Journal 11
paragraph 3, pg 212
What I like about this passage is the fact that they describe or preceive organizations as a metaphor of machiene. Business edicate is something that gets braught up here too. This is not the suit and tie type of casual, this is the properly treating people type of edicate. The kind of thing where orgnizations want their employees to feel important and valued. To show their support and appreciation. They show their appreciation by holding company events for their workers and doing team bondning activties over a weekend. Although these are good ideas does not dictate wether or not its going to have a good effect on the forced comrodery.
passage 2, page 215
The hiearchy of the workplace is fastenating to me and that dynamic is brought up in this passage is discussed very well. The way that the higher ups deligate and assign tasks is through the forms of verbal and non verbal communication, so therefore there is no heiarchy withoiut communication. The workplace heirchy is created by the used of titles and job position. This effects the workers in the following ways, the workers have their own social staus and group based on where they are assigned within the company. How they interact with each other based on the delegation and assigning of tasks effects teh overall productivity of the compnay.
Question- Is there more people having problems with taking things from higher ups now than before?
comment- I think its interesting how communications shows up in everything but unless its talked aboit directly, no one notces that it is the backbone of human life.
quote- “The formality heirchy transaction may be the titles at work may be transacted by the tites in talk. “
One thing that really stood out to me was the Workplace Formality/Hierarchy passage. What I really thought was unique was the type of way you have to speak to higher ranking people at work. “Thus formality/hierarchy distinction at work may be transacted directly by the use of titles in talk, but is more commonly transacted by what is being said, by whom it is being said, and how it is being said (pg 215 par 4).” In a way it’s like when you’re being taught how to talk to an adult as a child in a sense. You always get told be polite, speak with the most respect, and help in anyway you can. It’s the same sense but what you speak of and how you say it matters more.
Another passage that stood out to me was Friendship With the Boss. “Many people I the workplace develop friendly relationships with one another when they are at the same level because it makes their work easier… However, if one of them is promoted to a rank higher than the other, than the information acquired during the friendship may become a source of conflict, particularly if the information leads to a negative assessment of a person’s capacity to fulfill the job properly (pg 224 Ch4).” Though friends are a great thing to acquire at work it’s a competition you have to remember and you can’t let it effect the work needing to get done as well.
(PGS 213-214)
This passage primarily made me very curious about the organizations that I am aware of that could be thought of as machines or cultures. I primarily thought of the United States of America. We have our own culture one could argue but within our borders we have thousands of individual cultures interacting with each other. Furthermore I thought of the American military forces. This is an organization of different branches of our military but it is thought of as a machine of destruction by much of the world. It has a small culture within the U.S. but the organization has negative connotations as a machine.
(PGS 220-221)
This passage was particularly interesting to me, having five years of past experience in retail. Workplace relationships are very important but what I have noticed is that they are fluid. Not only are people coming and going in and out of the company, but people may receive promotions changing their positions of authority. I was an assistant manager with several other managers under a general manager of our store. Once the G.M. left one of the other managers stepped into their position becoming my boss. From a position of management I find workplace relationships to impede productivity. Oftentimes I would have to repeat myself trying to get the people around me to complete their tasks. Meanwhile they would be on their phones and goofing off while I’m helping costumes.
Page 212, Para 4
One passage that I found interesting was the passage about Vocational Anticipatory Socialization. The thought of V.A.S is how a child gets exposed to the workplace through family interaction and exposure to the media. It states that you learn/learned about the nature of the workplace through the likes of your family and your socialization with them. Cheryl Cockburn-Wootten and Theodore Zorn note that families tell stories about the nature of work experiences. Some are funny and some are not, but overall they talk about the nature of the workplace and I find that unique and can relate to knowing about the work environment before working in the workplace.
Page 217, para 2
A second passage that I found unique is a passage that talks about how the workplace has a unique culture. “…in which particular shared meaning systems, realities, beliefs, values, and communication styles and patterns influence and are maintained through our interactions and relationships with others.” This brings with it different ways, or certain ways to do things such as photocopying one way and not another and ethical guidelines of an organization. In simple terms, things that are not in your formal training and knowledge that are gained and passed along to one and another.
Page 215, Paragraph 1-3
The main discussion of these paragraphs is the dynamic and the overall hierarchy of different businesses work, the way how everything is controlled and used to maximize business efforts. How the higher levels of management can assign, and delegate tasks based through many forms of communication, which is a base layer for the entire though process of a hierarchy. These levels within the business create types of groups that workers fall under, and those circles are where they operate and communicate. These circles also determine their importance and status within the business. And communication within these groups and from group to group is what determines the successfulness of a business. How does this hierarchy effect the relationships between levels in a business? It is surprising to see just how much everything in life relies on some form of communication, to operate and act in an efficient manner.
