Chapter 7: Second Shift
To me, this is a concept that shouldn't need to be a concept. How many generations will it take for men and women to view family/household responsibilities as SHARED responsibilities? My parents showed me this by example; I saw them both do every household task from laundry to making dinner to reading bedtime stories throughout my childhood.
I recently had a conversation with my mom where we were recalling those years, and we discussed how they made a point to not thank each other for doing a household task. Instead they would express a compliment or appreciation for a job well done, but never a thank you. To my mom especially, saying thank you to my dad for doing a chore implied that he was doing it for her, as in doing her a favor. So, in order to prevent either one of them from feeling like any one particular chore was their sole responsibility, they did not say thank you. Alternatively, and to this day, they just express their appreciation for the other's hard work and commitment to their shared responsibilities.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Week 4: Blog 1
Chapter 7: Authenticity
In describing the notion of authenticity, the text points out that the younger generation has propelled this movement towards creating cohesiveness between private and public identities. I think there are several reasons for this. For one, this generation of young adults are the children of baby-boomers, whose parenting approach varied greatly from that of their parents during the 50's and 60's. Children of the 80's were encouraged by their parents to be individuals, and nurtured through the process of self-discovery. As adults entering the work force, we see no reason to be anything but authentic and true to our personal, or private, identities.
In addition to our upbringing, I think online social networking has blurred the line between private and personal identities even more. With the ability to access these networks anytime anywhere, we have a 24/7 outlet for our personal expression. We no longer have to wait till we get home to be our true selves when we can tweet our private thoughts and update our facebook status from any computer or cell phone. Just having an online profile means that at any given point throughout the day, anyone can see that profile and interact with our private identity by reading a post, quiz result, "My top 5's", looking at pictures, or anything we might post online about ourselves. Essentially, social networking has allowed us to "be ourselves" at all times, even when we may not be actually performing that identity.
In describing the notion of authenticity, the text points out that the younger generation has propelled this movement towards creating cohesiveness between private and public identities. I think there are several reasons for this. For one, this generation of young adults are the children of baby-boomers, whose parenting approach varied greatly from that of their parents during the 50's and 60's. Children of the 80's were encouraged by their parents to be individuals, and nurtured through the process of self-discovery. As adults entering the work force, we see no reason to be anything but authentic and true to our personal, or private, identities.
In addition to our upbringing, I think online social networking has blurred the line between private and personal identities even more. With the ability to access these networks anytime anywhere, we have a 24/7 outlet for our personal expression. We no longer have to wait till we get home to be our true selves when we can tweet our private thoughts and update our facebook status from any computer or cell phone. Just having an online profile means that at any given point throughout the day, anyone can see that profile and interact with our private identity by reading a post, quiz result, "My top 5's", looking at pictures, or anything we might post online about ourselves. Essentially, social networking has allowed us to "be ourselves" at all times, even when we may not be actually performing that identity.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Week 3: Blog 4
Web Lecture: Ideology
I was struck by the idea of ideology as a tool for domination within an organization. When we consider that ideology is an assumption of how things are or should be, it makes sense to reason that whoever created those assumptions has also created control over those who believe it. I always had a positive connotation with the term ideology, thinking of it more in terms of "how things should be" such as in a Utopian society where humanity is at its very best. Considering it can also be used to describe "how things are" without question or even awareness, it is easy, and frightening, to see how it can be used for one group to dominate another. The most powerful statement on this topic was that group members "come to accept and participate in their own oppression."
I was struck by the idea of ideology as a tool for domination within an organization. When we consider that ideology is an assumption of how things are or should be, it makes sense to reason that whoever created those assumptions has also created control over those who believe it. I always had a positive connotation with the term ideology, thinking of it more in terms of "how things should be" such as in a Utopian society where humanity is at its very best. Considering it can also be used to describe "how things are" without question or even awareness, it is easy, and frightening, to see how it can be used for one group to dominate another. The most powerful statement on this topic was that group members "come to accept and participate in their own oppression."
Week 3: Blog 3
Chapter 6: Surveillance
I do not think surveillance should be used in any position where security or theft is not a threat. Certainly a bank or prison has a legitimate need for surveillance, however in those situations it is necessary in order to protect the safety of employees and not just the company's assets. However, I am vehemently opposed to surveillance in the form of "secret shoppers".
