson Business and Economics. PowerPoint
presentation.