Page 221 Paragraph 2-4
I find it very interesting how relationships within a business can greatly determine the efficiency and work ethic of the employees within. When a company has good relationships within it, it can perform at high levels of efficiency. It also may increase the likeliness for employees to stay at the company. But this communication and relationships can also have the opposite effect, when relationships are negative it can decrease productivity. When relationships start to get personal, employees may slack off or start to stray away from the company’s goals and mission. This isn’t what is wanted but it is bound to happen when communication is constantly occurring. How can we mitigate these consequences, so productivity stays high?
The first passage that I found to be particularly interesting as well as quite agreeable can be located on page 215 paragraph 6. I like this passage because I have been guilty of something along the same lines. We all treat our professors, employers, coaches, and other “higher ups” with as much respect as possible. This is probably because our professors are the ones in control of our grades, our employers are the ones who pay us and have the ability to take away our jobs, and our coaches are the ones in control of whether or not we play and how much we play. However, I would bet top dollar that most people, including myself, have said something mean or negative about their professors, employers, and/or coaches.
The second passage that I found interesting is located on page 220 paragraph 2-3. This passage describes how when the relationships between employees in the workplace are in good standing, the positive influences can go through the roof. I find this to be true in the sports realm, as well. When a team gets along outside of their respective sport, the team automatically becomes a little bit better and gives them a slight advantage over teams that aren’t as close with each other. I can also relate to this on a professional scale. I had a summer job moving houses and all of my coworkers, including myself, strongly disliked certain aspects of our job. However, it made it easier to get through because we would all crack jokes with one another to make the time go by faster.
DISCUSSION QUESTION: How can employees ensure their voices, thoughts, and/or ideas are being heard in a larger organization with more of a hierarchical structure?
I really liked the way that this section looked more on the work environment and how to communicate in that aspect. As someone who works as a manager in a restaurant it is so easy to forget the way you are “supposed” to talk or act around staff, who you have grown relationships with and become friends with. Being able to see that this way you converse is normal in the workplace, and seeing how you can adapt to the real workplace conversation was really cool to see.
One section that stood out to me was on page 224 para 2, it was talking about an environment when you are the “boss” of your friends. Being able to see how you manage that dynamic was really good to see, and seeing that this is something that you need to be careful with around others and fill in the capacity of your position but still be able to have a friendly relationship with those work friends you’ve created. The question I have from this section is, could this type of mindset create a strain on a friendship that was made before you got your promotion?
The second section that stood out to me was on page 213 para 3. This one is about eh metaphors of organization. I really liked this section because it helps you look at how an organization can work as a whole or individually. And it gives such an understanding into the pieces that work together to make a business run. The question I have is, if you look a business this way could it cause some sort of militaristic look of the business? Would it take away from the relationships that you’ve created to create a better business?
Page 221, Paragraph 6 (and also the first few paragraphs of the next page)
This section delves into how friendships among coworkers can affect the productivity of both parties. I read it and what they say is all well and good. However, I feel like expecting people to not befriend other people at all is flat out unrealistic. They go on about the positives for a full page after this section. Notice how significantly more content there is about the positives than the negatives. It is in human nature to join together and thusly I believe that the pros far outweigh any possible cons that making friends has. The job might not last forever but the friends you make will.
Page 214, Paragraph 2
I initially picked this paragraph because I just really liked the header. “Organizations as Instruments of Domination” is such a menacing headline that I find it absolutely hilarious. But the contents, while brief, are indeed interesting. It goes into a bit how most people, especially those just coming from school/college, associate organizations with oppression and control. I have not been a part of the work force yet (I have my first internship in January) so as an outsider looking in, these accusations are not unfounded, as much as the paragraphs seems to want me to think otherwise. The idea of strict deadlines and a “Go, go, go, go!” mentality being enforced is not all that appealing. Stuff like that tends to hamper with my creativity and general flow, I feel. Especially because I crack under pressure. But once again, I have no experience whatsoever so take my words with a grain of salt. I’m sure that environment suits some just fine. For example, my younger brother. We may be related by blood but we are almost exact opposites in personality. He, for example, does his best work under pressure. He has talked to me repeatedly about how excited he is to join the workforce. I wouldn’t say I’m not excited but I am a little nervous.
Q&A
I think I made my opinion about friendship in the workplace pretty clear. But what are your opinions? Do you think making friends are a net positive or negative? And why?
In this paragraph, the author talks about the culture in the workplace and how unique it is. This reminds me of the football team here because it has been built by the culture, we as a team have continued to build. The author says that the culture is unique because of the shared meaning systems, beliefs, values, and more. More specifically, it means that everyone is on the same page when it comes to doing things around the workplace whether it is something that doesn’t seem important, or a big ethical dilemma. A quote that I like to use that resonates with this is, “How you do one thing is how you do everything.”