For one, these reports are highly unreliable. Most of them are comprised of a list of steps that an employee is supposed to hit during the course of the service transaction. For the employee, this means saying and doing the same thing in every situation, and leaves little to no room for flexibility to tailor the service to the individual needs of the client.
In my current job we have secret shoppers, and one of our marks is to inform the customers about our featured wines by the glass. However, if I have a customer who is obviously pregnant, I'm not going to describe the full bodied Merlot to her. If she happens to be a secret shopper, I would be marked down for not hitting this step. Just like if there are no crumbs on the table in between courses, and so I don't wipe the table for crumbs, I could be marked down on a secret shopper report for not doing it.
I tailor my service to my guests, and refuse to follow a script. My managers know I am a good server because they receive compliments about me, observe my work first hand, and know that I rarely make mistakes or create problems during my shifts. In my opinion, if they still felt the need for a secret shopper report on me to evaluate my service, then they are not properly doing their job as managers.
I do not think surveillance should be used in any position where security or theft is not a threat. Certainly a bank or prison has a legitimate need for surveillance, however in those situations it is necessary in order to protect the safety of employees and not just the company's assets. However, I am vehemently opposed to surveillance in the form of "secret shoppers".
For one, these reports are highly unreliable. Most of them are comprised of a list of steps that an employee is supposed to hit during the course of the service transaction. For the employee, this means saying and doing the same thing in every situation, and leaves little to no room for flexibility to tailor the service to the individual needs of the client.
In my current job we have secret shoppers, and one of our marks is to inform the customers about our featured wines by the glass. However, if I have a customer who is obviously pregnant, I'm not going to describe the full bodied Merlot to her. If she happens to be a secret shopper, I would be marked down for not hitting this step. Just like if there are no crumbs on the table in between courses, and so I don't wipe the table for crumbs, I could be marked down on a secret shopper report for not doing it.
I tailor my service to my guests, and refuse to follow a script. My managers know I am a good server because they receive compliments about me, observe my work first hand, and know that I rarely make mistakes or create problems during my shifts. In my opinion, if they still felt the need for a secret shopper report on me to evaluate my service, then they are not properly doing their job as managers.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Week 3: Blog 2
Chapter 5: Differentiation
This is a concept I am unfortunately too familiar with. For two years I worked in a restaurant that operated this way, and although I knew it was dysfunctional, I didn't know a better way existed. Every job I had up to that point was with a poorly organized and managed company, so as bad as it was, I wasn't aware of any alternatives.
There was such a huge divide between managers and the staff that they existed as two separate subcultures that were constantly either in conflict or indifferent to one another, but never in harmony. The managers did not understand how the floor of the restaurant ran, as they were more concerned with wine tastings and maintaining a "see-and-be-seen" atmosphere. This meant that even though we had 2-3 "managers" in the restaurant during a busy Friday or Saturday night, they were no help to us (the servers).
If we had a problem, we fixed it ourselves or helped each other solve the issues. If we needed a discount or "comp" applied to a check we did it ourselves with the manager's code that we technically weren't supposed to know. Since they disliked being interrupted while shmoozing customers in order to resolve our issues, and since more often than not they didn't even know or understand why something needed a discount, they finally told us the code. Yet we all pretended that we didn't know it, in order to maintain the appearance of management holding on to some shred of control.
This is what immediately came to my mind when I read that in the differentiation perspective a common occurrence is for the named responsible person to not actually be the person everyone knows to be in charge. This restaurant had a general manager, as well as several assistant managers. Yet everyone knew that they weren't in charge of any practical aspect of running the restaurant. Under this type of management, the business should have been doomed. However, they survived their first year in business because their staff was able to pull together to keep the restaurant running smoothly and manage themselves. They have survived in the years that have followed because they found a niche in the night club scene and make a killing on cover charges and $15 cosmopolitans.
Did I mention that the "managers" of this restaurant were the owner's children?
This is a concept I am unfortunately too familiar with. For two years I worked in a restaurant that operated this way, and although I knew it was dysfunctional, I didn't know a better way existed. Every job I had up to that point was with a poorly organized and managed company, so as bad as it was, I wasn't aware of any alternatives.
