A, a junior officer, received an email from his Commanding Officer stipulating that the former and another junior officer, B, have been delegated the task of organising a cohesion event for the battalion’s anniversary.
A and B were good friends but as they were from different companies(the equivalent of a department). A was in the battalion at that time whereas B was away on course; B was due to return when A needs to go off on his course. C was a superior from another department.
A, having been asked to perform an unprecedented task, began to conceptualise the theme, venue and activities for the event. Before he was due to leave for the course, he detailed an email to B illustrating his progress so the latter could continue with the planning and execution of the event.
When A returned from his course back to the battalion 1 week before its anniversary, he was approached by C, one of his superiors, asking him how the planning went. A said he was on course and that B had taken over the task as was agreed upon. C then chided A, telling him that C’s department had taken over since A & B left the organization hanging in the air. A was bewildered: wasn’t B supposed to take over since he was on course?
C criticized A’s failure to check on the planning progress; he explained that B had been busy with his own duties and left everything to C’s department when C offered to help. A was naturally bewildered by what happened.
There seemed to be a lack in communication between the parties involved that led to the spate of events.
How could this episode have been prevented?
31 Healthy and Fast Breakfast Recipes for Busy Mornings
-
31 Healthy and Fast Breakfast Recipes for Busy Mornings
Coconut yogurt quinoa muffins are a great way to use yogurt in a baked
good. These muffins ...
2 years ago
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Desmond,
ReplyDeleteThis situation could have been prevented if A had the foresight to check with B on his workload after completing his course. If B had told A of the large amount of work he had to tend to when he returned to his battalion, A could have arranged for other colleagues to help B with his task of planning for the event. After all, it was an event which was meant for everyone in the battalion to enjoy and there might be colleagues who were willing to lend a helping hand. Alternatively, A could complete as much of the task as he could before going for his course if the time permitted.
A could also have played a more proactive role in ensuring that B continued the task which he left for B. While on course, A should continue to contact B to check on the progress of the task instead of assuming that B would diligently follow instructions from the email.
B should have been more responsible. Though B had other duties to tend to, he should have managed his time better and commit to the task since he was assigned to it. B should not have taken advantage of C’s kindness to help but instead, work together with C. It would be irresponsible for B to shun A’s instructions and take for granted that C would help him. B should also have been proactive in keeping A informed on the progress of the task.
On the whole, A and B should have communicated with each other effectively, since the task was a paired effort. This would have enabled them to be aware of any difficulties each had and work together as a team to solve their problems and organize a well planned anniversary for the battalion.
Hi Desmond,
ReplyDeleteAs you have pointed out, a lack of communication had lead to this conflict.
I am inclined to think A was innocent in this case. It seems to be all right that he had been doing his part before he left for the course and passed the remaining task to B when he left.
But to be critical, maybe A should have coordinated well with B beforehand and divided the job between them. Besides, although A may trust his friend B but still he should have diligently checked on B’s progress in the event planning.
As for B, he should have expected that he may not have enough time to organize the event; hence he should not have agreed to take the task in the first place. And before he decided to pass the task to C’s department, he should have gained A’s agreement first. After all, A and B were both in charge of the organization.
Regards
NJ
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Desmond,
ReplyDeleteThis episode could have been prevented if there was better planning from the higher HQ and also better communication.
Firstly, there should have been a better coordinating plan. If A was going on course while B was left to do the planning, another officer should have been appointed as an auxiliary while A was away. Alternatively, B should have requested his superior for extra help. This auxiliary officer could have acted as a liaison person between A and B. In this way, it would not seem as if B have conveniently pushed his responsibilities to C's department but have handled the situation in a professional manner. (In any case, B was wrong to push to C.)
Secondly, even without the help of an auxiliary officer, A and B should have settled preliminary plans before A leaves for the course. They should also agree on the deadlines for the specific tasks before A returns.
Moreover, in an event such as this, a planning committee should have been formed before A leaves so that work can be delegated and B would not have to carry all the workload. This could have been prevented if A and B made the effort to approach each other and had communicated effectively.
As for B, he should have followed up his email with a call to A. This is an urgent matter which is of utmost importance. Thus, a phone call would have eradicate the time lag for A to read the email. The call also offers a platform for A to clarify any doubts.
Regards,
Mario