Page 220
This page was a great connection for me because it really reminded me of my job. I used to be a camp counselor but now I am a camp coordinator but when I was a counselor, having good relationships with your co-counselors was a huge part of the job. If you are having fun with your fellow counselors, this will make the kids have fun too. Being a coordinator now and in a position of power, it was kind of tough for me to get the counselors to do stuff for me since we had built friendships during the time I was a counselor.
Q: “For many people, organizations are not seen as friends but are more likely to be seen metaphorically as instruments of domination that shape the workers’ behavior and even control or manipulate their thoughts and ideologies. This metaphor is extremely common because most people feel that work is not only undesirable but actually oppressive. Most people would rather be out fishing or shopping or bicycling than moving containers of trash from place A to place B or sitting in boring meetings or driving delivery trucks. It is very clear that to become a member of any workplace you are faced with the connectedness–separateness dialectic. You give up lots of your freedom to devote most of your time to working for your employer, when you would
rather be doing something else. However, in the early part of your life you learned that work is unavoidable.”
C: Growing up listening to my parents, friends’ older siblings, and even people in the media complain about their jobs and how oppressive they felt has definitely shaped my view of working and jobs. This metaphor for work that the textbooks describes is one that resonates with me because I can understand how the company one works for can impact their behavior and the way they communicate with others. If you work for an oppressive company and you hate working there, you will communicate with superiors and coworkers in a very different way than if you love your job and the people you work with.
Q: How can we create work environments that aren’t “instruments of domination” and encourage healthy communication between workers?
Q: “Overall, in the workplace, you will be expected to adopt a new “working identity” by adapting your communication to represent your professional face—the behaviors, courtesy, and interaction styles that are appropriate for people to present to others in a workplace. In many professional settings, you will be required to adopt high code when interacting with customers, clients, or other people involved in the same organization. The phrase acting professional is essentially what professional face involves.”
C: I feel like this connects back well to some of the speeches we heard in class from students explaining how to be a better professional self. Professional communication is interesting to me because it is more formal than casual communication with friends and family. There are rules in professional communication, some spoken and some not, which can either make it easier or more difficult depending on one’s communication style. For me, I find professional communication the easiest because I know what is and isn’t acceptable when communicating professionally, which isn’t always the case in more casual communication.
Q: Does this “working identity” or professional face make it more difficult to connect with other people on a more personal level? Is the surface level communication all that is needed when communicating in a professional setting?
Page 215 paragraph 2
When reading this paragraph I noticed there was a lot of good and solid information and therefore I picked it knowing I could get a lot of out it. To begin, it starts out by highlighting a phrase, “instrumental goals” and then goes on to explain how it is gaining compliance and having other people help you out in things. The other word that is highlighted is, “relational goal” which can be explained as important outside relations in the workspace. This relationship does not need to be inside the office and makes it so they have a good relationship outside the workplace.
Page 221 Paragraph 4
When reading this paragraph it had plenty of information to work with. For starters, it talks about workplace benefits and when people get along they are more likely to want to help and provide assistance when inside of the work space. Doing this will increase the amount of communication we have with our entire workplace. This will also improve the overall mood and emotion of the company and will make everyone in the workplace happier. And with all this being said the conclusion of all of this means that work productivity will increase dramatically and will be so much better for the workplace overall. Also, this will mean that people will want to stay with the company longer therefore creating a solid line of loyalty throughout the company.
The first passage I found interesting comes up on page 215 in the 4th paragraph. This section is labeled Workplace Formality/Hierarchy. It brings up multiple interesting points about how people behave or act towards others in a workplace setting due to their perceived rank in the workplace. These power structures are crucial to understanding the workplace and how you are expected to interact and communicate with others. An example from this passage states, “A superior would be more likely to tell a subordinate to do something. And, depending on the workplace culture, he or she would probably not be expected to say “pretty please with sugar on top.” “.
The second passage I found interesting is on page 221 and starts in the 4th paragraph. The section labeled Relationships and Workplace Challenges gives examples of types of relationships in the workplace that can have negative impacts. The passage explains that these relationships are toxic and extremely disruptive in the workplace and can lead to disorganization. The specific examples they give of negative workplace relationships are as follows; disruptive friends, disruptive romantic relationships and hostile relationships. All of the above stated relationships can have implications which can lead to negative experiences outside the workplace as well.
Q: Can a relationship be considered negative even if it began outside the workplace? Can relationships where only one member is a part of the workplace also be considered disruptive?
