Managerial Communication - Case Study 2 (Practice Question)

Managerial Communication - Case Study 2 (Practice Question)

Read the following case and answer the questions that follow:

Mr and Mrs Basu went to Woodland's apparel section to buy a pullover. Mr Basu did not read the price tag on the piece he had selected. While making the payment, he asked for the price at the counter. The answer was "Rs 950".

Meanwhile, Mrs Basu, who was still shopping, came back and joined her husband. She was glad that he had selected a nice black pullover for himself. She pointed out that there was a 25 per cent discount on that item. The person at the billing counter nodded in agreement. Mr Basu was thrilled to hear that. "That means the price of this pullover is just Rs 645. That's fantastic," said Mr Basu. He decided to buy another pullover in green.

In no time, he returned with the second pullover and asked the salesperson to pack both. When he received the cash memo for payment, he was astonished to find that he had to pay Rs 1,900 and not Rs 1,290 as he had expected.

Mr Basu could hardly reconcile himself to the fact that the sales- person had first quoted the discounted price, that is Rs 950. But the original price printed on the price tag was Rs 1,225.

Questions:

1. Identify the three sources of Mr Basu's information about the price of the pullover.
2. Discuss the main filter involved in this case.
3. What should Mr Basu have done to avoid the misunderstanding? 
4. Who is to blame for this communication gap? Why?

Answers:

1. Identify the three sources of Mr. Basu's information about the price of the pullover.
   
   
   The three sources of Mr Basu's information about the price of the pullover are:
   
   
   a) The person at the billing counter: When Mr Basu asked for the price at the counter, the person there informed him that the price of the pullover was Rs 950. This interaction led Mr Basu to believe that this was the price of the pullover.
   b) Mrs Basu: Mrs Basu, who was still shopping, informed Mr Basu that there was a 25% discount on the pullover he had selected. Her statement further reinforced the idea that the price of the pullover would be lower than what was initially mentioned.
   c) The price tag: The original price printed on the price tag attached to the pullover was Rs 1,225. Although Mr Basu did not pay attention to the price tag initially, it serves as an official indication of the original price of the pullover.
   
   
2. Discuss the main filter involved in this case.
   
   
   The main filter involved in this case is the misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the discount. Mr Basu perceived that the discounted price mentioned by his wife and confirmed by the salesperson was the final price of the pullover. However, he failed to consider the original price mentioned on the price tag. This misinterpretation led him to miscalculate the final price and caused the misunderstanding.
   The filter in this case can be seen as a cognitive bias called confirmation bias, where Mr Basu selectively focused on the information that confirmed his belief about the discounted price. He ignored or downplayed the original price mentioned on the price tag, leading to a faulty conclusion about the final price.
   
   
3. What should Mr. Basu have done to avoid the misunderstanding?
   
   
   To avoid the misunderstanding, Mr Basu could have taken the following steps:
   
   
   a) Read the price tag: Mr Basu should have paid attention to the price tag attached to the pullover. By reading the price tag, he would have been aware of the original price of Rs 1,225.
   b) Confirm the discounted price: After learning about the discount from his wife, Mr Basu should have clarified the discounted price with the salesperson. By asking directly about the final price after the discount, he could have obtained accurate information.
   c) Cross-check information: Mr Basu could have compared the discounted price mentioned by his wife and the salesperson with the original price on the price tag. This cross-checking would have allowed him to ensure that he understood the discount correctly and avoided any miscommunication.
   d) Seek clarification: If Mr Basu had any doubts or confusion regarding the price, he should have sought further clarification from the salesperson. Asking specific questions and discussing any discrepancies could have helped him avoid the misunderstanding.
   
   
   By being more attentive, proactive, and seeking clarification, Mr Basu could have avoided the misunderstanding and accurately determined the final price of the pullover.
   
   
4. Who is to blame for this communication gap? Why?
   
   
   Both Mr Basu and the salesperson share some responsibility for the communication gap in this case.
   Mr Basu should have been more diligent and proactive in understanding the pricing details. He failed to read the price tag and did not confirm the discounted price with the salesperson. By making assumptions based on partial information, he contributed to the communication gap.
   The salesperson also bears some responsibility. They initially confirmed the discounted price mentioned by Mrs Basu without clarifying the original price printed on the price tag. By not providing complete information or clarifying the pricing details, the salesperson contributed to the misunderstanding.
   In summary, the communication gap can be attributed to a combination of Mr Basu's assumptions and lack of attention, as well as the salesperson's failure to provide complete and accurate information. Proper communication and clarification from both parties could have prevented this misunderstanding.