Web Poster 5 - Effective Leadership in Organizations and Cultures

My department in about 60% Chinese and the remainder are from various backgrounds.  My current boss seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that not everyone in our department is Chinese.  She talks in Chinese and forces everyone to go to Chinese restaurants for team lunches, etc.  She's extremely smart and nice, but tries to micro-manage us and does not give us much freedom to make our own decisions.  I can see that most of the Chinese employees seem to get along with her but everyone else hates her.  It's unfortunate because she does make an effort and I often wonder if it's because she has not adapted herself to diversity of our group.  David specifically addresses this in his web poster and his research does indicate that the Chinese culture does use more of a transactional approach.  Surely if my boss adapted herself more to the American culture and tried to use transformational leadership she would be more successful with non-Asian employees.

I found this web poster to be extremely informative and thorough.  I thought the section on the four leadership approaches were especially interesting.  I think situational leadership is one of the most difficult approaches for a manager.  It seems to me like this approach should be the most successful but research indicated that it doesn't have a significant effect on team performance.  

Web Poster 4 - Organizational Communication and Cultural Change

Violet's web poster discusses the importance of an organization's culture and understanding the different aspects before attempting to make any cultural changes.  An organization's success is important to their success.  Too often organizations try to make cultural changes without proper procedures and implementation and are faced with resistance.  In her web poster, Violet discusses how sharing or telling a story can be an effective strategy to change a culture.  I found this to be interesting.  I also agree that leadership is one of the most important factors in a successful cultural change effort.  Surveys and interviews are a good way for organizations to understand how their employees feel.  I think when making any change, organizations should make an effort to understand how their employees currently feel and use effective leaders to implement the change.  Of course this is not always easy, as Violet explains in her web poster, change is usually resisted.

Web Poster 3 - The Effects of Corporate Culture on Front-Line Employees

I think this topic is especially important because the front line employee is who the customer interacts with.  The impression the customer takes away can make a big impact on whether the customer will return, especially in retail.  I can think of several instances where I didn't buy an item or started shopping somewhere else because of poor customer service.  It's the organization's responsibility to ensure that their front line employees represent the organization in an appropriate manner.  As Charlemagne points out in the web poster, corporate culture and employee satisfaction impacts how the employee represents the company.  I don't think companies give enough importance to this as poor customer service exists in every organization. Although I'm not sure that organizations are punished enough for their poor customer service, especially nowadays.  With technology, people are being replaced with automated processes.  The most frustrating is calling a customer service representative and trying to communicate with an automated machine.  

The web poster also discussed how decisions taken at the top affect front line employees.   Additionally the web poster discusses how reputation is important and can make or break the success of the organization.  I thought the ideas for future research were also well thought out and the links were very informative.

Web Poster 2 - The Effect of Gender on Verbal and Non-Verbal Communications in the Work Place

I was especially interested in this web poster because I have had experiences working with both male and female managers. Some of the current research findings were interesting such as: women interrupt and talk less. In my experience, I had found this to be the opposite. I also never realized that women talk more about personal topics - this is definitely something to keep in mind when conversing with the opposite gender. In the classic research section - it was interesting to learn that because of their communication styles, men are more likely to suffer from information overload. I think overall, this web poster indicated that both the genders communicate very differently and that their styles are opposite in nature - no surprise! The layout of the web poster clearly separated each topic and made it easy to read. There were references to a lot of sources so it definitely included a wide variety of research. I also thought the website, 6 ways to improve your nonverbal communication, was useful as well. I never knew how important nonverbal communication (such as: posture, eye contact, etc.) was in the workplace, and this web poster really highlighted how we should all be aware of our nonverbal cues.

Web Poster 1 - Cross-cultural Communication Issues in USA and India Organizations

This web poster by Kartik brings forth some really important issues in cross cultural communication between the U.S. and India.  The introduction was especially catchy as it showed a picture of a handshake and provided possible ways of interpreting a handshake.  I never thought about and I had always thought a handshake was just a handshake - but as I learned from the web poster, it can mean much more.  The discussion on the differences between individualist and collectivist cultures was especially interesting and useful.  With all the jobs that are being outsourced to India, this web poster is especially relevant to the business world today.  Kartik's web poster has increased my awareness of the differences between the American and Indian cultures.  A successful manager must be able to understand and adapt as well as manage conflict in these cultures.

I thought Kartik's web poster also provided interesting suggestions for further research.  The fact that Kartik already has experience in both cultures makes this web poster stronger.  I really enjoyed reading this poster and I learned a lot from it.

11.5 How to get to the top

The way to the top should be through hard work, talent, etc. , but this not always the case.  Sometimes I look at people at the top and wonder how they even got there.  It seems a lot of people at the top of the organizational hierarchy are there because of their connections.  Some of the most brilliant and capable people never make it to the top because they do not know the right people.  A lot of people in leader roles are not qualified and make it to the top easily because they know or are related to someone important.  This is unfortunate for organizations and does not benefit them in anyway.  I also see a lot of companies that promote on the basis of seniority.  This does nothing to motivate employees either.  Just because someone is more senior does not necessarily mean that they are more qualified for the promotion.  For this reason, companies should have and enforce clear guidelines for promoting that are based on qualifications and capabilities.

