Response to Professor Johnson's Post: 100 years After the Trianlge Factory

There are no words that could possibly describe how upsetting and shocking this video was.  Just as upsetting as the events that were shown and discussed in the video, is the fact that nowhere on television or mainstream news was this mentioned.  As tragic and devastating as this is, one would think that EVERYONE in America should be made to watch this clip from democracy.org.  It comes as no surprise to me that the repercussions of our unaware, materialistic, capitolist, and flat-out selfish country, are plaguing the developing world.  People in America seem to have no idea that everything we own, eat, wear, and touch, came from a place that we know nothing about, where people are forced into the kind of labor discussed in this video.  The lack of knowledge, and care about those who have and are still suffering so that Americans can continue to live easy and convenient lives, is heartbreaking.  I will never understand how the corporations such as Abercrombie, the Gap, etc...can proceed with such little value for human life.  We in America have it so incredibly easy and yet we forget that one of the main reasons we lead such priviledged lives is because we have exploited other countries.  Until there is structural and governmental change, and until our society as a whole changes, nothing will change.  We forget the the clothes on our back, the shoes on our feet, the food we eat, was made somewhere else by somebody.  Until people start to care and demand legislative change, I don't think anything will change.  I think the exploitation that results from American corporations outsourcing to other countries is a direct result of American values (or lack there of).  We always want the most for our money, the best deal for the cheapest, and we want everything right away.  This comes at a cost, maybe not to us, but to humanity.  This video by democracy.org is truely tragic and depressing and yet not many Americans seem to notice or even care about the damage that globalization has brought about.   

Question:  What can be done about this situation?  Do you think anything can be done?  Should there be laws and restrictions regarding labor for American corporations? 

Communication and Facebook

        As a communications major, facebook is a topic that is frequently discussed and came up a lot at the end of chapter 11 in our textbooks on Communication in Organizations.  Facebook has created a revolution in the communications field.  It has enabled people to connect and communicate with people all over the word instantly.  It has also greatly affected the business world.  Businesses are using it to look up prospective employees and to advertise and promote their products.  Although I may be alone in my beliefs, I personally think Facebook has hindered communication in several ways.  I think although people might be communicating more with people that they normally would have, this type of communication is really unauthentic and depersonalized.  I also think its an illusion-by this I mean that I think people try to portray themselves or intend to have others see them in a way that is not really accurate.  Through Facebook, peple try to emulate themselves how ever they wish to be seen; but this might not be very truthful.  People form opinions about others based on snapshots of their lives through pictures and status updates, but this may not be who they actually really are.  I also think that Facebook can misconstrue words.  Since Facebook lacks verbal inflections, tone of voice, and facial expressions, many statements  can be ambiguous and therefore people may interpret them differently.  Also, it can allow people to formulate opinions and ideas about other people based on pictures and statuses that are not an acurate protrayal of who they really are.  In short, although Facebook has opened up a lot of communication, it has also brought with it many obstacles.  I too, have a Facebook, but I never post my status and rarely comment on others to avoid confusion and to remain private.  However, I have found myself forming opinions of others through Facebook.  Although I think there are a lot of uses for Facebook, such as keeping in touch and up to date with people you may not get a chance to talk to or see o na regular basis, I feel that Facebook should be used with caution and people should try to be subjective when looking at it, and remember that it is not an accurate portayal of who people really are.

Improving Upward Communication

          In conjunction with chapter 11 in our books on organizational communication, I read an article I found on EBSCOHOST, published in the Journal of Business Communication titled "Improving Upward Communication," by Robert M. Wendlinger.  The article highlighted the results of a study that examined communication for one year at the Bank of America.  The study found that employees at lower levels did not feel comfortable comunicating with upper management and often avoided it because they felt that upper management didn't care or take them seriously or they were worried about negative repercussions.  This seems to be a common trend in organizations-employees are not encouraged to express their ideas and suggestions with upper management, they do not feel comfortable doing it, or do not think anything positive will come of it.  We can label these feelings and perceptions the employees are experiencing that are hindering communication as noise.  In my own work experience I have also found communication with upper management to be a challenge.  After the study discussed in this article was conducted, an "open-line" program was implemented at the Bank of America.  This program involved a confidential suggestion program in which employees could express their opinions and ideas anonymously.  The program was very successful as employees liked and used it.  They felt that they were better heard and even saw some changes they had suggested implementing.  I think this program was an excellent idea and I think all companies should have a program similar to it.  However, I think upper management also needs to make a committment to being approachablr, to listen to their employees, and to encourage communication.  If this is not done, employees will feel undervalued and the organization may miss out on potentially valuable insights and ideas.   

Response to the article "Nonverbal Language in Cross-Cultural Communication"

