How Do You Manage? Case Study: Party Talk

By Lisa Wiecki, Serials Librarian, Lander University, Greenwood, SC

Roddin's “jokey” emails may lighten up the workday mood for some of her coworkers, like Profeta, Erland, and Tilford, but by offending accused office “prude” Duffy, they are proving to be divisive to the team as a whole. Although one could argue that Duffy's party talk rules may be outmoded and that discussions of religion and politics are less taboo in today's workplace, it is certainly understandable why she might find Roddin's off-color emails offensive. Roddin is forwarding Duffy and her colleagues emails containing foul language, political attacks, and tasteless photos, and no matter in what spirit they may be intended, it isn't any wonder that these emails have generated a complaint.

Although Tilford enjoys Roddin's jokes, as a manager, she needs to be concerned about the morale of her entire staff and should remain impartial when responding to Duffy's comments. Instead, Tilford's initial reaction to Duffy feels defensive. She mentions that she hasn't received complaints before and that she and many staff members appreciate the jokes. She then suggests that Duffy should remove herself from the distribution list if the jokes aren't to her liking. Tilford's oversimplified solution would end up further isolating Duffy from coworkers who already view her as being a humorless prude. Duffy also hasn't indicated that she wants to be removed from the distribution list and has admitted to thinking that some of the jokes have merit.

Duffy's proposed solution to forbid Roddin from sending the emails may also be too extreme. In response to this, Tilford's next move really should be to tell Duffy that she will bring her concerns to Roddin immediately. Additionally, if Tilford is right and Roddin's emails do help to lighten the mood around the office, then banning them outright would not be a good idea as it might hurt morale. Tilford has stated that the environment can be “tense” and that levity is “sorely lacking.”

If forwarding on joke emails is accepted as part of this library's office culture, then at a minimum Roddin should be told that she needs to tone down her emails to a PG rating. For starters Roddin should be told that: 1. Foul language is a no, no. 2. Sensitivity to the political or religious views and beliefs of others is paramount. 3. Sharing cute family photos is good, while sharing pictures of people's “rear ends” is bad. Then, if Roddin still can't temper her emails after being spoken to, there would be a basis for telling her to stop sending them altogether.

Neither Tilford nor Duffy mention a library policy with regard to use of the organization's email for non-work-related use. Ultimately, having an official policy in place to point to would be the best way to resolve this situation. If a policy on use of Pretorious University email isn't anywhere in writing, then Tilford should work with her staff to draft one and send it on to the administration for approval. An email use policy would make it clear to everyone involved what is and what is not acceptable and would help to resolve future misunderstandings.

Library Journal is seeking librarians to respond to How Do You Manage? case studies. Public, academic, and special librarians are eligible to try their hand. If you are interested in writing a response, please email your name, address, phone number, and preferred email address, plus area of interest (management problems, technology, community relations, etc.), to Ann Kim at akim@reedbusiness.com