11.4 Gender differences in management styles

I have worked for both female bosses and male bosses, and I have to say so far working for a male boss has been a much better experience. Being a female myself, I hate to feel this way, but it seems to be true. I have talked to many of my friends about this and they all agree. It seems that female managers are more controlling and there's more politics involved. With the male boss, everything was little more relaxed and open. My reasoning for this is that in male dominated organizations, women sometimes feel the need to try and "show their power & authority" by micro-managing. Although I completely understand that this could just be my experience and that this doesn't apply to everyone.

11.3 Too nosy...

One of my bosses is a little nosy and wants to know everything about everyone. She always asks me personal questions such as: salary, who we voted for, who we're dating, etc. I think she's just trying to be friendly and thinks that by discussing personal information, she can get close to us. It's always an awkward situation for me because I know that she expects an answer, but at the same time I don't feel comfortable sharing this information with her. I wish I could just tell her that I don't want to share information with her sometimes, but she's also the controlling type and I know she will take it personally. So it's a difficult issue. Managers need to make sure that their actions don't make employees feel uncomfortable and that they're not overstepping their boundaries.

11.2 Motivating workers during hard times...

With the economy being so down right now, it's certainly difficult to keep employees' spirits up and to keep them motivated. We were recently told that we may not get our big bonuses and salary increases this year and that's definitely the last thing anyone wants to hear. In times like this it's important for managers to make an extra effort to keep their employees motivated. There was a recent article in the WSJ that discussed this as well. The article mentions that that managers tend to criticize employees during tough times because they are under so much pressure to perform well. However, managers should try doing the opposite. They should provide recognition and encouragement. Communication is also important in times like this. Of course, everyone is worried about their jobs and management can make an effort to communicate that everything will be ok, etc.

11.1 I hate performance reviews!

Our company has decided to do 360 reviews this year and I do not like it! The reviews are to be done online and I am required to submit a review for myself, two colleagues, and my boss. The process overview indicated that comments would be compiled and included on a report verbatim, which would then be given to our boss. Of course, if my boss can see comments verbatim then she would be able to figure out who said what. So my frustration is that I cannot give honest feedback for fear that it would be traced back to me. I also know that my feedback probably doesn't matter.

There was a recent blog on the Wall Street Journal website that discussed why performance reviews do more harm than good and I really agreed with it. Yearly performance reviews are a waste of time because they often reflect your most recent performance. Often the good things and hardwork done at the beginning of the year are forgotten and a recent mistake can hurt your review. I also think that performance reviews contradict teamwork. Shouldn't the emphasis be on how the team performed as opposed to how the individual performed? The WSJ blog suggests that bosses should get together with their employees several times over the year to discuss goals and progress - known as "performance previews."

Our 360 reviews are a series of survey-like questions and rating scale of 1 to 5. I don't think employees should be rated this way, and one set of questions and ratings may not fit every employee. Managers should sit down with their employees and provide actual verbal feedback and encourage discussion. To me, performance reviews do the opposite of what they should: lower morale and discourage communication.

9.5 Degree of Change

Pages 323 through 327 discusses the dimensions of change.  I think that the degree of change can sometimes be the biggest factor.  As the book points out, first-order changes happen almost every single day and most people find a way to deal with it.  First-order changes are expected and people find it easier to adapt.  Second-order changes such as lay-offs are much more difficult for people to handle because they are unexpected.  Second-order changes can disrupt the system and create uncertainty, which makes it harder for employees to adapt to.  Of course, there will always be those who resist change regardless of the degree of seriousness.  

Although change does not have to be negative, it is sometimes perceived as negative initially until the benefits are seen.  We were recently told at work that there would be some changes in our budget due to the economy.  Our company takes its employees on a ski trip every January and this trip has been cancelled for 2009.  This change has been extremely difficult for most of us to accept.  Although this is probably the best decision for the company in the long run, it's being met with resistance.

9.4 Making organizational change a success...

On page 328, there is a discussion on what makes organizational change successful. This section highlights the importance of looking at the initial goals of the change and the unintended consequences. At the company I work for, there had previously not been an HR department. This year a new HR department has been implemented with 3 or 4 new employees and it has not been a big success so far. I think one of the major problems is that the intended goals of establishing an HR department were not communicated properly. Before the HR department, there were several employees that took care of the HR functions and now these employees feel like their responsibilities have been taken away. Their morale has been low and there has been some feelings of resentment. I think some of this could have been predicted and handled better, instead of the poor way in which it is being handled right now. There have been other unintended consequences and most of company has been showing resistance to these changes. Although it may be too early to judge the success of this change, so far it has not been going well because goals and consequences were not properly assessed or communicated.

9.3 Technology changes everything...

I never knew an organization existed just to teach those above the age of 55 how to use computers -- that's great! Box 11.3 discusses the changes that the organization SeniorNet must cope with. Any change in society affects organizations and people and everyone must make adjustments. I think ever since technology took over, all organizations and people have been forced to rapidly adjust and adapt to all these new technologies. Technology has changed many things in organizations; employees and managers alike must be open to these changes. There are still people that insist on doing things the "old-fashioned way" and it's not beneficial for the organization because there are more efficient ways of doing things now. For example, one of my co-workers still insists on filing everything as hardcopy papers instead of scanning and saving. It's a waste of time to go through her files and dig out documents. So I think in cases like this, companies should step in and make a rule and insist that the new method be adopted.