There was such a huge divide between managers and the staff that they existed as two separate subcultures that were constantly either in conflict or indifferent to one another, but never in harmony. The managers did not understand how the floor of the restaurant ran, as they were more concerned with wine tastings and maintaining a "see-and-be-seen" atmosphere. This meant that even though we had 2-3 "managers" in the restaurant during a busy Friday or Saturday night, they were no help to us (the servers).
If we had a problem, we fixed it ourselves or helped each other solve the issues. If we needed a discount or "comp" applied to a check we did it ourselves with the manager's code that we technically weren't supposed to know. Since they disliked being interrupted while shmoozing customers in order to resolve our issues, and since more often than not they didn't even know or understand why something needed a discount, they finally told us the code. Yet we all pretended that we didn't know it, in order to maintain the appearance of management holding on to some shred of control.
This is what immediately came to my mind when I read that in the differentiation perspective a common occurrence is for the named responsible person to not actually be the person everyone knows to be in charge. This restaurant had a general manager, as well as several assistant managers. Yet everyone knew that they weren't in charge of any practical aspect of running the restaurant. Under this type of management, the business should have been doomed. However, they survived their first year in business because their staff was able to pull together to keep the restaurant running smoothly and manage themselves. They have survived in the years that have followed because they found a niche in the night club scene and make a killing on cover charges and $15 cosmopolitans.
Did I mention that the "managers" of this restaurant were the owner's children?
Week 3: Blog 1
Chapter 5: Practical View of Organizational Culture
In reading about the practical view of organizational culture, I couldn't help but think about Southwest Airlines. Yesterday in my Business 160 class (foundations of management and organizational behavior) my professor lectured on organizational culture, for purposes of mergers and acquisitions, and we spent a good deal of time discussing the culture of Southwest. The company has 8 fundamentals that outline their values, vision, and culture and it reads almost identical to the 8 common characteristics of top-performing companies listed in our text.
Two of Southwest's most unique fundamentals are that they "hire for attitude; train for skill" and "the customer comes second, employees first". Southwest has realized that having employees who embody their values will strengthen their culture which is why they place more importance on someone's character than skill set when looking at prospective employees. This is the same as the "hands-on, value-driven" characteristic outlined in the text, in which Southwest has "strong core values that are widely shared among employees".
Southwest has also figured out that happy employees provide better customer service. When employees are well taken care of by their employer, in essence they have nothing to complain about, then their attitude towards the customer and willingness to go above and beyond for the customer significantly increases. This is directly related to the characteristic of "productivity through people" in which "good customer relations depend on valuing service throughout the organization".
Learning about organizational culture from a business perspective and communication perspective at the same time has allowed me to see the "how" and "why" of these principles simultaneously. Business focuses on the "how" to do these things to be a successful company, where communication focuses on the "why" these things work the way they do. Understanding both not only reinforces each individually but makes for an even stronger organization when brought together.
In reading about the practical view of organizational culture, I couldn't help but think about Southwest Airlines. Yesterday in my Business 160 class (foundations of management and organizational behavior) my professor lectured on organizational culture, for purposes of mergers and acquisitions, and we spent a good deal of time discussing the culture of Southwest. The company has 8 fundamentals that outline their values, vision, and culture and it reads almost identical to the 8 common characteristics of top-performing companies listed in our text.
Two of Southwest's most unique fundamentals are that they "hire for attitude; train for skill" and "the customer comes second, employees first". Southwest has realized that having employees who embody their values will strengthen their culture which is why they place more importance on someone's character than skill set when looking at prospective employees. This is the same as the "hands-on, value-driven" characteristic outlined in the text, in which Southwest has "strong core values that are widely shared among employees".
Southwest has also figured out that happy employees provide better customer service. When employees are well taken care of by their employer, in essence they have nothing to complain about, then their attitude towards the customer and willingness to go above and beyond for the customer significantly increases. This is directly related to the characteristic of "productivity through people" in which "good customer relations depend on valuing service throughout the organization".
