The organizational culture approach was developed, like systems theory, to give a big picture view of the communication that takes place in organizations. It is an approach that works very well with our communication perspective on organizations. It is difficult to define exactly what culture is but most scholars of culture come up with definitions that make the interaction between people (communication to us) at the heart of the culture construction process. Of all the approaches we will use to study organizational communication, organizational culture is probably the most communication-friendly.
Ironically, it is this very communication-friendliness that makes organizational culture one of the most difficult approaches for a manager or organizational communication practitioner. The organizational culture approach makes it very clear that the culture producing process is not top down. All of the interactions between all of the members are coming together and adding up to a whole that is an organizations culture. There is seemingly little a manager or communication expert can do to control the organizational culture that develops in an organization. In fact, the managers may not even really know what the organizational culture of the organization is. In The Mighty Machine, a paper a colleague and I wrote in the early days of organizational culture research we found that in the organization we studied the managers and employees had completely opposite characterizations of the culture in the organization. The managers believed the organization had a "people-first" culture while the employees reported they felt strongly that the culture of the organization was driven by the machines and technology of the organization--first and foremost.
This bottom-up nature of culture is difficult for managers because it is virtually uncontrollable yet has a powerful impact on the organization. It is even more difficult because what management of culture is possible does not follow the patterns and processes typically followed by managers. Management of culture must be symbolic. That is, management must use symbols to guide and direct the culture. Symbolic management is even harder than it might be because the "one cannot not communicate" concept reminds us that EVERY action potentially is an important symbol that can communicate. Actions that are not thought of as any part of the communication with employees, new carpet in the managerial suite, for example, or a reward trip for employees in a certain department, end up being major factors in creating the culture. The actions themselves send messages, intended or not. Employees' reactions to these messages reverberate and create cultural realities that shape the organization.
Bottom line, it is better to understand how organizational culture works and have an awareness of the impact of potential messages than to be unaware. Symbolic management is practiced, and practiced effectively, by managers and organizations. It would be great if organizational culture could just be avoided but that is a luxury organizations just don't have.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Chapter Three: Thinking about how we think about organizations (do I see a theme developing?)!
It would be very comforting to believe that "business people" or at least "corporate people" had their act together and knew what they were doing. In my experience it is common for undergraduate students to expect that when they get to their "real job" there will be leaders who lead, managers who manage, and a clear overall sense of what the organization is doing and how it is going to get where it needs to go. Sadly, the bulk of my email messages and communication from alums makes it clear to me that the "real world" is no more, and no less, organized and smoothly functioning than this unreal world of the University.
People are people and their attempts to organize are always complicated by the fact that we are not robots or automatons. People do the right thing, but they also do the wrong thing. People work hard, but they also get lazy. People act rationally, but they also act nonrationally. It is always hard to get all the necessary people on "the right page." To my thinking, this is one reason that there are so many theories of organization. Certainly our understanding of what work should be like change and theories must change accordingly. But business theory, the stuff in chapter three, has also been notoriously ineffective in predicting and controlling life in the organization (theory is supposed to allow for prediction and control). So managers and other people do their best. They invent TPS forms to try to manage a chaotic situation but somehow the form just adds to the chaos and they have to try something else. A consultant arrives with the latest theory and makes suggestions for change. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't but eventually the "people-ness" of the organization wins out and a level of chaos returns.
Think about Enron. The situation at Enron was an ethical nightmare, of course. But think about that fact that an organization of that magnitude, with facilities around the country and the world, with thousands of employees, could collapse so absolutely and so fast. It reminds us how tenuous the threads that hold organized activity together really are. I remember reading an article in the Minneapolis paper a year or two ago. I wish I remembered the name of the organization but it was a pretty good sized national organization. The organization was in trouble and the CEO was getting pressured to resign or get fired. At the heart of the problem was that he had hired his girlfriend to be the CFO (chief financial officer). She was in over her head and had caused a number of problems. I remember thinking that it was incredible to me that a big Fortune 500-ish company could be seriously brought down because the CEO hired his girlfriend. It sounded like the thing that might happen in a little two or three person organization or even in a club in high school. But in a major organization with hundreds of employees. I was amazed! But as I said, people are people and putting them in high powered organizational contexts does not change that.
