1) What is the underlying communication mistake in this case? Why do you think Howard Tannenbaum sent those e-mails?

2) How do you think Tannenbaum should have communicated his concerns about the information link? Why?

Answer:

1)

The fundamental communication blunder was sending an email while still enraged over the disclosed toy product line details. Not only did the CEO contact his attorneys, but he also wrote an email to his managers right away. Howard felt deceived, so he sent those two emails. He was determined to get the truth at any cost, even if it meant losing the faith and trust of his long-time bosses. This is definitely a negative nonverbal kind of downward communication that took out of control due to the peaked emotions felt by Howard Tannenbaum. Tannenbaum, I believe, sent the emails before completely considering everything. He wasn't thinking about the ramifications when he wrote the email to Barry. He believed he could confide in him and utilize him to express his frustrations. Unfortunately, a lot of information is passed down through the grapevine. Howard was so enraged that he wrote all of the managers with allegations, making them feel as though he felt they were to blame as well. His connection with his staff was shattered as a result of this.

The problem in this instance involves a major breach impacting Howard Tannebaum, the CEO of a toy firm that is considering launching a new product line named Brainchild. Tannebaum has apparently learned that the product design of this top-secret breakthrough has been compromised, and he suspects that one of his supervisors is to blame. He then sends a scathing e-mail to his attorney, Barry. Barry is also a long-time buddy of the CEO. Tannebaum also writes another e-mail to his management staff, expressing his displeasure and threatening them over the alleged product design leak. He's seeking for a way to channel his resentment.

2)

Answer:

Face-to-face contact would have been the most effective channel for such forms of information.

Before sending the emails, Tannenbaum should have waited. If Tannenbaum needed to vent, I believe he should have taken someone he trusted out to lunch and discussed the issues in question verbally rather than sending details via the company's email server.

And face-to-face contact would have been the most effective channel for such forms of information. As a result, Tannenbaum's first choice should have been to meet with the management face to face and explain his thoughts to them. This would have allowed him to get fast feedback and determine whether or not he could have made any progress through that approach. An emergency news conference may have escalated things a little faster and more efficiently, and it might have avoided additional damage from being done as a result of the information breach.