Vocational anticipatory socialization was interesting to read about, because I didn’t really think I experienced it very much. My parents spoke about their jobs, but not in a way that told me anything about their attitudes towards work in general. But even their discussion of their jobs influenced where I thought my career was going for a long time. However, the more I thought about it, the more I saw that their values were part of what they told me. They definitely emphasized hard work with what they said and did.
One of the most interesting things to me in this reading was the concept of “industrial time”, and how workers collectively and individually resist the management’s control over their time. It makes sense that people would push back; humans weren’t made for industry. It is unfortunate that we have to do it anyway.
“Moreover, although coworkers might be suspicious of friendships at work, especially wondering if special favors are being provided or perhaps feeling like outsiders, they are even more suspicious of what might be happening among people involved in a romantic relationship at work.” (pg 222, para 6)
I’ve seen a lot of workplace romances, some not even where I work. I know someone I used to work with recently got married to a coworker (they had met at work). Inherently at any workplace, there is a hierarchy of power. If a manager starts dating someone in a lower position than them, they’re more inclined to give them exceptions and special treatment. The problem with coworkers dating is that the majority of the time, their relationship is not separated from the workplace. No longer would it be a manager overlooking one of their employees to make sure they’re doing what they’re supposed to, but rather a manager singling out an employee for special treatment.
How can we realistically advise against workplace romance, aside from laws?
“At work, though, specific dress codes are usually established, and many workplaces require dressing a particular way…” (pg 216, para 3)
I think dress codes are necessary in the workplace. It can be as strict as a suit and tie every day or jeans and a plain T-shirt. Although, I do think some aspects are a bit unfair. Dyed hair and facial piercings are often barred from the workplace. I see why people deem it as unprofessional, but what about someone’s hair color and choice in piercings have to do with their ability to work? Stereotypes around people with non-natural colored hair and facial piercings are extremely prevalent. I’ve heard of people getting denied jobs because of piercings, or taking out piercings for interviews. I don’t think that being judged on your appearance should take any place in the workplace.
Will unnatural hair and body modifications only get more socially accepted in generations to come?
Comment (at least 75 words): As a woman who dresses and acts in ways that go against “the norm”- whatever that may be- I could never jpin the army. I was thinking about it for toxicology reasons since that was my original plan, to go to college and get a bio-sci degree and go to grad school for toxicology and go into the army with that, but I wasn’t able to because I’m a Type One Diabetic. It’s always baffled me how PTSD-stricken and quite literally stripped of personality you’d have to be to go into the army, anyways.
Question: How do soldiers who’ve graduated from the army/retired from it feel about their sense of individuality being broken down?
Quote: page 219, under “Industrial Time” in paragraph 3
Comment (at least 75 words): Yet another example of being stripped of individuality, communicating and connecting through “resisting management” and the author’s use of the words “perfect control” make this concluding paragraph feel all too real. Some people believe that too much individuality can be detrimental to workplace harmony, but I’d like to think that it just adds more common connections and a better flow. I’d understand individuality being a gateway towards lack of cohesion and a less united team, but at the same time standing out and against the crowd makes for a more fun and less serious work environment.
Question: IN what case would you get in trouble for showing a more individualistic side?
This reading really stood out and made a lot of sense to me because it talks about communication in the workplace, and both of my past jobs involved heavy communication. The first passage I found to be quite interesting was on page 212, paragraph 2, in which it talks about vocational anticipatory socialization. To sum up anticipatory anticipatory socialization, it is basically a lifelong preparation for becoming a working citizen. It is said to start to take motion as far back as early childhood. It develops through exposure to certain types of media and depictions of an actual workplace; whether it be through a show or from your parents talking about their long shifts. The second passage that stood out to me was on page 224, paragraph 2, in which it talks about relationships in the workplace, in specific friendship with the boss. This section of the reading brought up an ethical issue that made me think back to my old bosses and if I was “friends” with them. I honestly have mixed feelings about this because my first job was at an aquarium and I only met with my boss once, and that was just for the interview, and after I never really talked to her until I decided to switch jobs and put in my two weeks a couple years later. However, now I am good friends with my new boss and all my employees and it really seems to help the days move by quicker and also developing a platonic relationship with your boss and co-workers, you are opening yourself up to new possible connections, raises, or even new and better job opportunities. One question that has been on my mind while doing the reading is if people agree or disagree with romantic relationships in the workplace? I feel like this is a very broad question, and kind of a double edged sword, but my current boss is married to my manager and they never bring problems from the home into the workplace. Now it may be a little different in my scenario, but I feel like it is fine to let romantic relationships happen in the workplace as long as they leave the romantic part of their relationship at the door before they walk into the workplace.
