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.