Did I Overstep in My Email to the VP About the Factory Key Incident? Seeking Your Thoughts

I am one of the Founder Directors of a Pvt Ltd. Company whose identity I do not want to reveal at present. The organization was started 35 years ago with 9 directors and is currently operating from its own premises with 4 working directors, the rest having either withdrawn their stake or have deceased. The design, manufacturing, and supply of electronic measuring instruments and special-purpose testing machines is the main activity of the company. The Founder Directors and other Directors form the Board of Directors, and the company functions through Vice Presidents looking after various functions such as Finance & HR, Business Development, Marketing, Design & Manufacturing, etc.

Incident Overview

The factory functions from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM with a lunch break of 30 minutes in between. We follow a 5-day week with Saturday and Sunday being weekly off days. One day last week, the factory did not open on schedule due to the absence of the factory keys. Employees were stranded on the lawns in front of the factory premises. Frantic phone calls were made to the Vice President concerned, and ultimately the keys were received after about 40 minutes.

In this regard, I request the forum members to go through the emails and give your opinion regarding the appropriateness and tenor of both my query and the Vice President’s response. This is being done to ascertain from the learned members if any corrective action is required in my action. In other words, have I transgressed the boundaries of decency and decorum in sending him the email below?

“Dear Mr. XXX, Today when I went to the factory, I was given to understand that the organization started working at 9 AM instead of 7:30 AM. Also, I came to know that the keys were not available with the appropriate people. What precautions and corrections are you intending to do so that the above does not repeat? This is nothing but a violation of the STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE which is to be followed. According to me, approximate man hours lost 200 x 90 minutes = 18,000 minutes = 300 hours. Correct me if I am wrong. What are the checks and balances you are intending to do under such a scenario so that working hours are not being lost? Also, request in such situations the information may be given to the top management. Thanks.”

I am also enclosing his reply for your study:

“Sir, At the outset, you have wrong information. The factory opened at 8:42 a.m. (time of call received from Security) and not 9:00 a.m. as mentioned by you. Unfortunately, they have not informed you of the reason for the delay, neither would you have asked. The company bus had skidded down a culvert at the parking place (because of the heavy rains the previous night), and due to tension, Mr. Raghavendra forgot to give the factory keys to the other bus driver/other employees. Further, since I had work in Unit 1/Syndicate Bank, I had planned to work in Unit 1 from 8:30 a.m. Hence, I did not go to the factory at 7:30 a.m. I received a call from the security at 7:45 a.m. informing that the key was not available. Immediately, I called Mr. Raghavendra and asked him to rush to the factory. I also rushed to the factory driving rashly. I reached the factory at 8:45 a.m.

You have mentioned “This is nothing but a violation of STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE which is to be followed.” Please share with me the Standard Operating Procedure. Ever since I joined the company, the procedure was as follows: Factory keys are with the Founder Directors, and one set of keys is with the bus driver. Earlier, the factory was being opened with the keys available with Mr. WWW or the bus driver. There are several instances when both have been delayed, and the factory was opened late. Why this had not come to your knowledge earlier or was it ignored? I was orally informed by Mr. WWW that the factory key should be in the custody of any managerial staff if the factory is closing late. Ever since Mr. MMM is not attending the office, he has given his keys to me. Every morning the factory is either opened with the keys available with me or the bus driver. I am planning to hand over a set of keys to Mr. XYZ, Accounts, as he stays near the factory. The man hours lost is 70 minutes. The number of man hours lost will be calculated and informed to you. I authorize you to deduct the cost of the man hours lost from my salary or shall be paid by me. As you have mentioned that in such a situation the information may be given to the top management, I have sent a detailed reply. Sorry if I have wasted your precious time by sending a long email. Finally, I am saddened and hurt by the wording of your email. However, I would like to nail the coffin of this issue.

Regards,”

P.S: Here Mr./s WWW and MMM are all Founder Directors. I would like your esteemed panel to go through this entire record and let us know your opinion. Thanking you for your time and awaiting your inputs.

Regards, GGG

Dear Gsv, First and foremost, I request you to make your post anonymous. Well, gentlemen, the case is interesting and is a classic case study in understanding the choice of media of communication. The problem is that we are obsessed with email communication; however, not everywhere is this medium appropriate. This is what has happened with you. If the factory was opened late, then why did you not seek clarification in a personal meeting? The same is the case with the VP as well. He has retaliated with full vigor. When an email of this kind is received, neither he felt a need to ask for a personal meeting nor give clarification. This is called "flaming" in email communication.