16 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 11”
Journal 11
paragraph 3, pg 212
What I like about this passage is the fact that they describe or preceive organizations as a metaphor of machiene. Business edicate is something that gets braught up here too. This is not the suit and tie type of casual, this is the properly treating people type of edicate. The kind of thing where orgnizations want their employees to feel important and valued. To show their support and appreciation. They show their appreciation by holding company events for their workers and doing team bondning activties over a weekend. Although these are good ideas does not dictate wether or not its going to have a good effect on the forced comrodery.
passage 2, page 215
The hiearchy of the workplace is fastenating to me and that dynamic is brought up in this passage is discussed very well. The way that the higher ups deligate and assign tasks is through the forms of verbal and non verbal communication, so therefore there is no heiarchy withoiut communication. The workplace heirchy is created by the used of titles and job position. This effects the workers in the following ways, the workers have their own social staus and group based on where they are assigned within the company. How they interact with each other based on the delegation and assigning of tasks effects teh overall productivity of the compnay.
Question- Is there more people having problems with taking things from higher ups now than before?
comment- I think its interesting how communications shows up in everything but unless its talked aboit directly, no one notces that it is the backbone of human life.
quote- “The formality heirchy transaction may be the titles at work may be transacted by the tites in talk. “
One thing that really stood out to me was the Workplace Formality/Hierarchy passage. What I really thought was unique was the type of way you have to speak to higher ranking people at work. “Thus formality/hierarchy distinction at work may be transacted directly by the use of titles in talk, but is more commonly transacted by what is being said, by whom it is being said, and how it is being said (pg 215 par 4).” In a way it’s like when you’re being taught how to talk to an adult as a child in a sense. You always get told be polite, speak with the most respect, and help in anyway you can. It’s the same sense but what you speak of and how you say it matters more.
Another passage that stood out to me was Friendship With the Boss. “Many people I the workplace develop friendly relationships with one another when they are at the same level because it makes their work easier… However, if one of them is promoted to a rank higher than the other, than the information acquired during the friendship may become a source of conflict, particularly if the information leads to a negative assessment of a person’s capacity to fulfill the job properly (pg 224 Ch4).” Though friends are a great thing to acquire at work it’s a competition you have to remember and you can’t let it effect the work needing to get done as well.
Sawyer Ohman
CMM110-A
10/12/23
Journal #11
(PGS 213-214)
This passage primarily made me very curious about the organizations that I am aware of that could be thought of as machines or cultures. I primarily thought of the United States of America. We have our own culture one could argue but within our borders we have thousands of individual cultures interacting with each other. Furthermore I thought of the American military forces. This is an organization of different branches of our military but it is thought of as a machine of destruction by much of the world. It has a small culture within the U.S. but the organization has negative connotations as a machine.
(PGS 220-221)
This passage was particularly interesting to me, having five years of past experience in retail. Workplace relationships are very important but what I have noticed is that they are fluid. Not only are people coming and going in and out of the company, but people may receive promotions changing their positions of authority. I was an assistant manager with several other managers under a general manager of our store. Once the G.M. left one of the other managers stepped into their position becoming my boss. From a position of management I find workplace relationships to impede productivity. Oftentimes I would have to repeat myself trying to get the people around me to complete their tasks. Meanwhile they would be on their phones and goofing off while I’m helping costumes.
Communication in the Workplace
Page 212, Para 4
One passage that I found interesting was the passage about Vocational Anticipatory Socialization. The thought of V.A.S is how a child gets exposed to the workplace through family interaction and exposure to the media. It states that you learn/learned about the nature of the workplace through the likes of your family and your socialization with them. Cheryl Cockburn-Wootten and Theodore Zorn note that families tell stories about the nature of work experiences. Some are funny and some are not, but overall they talk about the nature of the workplace and I find that unique and can relate to knowing about the work environment before working in the workplace.
Page 217, para 2
A second passage that I found unique is a passage that talks about how the workplace has a unique culture. “…in which particular shared meaning systems, realities, beliefs, values, and communication styles and patterns influence and are maintained through our interactions and relationships with others.” This brings with it different ways, or certain ways to do things such as photocopying one way and not another and ethical guidelines of an organization. In simple terms, things that are not in your formal training and knowledge that are gained and passed along to one and another.
Journal #11
Tyler Richards
CMM 110
Page 215, Paragraph 1-3
The main discussion of these paragraphs is the dynamic and the overall hierarchy of different businesses work, the way how everything is controlled and used to maximize business efforts. How the higher levels of management can assign, and delegate tasks based through many forms of communication, which is a base layer for the entire though process of a hierarchy. These levels within the business create types of groups that workers fall under, and those circles are where they operate and communicate. These circles also determine their importance and status within the business. And communication within these groups and from group to group is what determines the successfulness of a business. How does this hierarchy effect the relationships between levels in a business? It is surprising to see just how much everything in life relies on some form of communication, to operate and act in an efficient manner.
