Answer:
CASE 3.B: When Proper Procedure is not followed
1) Cliff should have told Sonja the details to be discussed in the meeting that had been scheduled with Cindy and what the expectations of the meeting was.
2) Cliff should have stepped in to prevent escalation of the problem.
3) Heather should have individual discussion with each of them followed by a group discussion.
Explanation:
1) Cliff should have told Sonja the details to be discussed in the meeting that had been scheduled with Cindy and what the expectations of the meeting was. Cliff should have also have informed Sonja of the importance of Cindy's role to the organization and all connections Cindy has to the organization.
2) As a supervisor, Cliff should have stepped in when it became apparent that Sonja was overstepping authority. He should have asked for a recess to brief Sonja of the importance of Cindy's role and he should have apologized to Cindy making her aware that he failed to communicate to Sonja the full details of the meeting. He should have pacified the 2 parties and asked them to share their view points one after the other explaining reasons for their actions.
3) Heather should proceed to discuss privately with each of them as a seasoned HR professional letting them know how their actions are not in line with company policy.
To Sonja, she should inform her of the need to apologize and never overstep. To Cliff, she should inform him of his duties as a supervisor which includes proper communication of relevant facts. To Cindy, she should request a reschedule of the meeting.