Choose the Right Medium of Communication

"Choose the right medium of communication" is one of the important principles of communication. Both of you transgressed this principle and have turned your relations sour. Secondly, another principle of communication is Accuracy, Brevity, and Clarity (ABC). It appears that you have defaulted on the accuracy count. I say so because the VP has pointed out the timing of the factory opening. The next principle of communication that you have violated is "No assumptions." The email was written with certain assumptions. Of course, when you take care of ABC, partially you ensure that you do not assume anything.

Notwithstanding your lack of knowledge of communication, you have sought feedback on your mail. I appreciate your orientation for personal development.

Observations on the VP's Reply

From the reply of the VP, I deduce the following about him:

a) The gentleman is not trained in "Business Writing Skills" (neither are you for that matter). He does not know how to give an introduction and what phrases to use to convey his point.

b) He is a highly reactive person. The tone is retaliatory.

c) He is not a person who will take things lying down. Either he is too confident in his stay in your company, or it is because of your weak leadership.

d) Notwithstanding his highly assertive nature, he has provided a solution to avoid the recurrence of the problem.

e) He is a VP. Though I do not know his age, I can say that he has the psychology of Gen Y and not Gen X. Gen X were in need of the job. They had family responsibilities. In contrast, Gen Y do not have hard-pressed family responsibilities. They can afford to lose their jobs. The ease with which he has authorized deducting the losses from his salary speaks volumes.

f) If a person gives this kind of reply to his senior, then how must he be behaving with his juniors? I feel that he must be rubbing his juniors the wrong way without a trace of remorse. He does not care about the motivation of the juniors because of his excessive straightforwardness. Of course, this is my visceral argument. If it is true, then it is because of an undeveloped personality.

Final Comments

From the instance given in your post, from your email and the VP's reply thereof, it can be inferred that a culture of professionalism is yet to enter your company. You might have grown the company financially or otherwise; nevertheless, no efforts are made to give a definite shape to the organization's culture. This is a case study of what happens when managers are not trained in soft skills. It is not just a question of training in soft skills; in day-to-day life, these skills need to be practiced as well. Both of you need a good amount of training on subjects like leadership, personal communication, organizational communication, conflict handling skills, etc. The more you defer, the more incidents like these will occur and the harder it will be for both of you to erase the memory of the negative incidents.

Last but not least, you have failed to understand the psychology of the VP. How many months or years has he been working with you? By writing an email of this kind, what would be the VP's reaction? Why did this thought not cross your mind?

Since you have asked for feedback, I have analyzed the case dispassionately. Please do not take my feedback personally.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

Analysis of the Incident

The comments and analysis by Shri Dinesh are excellent and have nailed the issue. Both of you need to work on letter-writing skills.

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) Concerns

Is there a laid-down SOP for opening the factory? If it was not there, then why refer to a nonexistent SOP? Getting into the nitty-gritty of working hours lost has turned your correspondence into a mathematical counting of hours and minutes. The issue of who opens, where the key is, etc., has become diluted.

Tone and Communication Style

The reply of the VP is challenging and not in order. If the director's tone was tough, though misplaced, the VP should have been courteous and less aggressive. I won't get into Gen X or Gen Y classification.

Need for Professional Conduct

The VP needs to be pulled up. Even if he is right, he needs to put it politely across. Is there any previous history of animosity between the two of you?

Resolution and Follow-up

A face-to-face meeting is needed to close this issue. Probably a phone call to the VP informing him about why the mix-up of keys was needed and, after finding out it was a one-off incident of late opening, follow-up by letter would have been ideal.

Regards,
GGG

Dear GSV,

These are my supplementary comments to the previous post regarding VP's offer to deduct his salary to offset the losses caused by the delayed opening of the factory.

VP's Offer of Salary Deduction

The VP has offered a salary deduction for various reasons. One is that by doing so, he has preemptively addressed the charges against him. Generally, fines and penalties are imposed by management. By making this offer, he has played the trump card that management was expected to play. This puts you in a bind. If you deduct his salary, it will be widely discussed, and he might gain sympathy from his juniors. It could also set a precedent for fines and penalties in your company. If you do not impose the fine, it might set another undesirable trend.

Possible Reasons for the Offer

The second reason for his offer could be sheer frustration. Possibly, the gentleman is under a lot of stress and can no longer handle it. To alleviate the stress, he is willing to pay the price. The tone of his email suggests he has responded with a sense of vengeance. He did not mince words in his email to the Director of the company.

Impact of Informal Communication

By now, in the top circle, the word must have spread about the email exchange between both of you. Please note that informal communication travels faster than formal communication. Informal communication shapes the company's culture more than formal communication. It is important to consider what thoughts will cross employees' minds when they ask themselves about this situation.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

I appreciate the comments by Mr. Dinesh Divekar. I would like to add some more corrective actions to the above points for organizational functions to prevent such incidents. For any organization, every minute counts, and the loss of time is significant in terms of money, organizational values, integrity, etc.