Page 221 Paragraph 2-4
I find it very interesting how relationships within a business can greatly determine the efficiency and work ethic of the employees within. When a company has good relationships within it, it can perform at high levels of efficiency. It also may increase the likeliness for employees to stay at the company. But this communication and relationships can also have the opposite effect, when relationships are negative it can decrease productivity. When relationships start to get personal, employees may slack off or start to stray away from the company’s goals and mission. This isn’t what is wanted but it is bound to happen when communication is constantly occurring. How can we mitigate these consequences, so productivity stays high?
The first passage that I found to be particularly interesting as well as quite agreeable can be located on page 215 paragraph 6. I like this passage because I have been guilty of something along the same lines. We all treat our professors, employers, coaches, and other “higher ups” with as much respect as possible. This is probably because our professors are the ones in control of our grades, our employers are the ones who pay us and have the ability to take away our jobs, and our coaches are the ones in control of whether or not we play and how much we play. However, I would bet top dollar that most people, including myself, have said something mean or negative about their professors, employers, and/or coaches.
The second passage that I found interesting is located on page 220 paragraph 2-3. This passage describes how when the relationships between employees in the workplace are in good standing, the positive influences can go through the roof. I find this to be true in the sports realm, as well. When a team gets along outside of their respective sport, the team automatically becomes a little bit better and gives them a slight advantage over teams that aren’t as close with each other. I can also relate to this on a professional scale. I had a summer job moving houses and all of my coworkers, including myself, strongly disliked certain aspects of our job. However, it made it easier to get through because we would all crack jokes with one another to make the time go by faster.
DISCUSSION QUESTION: How can employees ensure their voices, thoughts, and/or ideas are being heard in a larger organization with more of a hierarchical structure?
I really liked the way that this section looked more on the work environment and how to communicate in that aspect. As someone who works as a manager in a restaurant it is so easy to forget the way you are “supposed” to talk or act around staff, who you have grown relationships with and become friends with. Being able to see that this way you converse is normal in the workplace, and seeing how you can adapt to the real workplace conversation was really cool to see.
One section that stood out to me was on page 224 para 2, it was talking about an environment when you are the “boss” of your friends. Being able to see how you manage that dynamic was really good to see, and seeing that this is something that you need to be careful with around others and fill in the capacity of your position but still be able to have a friendly relationship with those work friends you’ve created. The question I have from this section is, could this type of mindset create a strain on a friendship that was made before you got your promotion?
The second section that stood out to me was on page 213 para 3. This one is about eh metaphors of organization. I really liked this section because it helps you look at how an organization can work as a whole or individually. And it gives such an understanding into the pieces that work together to make a business run. The question I have is, if you look a business this way could it cause some sort of militaristic look of the business? Would it take away from the relationships that you’ve created to create a better business?
Page 221, Paragraph 6 (and also the first few paragraphs of the next page)
This section delves into how friendships among coworkers can affect the productivity of both parties. I read it and what they say is all well and good. However, I feel like expecting people to not befriend other people at all is flat out unrealistic. They go on about the positives for a full page after this section. Notice how significantly more content there is about the positives than the negatives. It is in human nature to join together and thusly I believe that the pros far outweigh any possible cons that making friends has. The job might not last forever but the friends you make will.
Page 214, Paragraph 2
I initially picked this paragraph because I just really liked the header. “Organizations as Instruments of Domination” is such a menacing headline that I find it absolutely hilarious. But the contents, while brief, are indeed interesting. It goes into a bit how most people, especially those just coming from school/college, associate organizations with oppression and control. I have not been a part of the work force yet (I have my first internship in January) so as an outsider looking in, these accusations are not unfounded, as much as the paragraphs seems to want me to think otherwise. The idea of strict deadlines and a “Go, go, go, go!” mentality being enforced is not all that appealing. Stuff like that tends to hamper with my creativity and general flow, I feel. Especially because I crack under pressure. But once again, I have no experience whatsoever so take my words with a grain of salt. I’m sure that environment suits some just fine. For example, my younger brother. We may be related by blood but we are almost exact opposites in personality. He, for example, does his best work under pressure. He has talked to me repeatedly about how excited he is to join the workforce. I wouldn’t say I’m not excited but I am a little nervous.
Q&A
I think I made my opinion about friendship in the workplace pretty clear. But what are your opinions? Do you think making friends are a net positive or negative? And why?
Page 217 Paragraph 2
In this paragraph, the author talks about the culture in the workplace and how unique it is. This reminds me of the football team here because it has been built by the culture, we as a team have continued to build. The author says that the culture is unique because of the shared meaning systems, beliefs, values, and more. More specifically, it means that everyone is on the same page when it comes to doing things around the workplace whether it is something that doesn’t seem important, or a big ethical dilemma. A quote that I like to use that resonates with this is, “How you do one thing is how you do everything.”
