ANALYSIS OF "THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE" (part 5)

A Continuing Conversation

by

Charles Lamson

No matter how carefully we study the social world, our knowledge of it is always incomplete. Even if you could read about everything, there would still be experiences that remained foreign to you. And even if you could read and experience far more than the average person, you would still be interpreting everything from your particular point of view - a view shaped by your upbringing in a particular time, culture, and community. There is no way around this constraint on our knowledge.

Because people see and experience different things in life, and have different ways of interpreting what they see and experience, people are bound to disagree about how the social world works and about how it ought to work. What if the disagreements concern matters of taste ("You like opera? Yeech!"), or are trival, then perhaps we can just shrug them off. "No big deal," we might say as we wonder how it is that other people can embrace such odd notions.

Other times, there is more at stake. One person might think that democracy is ensured by elections, in which the candidate who gets the most votes, wins a place in government, and the loser can try again next time. Another person might think that such a system is undemocratic, because it means that 49 percent of the people can end up with no voice in government. A disagreement such as this, when it involves a large number of people who have taken up sides, can lead to violent conflict.

Being sociologically mindful can help us to avoid the destructive potential of disagreements over matters large and small. If we are mindful, we will realize that our knowledge is always limited, that others know what the world looks like from where they stand, and that we cannot claim to have a monopoly on the truth. So at the very least, we will want to listen to others, and try to understand how and why they have a different view of things. We will also want to look back at ourselves and try to figure out where our knowledge has come from

Being sociologically mindful is thus likely to engage us in a conversation aimed at understanding several important matters: how the social world works, how and why others are different from and similar to us, and how we can get along with others despite our differences. As long as we are engaged in such a conversation - as long as we are thinking, talking, and trying to understand each other and ourselves - we will not be beating anyone over the head, and insisting that they do what we say. Nor will they be doing this to us.

The kind of communication Michael Schwalbe is referring to in this book I am analyzing, The Sociologically Examined Life, can involve many people, and can be carried on through print and other media, as well as through talk. It can also occur over long stretches of time - days, weeks, years. In fact, if we are lucky, this conversation will go on indefinitely, because that is the only way we can avoid violence and work together to create social arrangements, that will allow as many people as possible to live good lives. Practicing sociological mindfulness is a way into this conversation, and a way to keep it going.

This book is part of the conversation, and no serious conversation about how the social world works, or how to make sense of it, proceeds without disagreements. And so, the writer of this book is sure that you will disagree with some things he says in The Sociologically Examined Life. When this happens, Schwalbe urges the reader to "please talk back to the book, and raise questions in your own mind, and with others." Disagreement can move a conversation ahead, if we take it as an opportunity to look more deeply into why others see the world differently. The hope of the writer is that "whatever disagreements this book can provoke, can be used in this way."

At the end of each chapter in this book, Schwalbe lists a few sources, which you might want to look at. These are not sources that "prove him right." They are relevant pieces of the conversation - pieces upon which Schwalbe draws, and from which you might also benefit, if you care to consult them. If  you do, you will see where some of this writer's thinking comes from, how it is a response to what has been said before, and how his thinking goes its own way. This will give you a larger view of the conversation to which this book and its readers now belong.

All the writer can do in these pages, is to invite you to consider a way of thinking, that he believes holds great promise for making better sense of the social world, and for living in it more humanely. It is the hope of the writer of this book that you  will agree that sociological mindfulness is useful. As Schwalbe puts it, "If I did not believe this myself, I would not have written this book. But whatever you think, I will be satisfied if you are willing to keep the conversation going." Sometimes that is the best we can do, and sometimes it is enough.

To be continued...

*SOURCE: THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE, 2ND EDITION, BY  MICHAEL SCHWALBE, 2001, PGS. 7-9*

END

ANALYSIS OF "THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE" (part 4)

The Rarity of Sociological Mindfulness

by

Charles Lamson

If sociological mindfulness were common, you would simply take it for granted that we all need to be aware of, and to think carefully about how the social world works. You would probably think it strange for anyone to make a big deal about doing so, but it seems that sociological mindfulness is actually quite rare in our society.

One reason might be that sociological mindfulness does not seem like much fun. Who wants more rules for how to think? As soon as there are rules, then we must worry about getting it right or wrong. So we might feel like saying, "Enough with fancy intellectual schemes! I'm doing just fine with common sense, thank you. Besides, I would prefer to live life rather than analyze it to death." This sentiment is not unreasonable in a society where we are constantly being offered ideas of dubious merit.