Corrective Actions

Corrective actions may be as follows:

a) The organization can nominate some authorized persons to open and close the office premises, and any one of them should be present while both opening and closing the main doors.

b) A register shall be maintained to sign whoever opens or closes the main doors, and the same employee can sign on one slip of paper; the same shall be sealed with the lock.

c) If any authorized employee is opening the next day, they have to ensure the signatures on that slip.

d) One of the keys shall be retained with the security personnel in a secured place where it can be accessed whenever there is urgency.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Regards,
GGG

Dear Mr. Nathrao, You have written that "VP needs to be pulled up." While pulling up, one has to make sure that one is on firm ground. Here, management is equally on a slippery wicket. Prudence demands not to pull anyone while on slippery ground. Otherwise, the fall of both is well assured. VP's behavior borders on uncouthness. Nevertheless, who allowed such a VP to continue? The VP is nothing but a reflection of a culture that the company has allowed to grow. Rather than finding out the facts, the attempt was made to fix the blame. Therefore, it is important to look at the culture of the company rather than the VP as a person.

Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar

Our learned friends have made some sound observations and given you sound advice. The way you have handled the incident reminds me of the advice given to us by a tutor. He said, "Never assume," because when we "ASS U ME" and the assumption is wrong, it makes an ASS of U and ME. Had you only spoken to the VP about what happened and why, instead of relying on hearsay, you would have avoided writing such an email, and the VP too would have answered you in a different way.

I am sure if you had given more details about the VP's service background with you, our learned friends might have given a different response than the one based on the assumption made given the limited information.

Mr. Divakar has rightly quoted, “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.” I really appreciate the comments of NASHBRAMHALL. With the details about the VP's service background, learned members/experts might have a different response than the one given by them. In this context, I would like to inform you that I am working as an employee in middle management for the said company.

Background of the VP

The VP joined the company in 2008 as Chief Resource Manager. He is an MBA graduate and well-versed in communication. He takes care of HR, Admin, Stores, Accounts, Banking, etc. After he joined the company, various HR policies have been laid down and written by him. I understand that he was earlier working in the O&M/Secretarial Department of a nationalized bank.

Character and Work Ethic of the VP

The VP is a very calm and hardworking person who sometimes has toiled continuously for more than 36 hours during the finalization of accounts, performance, and increments, etc. He is also a good listener and tries to give solutions to employees’ problems. He normally retaliates when his integrity/honesty is questioned. He is not a person who will take things lying down. He is very confident of getting a job anywhere else. He also talks about HRPO work, etc.

Interpersonal Relationships and Skills

As mentioned earlier, he has a very good rapport with juniors, peers, and seniors. Hence, I do not want to comment on the skills of the VP in leadership, personal communication, organizational communication, conflict handling skills, etc.

Concerns and Animosity

NATHRAO has informed that the VP needs to be "pulled up." As I said earlier, if he is pulled up, he will put down his papers as he is confident of getting a job anywhere else or being self-employed. There are many instances of animosity between the two as the Director relies on hearsay from a few of his trusted employees, who could be providing him with wrong information. The Director uses this information to ascertain the facts with the workers, which the VP feels is character assassination.

The Director always says that it is his money that is lost. Hence, the VP might have offered to deduct the loss from his salary or might be out of sheer frustration, as commented by Mr. Dinesh.

Regards,
Hacktivist

"NATHRAO has informed that the VP needs to be pulled up. Like I said earlier, if he is pulled up, he will put down his papers as he is confident of getting a job anywhere else or being self-employed."

Emotional Intelligence in Leadership

I would like to remind you that a director is a superior-ranking person to the VP. Though the letter from the director was a bit high-handed, a subordinate should always respond in a calm and collected way and not in a retaliatory manner. Emotional intelligence is one quality that can elevate you when you hold a senior position. The reply by the VP shows an argumentative attitude, which needs to be controlled in such high positions.

As a rank outsider, after reading only the query of the original poster, it is evident that both of them need to calm down and behave in a more constructive manner. Emotional intelligence ranks much higher than IQ in such situations. A calm and polite answer to each point of the director would have served the purpose. However, it is clear that this letter was only a spark as tension already existed.

The Honorable VP may well remember that emotional intelligence is an intersection of both heart and head, and calm, purposeful reactions are always the best. Unsolicited offers to take a pay cut, and directly telling your superior that their timing is wrong, are not reactions called for at this stage.

