ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 26)

ORGANIZATIONS AND CULTURES

by

Charles Lamson

Organizations exist within cultural environments. Within each organization, there is a culture unique to that organization. These are the contexts within which organizational communication occurs. These cultures have an influence on communication

The Organization within a Culture.    All organizations have a home base, even internet organizations. The vast majority have workers who live reasonably close to a central location, where they all come together to work each day. many of these workers are hired because they live in that area. Others move to that area after they are hired. That area provides the culture in which the organization lives. The organization depends not only on their own employees, who live in that culture, but also on other people living in that culture for what it needs to survive - water, gas, electricity, roads, airports, telephones, food service, etc. The government policies, schools, churches, and recreational opportunities provided by the area directly impact the organization.

If an organization is based in New York City, it likely will be dramatically different than one located in Birmingham, Alabama, San Diego, California, or Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The people in it are likely to differ on the accent and dialect they speak, their religion, a general attitude toward life, what is good food and what time of the day it should be eaten, work habits, ethnic background, and a wide variety of other things which are culturally relevant. All of these external cultural elements work to shape the nature of the organization. Whatever area the organization chooses for its home base, the people from that area will serve as a significant proportion of the organization's workforce. That workforce will expect or demand that the organization will operate in ways that are consistent with the local culture. the bottom line is: Cultures shape organizations.

The Culture within an Organization.    Over time organizations create their own culture, while the culture of an area impacts an organization. There are other forces at work as well. The culture of the organization is impacted by the kind of work that is done in the organization - blue collar and white collar organizations tend to have very different cultures. The leadership of the organization has a major impact on the organization - the kinds of people who are at the top, tend to define what kinds of people the organization values, and often what kinds of people are hired and retained. Over time (usually only a few years), an oral history of the organization develops. In this way, myths about great and terrible things that have happened, become real and current, and former employees become the rogues and heroes of the organization. Traditions are built, and acceptable, as well as unacceptable, behavior patterns are determined. Most everyone learns "how we do it around here." Diversity, at least in terms of values beliefs and attitudes, declines. individuals begin to identify with the organization, and an in-group is identified (The organization becomes "we") and other competing organizations are increasingly seen as evil, and not nearly as good as "we" are, hence out-groups are formed ("they"). Expectations for new employees become more elaborate and more rigid , and more programs designed to mentor, train, and socialize new employees are developed.

The bottom line is : Organizations shape cultures. Organizations are a lot like people. Where they grow up makes a big difference in how they are accultured. Nevertheless, each one develops its own personality. However, organizations which have multiple work sites (even if they are all within a close geographic area) are likely to develop different cultures. And if organizations physically move from one area to another, they go into culture shock, and have an extremely hard time dealing with the culture of the new area. If they get past that, and many do not, they develop a new culture, one that has some of the old and much of the new. Imagine what happened to the people in American Airlines, as well as the organization itself. They had been solidly lodged in New York City for decades, then they moved to Dallas, Texas, As the Texas Tourist Bureau puts it: "Texas, A Whole Other Country!" While this may be thought of as an amusing sloganm and good attention getter for the tourist business, never doubt whether it is the actual orientation of a very large proportion of real Texans.

Global Organizations.    Until quite recently, most organizations had their home base in one country and conducted most of their business in that country. Many are still like that, but others have become multi-national or global organizations. Some of these have accomplished this by creating branch-organizations in countries beyond their home country. Others have accomplished this through mergers with, or acquisitions of, other organizations. At one time, many products had a "made in the USA" identification on them. That was taken to mean that the product was made from US materials, by US workers, in a US-located plant, owned by US people. Being "made in Japan" meant the same thing, except substitute Japan for US. Today, being made in the USA (or any other country) is hard to define. Today we buy a product which was designed by a German-owned firm in Canada, put together by US workers, in a plant in California, owned by a Dutch conglomerate, from parts imported from 35 other countries. There are so-called "American" cars that have less US made parts, than so called "Japanese" cars, and vice versa. And we can buy blouses made in Indonesia, in Dutch-owned factories, with material made in Mexico, in Canadian-owned factories, according to specifications of US-based designers. and they have the designer's label on them.