All this is not say that we shouldn't learn theory of course. There are many valuable tools in chapter three. It is only to serve a reminder that whatever theory you may use those are people out there and as Depeche Mode says "people are people..."
--Rick
People are people and their attempts to organize are always complicated by the fact that we are not robots or automatons. People do the right thing, but they also do the wrong thing. People work hard, but they also get lazy. People act rationally, but they also act nonrationally. It is always hard to get all the necessary people on "the right page." To my thinking, this is one reason that there are so many theories of organization. Certainly our understanding of what work should be like change and theories must change accordingly. But business theory, the stuff in chapter three, has also been notoriously ineffective in predicting and controlling life in the organization (theory is supposed to allow for prediction and control). So managers and other people do their best. They invent TPS forms to try to manage a chaotic situation but somehow the form just adds to the chaos and they have to try something else. A consultant arrives with the latest theory and makes suggestions for change. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't but eventually the "people-ness" of the organization wins out and a level of chaos returns.
Think about Enron. The situation at Enron was an ethical nightmare, of course. But think about that fact that an organization of that magnitude, with facilities around the country and the world, with thousands of employees, could collapse so absolutely and so fast. It reminds us how tenuous the threads that hold organized activity together really are. I remember reading an article in the Minneapolis paper a year or two ago. I wish I remembered the name of the organization but it was a pretty good sized national organization. The organization was in trouble and the CEO was getting pressured to resign or get fired. At the heart of the problem was that he had hired his girlfriend to be the CFO (chief financial officer). She was in over her head and had caused a number of problems. I remember thinking that it was incredible to me that a big Fortune 500-ish company could be seriously brought down because the CEO hired his girlfriend. It sounded like the thing that might happen in a little two or three person organization or even in a club in high school. But in a major organization with hundreds of employees. I was amazed! But as I said, people are people and putting them in high powered organizational contexts does not change that.
All this is not say that we shouldn't learn theory of course. There are many valuable tools in chapter three. It is only to serve a reminder that whatever theory you may use those are people out there and as Depeche Mode says "people are people..."
--Rick
Chapter Two: Thinking about how we think about communication!
How often do you look at the world through the eyes of another person? There are many cliches that suggest we should. We all know we can "walk a mile in the others shoes" and we should "do unto others as we would have them do unto us." Cliches aside, however, actually taking the perspective of another person is a very difficult thing to do. It's kind of hard to believe that the I- centered way we view the world is a cultural thing.
Likewise, the way we think about communicaton is very much a cultural thing. There are many models and theories of communication that make very different assumptions about communication. For most of us, the default model of communication focuses on transmission. A sender transmits a message to a receiver. The telephone becomes the perfect metaphor for any communication with its electronic encoding of message, its transmission of the message over copper or fiber optic cables (or radio waves), and the decoding of message by the phone on the receiving end.
Try this experiment. Think of communication as a waterfall. Communication begins at the top of the waterfall; there certainly is movement as the water rushes off the cliff. As the water cascades it is shaped, changed, and dispersed. Some of the water evaporates. If you're standing near the waterfall you will be cooled or chilled by the mist. Some of the water impacts the land behind the waterfall, over time this land erodes and changes shape. Most of the water lands in the pool at the bottom. Sometimes the stream into the pool is steady and predictable. Other times it seems to land in a random fashion. If the stream stops the pool at the bottom dries up.
What does this metaphor say about the communication between a student and a teacher? What does it say about the communication between you and your significant other. Who's the pool at the bottom? Where does the water at the top come from? Can we learn anything new about communication from radically changing the metaphor we use. Some people believe that our transmissional metaphor causes as many problems in understanding communication as it solves.
What things about communication should a good metaphor highlight? What is your default model for thinking about communication? Does it ever prevent you from understanding communication?