Learning about organizational culture from a business perspective and communication perspective at the same time has allowed me to see the "how" and "why" of these principles simultaneously. Business focuses on the "how" to do these things to be a successful company, where communication focuses on the "why" these things work the way they do. Understanding both not only reinforces each individually but makes for an even stronger organization when brought together.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Week 2: Blog 3
Chapter 4: Retrospective Sense Making
I'm in love with this concept. For every time I've said to myself, "hindsight is 20/20," and for all of the time I've spent looking back on the course of my life trying to make sense of the plans that succeeded verses the ones that didn't... I can now say that the flaw was not in my planning, but in my thinking.
How can we realistically and accurately plan, or decide, how we will act in a given situation when we have no way of knowing what the situation will be like once we get there? And if we create these ideas of how we "should" behave then aren't we only setting ourselves up for disappointment when we don't live up to those preconceived expectations? It seems to me that by not allowing ourselves to "think backward" in order to learn about ourselves, we are perpetuating a cycle in which our "forward thinking" forces us to criticize and condemn our actions as "wrong" every time we don't live up to our perceived potential.
I've never quite known how to reconcile between the things I thought I would do or say, and what I actually do or say. How many times has anyone thought "why did I just do/say that?" or "what was I thinking?" Maybe that is the beauty of it all; the person we think we are doesn't really exist. If who we are in isolation isn't always the person that expresses itself in public, than which one is real and which one is trying to impress who? More importantly, do we really need to "know who we are" in order to make appropriate decisions? Shouldn't we place more importance on discovering the meaning of our actions, as Weick suggests, than on acting "right"?
In the context of organizational communication, I think the book says it best on page 116: "The manager in Weick's model is a manipulator of symbols who motivates employees to make sense of their work life." Based on what I have learned and experienced, this statement is the fundamental principle of effective management, from which all other ideas about work, job satisfaction, productivity, loyalty, ownership, and happiness can be realized.
I'm in love with this concept. For every time I've said to myself, "hindsight is 20/20," and for all of the time I've spent looking back on the course of my life trying to make sense of the plans that succeeded verses the ones that didn't... I can now say that the flaw was not in my planning, but in my thinking.
How can we realistically and accurately plan, or decide, how we will act in a given situation when we have no way of knowing what the situation will be like once we get there? And if we create these ideas of how we "should" behave then aren't we only setting ourselves up for disappointment when we don't live up to those preconceived expectations? It seems to me that by not allowing ourselves to "think backward" in order to learn about ourselves, we are perpetuating a cycle in which our "forward thinking" forces us to criticize and condemn our actions as "wrong" every time we don't live up to our perceived potential.
I've never quite known how to reconcile between the things I thought I would do or say, and what I actually do or say. How many times has anyone thought "why did I just do/say that?" or "what was I thinking?" Maybe that is the beauty of it all; the person we think we are doesn't really exist. If who we are in isolation isn't always the person that expresses itself in public, than which one is real and which one is trying to impress who? More importantly, do we really need to "know who we are" in order to make appropriate decisions? Shouldn't we place more importance on discovering the meaning of our actions, as Weick suggests, than on acting "right"?
In the context of organizational communication, I think the book says it best on page 116: "The manager in Weick's model is a manipulator of symbols who motivates employees to make sense of their work life." Based on what I have learned and experienced, this statement is the fundamental principle of effective management, from which all other ideas about work, job satisfaction, productivity, loyalty, ownership, and happiness can be realized.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Week 2: Blog 2
Chapter 3: Hawthorne Studies
This is one of my favorite experiments because it "illuminates" some interesting characteristics of human nature. One of those is our need for attention, which stems from our survival instincts as infants. Newborn babies are designed to get the attention of their "elders" so that we will feed, nurture and care for them. Without the care of others during our infancy, we would not survive. As we grow and learn basic skills to care for ourselves, our need for attention shifts in order to attract others to love, respect and create a sense of belonging with us (which also correlates with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs).
An increase of productivity when we know we are being observed is a direct result of our need for attention as a means to gain those feelings of belonging. When we are given the opportunity to have the attention of others (especially someone we desire approval from) we will do whatever we can to inspire those feelings in them. In organizations it is easy to say that the Hawthorn Effect exists because people fear losing their jobs, not because they are seeking attention to obtain emotional needs of respect and acceptance. Certainly there are undeniable financial motivators for keeping one's position within an organization, however, aren't the emotional motivators just as strong, if not stronger?