Organizations are not what they once were. They are much more complex. When multiple large cultures come together within a single organization, we would assume that the cultures merge into some blended culture. Many people who have looked at this phenomenon suggest this often is not the case. Rather, there often is a culture clash where people from the different cultures actively seek to get rid of one another, and ultimately one group wins and the other loses. This can be very costly on all dimensions for the organization. Similarly, sometimes organizations branch into new cultures, and try to make things work the way they do in their home culture. They virtually always fail. Both these patterns are commonly based on the same basic cause: The organization is highly ethnocentric, which i shall cover in the next article on ethnocentricism. To be continued...

*SOURCE: ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL 3RD ED. BY VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKEY AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY; PGS. 143-145*

END

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 25)

Top stories

NASA's Cassini Mission Prepares for 'Grand Finale' at Saturn

NASA · 1 day ago

Watch How a Beloved Spacecraft Will Die in Saturn's Atmosphere

Gizmodo · 8 hours ago

How and why NASA will kill the Cassini spacecraft at Saturn

Business Insider · 36 mins ago

POWER AND STATUS
by
Charles Lamson

Janet Smith has finally made it. She has a secretary outside her office to screen people and calls. Her secretary's office is plush, comfortable, and has a window. Her secretary is pleased with the office. Janet's office has a work area and a conversation area. Her desk is made of the finest mahogany and her chair is a plush swivel model. Her office is color coordinated and at one end of the room she has windows that enable her to have a view of the city. She clearly has status.

Status is the thing many employees strive for more than pay. To be perceived better than someone else or have higher status than someone else can make otherwise fairly decent people lie, cheat, and steal. They want "things," status symbols that say they are somebody.

NATURE OF STATUS

Status is a person's role or position within a group or an organization. Status can be earned or awarded to us by our position in the organization. Because people quickly learn that status is something to work toward, everyone wants a slice of the pie. For example, attending some schools carries higher status than attending others (For example, Harvard University versus South Dakota State University). To be associated with certain groups is to gain a certain amount of the status associated with them (For example, to be a member of the football team, even a bench warmer). Wearing certain clothes connotes more status than wearing other clothing. Why did Izod, Guess, and Calvin Klein become so popular? Was it because of the quality of the clothing? Hardly. It was because of the status associated with them. If you wore Calvins, you seemed to have money, power and status. Some jobs carry higher status than other jobs. White collar jobs are usually ranked higher than blue collar jobs in terms of status. Being a corporate lawyer usually carries more status than being a sanitation engineer, but being a sanitation engineer has far more status than being a janitor. Which would you rather be, a meteorologist or a weather girl? How about weather boy?

We must remember that status affects how some people respond to their jobs and how people interact with others who have status, as opposed to those who do not have status in organizations. People think that with status comes power and authority. That is not necessarily true. One can be of high status in terms of material items, but command little respect or have little power over others. However, because employees think status gives them power, they work very hard for status.

STATUS SYMBOLS

In previous articles, it was sai status could be earned, or sometimes it is afforded us by the position we hold in an organization. For example, corporate executives often are granted certain status symbols with their jobs. Many organizations feel that status is a means of rewarding an individual for a job well done. They also feel that their employees should have an image that is compatible with the company's image, so they provide status symbols (plush offices, parking spaces, company cars, company credit cards, expense accounts, and so on). Then again, some of us bring status symbols with us into our organization.

Some status symbols employees typically bring into organizations are age, ethnic background, religion, gender, parentage, competence, education, seniority, previous associates, skills, and experience. Although all employees might bring sources of status with them, a particular individual might have a higher social rank or status, because he or she came from a better or more established school than the others. It is said that an MBA from the Harvard Business School is worth the money, time, and effort, because the status it brings practically guarantees a good position with a good firm. Of course, today many organizations are attempting to meet affirmative action guidelines with qualified candidates, hence, ethnic background and gender can play a role in status.