--Rick
Likewise, the way we think about communicaton is very much a cultural thing. There are many models and theories of communication that make very different assumptions about communication. For most of us, the default model of communication focuses on transmission. A sender transmits a message to a receiver. The telephone becomes the perfect metaphor for any communication with its electronic encoding of message, its transmission of the message over copper or fiber optic cables (or radio waves), and the decoding of message by the phone on the receiving end.
Try this experiment. Think of communication as a waterfall. Communication begins at the top of the waterfall; there certainly is movement as the water rushes off the cliff. As the water cascades it is shaped, changed, and dispersed. Some of the water evaporates. If you're standing near the waterfall you will be cooled or chilled by the mist. Some of the water impacts the land behind the waterfall, over time this land erodes and changes shape. Most of the water lands in the pool at the bottom. Sometimes the stream into the pool is steady and predictable. Other times it seems to land in a random fashion. If the stream stops the pool at the bottom dries up.
What does this metaphor say about the communication between a student and a teacher? What does it say about the communication between you and your significant other. Who's the pool at the bottom? Where does the water at the top come from? Can we learn anything new about communication from radically changing the metaphor we use. Some people believe that our transmissional metaphor causes as many problems in understanding communication as it solves.
What things about communication should a good metaphor highlight? What is your default model for thinking about communication? Does it ever prevent you from understanding communication?
--Rick
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Chapter One: It's a wild, wacky world out there!
One of my favorite advising quotes is that someone entering the job market at this time will have five careers, not five jobs, five careers. To be honest I don't recall exactly where I heard that. I'm pretty sure it was from someone in Career Services but I can't guarantee it. The number doesn't really matter, it's probably higher than five now. What matters is the idea that the world of work isn't like it used to be. As recently as a decade ago, certainly twenty-five years ago, it was completely reasonable to assume that you would (or at least could) finish your career with the company you first worked with. That kind of certainty just doesn't exist anymore. Is that good or bad? Probably both. The certainty of lifetime employment has an appeal for sure. On the other hand, it was very possible to get caught in a "dead-end" job and spend much of your career unfulfilled and stuck. As long as you know the rules, you adjust, I guess.
My Brother-in-law and Sister-in-law are examples of the changing world of work. Both had very well-paid professional jobs for a large company (international, Fortune 500). After 20 years of continuous employment they were both laid off within a year of each other. Their company provided generous severance and assistance with finding new work. In the time since they were laid off, six or eight years--I don't recall exactly--neither has had permanent full time work. They have both been hired as contractors and consultants, never at a wage anything near what they left.I'm sure you know people with similar experiences.
My sister-in-law believes quite strongly that their company did the right thing in laying them off. She says that it's just what companies have to do to stay in business. I'm not so sure. I understand that the world is a turbulent place and change happens at an incredible rate. On the other hand, to me it seems like we keep renegotiating the contract so that soul-less corporations get a little bit more and real people with flesh, blood, and souls get a little bit less. Is it really necessary that every choice in the changing world of work should benefit the company over the person? We love our free market in the US but, you know, it does come with a cost.
My Brother-in-law and Sister-in-law are examples of the changing world of work. Both had very well-paid professional jobs for a large company (international, Fortune 500). After 20 years of continuous employment they were both laid off within a year of each other. Their company provided generous severance and assistance with finding new work. In the time since they were laid off, six or eight years--I don't recall exactly--neither has had permanent full time work. They have both been hired as contractors and consultants, never at a wage anything near what they left.I'm sure you know people with similar experiences.
My sister-in-law believes quite strongly that their company did the right thing in laying them off. She says that it's just what companies have to do to stay in business. I'm not so sure. I understand that the world is a turbulent place and change happens at an incredible rate. On the other hand, to me it seems like we keep renegotiating the contract so that soul-less corporations get a little bit more and real people with flesh, blood, and souls get a little bit less. Is it really necessary that every choice in the changing world of work should benefit the company over the person? We love our free market in the US but, you know, it does come with a cost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