Another reason that sociological mindfulness is rare might be a belief that it will not matter. Why bother thinking analytically about social life if doing so will not make a difference? Some smart and caring people withdraw from the world because they do not believe they can do anything to change it. They feel powerless, as do many people in our society. The writer of this book thinks this is what really impedes sociological mindfulness. We tend to be mindful of things that we feel responsible for, and have some control over. But if we feel powerless to change the situation, we probably will not try to analyze it deeply. We might feel lucky jut to avoid trouble.

American individualism also inhibits sociological mindfulness. As Americans, we learn that it is good to be self-reliant, to achieve on our own, and to look out for ourselves. Under some conditions, these are helpful ideas, but they can also blind us to our interdependence with others, and keep us from seeing how our ties with others lead us to think, feel, and behave in certain ways. Ideas that lead us to think of ourselves solely as competing individuals, free to do anything we want at any time, can keep us from being mindful of the social world in which we are immersed.

It is also possible that a desire for money and status may so preoccupy us that we fail to think much about how society works or how other people experience it. Or we might fear the loss of security that can come from questioning the beliefs we grew up with. Or we might be so angry at those who abuse us, that we lose all sympathy for others who are worse off. Or perhaps we prefer not to reflect on how we participate in oppressing others, because it would make us feel guilty or sad.

People resist being sociologically mindful for many reasons, but not because they are naturally selfish, competitive, or cowardly. If such feelings arise and inhibit sociological mindfulness, it is because of how people have grown up. In a less competitive society where good jobs were available for everyone, people could feel more secure and would probably be willing to spend more time reflecting on how society works. When it seems like life is a race, few people may want to stop to analyze what all the racing is about, or where it is leading, lest they fall behind.

Being sociologically mindful goes against the grain in Western society. It may also go against many of the impulses that have been instilled in us as Americans. How can these resistances be overcome? First of all, with ideas, since people must think it is worthwhile to practice sociological mindfulness. In this book Schwalbe hopes that the ideas he has offered so far (in the previous few articles) have persuaded you, at least partly, if you needed persuasion.

Here is one more idea that might nudge you toward more mindfulness. Even if you are young now, you will probably die in 40 to 60 years; if you are older, you have fewer years remaining. The time will pass quickly. How do you want to use it? You could try to acquire as much wealth and fame as possible. That seems to be the main ambition for many people in our culture; there are, however, other goals for a human life. You could try to enrich the lives of others by teaching, creating art, restoring a piece of the earth, promoting health, resisting violence, or organizing for change. What kind of mark do you want to leave on the earth for having lived? If you would like to leave the earth a better place than you found it, sociological mindfulness will help you see what needs to be done.

To be continued...

*SOURCE: THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE, 3RD EDITION, BY MICHAEL SCHWALBE, 2001, PGS. 6-7*

END

ANALYSIS OF "THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE" (part 3)

A Justification for Sociological Mindfulness

by

Charles Lamson

Why bother to be sociologically mindful? What is the point of all this analytic thinking about social life? Michael Schwalbe, the writer of The Sociologically Examined Life, answers these questions based on three beliefs.

The first is the good life - one that is stimulating, intense, joyful, purposeful, caring, and dignified - can be had only in a society that is peaceful, cooperative, egalitarian, and minimally regimented. Schwalbe's second belief is that everyone has an equal right to a good life, and so no one should enjoy power or privelege at the expense of others. Schwalbe's third belief is that because human lives are intertwined, we are all obliged to consider how our actions affect others, especially their chances of living a good life.

The writer hopes you find these beliefs reasonable as starting points. If you want to mull them over, here is an angle from which to do so. Think of the people you love and the kind of life you wish for them to have. Is it a life of violence, deprivation, and suffering, or is it something more like Schwalbe's vision of a good life? If it is the latter then the writer of this book hopes you will consider the possibility that mindfulness may be useful, as a way to create better lives, for more people.

Mindfulness is useful because it helps us see how our lives are intertwined, and how our words and deeds help, or harm, others in non-obvious ways. Being sociologically mindful is especially important for helping us see that consequences of our words and deeds often escape our intentions.

For example, a person who tells a racist joke may intend only to be funny. Yet what this person does is to reinforce beliefs that some kinds of people  are stupid, vain, immoral or inferior. Even if no one is offended when the joke is told, in the long run, people can be hurt. The sentiments expressed in the joke, might decrease sensitivity to others' feelings and to their needs for help, or it might be that the joke makes others seem unworthy of friendship, thus cutting people off from each other. In other words, the harm can be indirect, subtle, and delayed. It does not matter that no harm was intended. It can happen nonetheless.