Aside from the rather obvious status symbols that employees bring into organizations, there are many symbols we are given, or can earn. The following is a typical list of status symbols people want in organizations: good salary, job title, size and location of office, type of office furniture, furnishing, window, location of parking space, secretary, privacy, key to the building or office, clothing, company car, privileges, car phone, possessions, computer, up-to-date equipment, longer lunches, vacation, time off if needed, flexible hours, type of briefcase, plants in office, and answering machine. Most of these status symbols are visible and tangible symbols, but there are some forms of status that are not tangible or visible but can be earned. Some of these are respect of supervisors and peers, others come to you for advice, and you are generally trusted by others to do your job - people are not constantly checking on you. However, these generally take years of hard work and dedication to earn.   

 

Most organizations attempt to motivate employees by using tangible status symbols as a means of motivation. This can work for only awhile because eventually the available symbols will be exhausted. The biggest drawback with using tangible, visible symbols of status to motivate people is that there is never enough for everyone. Even massive well-funded organizations have employees who feel there is not enough status for them, or that some people have too much status while others have too little.

Too much or too little status can inhibit communication. If there is too much of a status differential, between employees they do not feel they can communicate with each other. If there is too little status differential, the supervisor is virtually like one of the subordinates, and may not command their respect. When communication between employees and supervisors is inhibited, other problems follow. Second, employees do not develop solidarity or closeness to each other. They are constantly trying to earn what little status is available, and cannot develop a solid relationship with others, or there is so much status available they are all busy competing for it. Third, too much or too little status interferes with work. People spend too much time thinking about how to get the status that is available, rather than working. Fourth, too much or too little status can cause resentment or conflict. In a system where there is too little status, people resent those who have it. Everything is relative. In a system where there is too much status, people will battle tooth and claw over it. This is not healthy competition - it is a battle.

In conclusion, status differences are always going to exist in organizations but if we let status become a barrier between us and our peers or supervisors, then the communication flow will be inhibited, and problems with solidarity, and with the work, may arise, and resentment can occur.

*SOURCE: ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL 3RD ED. BY VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKEY AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY; PGS. 128-130*

END

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 24)

INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTIVENESS
by
Charles Lamson

Interpersonal attractiveness refers to the degree to which we are drawn toward another person. If there are five strangers in a room, which one do we feel we want to be near? If five coworkers are available to help us, which one do we feel we want to go to? If five acquaintances are at a social gathering, which one do we feel we want to talk with? People are drawn to some people, but are repulsed by others. This is the phenomenon of interpersonal attraction. Like credibility, interpersonal attractiveness is multi-dimensional. There are three dimensions: physical, social, and task (McCroskey and McCain, 1974). All of these forms of interpersonal attraction may be related. However, each has a unique component, which may function separately from the other two.

Physical Attractiveness.    Whenever attractiveness is mentioned, most people think of physical attractiveness first. This is the dimension of attractiveness which typically has the most impact on human relationships. In fact, it may determine whether there is any human relationship at all.

Physical attractiveness is a perception, a perception which may or may not be shared by people with different backgrounds, cultures, or experiences. It is a matter of taste and preference. This is why two people may see the same person at the same time, and report very different levels of physical attraction. However, within a culture, and to an extent even across cultures, there is substantial agreement on the physical appearance characteristics, which result in people seeing an individual as physically attractive. Most of these characteristics have to do with bone and facial structure (about which we can do little), weight (over which we usually can have some control), and stylishness, cleanliness, carriage, and neatness (over which we typically can have a great deal of control).