          I found this article, retreived from Ebscohost and written by Wang Di-hua LI Hui, to be very interesting as it pertained to chapter 11 on Communication in Organizations.  The discussed the differences in nonverbal communication between cultures.  All cultures use nonverbal communication, however they differ greatly in their use of them.  Studying this is important to organizations that work internationally as misinterpreting these signals or failing to recognize them mey result in a misunderstanding.  Additionally, being able to understand these symbols may reveal motivations, feelings, and intentions that are not blatantly stated. Nonverbal communication can include facial expressions, gestures, body language, body space and eye contact.  The author points out that nonverbal communication is largely out of our control as it is subconcious and is determined by socio-cultural factors.  The author then goes on to describe many differences between several cultures' use of nonverbal communication.  For example, in America, when someone nodds their head up and down, it either means "yes" or they are signaling that they understand something.  However, in the middle east, nodding the head down means the person agrees and nodding the head up means they disagree; in Japan it simply means the person is listening.  In America, a firm handshale is considered a good greeting but in France it is considered rude and rough, a light handshake with very little pressured is prefered.  In Latin America, a strong hug or pat on the back is the common greeting method, and in Ecuador a handshake is a sign of extra special respect.  In India, the namaste greeting is most commonly used and i Japan the bow or several bows is the norm for a greeting.  In America, the thumbs up sign is a positive gesture and signals "cool" or "ok" or "yep, all set;" but in France or Belgium it is a huge insult meaning "you are not worth anything."  the author goes on to give several more examples of differing nonverbal communication across cultures.  I think this topic is very important to organizational theory and behavior because in organizations, there are many times that communication with individuals from other cultures may be required.  Althoug there is a huge focus on lanuage, nonverbal communcation is often forgotten, yet its implications and meaning are hugely important.  Not understanding these differences can result in insults and big misunderstandings, so it is important that we are aware of these differences across cultures.

Response to the article "Why Teams Don't Work" by J. Richard Hackman retrieved from EBSCOHOST

         I found this article to be extremely facinating because it re-iterated what I have believed my entire life-that teams are not as productive, efficient, or effective as individuals.  I am an extremely independant worker and have always despised working in teams; however, as chapter 10 points out, teams can be very beneficial.  This article, written by a J. Richard Hackman, Professor of Social and Organizational Psychology at Harvard, points out that from an early age we are told that team work is good and important.  Throughout my college management courses, teamwork has also been taught (chapter 10 on teams for this week of class).  Yet in my college experience, teams NEVER work out; I either wind up doing all the work because I really want an A and have high standards, or I get extremely frustrated with the group and accept work that I know I could have done a better job on if I had done it alone.  According to Hackman, I am not alone in my opinion.  He expresses that teams are very rarely more productive than the individual and that research has shown that most teams can't even agree on what they are supposed to be doing.  He also explains that its a myth that teams are more productive and we are taught this myth throughout school and childhood.  People like to think teams are democratic and effecient-however, all of Hackman's research has proved otherwise and has strongly alluded that individuals by themselves are more effecient.  I completely agree with this article as I have never had a good team experience and will continue to make an effort to avoid group work whenever possible.   

Response to "8 Keys to Innovation: Building Brands by Killing Frogs"

I found this article to be extremely interesting and I agreed with most of what the author was saying.  He explained that innovation is about looking at the broader picture, requires the ability to be able to apply concepts to different situations (analogize), and depends on a person's insights.  I definetly agree that those who are innovative do not think in narrow terms and instead are able to use their insights from all aspects of life.  I also agree that those who are innovative are able to anticipate others' behavior ("theory of mind").  I especially agree with the author that a person's frame of mind determines whether or not they are innovative.  the author stated "Data and even information do not produce insight unless they are combined with a lens, default mode, or frame of reference that act as an organizing principle."  I particularly like this statement because I agree that just facts, data, or any kind of information is only useful to a certain extent unless its combined with insights, creativity, and a frame of mind to draw further conclusions.  This quote reminded me a lot of the article reviews we do in our class (and other classes).  The point of them isn't to just state the facts or the ideas introduced; instead we are supposed to use our personal lens, frame of mind, and our insights to draw further conclusions that aren't spelled out for us.  However, I do not think that innovation, insight, the ability to analogize, thinking in broader terms, and being able to anticipate others' behavior is something that can easily be taught.  I believe it can be taught to some extent but never mastered and instead is something people are either inherently good at or not.  I feel like there are people who either "get it" or don't.

I thought this was an excellent article for Organizational Theory and Behavior because mangement is an area that does in fact require all of the attributes discussed.  Managers who are unable to grasp and practice these concepts are not nearly as successful or enjoyable to work for as those who are. 

I found this article to be VERY intersting and enjoyed reading it.  The author said a lot of things that I have thought about before but had trouble verbalizing and putting into words.  Question for OB students: do you think innovation, a frame of mind, insight, and the ability to think in general terms and apply concepts to different situations is something that can be taught and learned?   

Response to the case "A Difficult Task Force"

         For this formal task group, I think leadership and motivation were the main problems.  The group did not seem to feel committed or motivated toward accomplishing the goal at hand.  If I were a consultant working on this case, there are a few things I would recommend.  According to the four-step framework introduced in chapter 9 of our textbooks, this group is clearly in the first stage of group development: mutual acceptance.  The group members are from diverse backgrounds and locations and do not know eachother well.  However, Jose immediatley jumps into the work.  Perhaps the group members would have been more motivated, stimulated, and more comfortable sharing ideas if they had been allowed to finish the group development process.  If they had been allowed a brief introduction period for the members to mingle and introduce themselves, they may have performed better.  Allowing the group to progress through the stages of development will make the group more productive according to our group.  However, this is a pretty liberal and radical approach.  I think if I had been in Jose's position, like him I would have expected the others to get down to business immediately and when they didn't, I would not have simply allowed them to go play golf before the work was finished.  I think in this case, if Jose did not choose to allow the group to get further in the development process, than he needed to be more firm with them and simply state that the meeting will not be dismissed until the job is finished.  This approach may create some anamosity from some of the members but since everyone at the meeting was of high standing and ranking, it should be expected that they would have acted accordingly.