If I know that I am skilled and educated, and have enough connections or positive recommendations to secure another job, then why would I dread the thought of being fired? Is it because I don't want to go through the hassle of getting a new job, or because I wouldn't want to experience the humiliation of being an outcast among my colleagues? Not to mention the fear of potentially losing the respect of my friends and family, whose acceptance I value even more than that of the organization I work for.
For me, this is just one of the many fascinating aspects of the Hawthorn Effect and the ways in which it reveals our psyche.
This is one of my favorite experiments because it "illuminates" some interesting characteristics of human nature. One of those is our need for attention, which stems from our survival instincts as infants. Newborn babies are designed to get the attention of their "elders" so that we will feed, nurture and care for them. Without the care of others during our infancy, we would not survive. As we grow and learn basic skills to care for ourselves, our need for attention shifts in order to attract others to love, respect and create a sense of belonging with us (which also correlates with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs).
An increase of productivity when we know we are being observed is a direct result of our need for attention as a means to gain those feelings of belonging. When we are given the opportunity to have the attention of others (especially someone we desire approval from) we will do whatever we can to inspire those feelings in them. In organizations it is easy to say that the Hawthorn Effect exists because people fear losing their jobs, not because they are seeking attention to obtain emotional needs of respect and acceptance. Certainly there are undeniable financial motivators for keeping one's position within an organization, however, aren't the emotional motivators just as strong, if not stronger?
If I know that I am skilled and educated, and have enough connections or positive recommendations to secure another job, then why would I dread the thought of being fired? Is it because I don't want to go through the hassle of getting a new job, or because I wouldn't want to experience the humiliation of being an outcast among my colleagues? Not to mention the fear of potentially losing the respect of my friends and family, whose acceptance I value even more than that of the organization I work for.
For me, this is just one of the many fascinating aspects of the Hawthorn Effect and the ways in which it reveals our psyche.
Week 2: Blog 1
Chapter 3: Scientific Management
At first glance scientific management seems out-dated, archaic even, as a way of viewing the employee-management relationship. We have learned over the past hundred years that human behavior cannot be reduced to mechanical calculations, and that human relationships are far too dynamic to be limited to "order and command" communication.
Although Frederick Taylor had noble intentions, to improve cooperation between management and employees, in practice this approach left much to be desired. Taylor assumed that with scientific reasoning behind management's decisions there would be no cause for confusion or debate between managers and employees, thus allowing for improved relationships and greater efficiency in the workplace.
However, the flaw in Taylor's approach was that managers were given too much freedom and employees not enough. Managers were completely free to focus on profits and efficiency without having to consider their employees as an integral component to their success. They were free to make any decision they so desired, just by calling the decision-making process "scientific." Using science as a shield, they could avoid responsibility for their decision, as well as retain authority over their employees by being unchallengeable.
In contrast, employees were given no freedom from the dominance of their employers. Communication was completely one-sided, from manager to employee, without any room for dialogue. Inevitably this gave managers absolute power, and lead to improper and unfortunately lasting assumptions regarding a worker's ability to think and reason.
As we have seen, when we attempt to consider humans as machines under scientific management, this approach has devastating results. However, outside of human interaction, this approach to management is not only useful, but alive and well in the modern world. Page 74 of the text highlights just one of the ways we can see these principles being effectively used today in the section titled, "Scientific Management at the Gym." By applying the principles of maximum benefit with minimal resources to our management and organization of non-human entities (whether it be gym equipment or housework) we can achieve the goals Taylor aspired to, and finally find a place for utilizing scientific management.
At first glance scientific management seems out-dated, archaic even, as a way of viewing the employee-management relationship. We have learned over the past hundred years that human behavior cannot be reduced to mechanical calculations, and that human relationships are far too dynamic to be limited to "order and command" communication.
Although Frederick Taylor had noble intentions, to improve cooperation between management and employees, in practice this approach left much to be desired. Taylor assumed that with scientific reasoning behind management's decisions there would be no cause for confusion or debate between managers and employees, thus allowing for improved relationships and greater efficiency in the workplace.