Perceptions of physical attractiveness have their greatest importance during the initial phases of human relationships, particularly within organizations. Humans often prevent contact with people they see as interpersonally attractive. That is, if we see someone we perceive as physically unattractive, we are likely to take extra effort not to have any additional contact with them, while we go out of our way to make contact with people we perceive as physically attractive. The implications of this for job interviews are obvious. In addition, presuming the person can overcome that obstacle and get the job, lack of physical attractiveness also may be a major obstacle to gaining acceptance of other people in the work group. Simply put, physically attractive means good. All kinds of positive characteristics are commonly attributed to people who are seen as physically attractive - intelligence, honesty, experience, insight, wealth, credibility and sexuality.

Thus, it is obvious that the more physically attractive we seem, the better. Almost, but not quite. There are two reservations to this presumably obvious conclusion. First, people who are extremely physically attractive, often are rejected by those less endowed. They are not seen as approachable. They are seen as having a superiority complex. They are seen as getting a lot of advantages they have not earned. Often, they are deeply disliked by others of the same gender (particularly hard for females). These are responses generated by envy and resentment.

The impact of physical attractiveness has a short life. If we interact with the physically attractive individual, and find a lack of other positive qualities, we tend to see the person as less attractive on the other attractiveness dimensions over time. We even reevaluate their physical attractiveness downward. Thus, physical attractiveness has a major (mostly positive) impact in organizations during initial encounters, but that impact tends to lessen for the more attractive individuals, as more interaction occurs. In contrast, people seen initially as unattractive, may actually be seen as more attractive over time. This comes as a function of the way they are perceived on the other attractiveness dimensions. Most of us have friends who are considered by others as somewhat physically unattractive, although they may not seem that way to us. We perceive their social and/or task attractiveness as high, and generalize that perception in part to their physical attractiveness.

Within organizations, physical attractiveness is particularly important for people who apply for or hold positions, which call for direct contact with the public - such as positions in hospitality, direct sales, and public relations. Much of the communication in these positions is conducted within the context of initial encounters - precisely where physical attractiveness has its strongest and most positive or negative impact. Where more long term contact is mandated, the other dimensions of attractiveness come into play more strongly.

Social Attractiveness.    This dimension of attractiveness represents the degree to which a person is seen as one with whom other people would like to spend time at a social level. A socially attractive person is one with whom we would like to go get a cup of coffee, have lunch, or get together outside the work environment. We might invite this person to our home. This type of attractiveness is not based on physical appearance (although that can make a contribution), but rather how friendly and likable the person is perceived to be. While we might initially be socially attracted to a person because of their physical appearance, this attraction will disappear unless the person is also socially desirable. If we find someone socially attractive, it is likely that we will desire a relationship with them that continues for an extended period.

In contemporary society, many people spend more time with their coworkers in an organization than they do with any other people - including family. It is no longer unusual for a person's social friends to also be their coworkers. Hence, when people move, it is quite common that they will find new people to be socially attractive, and hence, they will develop new friendships. The line between coworker and friend has become finer in recent decades. Of course, this does not mean that we will develop friendships with all of our coworkers. This will be true only with those coworkers we find socially attractive, and who also see us as socially attractive.

Task Attractiveness.    This dimension of attraction is the one which is most relevant in the organizational context. We see people who we believe, or know to be easy and pleasant to work with, to be task attractive. Also, contributing to perceptions of task attractiveness on the part of achievement-oriented workers, is competence in performing work-related tasks, a willingness to share responsibility and workload, a commitment to successfully completing tasks, and a willingness to engage in goal-directed communication. Of course, not everyone is highly interested in work. Some employees find people who are lazy or shiftless to be task-attractive - since they do not want to work either.

Task attractiveness is based on what one desires as a work partner. generally, but not universally. We want pleasant, hardworking, competent people as coworkers. We want people who will do their share, if not more, and do it in such a way that the work environment is a pleasant place to be.

