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.

*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

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 28)

ETHNOCENTRISM (part B)

by

Charles Lamson

Becoming Highly or Lowly Ethnocentric.    Ethnocentrism exists on a continuum of high to low. Therefore, everyone is ethnocentric to some degree. Being at either end of the continuum can be disadvantageous (Gudykunst & Kim, 1997). There has been considerable dispute about how people come to be ethnocentric. Is it one of the genetically-based orientations, or is it something that we learn? Since there is such high variability in ethnocentrism across people in any given culture, some have assumed that this must be a genetically-based trait. Recent research, however, has failed to confirm that belief. This research determined that ethnocentrism and homophobia (another trait generally considered to be anti-social), were highly correlated with each other. However, neither were found to be associated with any dimension of temperament (Wrench & Mccroskey, 2003). While this does not rule out the possibility that these two traits could be associated with some brain system(s) other than the ones controlling temperament, it does indicate that they are at least not associated with the genetic factors, which have been seen to be highly instrumental in forming the foundations for many personality traits and communication traits. Hence, at this point, it appears that a view commonly expressed by people who regularly have to deal with problems associated with ethnocentrism is correct: "people have to be taught to hate, they are not born that way." This learning may begin early in life, when parents and others in a child's culture work to overcome a child's egocentrism by teaching them they are part of a group and not the be-all and end-all person in the world. Such efforts to open the child to others in their environment may provide the foundation of learning (or over-learning), to value members of their in-group, and favor them over members of all other groups - the essence of ethnocentrism.

Positive Aspects of Ethnocentrism.    Ethnocentrism provides the foundation for the existence for a culture or a subculture - it helps people making up cultures and subcultures develop a sense of collective identity and group pride. It helps maintain the integrity of the culture (or subculture) in the face of external threats from people from other cultures (who also believe their culture to be the best one). Some people suggest that if there were no ethnocentrism, there would be no culture.

Ethnocentrism gives the people in an organization an identity and helps make them more homogeneous and cohesive. It promotes positive and effective communication among people within the organization. It results in people being more willing to follow the formal and informal practices of the organization, Since the people in the organizational culture consider these practices to be the correct ones (and the best ones) for all normal people to follow. when conflict occurs with with people from other organizational cultures (subcultures), blame can be placed on the other group, and that reduces potential conflict within the home group. Ethnocentrism provides the foundation for pride in one's organization.

Clearly, ethnocentrism is the first line of defense for any organizational culture, or any organizational subculture. Without it, an organization (or a unit within it) is open to rapid and extreme changes and is subjected to losing its very existence. For this reason, people who lead subcultural groups within a larger organizational culture sometimes resort to very militant communication in the ethnocentric defense of their subculture. They recognize that in the absence of high ethnocentrism among the members of the subculture, it may be seen as weak and unimportant to others in the larger culture. If too few people think a subculture is worth preserving, it will not be preserved.

*SOURCE: ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL 3RD ED. BY VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKEY, AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY; PGS. 148-150*

END

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 27)

ETHNOCENTRISM
by
Charles Lamson

When children are born they are virtually helpless. Their parents lay them in a crib and after awhile they are able to see around them in their environment. Everything that exists to the child is what is in that environment. People come in and out. Some talk, some touch, some hold, and all go away. When culture developed, it was created by groups of people whose worlds were almost as restricted as the typical child's. They did not know much about the world which was over the next hill or across the river. While they may have known that there were some other people over the hill or across the river, they knew little about them - except that they definitely were not like themselves. Their world was what they could see around them. It is no wonder that little children see themselves as the center of the world (as early cultures did).

Egocentrism.    All children (and most adults) are egocentric. That is, they see themselves as central to everything that goes on in their world. Since little children have been waited on "hand and foot" by their parents, and others, their whole lives, it is not hard for them to learn that if they scream loud enough, someone will come wait on them and do their bidding. As they grow older, they become aware of the community in which they live. That place is the center of the earth, because they are not aware of anywhere else yet. Now, they begin to sort out people in their community. There are those who seem to agree that they are the center of the universe, and should be catered to (good people), and those who do not behave that way (bad people). Others begin to call them names - "spoiled" often comes first. Then they move on to "self-centered." the subsequent list of names are probably best left to the imagination. What they all really mean is "egocentric."

Ethnocentrism Defined.    Klopf (1998) notes that the term "ethnocentrism" is derived from the Greek words "ethnos," which refers to "nation" and kentron, which refers to "center." Literally then, this term refers to the view that one's country is the center of the universe. Holfstede (1991) argued that ethnocentrism is to a people what egocentrism is to an individual. It is important that we recognize that a people is not necessarily restricted to a large number of people like a country, it can also apply to any group that forms a subculture within a larger culture. It can also apply to the people in a given organization. Most important, it can even apply to a relatively small but identifiable subgroup within an organization division. The marketing division is the central unit of the organization - to the people in the marketing division. If these two ethnocentric divisions cannot learn to work together, the organization is in trouble.