Page 220
This page was a great connection for me because it really reminded me of my job. I used to be a camp counselor but now I am a camp coordinator but when I was a counselor, having good relationships with your co-counselors was a huge part of the job. If you are having fun with your fellow counselors, this will make the kids have fun too. Being a coordinator now and in a position of power, it was kind of tough for me to get the counselors to do stuff for me since we had built friendships during the time I was a counselor.
Q: “For many people, organizations are not seen as friends but are more likely to be seen metaphorically as instruments of domination that shape the workers’ behavior and even control or manipulate their thoughts and ideologies. This metaphor is extremely common because most people feel that work is not only undesirable but actually oppressive. Most people would rather be out fishing or shopping or bicycling than moving containers of trash from place A to place B or sitting in boring meetings or driving delivery trucks. It is very clear that to become a member of any workplace you are faced with the connectedness–separateness dialectic. You give up lots of your freedom to devote most of your time to working for your employer, when you would
rather be doing something else. However, in the early part of your life you learned that work is unavoidable.”
C: Growing up listening to my parents, friends’ older siblings, and even people in the media complain about their jobs and how oppressive they felt has definitely shaped my view of working and jobs. This metaphor for work that the textbooks describes is one that resonates with me because I can understand how the company one works for can impact their behavior and the way they communicate with others. If you work for an oppressive company and you hate working there, you will communicate with superiors and coworkers in a very different way than if you love your job and the people you work with.
Q: How can we create work environments that aren’t “instruments of domination” and encourage healthy communication between workers?
Q: “Overall, in the workplace, you will be expected to adopt a new “working identity” by adapting your communication to represent your professional face—the behaviors, courtesy, and interaction styles that are appropriate for people to present to others in a workplace. In many professional settings, you will be required to adopt high code when interacting with customers, clients, or other people involved in the same organization. The phrase acting professional is essentially what professional face involves.”
C: I feel like this connects back well to some of the speeches we heard in class from students explaining how to be a better professional self. Professional communication is interesting to me because it is more formal than casual communication with friends and family. There are rules in professional communication, some spoken and some not, which can either make it easier or more difficult depending on one’s communication style. For me, I find professional communication the easiest because I know what is and isn’t acceptable when communicating professionally, which isn’t always the case in more casual communication.
Q: Does this “working identity” or professional face make it more difficult to connect with other people on a more personal level? Is the surface level communication all that is needed when communicating in a professional setting?
Page 215 paragraph 2
When reading this paragraph I noticed there was a lot of good and solid information and therefore I picked it knowing I could get a lot of out it. To begin, it starts out by highlighting a phrase, “instrumental goals” and then goes on to explain how it is gaining compliance and having other people help you out in things. The other word that is highlighted is, “relational goal” which can be explained as important outside relations in the workspace. This relationship does not need to be inside the office and makes it so they have a good relationship outside the workplace.
Page 221 Paragraph 4
When reading this paragraph it had plenty of information to work with. For starters, it talks about workplace benefits and when people get along they are more likely to want to help and provide assistance when inside of the work space. Doing this will increase the amount of communication we have with our entire workplace. This will also improve the overall mood and emotion of the company and will make everyone in the workplace happier. And with all this being said the conclusion of all of this means that work productivity will increase dramatically and will be so much better for the workplace overall. Also, this will mean that people will want to stay with the company longer therefore creating a solid line of loyalty throughout the company.
The first passage I found interesting comes up on page 215 in the 4th paragraph. This section is labeled Workplace Formality/Hierarchy. It brings up multiple interesting points about how people behave or act towards others in a workplace setting due to their perceived rank in the workplace. These power structures are crucial to understanding the workplace and how you are expected to interact and communicate with others. An example from this passage states, “A superior would be more likely to tell a subordinate to do something. And, depending on the workplace culture, he or she would probably not be expected to say “pretty please with sugar on top.” “.
The second passage I found interesting is on page 221 and starts in the 4th paragraph. The section labeled Relationships and Workplace Challenges gives examples of types of relationships in the workplace that can have negative impacts. The passage explains that these relationships are toxic and extremely disruptive in the workplace and can lead to disorganization. The specific examples they give of negative workplace relationships are as follows; disruptive friends, disruptive romantic relationships and hostile relationships. All of the above stated relationships can have implications which can lead to negative experiences outside the workplace as well.
Q: Can a relationship be considered negative even if it began outside the workplace? Can relationships where only one member is a part of the workplace also be considered disruptive?
