The most effective styles of Leadership

We continued to discuss chapter 2, which was about organizational structure and process. Class covered the different structures that organizations typically have in order to keep their companies running effectively and efficiently. Max Weber had a major influence on social theory, social research, and the discipline of sociology itself In regards to structure, he looked into how and what circumstances do people obey others, especially institutions, even when no force is applied. According to Weber, there are three legitimate powers or authorities: Charismatic, Traditional, and Legal-Rational (Bureaucracy).
Charismatic is highly personal in exercising authority. The person’s character is an assistant in how they lead and how they are perceived. President Barack Obama is a prime example of a charismatic leader. During the election Obama swept the nation off their feet with his comforting and inspiring speeches and an overall presence, leading the nation believing that “Yes we can”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R83xMWtEp7k&feature=player_detailpage
The challenges that consist of a charismatic authority is there are problems finding a successor and how to keep the organization’s culture and structure once they leave. There is current worry of the future of Apple if Steve Jobs retires once and for all.
After discussing charismatic authority, we went on to talk about traditional authority such as Monarchs. However, challenges that are present with traditional authority are there is only one leader, which is designated by the family, and people do not want to “rock the boat”.
The final and most popular type of authority we discussed was legal-rational or Bureaucracy. Bureaucracy consists of a fixed division of labor and a clearly defined hierarchy of positions. Weber stated bureaucracy equated with administrative rationality. The key elements of Bureaucracy are fixed division of labor, clearly defined hierarchy of positions, applicants selected based on technical qualifications, and fixed salaries. The idea of bureaucracy is the harder you work and your loyalty to a company the greater the chances are of a worker to being promoted. There is a dominant sense of management and everyone has rules to follow for their particular position in the company. The benefits of bureaucracy are a person is based on their merit and is systematic, helps organize large systems, and rules can be learned and passed down over time. A police force is a good example of a bureaucratic organization.
Overall it seems that bureaucracy is the clear choice of the three leaders for a company’s type of leadership, but like the other options, bureaucracy has its faults as well. The disadvantages of bureaucracy are that there’s over centralization of power at the top, there is a threat to individuality, and people may forget the big picture and focuses on the small calculated tasks.
Overall I believe the leadership style that is most effective is pertinent to the type of organization it is a part of. My question is, if bureaucracy is not the end all solution for type of leadership, what elements or aspects of it could be eliminated and/or could it use aspects of charismatic/traditional leaderships?

By: Haley Schwartz

On Monday, January 24th, our class discussed the first part of Chapter 2: Organizational Structure and Process. We started by looking at a flowchart of the University of Alabama’s Division of Student Affairs. The chart showed the chain of command process that occurs within all the offices that report to the head of the Division of Student Affairs, Dr. Mark Nelson. We discovered that there are six individuals who report directly to Dr. Nelson, and these people are also over multiple offices. We created several hypothetical situations and discussed the flow of command that would occur. For example, the Director of the Blackburn Institute, Dr. Philip Westbrook, would report to Dr. Kathleen Cramer, the Senior Associate Vice President of External Affairs, who in turn would report to the Dr. Mark Nelson, who is both the Vice President of Student Affairs and Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. Our teacher, Creshema Murray, queried the class as to how long we thought this system had been in place. Many of us were surprised to hear that the system denoted in the flowchart had only been in existence for two years. We learned that the old hierarchy had been streamlined to allow for increased and more fluid communication. This example served as an introduction into the lesson. We discussed the structure of an organization, how it denotes the solid parts of an organization and provides a snapshot of how an organization works. We also learned about the duality of structure, that structure is both an outcome of and a resource for interaction, and that structure can be both enabling and constraining. A term we identified was structuration: the process by which structures emerge from interaction and then become resources for constraints on future interaction. We then discussed two of the three elements of organizational structure: hierarchy and differentiation/specialization. Hierarchy refers to the distribution of authority among organizational roles. It involves the levels of power within an organization, one group being dominate over another. Hierarchy is necessary in an organization, but it can create problems. If there are too many levels in an organization, communication can be strained between the levels. By restructuring the hierarchy of an organization, as was done in U of A’s Division of Student Affairs, the flow of communication between the differing levels of hierarchy can be improved. We then talked about the second key element of organizational communication: differentiation/specialization, which refers to an organization’s division of labor. While specialization is necessary since organizations want people who are experts in certain fields, it can lead to alienation. By learning about these key elements of organizations, we can become key employees and members of an organizations we become a part of in our future
By: Alex Goolsby

Chapter 1

Chapter One talks about how we think about organizations, why theories and thinking critically. This chapter starts off about talking about bureaucracy which is a large organization characterized by hierarchy. This section talks about the downsides of bureaucracy which is rigidity, depersonalization, and the diffusion of responsibility. Bureaucracy is still happening today in our society. This chapter also talks about how we should look at each organization and organizational problem on multiple levels and from multiple perspectives. This chapter continues by talking about how making the invisible visible. When something is very familiar to us we tend to take it for granted and it becomes transparent to most people. When a new idea or technology is introduced it is not taken for granted because its new. We tend not to take the new things for granted until they become familiar to us. Next we go on to talk about metaphors and how it is another form of invisibility. We tend to overlook the significance of the representation of metaphors as we become accustomed to their usage. Metaphors help us understand one thing in terms of something else. Its is very easy to overlook the significance of a metaphor. Metaphors are used a lot to describe organizations that are complex. Metaphors are also used to describe the communication process and to simplify our understanding of it. However some simplifications can get us into trouble when understanding the true meaning of the metaphor, which was used. Sometimes people use metaphors and whoever is receiving this information doesn’t understand the full meaning of what the sender is saying. Next it talks about theories and why they are important. A theory is a generalizing across different situations or cases or for our purposes organizations. Theories help us predict things, deciding the best course of action, which is why theories are so practical. This chapter was basically and introduction of what we will be learning in this class and the organizational process of organizations.
In class last Wednesday we discussed the different groups that each of us were involved in. We also talked about our different roles in those organizations and how everyone could relate to each other. We also went around the room talking about how to really define communication. The discussion during class helped me relate to everyone in different ways. Hearing about organizational communication and all the different activities people were involved in was really interesting to me. That class period was basically just an introduction of the class and what we will be doing in this class throughout the year.
By: Emily Beck

Welcome to COM 350-320: Organizational Communication

The purpose of this course is to provide you with a closer examination of the taken-for-granted, communicative nature of organizational life. Readings, discussions and assignments will challenge you to think critically about the diverse perspectives people bring into organizations as they perform tasks and make sense out of their work experiences. We will focus on the role that communication plays in shaping both relationships and structures of organizing. As you prepare for your careers, this course will help you develop your critical thinking and writing skills of and about communication.

First, we will explore various approaches to studying organizational communication and discuss how these perspectives are a part of organizational life today. We will investigate these issues by progressing through a number of topics important to organizational communication (decision making, identification, teamwork, democracy, conflict, gender, race/class and emerging issues in the field).
Organizational communication is a complex phenomenon. Throughout the semester we will define communication in a number of ways, including: (a) tool or a "skill" used in interactions with co-workers or with customers, (b) a linkage creating information or relational networks between organizational actors, (c) a symbolic process or performance constructing organizational reality, and (d) a "voice" often silenced or needing to be heard in the organization. We will not only explore what organizational communication "is" but what it “could be” by challenging what scholars know about organizing and communicating today.

Students will identify and define primary concepts and apply them to discussions of real-world situations. As such, students are encouraged to share personal perspectives and experiences in class and use course concepts to evaluate their own organizational experiences as well as case studies.