Harm can arise even when our actions seem honorable. For example, working hard at one's job is usually a good thing to do, but when people work for companies that make weapons, cigarettes, or pornography, or when they work for companies that advertise, sell, or defend such products, violence, death, disease, and misery are the ultimate results. No one may intend for others to be hurt, yet that is what happens, and those who make it happen are responsible, the harm could not happen if not for their hard work.

The kind of awareness that sociological mindfulness produces, can be unsettling, because it sometimes forces us to see things we would prefer not to. But by failing to be mindful, we could inadvertently damage or destroy what we would like to preserve, or we might, through short-sighted action, diminish our own and others' chances of living good lives. By helping us see beyond our intentions to the consequences of our actions, sociological mindfulness can help us avoid traps like these, though it does not make them easy to escape.

Being sociologically mindful, also means paying attention to the hardships, and options, other people face. If we understand how others' circumstances differ from ours, we are more likely to show compassion for them, and to grant them the respect they deserve as human beings. We are also less likely to condemn them unfairly for doing things we dislike. By helping us appreciate the conditions under which others act, sociological mindfulness can help decrease the amount of hatred and conflict in the world.

Being caught up in our daily concerns, we often fail to see and appreciate all of our connections to others---to those who make our clothes, grow our food, clean up our messes, pay for the schools we use, use the schools we pay for, benefit or suffer from actions by politicians we elect, look to us as examples, and so on. Sociological mindfulness helps us see these threads of social life, and how they sustain and obligate us. The main benefit of this awareness is that it can make us more responsible members of a human community. That seems to be as good a reason as any for learning a new intellectual practice.

To be continued...

*SOURCE: THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE, 2ND EDITION, 2001, MICHAEL SCHWALBE, PGS. 4-6*

END

ANALYSIS OF "THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE" (part 2)

Sociological Mindfulness
by
Charles Lamson

Do you recognize the typefaces used in this blog? In what style is it written? On what kind of program is it created? If such questions seem strange, it is because you have not learned to practice a certain kind of mindfulness with regard to blogs. It is the same with many things around us, familiar things that affect us deeply. We fail to see what they are, because we lack the necessary kind of mindfulness. Fortunately, we can learn.

Mindfulness is more than paying attention. To be mindful of a thing is to see and appreciate its unique qualities. For example, to be mindful of a person is not just to be aware of and pay attention to that person. To be mindful of a person as a human being, means trying to see and appreciate his or her uniqueness as a thinking and feeling being. When we are mindful of a person in this way, we see past stereotypes and prejudices.

Children often see things with amazing clarity, because their minds are fresh and the world is new and wondrous to them. However, a child's mindfulness is indiscriminate, as if one kind of group can get a hold of everything. As adults, we learn to be mindful in ways that suit the things we encounter. We learn that people, for example, must be understood in terms of what makes them people: ideas, feelings, desires, bodies, and habits. Likewise, blogs must be appreciated for what makes them blogs: text, design, programming, and so on. For each kind of thing, we learn a different way of grasping it.

Sociological mindfulness is the practice of tuning in to how the social world works. We are all tuned in, to some extent, of course, just by being members of society. But to be truly mindful of the social world, we must learn to see it for what it is. We must learn, in other words, the ideas necessary to see what makes the social world a unique phenomenon. These are ideas about how to pay attention to the social world. Sociological mindfulness is the practice of paying attention in these ways.

What do we see if we practice sociological mindfulness? We see, for example, how the social world is created by people; how infants become functional human beings; how we are interdependent with others; how people's behavior is a response to the conditions under which they live; how social life consists of patterns within patterns; how contingencies shape our fates; how appearances are strategically crafted; how power is exercised; how inequalities are created and maintained; and how we can create valid and reliable knowledge about the social world.

To be continued...

*SOURCE: THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE, 2ND ED., MICHAEL SCHWALBE, 2001, PGS. 3-4*

END

THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE: BEGINNING

Making Sense of the World Differently

by

Charles Lamson

Not much was happening in the shoe department. Elsewhere in the store, people fussed over backpacks, tents, plastics kayaks, and other outdoor gear. but the two young men who sold hiking boots, were enjoying a break. He was a few feet away looking at hats and could hear their conversation. One of them, leaning back against a counter, arms folded across his chest, was telling his coworker about college.