Regards,
GGG

Dear Hacktivist,

Well, gentlemen, you have pitched in on behalf of your company in general and on behalf of the VP in particular. You have given your viewpoint. Nevertheless, you have failed to read between the lines of the emails written by your Director and VP. This could be because you have dealt with both of them. You have heard about both of them. Therefore, there is every likelihood of your views getting biased because of inside information. I am giving my third reply since insinuations in your reply are aimed at me.

You have written that "The VP joined the Company in 2008 as Chief Resource Manager. He is an MBA graduate and well-versed in communication." However, his mail gives evidence to the contrary. If he were well-versed in communication, then he would not have written the mail the way he has written. His point-by-point rebuttal gives the semblance of a debate that goes on in Indian news channels in prime time. If he had understood the concept of communication, then he would have investigated the causes for the delayed opening of the factory, asked for the appointment of the Director, and explained personally the causes to him. Both the Director and VP have shown immature behavior. All that the Director could have done was to write one single-line email to the VP asking him to investigate the causes of the delay and report.

It would be foolhardy to believe that those who put in long working hours are mentally engaged. Since I conduct training programs on "Employee Engagement," I would say the VP comes under the "Yes-man" category. There are four types of persons: Victims, Cynics, Yes-men, and Stars. To know more about this model, you may click here. The email from the Director was the trigger that converted the VP from a Yes-man to a Cynic, hence his retaliation.

The VP is frustrated, as I have written in my first post itself. However, I disagree with you when you say that he knows conflict-handling skills. If you refer to the Conflict Process model, prior to the receipt of the mail, the conflict between the two was at State II level. The exchange of emails between the Director and VP has brought it to State III level. Both have shown "competing" behavior. Possibly, they may go back to Stage II of conflict, but the eradication of the conflict in toto is not possible.

Well, gentlemen, what happens in your company is personal. It was your Director who brought the inside affairs into the public domain and sought feedback. The Director must have read the replies, but he did not respond. With you pitching in on behalf of the VP, it is tantamount to washing your company's dirty linen in public.

We, the members of this forum, will look at the case through a third eye. We do not take the side of either party. While analyzing the case, I have given reference to the principles of communication that your Director has violated. Management science has developed from instances of this kind. Management theories are not developed in isolation or in a vacuum.

Lessons for Training/HR Professionals

Training or HR professionals have a great penchant for building teams. They train lower-level staff on teamwork. Many times, employees are taken to some resort, and outbound trainings are conducted. Participants are told to walk on fire also. Nevertheless, when the top management is spewing fire at each other, can training on teamwork succeed at the lower level? Hacktivist has written that "There are many instances of the history of animosity between the two as the Director relies on hearsay from a few of his trusted employees, who could be providing him with wrong information. The Director uses this information to ascertain the facts with the workers, which the VP feels is character assassination." It is the top management that shapes the culture of the company. With this kind of mindset of the Director, will it be possible to keep senior managers mentally engaged? Without this mental engagement, will it be possible to build teams?

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

"I was given to understand that the organization started working at 9 AM instead of 7:30 AM. Also, I came to know that the keys were not available with the appropriate people. What precautions and corrections are you intending to implement so that the above does not repeat? I am surprised that there is confusion regarding working hours. Is the incident regarding keys not being available happening frequently or often?

Standard Operating Procedure

According to me, the approximate man-hours lost: 200 x 90 minutes = 18,000 minutes = 300 hours. Correct me if I am wrong. As per the VP, there is no SOP, and I feel there was a need to show the loss of working hours. The VP is senior enough to realize. What I feel as an outsider is that a clash of thought and working styles between the two of you exists. The letter writing could have been deferred until face-to-face interaction with the VP was done. The reaction of the VP was a fighting reply, and apparently, previous discord prompted a retaliatory reply. Mature high-level professionals avoid such clashes.

Probably, as one member of our company says, he can get another job easily, which makes him touchy and ready to throw up this job. My advice (I do not know if I am qualified enough) is to sit across the table in a congenial atmosphere and try to understand where issues have come up, and how to bridge the gap, which will affect the company. The higher you go, the more emotional intelligence is required with an ability to work with people who have a different style of working. I do hope my words will be taken in the right spirit as an unbiased person."

Thank you very much for your varied opinions and advice. I have realized a lot of things from this episode, mainly that the organization has to move in a more professional manner, and the quality of people manning important positions determines how professional we can be. On the personal front, I agree with the suggestion to undergo training on communication and other topics. If any of the members specialize in these training areas, please contact me. I would like to hereby treat this issue as closed and request the forum to DELETE this thread henceforth.

Regards,