It is quite possible that we have people in our environment, who we find to be attractive on all three dimensions - they are pleasant to look at, be with, and work with. but that certainly is not the typical situation. Think back to when you were in high school, and had to do a team project. You probably were pleased to learn that the class nerd was assigned to your team, but probably you did not want him/her to join your social group, or be you date for the prom. While it is quite possible that a person can be perceived as attractive on more than one dimension, that is not necessarily the case. There are people we want to work with, and people we want to socialize with. There may be some overlap in the two groups but it is rare if the groups are identical.

Attractiveness, particularly social and task attractiveness, is in the eye of the beholder. Attractiveness is not a possession of the person we find attractive. Just as was the case of source credibility, attractive is something we are seen to be, not necessarily something we actually are.

*SOURCE: ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL 3RD ED. BY VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKEY AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY; PGS. 99-102*

END

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 23)

SOURCE CREDIBILITY
by
Charles Lamson

Source credibility refers to how believable a source is perceived to be. If we see a person as highly credible, we will tend to believe what they say. Often we will take what the person says at face value, without seeking other information or opinions. However, if we see a person as less credible, we may question virtually everything the person says, and look to other sources to verify or challenge what that person says. Aristotle suggested that there are three dimensions or components of source credibility (which he called ethos). Contemporary social science has confirmed these dimensions to be appropriate within the organizational context today (Mccroskey and Teven, 1999). These are labeled competence, trustworthiness and goodwill. All of these dimensions are interrelated, but each deals with a separate element of credibility.

Competence.    This dimension of credibility refers to the degree to which a person is perceived to be knowledgeable, or expert in, a given subject. We judge the person on a continuum ranging from being completely competent to being completely incompetent. While sometimes competence is perceived on an absolute basis (Is the person an expert or not?) often it is viewed as a relative matter (Is this person more competent than I am?). For more important concerns, we tend to move to the more absolute position, but in everyday matters, we are more likely to use the comparative approach. In many circumstances, competence is the first credibility judgement we make, For if we deem the person to not be knowledgeable about the issue, we may care little about the other two dimensions.

Trustworthiness.    This dimension of credibility is concerned with the honesty of the individual. It is a character issue. We may see the person as an expert but if we feel that we cannot trust the person to tell the truth about what he or she knows, we are likely to perceive the person as having little credibility. Perceptions of trustworthiness exist along a continuum similar to that of competence, Our judgement of a person may range from being totally trustworthy to totally untrustworthy. However, this perception is not often mediated by our perception of our own trustworthiness. Even a person who is totally dishonest will perceive little credibility for a person they perceive also to be dishonest.

Goodwill.    This may be the most important element in source credibility, particularly in contexts where people must come in contact, and work with each other, on a daily basis. Another term for goodwill is caring. (In short, do we perceive this other person as caring about our well-being? is he/she concerned about our welfare or is this person motivated primarily by selfish concerns?) Even highly competent people will fail to tell us what we need to know. Even highly honest people may not look at the issue from our perspective, and what the impact may be on us. People may be seen on a continuum, with a range from highly concerned about our well bring, to totally unconcerned with whether we even live or die. If we perceive our supervisor is working extremely hard to help us get ahead, we may overlook the fact that he/she is less competent than we are, or even that he/she sometimes exaggerates or twists the truth. We write this not to suggest that goodwill is more important than competence, or trustworthiness in all contexts, rather it is to stress that caring really counts, whether it is a subordinate perceiving a supervisor or a supervisor perceiving a subordinate. If we do not believe another person has our best interests at heart, we are highly unlikely to believe what he/she says to us.

Competence, Trustworthiness and goodwill have long been known to be important factors in creating the impression of believability. We can establish these perceptions of ourselves in relationships with others, our influence with those others is likely to be substantial. Even peons in an organization can generate these perceptions over time. Establishing good relationships with peers is the initial step to generating these perceptions. Achieving this step usually is helpful to taking the next step as well. That step is establishing these perceptions in the mind of one's supervisor, and ultimately, those higher in the organization.

*SOURCE: ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL 3RD ED. BY VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKEY AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY; PGS. 98-99*

END