5.5 Features of the Language Itself

In Chapter 15 (p. 462), "Here, we focus specifically on some key ways in which language is deployed in organizational messages..." Organizations may be employing this strategy of crafting language that will alter their message to create a reality that benefits their bottom line. Metaphors; Use of pronouns; Personification; Narrative; Expressiveness; are some ways to use the language to frame the message. I'm probably going off base here, but when are we just reading a message without such strategy behind it? When the book says, "the deployment of the message", I envision a communication specialist; wearing a dark uniform, reviewing the actual message (from the manager) on an overhead, editing it to make sure the "keys" hide the true meaning.

5.4 - Analysis of Interaction

After reading Box 15.5, Analysis of Interaction, I came away with the feeling that this type of communication occurs daily in corporate America. Being recognized for your worth to an organization is something that Organized Communications may be able to keep in perspective. If companies looked to their internal and external publications to recognize their contributions by their employees, many employees might think twice about moving on.

We all have to decide what we want in a career, but recognition by your peers and the leadership in your organization offers a distinct and immeasurable quality to your job. Recently the City of San Jose has started a program that seeks out to recognize its employees for jobs well done. Although the program is new, the merits of its goals represent an effort by the organization to recognize the good work their employees do. This type of program can garner dedication and innovation from employees that now see themselves as an integral part of the organization.

5.3 Organizational Communications project

When I thought about this project I immediately focused on my idea of Design and Communications. I have suggested this idea to the administration over 1.5 years ago and although it has been given a thumbs-up by many in the leadership, it has not been able to implemented in its full structure and vision. I have been working with a small group that believes in this strategy and we have successfully completed many projects.

What I'd like to research is what public safety agencies are doing about Organizational Communications. How are they integrating technology? How are they incorporating the transparency that most agencies have been asked to envision. How are they adapting to the web technologies?

5.2 What is knowledge?

Collaboration or Framing?
When I read box 15.4, Voices from the Field, “What is knowledge?” I came away feeling a little uneasy about the process of gathering statements from interviews. It appears that Barbara Schneider, University of Calgary, was very thorough in the collecting of the data from the interviews. However, when she makes the comment that, “the answer is thus not the teacher’s alone but is a collaboration of interviewer and interviewee”, I have a problem with this, especially if this is supposed to be an objective report.

If we are going to interview someone and collect their thoughts, shouldn’t we report them as they come to us? I don’t understand how shaping the questions to gather certain responses will lead to anything other than the interviewers goal of writing a report that supports his/her opinion. Is this knowledge or an extension of the interviewers’ opinions.

When Schneider states, “The answer is then compressed and transformed in the notes”, can we rely on the objective ideology from the interviewer? If this report/knowledge gathering exercise is to shape an opinion, then it needs to be clear to the reader they are reading an opinion piece, not a report on stated facts.

Blog 5.1

Voices from the field
The idea of going "native" in your organization to study the aspects of organizational communication I believe has varying degrees. Like J. McMillian states, "I have learned the pitfalls well: people may be too willing to talk, especially the chronically dissatisfied." Recently I was put in charge of designing the department's Annual Report. The core team consisted of three individuals and we were tasked with putting the document together.

The process of gathering stories about interesting things that have gone on through the year was rather revealing. There seemed to be some bias on who got in and who didn’t. While I was asking for bios of the leadership I would receive some documents that were filled with years of service and a variety of career paths. Eventually I was in a meeting where all of these bios were reduced to three sentences because they didn’t want one manager to look less than the others.

The process of creating a document that reflects the organization for a particular period involved some revealing moments that I would rather have not been privy too.

Week 4, post#5

Organizational Goals and Ways to Achieve Them
I found this section (Chapter 3, p62) very interesting. The German political theorist, Robert Michel believed that over time that all organizations move to oligarchy (a small group holding power for the whole organization). I tend to agree with this theory. Even the concept of the hierarchical system we discussed earlier in the week seems to lend itself to this eventuality. The top leader surrounds herself with a small group (chiefs) that will go out and make sure that they (leadership) remain in control and that the wishes and the goals of the leader are met.

Will the leadership look to the organization for new ideas and solutions? Do they feel that now is their time and they will decide what direction the organization will follow?

Creating a balance of power between the leadership and the organization (masses) that is built on the hierarchical system would be very difficult. I believe that leadership, in any organization, that is confident to know that they are in this role as stewards and not as rulers will have an easier time of building an environment that is progressive and open to change.

Week 4, post#4

Functional Theory
The functional theory model in the group dynamic seems pretty straightforward. I can see how this theory can lead to a working system of decision-making processes. The idea that the group makes a series of smaller decisions, that eventually lead to the positive movement of the goals intended seems rather logical. However, serving on many committees (groups) over the years on various projects has caused me to look at this theory a little closer. Obviously when I was working on these committees I didn’t have the hindsight of Organizational Communications study to determine whether the function of the group was beneficial or detrimental to solving the problems set forth.

What I do know is that my experience in these groups has given me some confidence in knowing what seems to work and what doesn’t. The four points about Functional Theory: Assessing the problem; Specifying goals; Identifying possible solutions; and Evaluating the positive and negative features of the alternatives, provide a working structure of locating solutions that any group or committee could use to help in offering some direction.

What I think is truly important is that the leader of this group needs to have some idea of organized communications in order for the group to succeed without too many obstacles (mainly their own lack of communications). The groups need to have a process where ideas are formulated and then discussed; arguments are addressed; and solutions are offered. If this system of communication is not provided for this group at the outset, then the series of smaller decisions will take longer to become solutions and the group concept will lead to an autonomous decision-making process. The group will become an official stamp of approval for the leader who lacked the organization skills to work collaboratively.