The "technique of active listening" may be useful, because it can lead to better understanding of other people before you say things and take actions. And it is wise for the Rifco human resources department to have noticed its human relationship problem and to want to improve it by learning from the Rifco success story. The question is: Has the human resources department got the truth of the story and made the right decision about what to do?
To begin with, in the Terland Company, it was the "recently hired" employees who "volunteered" to participate in the active-listening workshop. This must be an important reason why the technique has benefited the company; since it was the new employees who realized their own problem and intended to tackle it, they needed to learn the technique, and would use it sincerely. In the Rifco Company, however, it is the human resources department that has got the intention to "require" "all" its employees to attend the workshops. These much different intentions in the two companies would naturally produce a great difference in result. For example, the old Rifco employees may say, "Oh, knowing already everything about that technique, I don't want to waste one more minute learning that nonsense. " And it is not unlikely that some guys will call the learning task worse names. For this reason, I'm not sure at all that the Rifco Company is to benefit from these workshops when what its human resources department suggests is put into effect.
Secondly, the two companies seem to have got different problems. In the Rifco Company, the conflicts are in the "workplace. " That would mean that the trouble is mostly among the employees themselves, or between the workers and the foremen, at most. In the Terland Company, the trouble was likely to be between the employees and the company itself, for the company was so proud when fewer "employees had filed formal complaints with the human resources department" at the end of the five years. Since they are different problems, it is unwise for Rifco's human resources department to suggest doing the same as the Terland Company.
Further, I don't think it a merit to "express feelings without assigning blame," the purpose these workshops are to achieve. But I find it a true virtue to express one's feelings frankly and to assign blame to the person who is to blame, whether he is the foreman, or is in the human resources department. Sadly, the Terland Company may have caused its employees to get that merit, as evidenced by the fact that "Five years later, only five percent of these employees had filed formal complaints with the human resources department. " If that is true, I will never call it a success story, because we so much more prefer "formal" complaints to "informal" ones. In fact, when the employees file their formal complains, assigning blame to anyone that is to blame, the company knows what the trouble is, who is to blame, and what is the right thing to do. When employees complain "informally," calling bad names whenever and wherever they get into a temper, for example, the company would at least have its face lost, usually without knowing it, not to mention knowing what to do. This gives me reason to doubt whether the Rifco Company has really benefited from the technique, and whether it is worthwhile for us to follow its footsteps.
To sum up, I don't think the memo has provided a precise description of the Terland success story, and I don't find the memo has included recommendation that can be followed by the company.