It has started all the way back in the 18th Century when businesses, corporations, and organizations were much like Empires. Businesses and organizations were just like the government, they traded, they provided jobs, Depending on how far you lived from the "work site" the more or less "class" or "social power" you had. The workforce is divided like a hierarchy because each worker and supervisor have different tasks. The reason for this is so that all personnels would be able to put all their work together and make is as time/cost effective. This is based on the organizational action. A primary example of organizational action is inventor: Eli Whitney's demonstration of mass production in the year 1801 (pg 65). The division of labor has been highly praised and later on would be called the "classical theory of management" (pg. 66).
I believe this is a good example of organizational communication because it has all the functions laid out for us and it is easily folllowed. Everybody is sending and receiving information in order to compile a whole.
I am very aware of this example of the workforce. I currently have a job and I feel like depending on our different positions at work we have different tasks, but at the end of the day we are only a team when we all contribute.
Another concept I would like to discuss from Ch 3 is Partial.
Partialty: "An argument could be made that any attempt to trace the history of organizational communication is necessarily incomplete and therefore misleading".
I think it is absolutely mind boggling that we can never have a full detailed story. No matter how long in length, how long I verbally tell you a story. You can never have the full history of anything. This is an example of organizational communication. Because everything is partial, does it mean everything is a theory?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was also very intrigued by the historical aspect of organizational communication. As citizens of the digital era we often forget that concepts and theories have been evolving for centuries, not everything just pops out of Google and is as shiny and new as an iPhone. Many things in our century are made completely by machines and computers, so many of the initial organizational communication problems that factory owners faced are now irrelevant, but those factory owners and workers provided the base for theories that are now used today in workplaces. Its interesting to see how history affects everything...
ReplyDeleteI think your last point about partiality is an interesting one. The key here is there are two sides to every story, two people can observe something, and have totally different explanations of what happened. That doesn't mean that when we are hearing a story, the source is intentionally leaving things out, they are just telling you what they observed. There is no way that everyone will interpret an event in the same way because we have all gone through different life events that dictate what things mean to us.
ReplyDeleteI always wonder about partiality when it comes to history. A recent biblical studies professor told me recently that the bible is the greatest example of partiality. The key to partiality is interpretation. This is where the bible comes to mind. There are many versions of the bible that have changed over time and each version has changed when it was rewritten by a new scholar. The trickle-down effect leads people to believe what is interpreted correctly and what is made-up.
ReplyDeleteYeas, the hierarchy approach to organizations is defiantly a great example of how communication is so effective in the work place. This hierarchy system also applies to my football organization. The main person in charge of all of the sport teams is the athletic director. He is the person who communicates downward to my head coach. My head coach then communicates to the assistant coaches and trainers, who in turn communicate directly to us. Although this does cause problems in the organization. At times the athletes, who are last to know everything, are left hanging because we do not have any feedback towards certain situations. Therefore, we have to go with what we are directed to do, even if it conflicts with our schedules. But I would be foolish o say that it does not work, because it is certainly a great mode of transferring pertinent information and having everyone clearly know what there job is.
ReplyDelete