In-groups and Out-groups.    An important aspect of ethnocentrism is the creation of in-groups and out-groups. When we become ethnocentric, there must be a "we" and a "they." "We" are the good people, and everyone else in our group is good. Hence in-groups are good. Other people compose out-groups, and they are the "bad people." All cultures are ethnocentric, including subcultures. Hence, identify people in their culture (and in the in-group), and people in all other cultures (and subcultures) as the out-group. This, of course, provides the basis for dislike, hate, discrimination, conflict, and even war between cultural groups in the presence of too much ethnocentrism. Friendly competition between people of different organizational cultures can evolve into hatred and sabotage of each group by the other, hence a major function of managers in organizations is controlling the ethnocentric (as well as egocentric) tendencies of the various subgroups (and individuals) within the organization. Since it exists in all cultures (is pancultural), it is reasonable to conclude that ethnocentrism is a naturally occurring phenomenon in human societies. The key to dealing with it is understanding its various levels.

Levels of Ethnocentrism.    There are five levels of ethnocentrism: From the least, to the most extreme, they are equality, sensitivity, indifference, avoidance, and disparagement.

Equality is the lowest level of ethnocentrism. People and groups at this level treat others as equals (do to others as you would have them do to you). While they may notice diversity between themselves and others. they see the other people's customs and ways of thinking and behaving to be equal to their own. Cooperation is likely under these circumstances, as is effective communication and problem solving. In political terms these people treat each other as allies. it is a "we" relationship.

Sensitivity is the second lowest level of ethnocentrism. People at this level see others as culturally diverse, and recognizing that this may be problematic. However, they want to better understand where the others are coming from, and decrease the differences between themselves and the others, if possible. They are willing to compromise with the others, if they are willing to compromise as well. If the people from the other culture are also sensitive, the likelihood of successful communication between the two groups is good. They may be able to cooperate, compromise, and successfully work together. They may be able to convert "they" orientations to "we" orientations, at least on a temporary basis.

Indifference is the so-called moderate level of ethnocentrism. People at the indifferent level do not much care about people from other cultures. They prefer to communicate only with people like themselves. They reject diversity. These people will not go out of their way to cause trouble for people that are different from themselves, but if contact with diverse people is forced upon them by the other people (or by circumstances), they may react very negatively. Organizations undergoing change (which requires cultural adaption), may have serious problems with people at this level. These are not people who should be sent on temporary (or permanent) assignments to other cultures, particularly highly divergent cultures. Nor should they be assigned to work under a person from a distinctly different subculture. If they are, any problems that occur are likely to be attributed by these people to the failings of the culture (or subculture) of the people they are forced to interact with. Extremely negative emotional outcomes are to be expected on the part of these people, when forced to interact (as an equal) with people from cultures other than their own. They can be civil with people from other cultures, however, if they are only expected to do that, and have no additional contact.

Avoidance is the second highest level of ethnocentrism. People at this level actively avoid (and limit) communication with people from other cultures to the maximum extent possible. They are especially averse to intimate contact with such people. In organizations, they will avoid accepting any appointment which would require them to communicate with such individuals. They will actively resist hiring, retaining, or promoting diverse people if put in a position where they must participate in such decisions. They will not normally go out of their way to attack people from other cultures, but will do so if they feel their cultural orientations are being challenged.

Disparagement is the highest level of ethnocentrism. People at this level have no value for, nor do they respect, the cultures of other people. They are actively hostile to such people. They belittle them, and see them as inferior beings. Most cultures have terms for people who are considered inferior to others (mud people, pagans, infidels, untouchables, etc.). That is what people from other cultures are to these people. They reject communication with these people except to disparage them in every way possible. People at this level may be referred to as "bigots." However, they see themselves as defenders of their culture. They are often willing to take measures to do so.

Highly ethnocentric groups see themselves as virtuous and superior, their values as universally correct, and their customs as original and centrally human. In contrast, they see members of other groups to be contemptible, immoral, inferior, and weak. They feel it is their responsibility to try to change those people, and make them like themselves. Most major religions have subgroups which are highly ethnocentric. Not all members of the religious group have these highly ethnocentric orientations, but their most extreme fundamentalist factions frequently do. Fortunately, very few organizational cultures reach such extremes. While it is entirely possible you will find individual people working in organizations, who are at the disparagement level of ethnocentrism, it is unlikely you will find it necessary to work as a subordinate in such an environment. 

More about ethnocentrism in the next article. To be continued...

*SOURCE: ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL 3RD ED. BY VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKEY AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY; PGS. 145-148*

END