"It was a lot of fun," he said, "but i didn't learn anything I already know."

"Yeah?" said his partner, a bit of wonder in his voice.

"Yeah. My business communication class was good. We learned how to write memos. but most of the rest of it, pretty much all of my classes - it was all just common sense. If it wasn't for getting the degree, it would have been a waste of time." 

Hearing this took his mind off the hats. He imagined asking the young man how he had gotten so smart at 18 that he could listen to professors and read books for four years and not learn anything new. He wanted to puncture the braggart's arrogance, and scold him for wasting the time of those who had tried to teach him. Other college professors might have felt the same way.

His anger faded as he realized that the boaster could not have meant what he said. Surely, the braggart had learned something in college. So what was the arrogant guy saying? Perhaps the cocky braggart belittled his education because he was angry that it had not gotten him a better job, or perhaps he was trying to say to his buddy, "I'm no better than you for having gone to college. common sense is what matters.." If this is what he meant, it was not such a bad message. 

Still, he was sad the braggart spoke of his education as a waste. Even if he had learned more than he realized, he had also missed a lot. He had not learned how to look back on himself,  how to see who he was, what he was becoming, and how he was connected to others. If he had, perhaps he could have explained, without making his buddy feel bad.

He did not suppose that courses in writing (or other technical subjects) are likely to foster much self-awareness. That is not their purpose. But other kinds of courses, and whole fields of study, claim this purpose as their reason for being. His own field of study, sociology, is often justified on the grounds that it helps people gain insight into themselves and into society, so they can live more satisfying, self-determined, and responsible lives. If sociology (or any discipline) can do this for people, then he thinks it has good reason for being.

Sociology courses sometimes foster less self-awareness and insight into society than sociology promises to deliver. This failure is most likely to occur it seems to him, when courses aim primarily to teach about sociology as a discipline. "See how scientific we are? See all these theories, and concepts, and findings? You had better be impressed by all this!" No teacher says these things in quite this way, of course, but sometimes this is the message that comes through. He had heard it himself.

When sociology is taught as a body of work, created by strangers, it can seem like an exotic and fanciful thing - something that one can take or leave, depending on how interesting it is to listen in on the sayings of sociologists. If this is how sociology comes across, most people will tune it out before long. After all, what sociologists say among themselves is less interesting than social life itself. Most people, sensibly enough, would rather pay attention to social life than to the academic study of social life.

And so, it often happens that an encounter with sociology leaves only a faint impression. A few scattered facts and concepts are remembered. But there are no changed habits of mind, no well-learned ways of making a different kind of sense of the social world. It is as if, after so much telling about the pictures that others have made, we have forgotten that the point is to teach people how to make pictures for themselves.

If you would like a written portrait of the disciple of sociology, you can find one in many places - but not here. This book is not about the concepts, theories, and findings of sociology. Although, it makes implicit use of these, It is about how to think sociologically, and about why this is worth doing. It tells (and shows) how to pay attention to, and make sense of, the social world in a sociological way. He calls this the practice of being sociologically mindful. Once you master this practice, you can make the pictures for yourself.

*SOURCE: THE SOCIOLOGICALLY EXAMINED LIFE, 2ND ED., MICHAEL SCHWALBE, 2001, PGS. 1-3*

END

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 32 - The Finale)

INTRODUCING CHANGE
by
Charles Lamson

What elements influence others to buy into an idea or product? Researchers and practitioners ask that question each time they want to sell an idea or product (an innovation). There are three factors that usually come into consideration.

First, the product should have some intuitive appeal to the consumer. For example, new and improved hand calculators had instant appeal to almost all users. It just seemed like a good idea to have something you could put into your pocket that would perform all the mathematical operations a normal person would have any need for. Second, the product or idea must be attainable and affordable. For example, most of us can afford $10 (or less) for a pocket calculator. However, most of us could not afford a Ferrari, no matter how good an idea it might be. Third, the idea or product must give the results it promises. For example, if a company buys a campaign to sell a product, sales are expected. If we buy the calculator, we expect it will compute accurately.

The process of decision-making with regard to accepting something new involves five stages.

Stages of the Adoption Process

The adoption process involves stages one goes through, from the point at which you first gain basic knowledge of an innovation, to the point where you know you are going to maintain the innovation into the future. This process can be followed by individuals (or by entire organizations) when deciding whether to accept (or reject) a new idea. Various persons within the system may go through the process at different rates and some persons may even skip a stage in the process. Regardless of the rate at which an organization or individual goes through the adoption process, the fact remains that all persons eventually go through some type of decision-making process when evaluating a new idea, reducing uncertainty about the new idea, and making a decision about the acceptance or rejection of the new idea.