However, the flaw in Taylor's approach was that managers were given too much freedom and employees not enough. Managers were completely free to focus on profits and efficiency without having to consider their employees as an integral component to their success. They were free to make any decision they so desired, just by calling the decision-making process "scientific." Using science as a shield, they could avoid responsibility for their decision, as well as retain authority over their employees by being unchallengeable.
In contrast, employees were given no freedom from the dominance of their employers. Communication was completely one-sided, from manager to employee, without any room for dialogue. Inevitably this gave managers absolute power, and lead to improper and unfortunately lasting assumptions regarding a worker's ability to think and reason.
As we have seen, when we attempt to consider humans as machines under scientific management, this approach has devastating results. However, outside of human interaction, this approach to management is not only useful, but alive and well in the modern world. Page 74 of the text highlights just one of the ways we can see these principles being effectively used today in the section titled, "Scientific Management at the Gym." By applying the principles of maximum benefit with minimal resources to our management and organization of non-human entities (whether it be gym equipment or housework) we can achieve the goals Taylor aspired to, and finally find a place for utilizing scientific management.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Work Story
I can't actually remember when I officially started "working" because while I was growing up my mom ran a day care out of our house. I loved helping her with the children, and started babysitting for one of her families at a very young age. They would have me come over to their house whenever they were having a party and I would play with and look after their three boys for the night. After getting them ready for bed I would spend the night, and I thought I was super rich when they paid me $20 the next morning. I've been caring for children ever since, including having one of my own, and in fact I'm babysitting a three month old right now (he's napping).
With six years babysitting experience under my belt, I got my first "real" job the summer I was sixteen at the Wet Seal store in Vallco Mall (I probably just aged myself, but yes there was a time when Vallco was a good mall and you only went out to Valley Fair if you wanted to go to Nordstrom). At some point durring the fall of my junior year, I left the chaos and disorganization of Wet Seal and began working in a family-run Christian bookstore, The Lion and the Lamb, where I stayed until halfway through my senior year in high school. Then began my career of job-hopping.
I worked at: Chili's (hostess), Round Table (front counter), Cold Stone (ice cream scooper extraordinaire), State Farm (receptionist/assistant), Old Navy (customer service), Red Robin (server), Beavers Bar & Grill (cocktail waitress), Rosie McCann's (server/cocktail waitress), Three Degrees Restaurant (manager), Creative Habitat (infant teacher), and finally Pizza Antica (server). In between those jobs I have been a nanny for four different families, including my current position caring for three month old Nathan two days a week (in addition to serving at Pizza Antica two days a week, taking summer classes on campus two days a week, and caring for my own eight year old son 24/7).
I've had good experiences with well run and organized companies, but have also experienced horror stories of down-right awful organization, communication and management. Unfortunately, the horror stories significantly out-number the positive experiences, which is what has brought me here, to Communication Studies at SJSU, and specifically to this class.
Here's to an exciting and challenging six weeks of Comm 144!
~a
With six years babysitting experience under my belt, I got my first "real" job the summer I was sixteen at the Wet Seal store in Vallco Mall (I probably just aged myself, but yes there was a time when Vallco was a good mall and you only went out to Valley Fair if you wanted to go to Nordstrom). At some point durring the fall of my junior year, I left the chaos and disorganization of Wet Seal and began working in a family-run Christian bookstore, The Lion and the Lamb, where I stayed until halfway through my senior year in high school. Then began my career of job-hopping.
I worked at: Chili's (hostess), Round Table (front counter), Cold Stone (ice cream scooper extraordinaire), State Farm (receptionist/assistant), Old Navy (customer service), Red Robin (server), Beavers Bar & Grill (cocktail waitress), Rosie McCann's (server/cocktail waitress), Three Degrees Restaurant (manager), Creative Habitat (infant teacher), and finally Pizza Antica (server). In between those jobs I have been a nanny for four different families, including my current position caring for three month old Nathan two days a week (in addition to serving at Pizza Antica two days a week, taking summer classes on campus two days a week, and caring for my own eight year old son 24/7).
I've had good experiences with well run and organized companies, but have also experienced horror stories of down-right awful organization, communication and management. Unfortunately, the horror stories significantly out-number the positive experiences, which is what has brought me here, to Communication Studies at SJSU, and specifically to this class.
Here's to an exciting and challenging six weeks of Comm 144!
~a
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