9.2 Managing Conflict

I really like how our authors emphasize that there is no one best style for managing conflict on page 291.  This is very true and it highlights the importance of a manager being able to adapt to the situation.  I think managers that approach every situation with the same style and outlook will run into trouble.  It is especially important that when there is conflict, the manager is able to adjust to the situation and use the appropriate approach to deal with the situation.  Box 10.7 shows five basic styles for managing conflict and a manager may have had to use every one of these styles at some point in their careers.  I think a successful manager should be able to identify the type of conflict and use the appropriate approach.  I see managers trying to use power and authority when they are faced with difficult situations and this may not always be the best approach.

9.1 Context of Conflict

The discussion on page 286 and 287 highlights that the context in which we experience conflict influences how we deal with it.  The authors discuss the differences between high-context and low-context cultures and how this can create conflict if people are not aware of these differences.  Organizational cultures also determine how we deal with conflict and I can understand how this.  For example, in the company I work for everyone is very formal and we are not encouraged to openly talk about our problems.  If a conflict does arise, it's more likely to be ignored or the more senior person would get his/her way.  However, many of my friends who work for different companies will openly talk about their problems or voice their opinions to anybody in the organization.  I don't know which way is better, both have their pros and cons.  In my organization, we don't really deal with awkward situations and conflict because everything is resolved through power.  This way of resolving problems is not the best way and only results in a false consensus.

8.5 Control through technology

There have been quite a few blogs already regarding the use of technology to monitor and control employees and chapter 9 mentions this as well. I agree that organizations should have control and should monitor their employees to some extent. I know when I am at work, I usually have my personal email open and I occasionally take breaks and surf the net, read news, chat, pay bills, etc. I also make phone calls and gossip with fellow workers. Likewise, when I am at home I still check my work email and if there are urgent requests I do those at home as well. Organizations should know that this is normal and expected. It's impossible for an employee to work for 8-10 hours a days without doing something personal. After all everyone has lives outside of work! If organizations want employees that are completely dedicated and are willing to put in a lot of hours then these organizations should be willing to trust their employees and accept that they will be doing personal things at work. I feel that monitoring key strokes, recording phone conversations, using cameras, etc. are violating. All that matters in the end is that the work gets done!

8.4 Too much control...

Whenever my boss gives me a task she insists on explaining exactly how I should complete it and when I should complete.  She also sets a deadline and sends a reminder and checks in with me several times.  I find that this is extremely annoying because often her way of doing things is different from mine and I think it takes the learning aspect out of it.  I would prefer to be given a task with a little explanation and try doing it myself and ask questions if I get stuck.  I think this an example of being overly controlling and not allowing for employee growth.  I often feel like I am not able express my creative ideas or try new things because my bosses ways are so rigid.  Even worse is that this leadership style damages the organization as well, because employees will not be innovative or motivated.

In looking at Box 9.8, I think this system of control is bureaucratic.  The supervision is rigid and does not allow for creativity.  I think that a concertive system of control would be more beneficial and allow for more employee involvement.

8.3 Power

Often people think that those at the top of the organizational hierarchy have all the power; this is not always the case.  It's not always obvious but I have experienced this in my last job.  To most people, it would appear as though the VP of our department had all the power and made all the decisions, but the truth was that the manager beneath her influenced most of the decisions.  This manager was very persuasive and knew exactly how to get her way.  This is an example of how the "who" of power isn't always evident.  Many people in our department didn't even realize who was making all the decisions.  If there were any problems, top level management assumed it was the fault of the VP.  

8.2 When teamwork doesn't work...

One of the biggest problems in teams is that often certain members do not pull their own weight. This can put considerable stress on the rest of the team and they will start to feel negative towards those who are not doing their part.  I have experienced this in classes at SJSU and it can be very frustrating and as a result the entire team suffers.  Another problem in teams is that sometimes certain members try to do too much and do not let each team member handle their tasks on their own.  This also results in feelings of negativity and will not benefit the team as a whole.  Sometimes these problems can be solved through open and honest communication, but sometimes it just doesn't work.  I think this is the most frustrating thing -- when despite communicating with someone that perhaps their actions are harmful to the team, they do not make an effort to change.

8.1 Supervision in teams

The discussion on page 228 seemed interesting to me because I think there is some confusion as to what a manager's or supervisor's role in a team is.  Often organizational groups are referred to as teams but there is still and manager or supervisor in a "commanding and controlling" role.  This could be because the group is incorrectly labelled as a team or because the facilitator, as the the text calls it, is unclear or unwilling to make the adjustment and assume a less controlling role.  This can be a problem because the purpose for creating the team would be lost.  I think there is some difficulty in switching to more team-based structures as managers feel confused over their role because of the drastic change.  It can be difficult for the manager to let go and actually let team members deal with and participate in more areas of the process.  