The first phase of the process, the knowledge stage, involves obtaining basic exposure to the innovation's existence, and some understanding of how it functions. This initial stage is when someone in the organization (a manager or an employee) becomes aware of, or gains interest in, a new idea that might help the organization. or there might be a need in the organization to create or find an innovation to satisfy the need. Regardless of how the innovation is developed, whether it be by people outside the organization, or by people within the organization, people must first have some knowledge or interest or awareness of the innovation in order to consider adoption in the knowledge stage the organization or individual usually learns about the innovation, either through mass media channels, or from other individuals. For example, in this country much of our information is generated through some form of the media (television, radio, newspapers, computer bulletin boards, and so on). Hence, the initial awareness can come from seeing something on television, or reading about a new idea in some printed material. For example, many people see or learn about a new car that they might like to purchase from some media ad. Let us say we heard about the 500LX we might want; now what do we do?

The persuasion stage involves forming a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the innovation. In the knowledge stage the thinking was more on a cognitive level. The main type of thinking at the persuasion stage is on the affective or feeling level. We begin to develop a positive or negative feeling toward the new idea. We investigate the innovation more thoroughly by actively seeking information about the new idea, and by asking ourselves a series of questions about the new idea. We will often ask, "What are the advantages and disadvantages of this new idea? How will this help me in my work? Will this be harmful to my work? Will I be pleased with this idea? How will my boss react to this idea?" What we really are doing is mentally applying the new idea to our situation and determining whether it is something we should try. We are evaluating the potential effects of the idea without really being able to use the idea on a permanent basis and see the real effects. For example, with the 500LX we think we might want, we might talk to friends who have a 500LX, and get their opinions about the car. At this point, we would think about potential problems or benefits, and we probably would form some feeling for the car.

The decision stage involves choosing to adopt (or reject) the innovation. In this stage, we have two choices: adopt or reject. If we adopt, we are accepting the innovation. If we reject, we are refusing the innovation. Much of our decision to adopt or reject is influenced by peers, who either volunteer advice on the new idea, or respond to our request for information about the new idea. At this stage, peer influence is quite high, and usually plays a significant role. If people we respect and like have accepted the idea, then we are more likely to accept the idea. For example, the 500LX we want is being driven by two close, respected friends, and they spoke favorably about the car in the persuasion stage. When we get to the decision stage we might be influenced to buy the car. Some friends of the authors of this book, Organizational Communication for Survival, bought their teenage son a red car as a surprise. Someone asked them, "Why a red car"? They replied, "All his friends drive red cars, and we doubt he'd like any other color." They were right. He wanted a red car. Any other color would not have made the car as appealing. Hence, the parents were influenced by their son's friends, knowing that he liked what his friends had, and would want a similar car that was red.

The implementation stage involves putting an innovation into use. Until this stage, the decision-making process has been "strictly a mental process." But this stage involves actual behavior. This stage will usually present more problems for an organization than for an individual. After all, an organization is a collection of individuals, all of whom may (or may not) want to implement the new idea. This is why change, sometimes, can be very slow. Trying to get an entire organization to implement a change can take years. Much time has to be spent in the persuasion stage, giving personnel favorable attitudes about the new ideas, and then much time has to be spent polling personnel to determine how many will actually adopt the new idea. Both of these stages must be completed before successful implementation can take place.

The final stage, the confirmation stage, involves seeking reinforcement for our decision. We may still reverse the decision, if exposed to conflicting information, such as if the car does not run.

In conclusion, the stages an individual or an organization go through when deciding whether to accept or reject an innovation are critical to the successful implementation of a change. Although some stages may receive less time than others (because some people need little persuasion on some ideas), it is clear that people go through stages. These stages can effect an organization for years to come. It is always wise to thoroughly investigate any potential change for problems, and review the possible consequences of the change. Although we know that people go through the various stages at various times and paces, we need to know what attributes or characteristics of an innovation might prompt one to consider adopting an innovation.

*SOURCE: ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL, 3RD ED., VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKY, AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY, 2005, PGS. 166-169*

END

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 31)

INNOVATIVENESS: THE WILLINGNESS TO ADOPT

by

Charles Lamson

It is obvious to all of us that when a new idea is introduced into a system, some members of the system are more willing to adopt than others. Some people simply have a higher level of innovativeness than others. Innovativeness is "the degree to which an individual or unit of adoption is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than other members of a system" (Rogers, 1995, p. 248). It is of practical importance that a person thinking of introducing a change (a potential change agent) know how to identify potential adopters versus those who are not likely to adopt willingly.

