To achieve success in convincing a group of people to adopt a particular concept requires that the proponent uses efficient communication methods that are compelling enough to convince the former to agree with the idea. In many cases, however, the person putting forward a creative idea or a solution to a problem fails to communicate effectively to their audience who end up rejecting the views of the proponent. In such a situation, the speaker is left in a compromising position whereby they not only fail to achieve their plan but also feel betrayed and embarrassed by the audience (Measom, 2017). According to psychologists and communication experts, poor communication methods or mistakes in conveying the information have been identified as being the major cause of such failure. One such case will be highlighted and discussed with emphasis laid on the reasons for the failure in communication and the possible revised method that would be successful for the same.
Chris Lawrence was a Senior Clinical Officer at a local Medical Institution in his hometown. He was on the board of members in the facility and was often involved in all major decisions made in the running of the facility. In one fateful year during his career, the government sought to merge the hospital with a nearby Medical Practitioners Training Institution which would mean a lot of changes in the operations of the new facility. Some of the changes that would be inevitable were the reshuffling of employees to new job responsibilities, a layoff of some employees due to the increase in the number of practitioners that would be available in the institution. As such, Lawrence was tasked with the great responsibility of leading a committee that would draft a new structure that would guide the operations of the new facility. After conducting all the necessary meetings and consultations with the stakeholders, Lawrence came up with a constitution which he presented during the opening ceremony for the merger (Garvin & Roberto, 2005).
In the new structure, Lawrence had compiled a new timetable which also highlighted the new employees assigned to the tasks and their responsibilities. Every member of the institution would be emailed their new job assignments and the areas of practice within the facility. Lawrence mentioned that there was the need to reduce the staff due to the increased human resource in the institution. He also noted that the employees would each work for two more hours per day so as to ensure a smooth integration to the new system temporarily. On the mention of this statement, the workers shouted him down and did not let him continue with his speech. They were much infuriated by these statements and one man in the audience was given the opportunity to talk on behalf of the employees. He claimed that the company was seeking to lay off the workers and that everybody was a victim of the situation. In addition, he said that the new system would only favor the administration as they would be overworked without an increase in their salaries since there were many employees at their disposal. His sentiments were backed with the other workers who vowed to strike if the proposal by Lawrence was implemented (Garvin & Roberto, 2005).
It is evident that the new proposals were opposed by the employees since they seemed to be unfair to them as they meant that their job security was at stake. Secondly, the new timetable and reshuffling of the workers would mean a complete change in the normal personal duties that the workers were used to. Initiating such drastic changes would also cause inconvenience to the workers from their already established routine hence the rejection of the same (Measom, 2017). Finally, Lawrence made a mistake in presenting the new changes in the institution as he should have presented the ideas to an advantage. Instead, he started highlighting the difficulties that the workers would endure due to the merger coming to effect.
Even though it was likely that the merger would be met with varied views from the workers, the correct presentation of the new structure would have avoided such drastic resentment from the same. Lawrence would have started by noting the positive effects that the union would have on the institution. It includes an increased number of sales or service provision due to the enlargement hence more revenue generation and the possibility of an increase in the workers’ salaries. Secondly, Lawrence should not have decided to lay off some workers but would redistribute the duties of the workers and ensure that all were retained in the institution rather than adding more hours to their daily shifts. Thirdly, it would be necessary to consult the employees on the timetable arrangement since they already had an established routine that worked for them and making such considerations to the new one would be efficient for everyone. Finally, Lawrence should also have read the mood of the workers before presenting his new structure which only involved the committee members and failed to involve the workers themselves (Measom, 2017).
 
References
Garvin D. & Roberto M. (2005). Change Through Persuasion. Harvard Business Review
Measom, C. (2017). Ineffective Communication Styles. Hearst Newspapers.