In this way, I think team structures are better for organizations because it encourages more participation.  Team members will likely work together better and member will feel like they can take more ownership over their tasks because they are more involved.  Teams also allow for more learning because processes are less controlled.  

7.5 Too much emphasis on the leader?

Box 7.1 on page 178 discusses how the blame or credit almost always goes to the leader of the organization.  This is somewhat frustrating because it is not possible to attribute the entire success or failure to one person.  Although leadership is extremely important and can make a big difference in an organization, the leader cannot do it on his/her own.  A good leader will inspire, motivate, transform, etc. but the entire success of failure should not go to the leader alone.  I think in many cultures, especially the U.S., we put too emphasis on the leader and forget that there is an entire organization that deserves credit or blame as well.  For example, a new CEO may step in and make a strategic change, but it is still up to the rest of the organization to implement this change successfully.  We often forget about the "team effort" that occurs in all organizations and place all the focus and importance on one person -- the leader.

7.4 Are corporate leaders villains?

I found the discussion in Box 7.10 on page 196 to be extremely interesting.  When it comes down to it business can be ugly, and some of the most successful CEO's have had to do some horrible things to keep the company profitable.  As the text mentions, some leaders are hired solely to downsize companies, which can lead to thousands of people being laid off.  This is certainly not heroic!  I would think that no one would classify them in the same category as Gandhi, King, etc.  I agree with the text in that these leaders do transform organizations and often eventually lead it to success, but the focus is always on money and profits.  I think this is what makes corporate leaders different from some of the greatest leaders ever. 

7.3 My definition of leadership...

Many people mistakenly assume that if they have power and authority they are exhibiting leadership.  Often those in these roles where they have power are not really leaders.  I think of leadership as inspiring, motivating and bringing out the best in people consistently over a period of time.  I think a real leader would be someone people look up to and someone who leads by example.  I sometimes look at people in high positions and hope that I never turn out like them. Page 182 discusses the blur between authority, power and leadership.  Leadership does not have to happen at the "top" of an organization; leadership can exhibited by anyone...

7.2 Favoritism

Chapter 6 discusses a lot about relationships and page 153 specifically highlights how sometimes the superior - subordinate relationship can turn into a close friendship.  The text also highlights that the superior should be careful not to exhibit any favoritism.  In my experiences so far, I have found that this is almost impossible for the boss to not be partial towards his/her friends.  I also see employees that are extremely close to the boss take advantage of this relationship and abuse it.  So in this case, the blended relationship might be good for the superior and the subordinate, but it can create feelings of hostility amongst everyone else.  

7.1 Labels

Box 6.4 discusses how organizations have different label such as employees, customers, team, colleague, etc. to describe people.  These labels are intended to create a certain feeling for or within that person.  These labels also bring to attention the person's relationship, and maybe even importance, to the organization.  I have noticed that many retailers now label their customers as "guests."  This label indicates that those employees are to treat customers with even more hospitality and care.  But whether these labels are really useful in making a difference is another story.  I wonder if making the change from calling someone a "guest" as oppose to "customer" changes the service they receive.  So although it may be valuable to make these types of changes, organizations actually need to do more than just re-labeling to enforce the idea.

6.5 Another marketing technique

Companies often try to project this image of being completely committed to their customers and hsving customer service as their number one priority.  After reading Box 5.8 on page 128, I couldn't help laughing because the excerpts sounded so fake.  I think that there are many employees out there that are focused on their company's goals and strive to provide the best customer service, but most often this is not the case.  Further, I think that stories such as those presented in Box 5.8 make it difficult for the reader to take them seriously because they don't sound "real or genuine."  I doubt that this is the actual "voice of the employee."  While it's possible that American Airlines provides excellent customer service, I don't think these stories help illustrate this.  It's just another marketing technique to try and present the organization as having a certain desired image.

6.4 Telecommuting

Telecommuting can make it more difficult for employees to identify with their organizations. Box 5.2 specifically discusses this topic. As we have read already, organizations are comprised of people and their different cultures, the work environment, the organization's goals and values, etc. It is difficult for those who are not physically present in the workplace to get a feel for all these things and as a result they end up being more detached. I think it will be interesting to see as telecommuting becomes more prominent, how individuals identify with their organizations. There are some people that telecommute almost 100% of the time. These people would have a much more difficult time identifying with their company. On the flip side, companies would have to work harder to motivate these employees and create loyalty.

6.3 Identification

On page 112, the authors discuss how organizations seek to extend the corporate community beyond the workplace to increase identification with their employees.  In my organization, for example, we have a fully stocked kitchen, catered meals daily, a gym, and basically anything else you can think of.  It's like home and it's actually easier for most of us to stay at work all day, eat dinner and then go home.  Since our organization provides us with all these luxuries it's difficult for any of us to complain, when in reality we are doing more work and staying longer hours because it's so convenient.  I think that this is a good example of how organizations try to build strong bonds with their employees and increase identification.  In some ways we feel loyal to our organization because they take care of us and provide everything we need to work comfortably.  