Innovators can be described by one word - "venturesome." It is almost an obsession with innovators. They are very eager to try new ideas, and even occasionally take a setback in finances in the hopes that he or she will make it up elsewhere. He or she is usually rash, daring, and a risk taker. Such a person is also able to deal with a high degree of uncertainty and ambiguity.

Most of us are not innovators. In a normal population only about 5 people in 200 (2.5 percent of the population) are innovators. They are willing to take risks and launch new ideas into the system. They understand that others may not want to take the risk, so they will take the risk of being the first to adopt a new idea. The biggest drawback to being an innovator is that innovators cannot communicate informally with their peers as easily as people in some other adopter categories.

Early adopters also can be described by one word - "respectable." These people are more integrated into the system, and usually can communicate on a similar level with others."Potential adopters look to early adopters for advice and information" (Rogers, 1995, pg. 249). These are people known in the system as the "individual to check with" before using a new idea.

Some of us may be early adopters. Approximately 13.5 percent of the population fall into this category. Early adopters are respected and held in high esteem by others in the system. They often are able to take the innovators' ideas and help diffuse them successfully into a system, because others respect them and are willing to listen to their advice. They help decrease uncertainty about the respectability of the innovation.

The early majority are usually referred to as "deliberate." These people "adopt new ideas just before the average member of a social system." The early majority interact frequently with their peers, but seldom hold leadership positions" (Rogers, 1995, pg. 249). They are unique in that they are between the very early to accept a new idea, and those late to adopt a new idea. They provide interconnectedness in the system.

Approximately 34 percent of the population are in the early majority. They are deliberate and think about the innovation for quite awhile before adopting. They usually adopt with deliberate willingness, but rarely lead the way. Their motto, as Alexander Pope put it, is "Be not the first by which the new is tried, nor the last to lay the old aside."

The late majority can be described best as skeptical. These people "adopt new ideas just after the average member of a social system." They usually adopt because of increasing peer pressure, or because of economic necessity. For example, some people would not give up their typewriters in favor of word processors, until most of their colleagues were using them, or until they found they could not get their typewriter fixed anymore. These people approach all innovations with an air of caution and skepticism.

Approximately 34 percent of the population are in the late majority, just as there were in the early majority, They will wait until most of the system has adopted before they adopt. They want to see that the innovation works, and have most of the uncertainty about the innovation removed before they adopt.

Finally, we have the laggards. They are the traditional people in the society. Whereas, the late majority may be skeptical, the laggards are truly suspicious of any new idea. When they do adopt something, it is no longer an innovation to most people in the society. It may even have already been superseded by another, newer idea. For example, laggards might adopt typewriters (rather than cursive) when almost everyone else has moved to word processors.

Approximately 16 percent of the population are in the laggard category. These people will slow down the change process when they can, and often do not understand why others adopted. This is not to suggest that laggards are bad people. They are not. They are simply not change-oriented. Most people in the society recognize that change is not always good, but these people go a step further. They think change is never, or almost never, good. Sometimes it turns out that they are right, but it can be a problem if laggards dominate a system. Some systems are so laggardly that they eventually "put themselves out of business," by not being willing to change when change is needed.

In conclusion, the rate at which people adopt innovations can influence how quickly a change is diffused throughout an organization. The categories mentioned demonstrate the various categories of potential adopters. Anyone attempting any change in any organization must be aware of the above. He or she needs to know that all are present in organizations and that some stimulate change and others impede change. In addition, employees also need to know what type of a system they work in - is it change-oriented or not? For example, if a highly innovative person is working in a laggardly system, he or she might be completely dissatisfied and need to move. If a laggardly person is working in a highly innovative system, then he or she might be completely dissatisfied and need to move. Change will be successful only if the people who can promote the change are persuaded that it is a needed change.

*SOURCE: ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL 3RD ED. BY VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKEY AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY, 2005, PGS. 163-165*

END

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 30)

COMMUNICATION AND CHANGE

by

Charles Lamson

The word change always seems to invoke feelings of anxiety, hostility, and frustration. Probably the primary reason people have such feelings, when the word change is mentioned, is that they have been through many changes, that were local disasters. This article will review why people (generally) resist change, and then discuss factors that assist in promoting change, or preventing change.