Vocational anticipatory socialization was interesting to read about, because I didn’t really think I experienced it very much. My parents spoke about their jobs, but not in a way that told me anything about their attitudes towards work in general. But even their discussion of their jobs influenced where I thought my career was going for a long time. However, the more I thought about it, the more I saw that their values were part of what they told me. They definitely emphasized hard work with what they said and did.
One of the most interesting things to me in this reading was the concept of “industrial time”, and how workers collectively and individually resist the management’s control over their time. It makes sense that people would push back; humans weren’t made for industry. It is unfortunate that we have to do it anyway.
“Moreover, although coworkers might be suspicious of friendships at work, especially wondering if special favors are being provided or perhaps feeling like outsiders, they are even more suspicious of what might be happening among people involved in a romantic relationship at work.” (pg 222, para 6)
I’ve seen a lot of workplace romances, some not even where I work. I know someone I used to work with recently got married to a coworker (they had met at work). Inherently at any workplace, there is a hierarchy of power. If a manager starts dating someone in a lower position than them, they’re more inclined to give them exceptions and special treatment. The problem with coworkers dating is that the majority of the time, their relationship is not separated from the workplace. No longer would it be a manager overlooking one of their employees to make sure they’re doing what they’re supposed to, but rather a manager singling out an employee for special treatment.
How can we realistically advise against workplace romance, aside from laws?
“At work, though, specific dress codes are usually established, and many workplaces require dressing a particular way…” (pg 216, para 3)
I think dress codes are necessary in the workplace. It can be as strict as a suit and tie every day or jeans and a plain T-shirt. Although, I do think some aspects are a bit unfair. Dyed hair and facial piercings are often barred from the workplace. I see why people deem it as unprofessional, but what about someone’s hair color and choice in piercings have to do with their ability to work? Stereotypes around people with non-natural colored hair and facial piercings are extremely prevalent. I’ve heard of people getting denied jobs because of piercings, or taking out piercings for interviews. I don’t think that being judged on your appearance should take any place in the workplace.
Will unnatural hair and body modifications only get more socially accepted in generations to come?
Colette Murphy
Professor Miller
CMM 110
10/18/2023
Journal #11
Quote: page 217, under the “By the Way…” section
Comment (at least 75 words): As a woman who dresses and acts in ways that go against “the norm”- whatever that may be- I could never jpin the army. I was thinking about it for toxicology reasons since that was my original plan, to go to college and get a bio-sci degree and go to grad school for toxicology and go into the army with that, but I wasn’t able to because I’m a Type One Diabetic. It’s always baffled me how PTSD-stricken and quite literally stripped of personality you’d have to be to go into the army, anyways.
Question: How do soldiers who’ve graduated from the army/retired from it feel about their sense of individuality being broken down?
Quote: page 219, under “Industrial Time” in paragraph 3
Comment (at least 75 words): Yet another example of being stripped of individuality, communicating and connecting through “resisting management” and the author’s use of the words “perfect control” make this concluding paragraph feel all too real. Some people believe that too much individuality can be detrimental to workplace harmony, but I’d like to think that it just adds more common connections and a better flow. I’d understand individuality being a gateway towards lack of cohesion and a less united team, but at the same time standing out and against the crowd makes for a more fun and less serious work environment.
Question: IN what case would you get in trouble for showing a more individualistic side?
Ryan Kelly
Prof. Jessie Miller
Communications 110
20 October 2023
Journal 11
This reading really stood out and made a lot of sense to me because it talks about communication in the workplace, and both of my past jobs involved heavy communication. The first passage I found to be quite interesting was on page 212, paragraph 2, in which it talks about vocational anticipatory socialization. To sum up anticipatory anticipatory socialization, it is basically a lifelong preparation for becoming a working citizen. It is said to start to take motion as far back as early childhood. It develops through exposure to certain types of media and depictions of an actual workplace; whether it be through a show or from your parents talking about their long shifts. The second passage that stood out to me was on page 224, paragraph 2, in which it talks about relationships in the workplace, in specific friendship with the boss. This section of the reading brought up an ethical issue that made me think back to my old bosses and if I was “friends” with them. I honestly have mixed feelings about this because my first job was at an aquarium and I only met with my boss once, and that was just for the interview, and after I never really talked to her until I decided to switch jobs and put in my two weeks a couple years later. However, now I am good friends with my new boss and all my employees and it really seems to help the days move by quicker and also developing a platonic relationship with your boss and co-workers, you are opening yourself up to new possible connections, raises, or even new and better job opportunities. One question that has been on my mind while doing the reading is if people agree or disagree with romantic relationships in the workplace? I feel like this is a very broad question, and kind of a double edged sword, but my current boss is married to my manager and they never bring problems from the home into the workplace. Now it may be a little different in my scenario, but I feel like it is fine to let romantic relationships happen in the workplace as long as they leave the romantic part of their relationship at the door before they walk into the workplace.