6.2 The Informal Side

Although most organizations have some structure, rules, guidelines, etc., there is an informal side to organizations as well.  Box 4.8 on page 97 discusses this informal aspect of organizations and mentions its importance.  I think that this informal side is extremely important to the culture of the organization as it brings people closer together and encourages unity and friendship.  Lots of things go on in organizations such as: people become friends, people become enemies, rumors are spread, etc.  Some of these things are good and some are bad but are essential to the culture because without it the organization would be boring and have no personality.  Every year, for example, we have an offsite meeting.  Although it's intended to discuss the companies goals and is usually packed with meetings, we still go out and drink at night.  This informal activity is the most valuable portion of the entire offsite as it's the only way to get to know the people you work with.  People in organizations often have lunch together and don't discuss work at all.  It's much easier to work effectively with people once you get to know them.

6.1 Organizational Vocabulary

Box 4.4 talks about organizational vocabulary and how waitresses at a neighborhood bar developed their own categories to describe their customers.  Obviously this affects how they treat certain customers; for example, a regular would probably get better overall service than the obnoxo.  I think people in almost all organizations develop their own informal vocabulary.  I know at work we have our own informal vocabulary to describe certain people, certain situations, etc.  I think this special vocabulary makes it easier to deal with some of the difficult situations or people that we encounter at work.  I often deal with difficult people and it's frustrating , but I can just laugh it off with my co-workers later on.  I'm sure when a waitress deals with an obnoxo or pig it's unpleasant, but at least they can connect with other waitresses and laugh about it.  So in some ways this is good and it brings employees together by giving them something common to discuss.  In other ways it's probably not a good thing because this vocabulary can also affect the way in which we deal with these people or provide service, etc.  This vocabulary also affects our attitudes and changes how we think and becomes a part of how we do our job.

5.5 Surveys

Chapter 15 focuses a lot on the different methods of data gathering: artifacts, interviews, surveys and observation.  I have already seen numerous blogs already about which method is the most effective.  I prefer surveys to any other method, even though they have downsides which are recognized on page 449.  I think surveys are great because the responses can be provided by people remotely and anonymously.  I especially like online surveys that people can do at their own convenience on their own computer.  A survey is great because the person filling out the survey won't be as influenced by the person conducting the survey and there's less pressure to choose the "perfect" answer.  The optimal data collection method would obviously be a combination of all four methods, but if I had to choose one I would choose to conduct surveys.  

5.4 Features of language

The section on page 462 that discusses the features of language is very interesting; especially the first two points.  The struggle for power is so apparent in my organization and often there are arguments about irrelevant things such as where to go for lunch!  In all honesty, it really doesn't matter where we go for a team lunch or what we order for dinner.  I often find that my boss has to have it her way every time.  To me, this is just her way of being controlling and exhibiting her power.  These little power-trips are usually over silly little things such as lunch or what color notebooks to order or when to have a meeting, etc.  After a while, everyone doesn't even give their input anymore because they know that it doesn't matter, so the boss has won. 

The second point also has some truth in it.  Organizations almost always use passive voice as oppose to active voice.  Using passive voice makes it sound more decided and "set in stone."  It definitely implies that there is no room for discussion, comments, opinions, or change.  I think that almost everyone has heard their organizations make statements using passive voice and it has become so common we don't even think anything of it.  In fact, I don't think about it when my company sends out an email that has something like a policy change, for example; I just accept it without thinking.

5.3 Another project idea

Outsourcing has become common in the U.S. and brings forth a new way of managing people. Now there are managers that need to manage offshore teams; meaning the manager and some group members are here and the rest of the group is in a foreign country. The manager often never meets the people he/she is managing face to face and communication is done through technology. We have discussed how technology eliminates the human aspect in previous chapters and I'm interested to see how these groups work together. I know a few people that work with offshore teams and it usually involves late night conference calls and email. I wonder if group members actually connect with each other despite never meeting face to face. I also would like to research how the manager "gets to know" offshore team members and what difficulties they face. Other related research would include the frequency of communication and the medium.

5.2 Possible Project Idea

Organizational communication is such a broad topic that I'm still unsure of exactly what I would like do the project on. One of the areas I'm interested in is diversity. I think I'd like to better understand how managers are dealing with the increasing diversity within their groups. It's not uncommon to have groups where half the people are not fluent in English and I'm sure it's a challenge for managers. Diversity is so prominent in work groups these days and this is something all managers need to be aware of and handle effectively. I'd like to do some research to see how managers handle and react to the challenges of diverse groups. Some research questions I would ask myself include:

Do managers communicate more effectively with employees that have similar backgrounds to them?
Do managers spend extra time /effort to ensure that those who are, for example, not fluent in English understand the message?
Do managers use email as the primary medium to communicate within very diverse groups?

I'm also interested to see how much information is available on this topic...

5.1 Interpreting frequency of communication

Chapter 15 talks about analyzing communication, I think that we can learn a lot about an organization from the way in which messages are sent.  The medium, frequency, sender, etc. say a lot about the organization.  For example, in our organization we receive emails once in a while from our MD titled company news that has a summary of what's happening in the organization.  We also receive emails when someone senior has joined the firm or when something very important has happened.  These emails always come from someone at the MD level.  However, in our particular group we don't interact using emails or even meetings. Messages are only sent when there is work to be done and meetings are only held for very specific purposes.  For example, there was a new hire in our department last week and I didn't even know about it.  