WHY PEOPLE RESIST CHANGE IN ORGANIZATIONS

People resist change for numerous reasons. Probably the most significant reason people resist change, is that they are fearful that their position or status in the organization might change - for the worse. This is not to suggest that people are always opposed to change, for some changes would enhance their position in the organization. However, many persons are satisfied with their position, or at least secure, in it, and do not want to play with fire. The possibility of making things significantly better is not worth the risk of making them significantly worse. For example, take a manager who has been supervising a unit for eight years. She has the routine down in terms of who does what, when reports are due, how to do things, and she is competent at what she does. Any change within the system might impact her role, and ultimately change her position, so that she would have to start all over, and learn a new role. With all that effort, she would only get back to where she was before the change. Is it any any wonder she would be resistant?

In conjunction with this, many employees fear change, because it might require their workload to be increased (or altered), so they would have to do something they disliked. Many employees are satisfied having a routine job, with routine functions, and do not want to change the routine. Whether you are a teacher or a factory worker, you have scheduled routines that you have established. And you feel comfortable with things the way they are. Granted, some routines can be boring, but most people would rather have a boring routine than have to learn a new job, or have their workload increased. And many times change means altering one's workload or increasing it, for a time at least.

People also resist change because they have had past experiences with change, processes that have been failures. Changes can fail for a multitude of reasons. For example, if most people are not in favor of the change, it will be undermined. If the organization does not have the resources for funding the change, it will probably fail. Many schools have tried to implement the use of computers to teach computer literacy for their students. However, only those schools with sufficient funding to buy and maintain a sufficient number of machines, have successfully created a high-quality computer program for all. In many schools, only a select few get to use the computers, because there are not enough for all students and teachers.

Employees also fear that a change might alter their economic status in a negative fashion. One of the first questions people will ask in organizations when approached about a change is, "How will this change impact my salary?" 

People also resist change, because they are fearful that it will create chaos. In other words, the system will be disorganized and dysfunctional for an indeterminate amount of time. The writers of this book, Organizational Communication for Survival, know of a system that discontinued the graduate school, in favor of centralizing graduate processing functions in various departments and units. It took several years before personnel knew how to transfer students from one unit to the next, new forms had to be created, new rules and policies had to be created, and of course new personnel had to be hired, and some older personnel were moved, or their jobs changed. This type of a major change can cause incredible amounts of chaos, which makes the process so unpleasant that the next time someone mentions a change of such magnitude, many in the system will say, "Hell no, the last time we did something like this, it was a mess for years."

In conclusion, people resist change because they have had past experiences that have not been positive, fear an economic decrease, or workload increase, and most of all, are afraid of all the chaos that can accompany a change. The primary argument given by most persons against change goes something like this: "It will cause confusion, more work, and a lot of chaos, so why should we change." The majority of the workforce is generally reluctant to accept a change, unless it is a clearly desirable change for the majority of the personnel. How then, do we get a change (or new idea) successfully diffused throughout a system?

Everett Rogers, along with a number of co-authors, has published several in-depth comprehensive reviews of research, and theory, related to the diffusion of innovations in societies and organizations. The upcoming articles will draw heavily on the Rogers influence; it reviews the types of persons involved in the change process, and their impact on diffusion and change.

Before we review the types of persons involved in the diffusion process, we need to define what we mean by an innovation or change. We use the definition posted by Rogers (1995): An innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual. It matters little, so far as human behavior is concerned, whether or not an idea is objectively new, as measured by the lapse of time, since its since its first use of discovery. If the idea seems new to the individual, it is an innovation. We use the words innovation and change interchangeably. Rogers suggestS that he does "not find it fruitful to make much of the distinction. The communication patterns for change and innovation in organizations are rather similar" (Rogers & Agarwala-Rogers, 1976, p. 153).

Regardless of the innovation being anticipated, persons with both the formal (and the informal) communication networks, must support the change. It is clear to most, that if they are going to introduce a change (and want a chance for success), their immediate manager (a person who is clearly part of the organization's formal structure), must support the change  The people in the informal network (those not clearly found on the organization's hierarchical chart) may have the potential to be influential, and are an integral and necessary component of any successful change process. Upcoming articles review roles of people in the informal network, who might influence the success of an innovation's diffusion.

To be continued...

*ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL 3RD ED. BY VIRGINA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKEY AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY; PGS. 154-156*

END

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 29)

ETHNOCENTRISM (part C)

by

Charles Lamson

Negative Aspects of Ethnocentrism

Like many other things, ethnocentrism in moderation can be positive. However, if taken too far, ethnocentrism can become a very negative orientation, for both individuals and organizations. It is particularly dangerous for either. It is usually very easy to see ethnocentrism in others, but it is usually difficult to recognize it in oneself or one's organization. Some of the people who complain the loudest about being mistreated by some other cultural, or sub-cultural group, are also among the most ethnocentric people you will find. However, they will deny their own ethnocentrism loudly, while decrying this very evil in other people and organizations around them.

There are four potentially serious problems for communication in organizations which emanate from ethnocentrism: culture shock, stereotyping, prejudice, and excessive cohesiveness. This post will consider each of these in turn.

Culture Shock.    Culture shock was not fully identified and described until 1960 (Oberg, 1960). Culture shock is something almost everyone experiences when they move into a new cultural environment. Whether the move is from one continent to another, or just from home to a nearby college, some degree of trauma is likely to be experienced. Given the mobility of society today, this means that almost everyone will experience it at some time in their lives, and many will experience it several times. That trauma is now commonly referred to as "culture shock." If you have never experienced it; when you do, "shock" will not seem too strong a word to describe it. At the extreme culture shock has been found to result in complete mental breakdown and even suicide. The greater the actual difference between the old and new culture (or subculture) the greater the shock. Similarly, the higher one's ethnocentrism, the greater the shock.

While we do not realize it, we become acculturated to work in our first job. We develop a concept of work based on that experience. Each time we take a new job, we have to revise that concept to fit the new organization's culture. When we take a new job in another organization, initially, we take the old culture with us. If the new culture is not very different from the old one, or we have very low ethnocentrism, we may adapt to the new position quickly. If the new culture is very different, or if because we are highly ethnocentric, we perceive the new culture to be very different, we are then likely to experience severe culture shock, and all that goes with it.

Highly ethnocentric organizations are not likely to recognize that new employees are experiencing culture shock. They see their culture as very open and accepting - and normal. Any problems in adaption by new employees are seen as weaknesses, or personality defects, in the new people. Some organizations develop programs to help new employees make the transition to the new culture. These programs socialize the new people to fit within the organization's culture. Over time, both the organization and the new employees adapt to each other, and the new people are assimilated within the organizational culture.

Stereotyping is the processing of forming generalizations about people based on their membership in a culture, or subculture. Many stereotypes are fully accurate and correct, and still others are completely inaccurate (Lee, Jussim, & McCauley, 1995). Such generalizations serve as a means of organizing our experiences with others. We need them so we may better predict how people will respond to our communication efforts. It is important that we be able to recognize that individuals often differ substantially in important ways from other members of their own culture. Ethnocentrism interferes with this recognition. As a result, highly ethnocentric people are willing to generalize their stereotypes to people for whom the stereotype clearly (to less ethnocentric observers) does not apply. The more ethnocentric an organization's culture, the more absolute will be the stereotypes in the collective consciousness of its members. Even if an individual employee recognizes the falsity of the stereotype (her sister works for the stereotyped company), they may feel strong pressure to remain silent.

Prejudice refers to a "a priori judgments" based on inadequate stereotypes. The term "a priori judgments" references judgments made in advance of the time when they are employed. By "inadequate stereotypes" we mean the basis for the stereotypes is insufficient (or inaccurate) information.

Excessive cohesiveness may at first appear to be an oxymoron. We want our work groups to be cohesive. Cohesiveness is good. It enables people to work together. All true, but as is usually the case, it is possible to have too much of a good thing, groups which are highly ethnocentric. Organizational culture generally exaggerates the "in group"/"out-group" distinction discussed in earlier posts. Their own cohesion is highly valued, while members of other groups---even with the same organization---can be seen as enemies. Extremely high cohesiveness increases stereotyping and prejudice against out-group members, and leads to a decline in decision-making quality. In the worst case scenario, it can lead to what is called groupthink.

Organizations exist within cultures, and cultures exist within organizations. To fully understand how an organization works (much less why), we must make ourselves aware of both of these powerful influences. As peons in an organization, nothing may be as we see it initially. Consequently, we need to exercise great caution in drawing any conclusions, good or bad, about what is going on in our new cultural world. We must take time to get more information, be aware of our own ethnocentrism, as well as that present in the organizational culture, and remain open to changing any conclusions we may draw.

*ORANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL 3RD ED. BY VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKEY AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY; PGS. 150-152*

END