I think this lack of communication within our department is somewhat disturbing.  Is it because our immediate boss assumes we know what's happening within our own group and there's no need for a message to be sent?  Or is it because they think that it's enough if we have the big picture and that there's no need for group level announcements, etc?  It seems to me that there should be emails, meetings, updates, etc. from my immediate boss to keep the group up to date and connected.  I wonder what this implies about the communication structure in this particular organization vs. communication within the group? 

4.5 Emotions at work

I once used to be a customer service representative and we were given a list of almost all the possible customer complaints and a list of how we should respond to each one.  It was great in a way because it meant that we really didn't have to think much, we just had to look up the response.  It was also so stupid sometimes because the customer would be really angry and we would be responding in a robot-like way with something that didn't quite match their emotions.  I can tell you that this was not a very effective way to deal with customers; the rehearsed responses only make them angrier.  The position I'm in now requires me to always be super nice which ends up sounding fake, and I often feel like people can see right through me anyways.  I understand that in organizations we need to be professional, but do we need to behave in these extreme ways and always react the same way?  Why is it "unprofessional" to get frustrated or angry; these are normal emotions and sometimes situations arise in the workplace where we feel this way.  I'm not suggesting that we snap at people because we are frustrated, but at the same time why do we need to smile and pretend like nothing is wrong?

4.4 Rewards

Box 3.7 discusses how organizations want people to be intrinsically motivated to do their work and dedicated to the organizations, yet the rewards are extrinsic -- status and money.  Organizations also emphasize the importance of teamwork, but we are rewarded based on our individual success.  I don't think there's anything wrong with this because there is no other better way to reward people.  Salaries, bonuses, promotions, etc. have to be based on individual efforts because these are the major things that motivate people, at least here in the U.S.  For example, at the company I work for we are given bonuses at the end of the year and it's based on individual performance and company performance.  This is one of the major motivation factors for me, and I do a lot of extra work because I know my bonus will reflect this.  

We have discussed in some of my other courses how it's different in other countries such as Japan, where they're completely dedicated to the company they work for.  The focus is on teamwork and giving their best for their organization and in turn the organization guarantees employment for life, perhaps this promotes more of the teamwork/dedication goals...

4.3 Knowledge Transfer

Box 3.5 discusses the concept of knowledge management and intellectual capital, and I think organizations are taking steps to manage and preserve their employees' knowledge and information.  They realize that each employee has valuable information regarding their job, tasks, the company, etc.  For example, at the company I work for, each employee in our group has a backup which really means that each one of us needs to know how to perform two jobs.  This is obviously useful when someone is on vacation, but the other benefit is that when someone suddenly leaves the company there is another employee that still has some of the knowledge.  I also know of other organizations that require employees to rotate jobs every 1 or 2 years, this is not possible everywhere but works well in the accounting department, for example.  These methods of knowledge transfer are obviously not perfect as it is impossible to capture everything, but it I think it's a very good attempt.  Other methods such as having employees document the major procedures, processes, tasks, etc. that they perform is another way to ensure that valuable information is not lost.  But I don't think it's possible to "commodify" an employee, as each employee will have some knowledge that will not be transferred and cannot always be replaced.

4.2 Organizational Pyramid

Page 32 of our text mentions how one of the major disadvantages of the bureaucratic structure is overcentralization of power and an enormous gap between those at the top and bottom.  This is most often seen in large organizations, I have many friends who have never even seen the CEOs, Founders, etc. of the companies they work for.  I work in a smaller organization, approximately 100 employees, so I get the opportunity to interact with people at the highest levels.  This is extremely rewarding because the people at the top are usually extremely brilliant and experienced, so it's a great learning experience.  It's unfortunate the typical organization is structured in a way in which those towards the bottom of the hierarchal pyramid never get the opportunity to interact with those at the top.  

4.1 Formal vs. Informal Work Environments

Pages 22 and 23 of our text talk about how some organizations are formal and some are informal.  I have had experience working in both a formal and informal structured workplace.  The first place I worked at was extremely formal in every way possible, there were lots of rules, we had to dress very formally everyday and there was an obvious hierarchy.  If you were at a junior level in the organization and passed by someone who was more senior in the hallways, they wouldn't even acknowledge you, etc.  It was very stiff and I felt that it was somewhat uncomfortable.  I don't think this encouraged much creativity.  Employees would never talk to each other about anything other than work.

Now I worked for a company where it is not as formal.  There are still some rules, but it is much more relaxed.  At least people say hi to each other and we are allowed to dress casually once a week.  This type of an atmosphere feels much more comfortable and I think I am more productive.  Co-workers actually talk to each other about things that didn't necessarily have any association to work and this helped us work together better.  We also periodically do a group activity such as bowling, movie, lunch, etc. that everyone regardless of position participates in.  So I definitely think that there needs to be a mix of rules and some informal interaction in the workplace.  Some organizations obviously are still struggling to find this balance as there are both extremes.

3.5 Does technology invite trouble?

Technology has done amazing things for organizations from improving efficiency to increasing employee participation, etc.  I think overall communication has improved within organizations and has made it possible to communicate with people all over the world.  But technology has also makes it easier for people to misuse their power.  For example, some people can easily attain passwords to secure drives or documents and view people's social security numbers, salaries, etc. and it would only take a minute to copy all this information.  It's also possible to view your colleagues' calenders, contacts, etc.  And while most people would never think to do anything wrong, it does make it easier for some to abuse all the information they have available to them.

Google maps, for example, is another scary thing.  The street view option lets you even see actual snapshots of everything.  So it makes it very easy for someone in an organization to behave unethically.  So although organizations do implement secure measures, if someone has the right knowledge they can easily access any information, and copy or manipulate it within minutes.  So it will be interesting to see how organizations deal with this as they become more dependent on technology.

3.4 Technology addictive?

I think it's a little scary how technology can bring out the worst in people and how it can take over your life.  Things like computer games and video games are very addictive and many people become obsessed.  I know someone who goes to work, comes home, and plays video games all night until 2 a.m.  Even worse people seem to get possessed by these games and don't even realize how aggressive they are during the time they are playing.  

I also often see people that are completely obsessed with buying the latest thing on the market.  Sometimes it's ridiculous, why would someone need to buy every generation of an Ipod and also buy an Iphone, etc?  It's almost as if these new gadgets have become symbols of "coolness" in society today.  If you don't own a PC people would surely think you were crazy and "not with it."  So I think there is pressure to be up to date with all these new things coming out, but sometime it's just a waste of time, money, resources, etc.

3.3 Technology & Equal Participation

Page 363 of our textbook discusses how technology has had a positive effect on stimulating equal participation within organizations. I agree with this, I think people feel more comfortable openly sharing ideas and thoughts on a conference call for example. I have notices that large meetings are often dominated by a few key people. Those that are shy, more junior, nervous, or afraid to voice their opinions do not speak up for fear of being wrong or sounding stupid.  During conference calls, video conferences, email, etc. people are more likely to speak out and share ideas. I think in this way technology has really helped organizations because it brings in participation from all areas and has succeeded in making people comfortable in sharing their thoughts.

3.2 Technology and stress related?

On page 358, the textbook mentions that a study at Carnegie Mellon indicated that regular Internet users are more stressed than non-users.  I think it's true; technology has made life very stressful.  My boss and usually expects a response to his email within a few hours even on weekends and holidays and does not ever hesitate to call me on my cell phone.  It's like anyone can contact you anytime and this just feels like constant pressure sometimes.  If I don't answer my cell phone or respond to email, people actually get worried!  And I agree with the book in that new technology never replaces anything; it just adds another layer.  Most people email and then call anyways to follow up.    

It is also extremely difficult to learn and keep up with all these new technologies.  I think the discussion in Box 12.8 is fascinating because it points out that machines are designed for people and not the other way around.  I don't think I have been really "trained" on using anything we have at work.  I have mostly just figured things out on my own and this can be extremely time consuming.  So this also adds pressure and often these "new advanced systems" are never user-friendly and can be so complicated.  So although technology is supposed to make our lives easier, I wonder if it really does?

3.1 Email, email, email...

Sometimes I email someone and they don't respond, so I email them again and when they still don't respond I end up calling them.  So why didn't I just call them to start with?  It would have saved time and I would have gotten a much quicker response.  I think we overuse email and depend on it way too much.  I agree that there are times when email is useful and necessary like for example when you need to contact someone who is extremely busy or someone overseas, etc.    But sometimes, we rely on email way too much...it's like we don't even remember that actually talking to the person could be easier.  I also find myself using email when I'm being lazy; when I don't feel like walking across the office to ask someone something or when I don't feel like expending the energy to actually talking to someone.  

So this is just one example of how technology has kind of taken over us and it almost controls us in a way.  It's sad but we don't even hand-write anything anymore!  Other than taking notes in class or making small lists, etc., we rarely ever write.  How many of us actually write letters anymore?  I know I don't...But I guess we need to accept that this is the future...

2.5 Ethics & Diversity

Shouldn't ethics be the same regardless of what your background is?  I always thought the answer to this was yes.  Things like stealing and lying are obviously bad, but there are behaviors that are not the same everywhere.  For example, the U.S. is a low context culture and we behave in ways here that could be considered unethical everywhere else.  We often see people "tooting their own horns", taking credit for other peoples ideas, etc.  Basically any behavior that will result in personal success is okay in the U.S.  I think that this is because we are told from the start that we need to take care of ourselves and do whatever it takes to get to the top.  High-context cultures such as Japan are much different; teamwork and compassion for others is very important.  I think a lot of what goes on here in organizations may not be considered ethical in countries such as Japan.  So ethics really vary across cultures, which increases the the need for every organization to have a code of ethics; box 14.3 in the textbook is a good example.  While it is highly likely that every organization already has a code of ethics, they also need to show it to their employees and actually expect that everyone adheres to it.

2.4 Should MBA programs focus more on Ethics?

I think its interesting that on page 414, the textbook draws attention to the fact that most business students do not rank compassion as being an important value.  Even here at SJSU in the MBA program we have entire courses dedicated to finance, marketing, communication, etc. but it is unlikely that we would have an entire course for solely ethics.  Is it because its not important?  I don't think so; I think its assumed that we, as future leaders, already know what ethics is and understand its importance.  I agree with this as we all have our own idea of what is ethical, and in a perfect world we would all just know what ethics is.  I think that MBA programs should also focus on providing guidance on managerial ethics.  When does ethics take importance over the bottom line?  How can behaving ethical actually lead to company success in the future?  How does this affect an organization?  These are such important questions and I don't even think one course would be enough to cover all these topics.  Similar to any other business subject, ethics should hold equal importance and be taught with equal importance.  I think this will have a big impact in the business world.  I, of course, understand that its extremely difficult to teach ethics, but I don't think enough effort is being made.

2.3 Ethics in Organizations

I completely agree with the textbook in that ethics are not given enough importance in both classrooms and organizations.  I don't think companies are ethical and I think that it is foolish to expect them to be completely ethical.  Everything comes down to the bottom line and companies will do anything to make money and be on top.  Of course, this doesn't mean all companies are bad; they still donate to charity, etc.  But then again, even that has benefits such as a good public image, tax deductions, etc.  

I think that a good place for organizations to start being ethical is within the company itself.  I have been at my current job for over a year and there has been no mention of ethics, good practices, etc.  I think companies assume that every employee already knows what's ethical.  But when the workplace is so culturally diverse, it seems necessary for organizations to provide guidelines or embed ethics into the training process.  Everyone's beliefs and ideals are different and these are factors that influence ethics, so organizations should not take for granted that everyone will always behave "ethically."

2.2 Race & Diversity

The U.S. has probably the most diverse workplace because there are so many opportunities here.  This makes us unique but also makes communication in organizations extremely difficult.  With so much diversity in organizations, communicating can often be extremely frustrating.  I often find myself wondering what the other person is "talking about."  Box 13.8 brings forth some interesting issues.  I think we are all guilty of making generalizations about a person when we meet them based on their race, and I think this affects how we communicate with them.  

For example, when we meet someone "white" we don't think anything, but when we meet someone who is "non-white" we might think about how to communicate with them.  In my department there are some who I would just automatically email because I know they are not fluent in English; however, with most others I find its easier to simply call them or walk over to their office.  It's not that I have anything against diversity, it just takes more effort to explain things to certain people; I do realize that in doing this I am treating some people differently.  Does this mean that I'm a bad person and that I don't embrace diversity?  I have nothing against anyone but at the same time I need to do whatever is most efficient for me.

2.1 Globalization vs. Glocalization

The reference to the term glocalization in chapter 13 is interesting because it contradicts the goals of globalization in many ways.  Globalization is the phenomenon where all the economies of the world become borderless and intralinked.  The ultimate goal of globalization is, of course, the idea of "one economy."  We can see this starting to emerge with the adoption of a single currency in Europe - the Euro, and talks of having the same currency across the U.S., Canada and Mexico.  The idea of "one economy" implies that at some point consumer preferences across the world will start to converge and much of the local preference will be lost.  With integration across country borders, we start to see the Western culture starting to have a significant influence.  I was in India recently after many years and I was shocked to see a Subway!  Complete integration will benefit multinational companies as it eliminates the need to customize products to the local taste and allows for mass production.  So although glocalization is an approach we see many companies employing now, it will inevitably fade away as the economies of the world start to converge into one.

What does this say about communication?  Of course, globalization will never eliminate the need for effective communication nor will it make communication easier.  I think increased globalization only makes the need for communication stronger.  This discussion brings forth an important question - Will English become the "main" language across these economies?  I think that the answer to this is yes but the question is how soon.  The big downside to this is that countries start to lose their individuality.

1.2 Use of Theories as a Manager

I think for a leader or manager theories are an important and useful tool.   As a manager we should use theories as a base and build upon them using our own experiences to create a strategy that will work for us. Of course, there is no "right" way to communicate or handle certain situations in an organization.  It is up to us as the manager to take existing theories for leadership, communication, decision making, organization, etc. and make it our own.  It seems that often managers think that they must use certain strategies to be a good manager; these strategies are often strictly based on theories or what they have seen others do.  What seems to be taken for granted is that each manager must have their own style to be effective. 

A good theory should consist of guidelines and ideas that can be easily interpreted and adapted based on the situation or domain. In this way a theory should be flexible and not rigid.  I also like how the book states that "theories and practice should be in conversation with one another."  I think that this supports the idea that theories should be flexible to allow for adaptation and revision.  A good manager will use a combination of theory, practice and experience to develop a successful leadership strategy that works for them.

1.1 Is an organization similar to a "family"?

Well, I have to say that this first chapter provided a very interesting intro to the course. The use of metaphors to describe organizations is certainly something I can relate to. One metaphor that seems to be misused is when an organization refers to itself a “family”. My boss often refers to our group as a family and I always find myself smirking at this comment. In a way I suppose this metaphor works because organizations are comprised of a group of people that work together towards a similar goal but does this make us a family? In my mind a family is a close-knit group that actually cares about each member and their well-being. Many organizations (including mine) are so full of controversy, politics, competition, etc. that it seems silly to use the word “family’ to describe them. It’s a nice thought though and I wonder how many organizations have been able to achieve creating an environment that feels like a family...