In class on Monday we looked into organizational conflict. We discussed how incompatible goals can create disturbances in organizations. We talked about how there are different types of conflict. Two that we discussed were latent conflict and perceived conflict. Latent conflict is where conditions are right for conflict. Perceived conflict is where one or more of the parties believe that there is a problem when there really is not.
There are four ways to address conflict through avoidance, accommodation, compromise, or collaborate:
*Avoidance is rarely good because then the problems will add up and cause frustration within. Also the problem never gets addressed or handled this way.
*Accommodation is where you give up some of your personal objectives and give to the other players needs. This can be an especially good approach when you’re in a fight with your girlfriend! With accommodation your end up giving to get something later or you’re preserving the relationship for the future. The problem is that you give up some of your personal needs to the other person.
* Compromise can be effective because it can keep forward momentum but the problem is that both sides are going to have to give up some needs.
* Collaboration is the most effective approach to keep the best relationship going into the future. Both sides work together to come up with the best solution for the future. This is a step beyond compromise because both sides get more of what they need, they ask the question why.
It is best to handle conflict without involving the courts or an arbitrator. The courts make a final decision. An arbitrator makes decisions that are often binding based on the arguments presented by the parties involved. A mediator can be helpful and save a lot of money, especially compared to court costs. It is not binding and can lead to a resolution in conflict. A mediator helps to facilitate the dispute but has no power. We should always try to avoid the courts and arbitrators because their decisions are often binding and it they take control from our hands.
Using your knowledge of how to address conflict, think about how to resolve the following situation: There are two people in a city. There is one orange left in the city and both of them want the orange, but there is only one. How can these two people have both of their needs met?
Keep in mind that they could have different needs. We need to address conflict, by asking why. People have different needs based on their interests. Get to the core of what both parties want, identify party interests.
By: Grayson Goodstein
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
What do our U.S. Government, Alabama football, and COM350 class have in common?
During Monday’s class we covered Chapter 8 titled, “Participation, Teams, and Democracy at Work. We began by taking a look at what workplace democracy entails and the necessary steps towards building workplace democracy. Employee participation is implemented within the organizational structure and gives employees power and the ability to identify with organizational goals with a more balanced approach to control. The outcomes of successful employee participation are increased productivity and job satisfaction. (Sounds like a good way to develop more theory Y driven employees, right?) The book gives a case example on Levi Strauss & Co. and their employees opinions on the implementation of more employee participation and team-based models as opposed to their previous assembly line individualized production model. There were several advantages and disadvantages listed, and in my opinion the advantages seemed to far outweigh the disadvantages as far as benefitting their workplace as a whole. We also covered managerially driven programs of employee participation that included problem solving or decision-making teams, restricting of work processes and activities, and ownership as an economic investment in overall governance.
We did a group activity where we were able to role play different personalities of a group. Also, as a class, we were given the ability to exercise our own democracy by making changes to our existing class calendar as well as giving our own suggestions and opinions as to what we would like the remainder of our semester to look like. Something interesting to think about is how our country’s government model of democracy transcends into the workplace and organizations. Our founding fathers believed that democracy was the best way to run a country and now we implement that same model into our organizations—giving the people and employees some buy-in by allowing them to make decisions and participate in the overall function of the whole. Can you think of some similarities and differences between our government and democracy within organizations?
I tried to think of examples of teams and groups and decided that the most relatable examples would be sports teams and group projects. Most of us have probably been a member of a sports team where, as players, you all had similar skills and a communal commitment to an overall goal. This is usually a long-term goal; such as a championship. However, in a group project for class you are placed in groups for the duration of that assignment with a goal to complete the project. Can anyone share experiences they’ve had in either very successful or very unsuccessful teams or groups and why you think that was the case? Were there obvious roles that each person played? I will leave you with a quote about the kind of buy-in that is instilled in our own Alabama football team…this is from Rolando McClain after winning the 2009 National Championship when he played while he was sick. “My team needed me. They needed me to be a leader and out there…For them, I’d do anything. I love them. My team needed me. I had to play.” Do we get this type of passion for a team in the workplace? Why is it harder to implement the model of democracy and team-orientation in some settings than others when it seems so beneficial in any setting?
A final thought for those of you looking for jobs soon: Because of recent team trending, more than ever employers are looking for potential employees who can work well and are willing to work in a team setting. Are there some things we need to be working on before we enter the democracies, groups, and teams of the real world?
Sydney McWaters
We did a group activity where we were able to role play different personalities of a group. Also, as a class, we were given the ability to exercise our own democracy by making changes to our existing class calendar as well as giving our own suggestions and opinions as to what we would like the remainder of our semester to look like. Something interesting to think about is how our country’s government model of democracy transcends into the workplace and organizations. Our founding fathers believed that democracy was the best way to run a country and now we implement that same model into our organizations—giving the people and employees some buy-in by allowing them to make decisions and participate in the overall function of the whole. Can you think of some similarities and differences between our government and democracy within organizations?
I tried to think of examples of teams and groups and decided that the most relatable examples would be sports teams and group projects. Most of us have probably been a member of a sports team where, as players, you all had similar skills and a communal commitment to an overall goal. This is usually a long-term goal; such as a championship. However, in a group project for class you are placed in groups for the duration of that assignment with a goal to complete the project. Can anyone share experiences they’ve had in either very successful or very unsuccessful teams or groups and why you think that was the case? Were there obvious roles that each person played? I will leave you with a quote about the kind of buy-in that is instilled in our own Alabama football team…this is from Rolando McClain after winning the 2009 National Championship when he played while he was sick. “My team needed me. They needed me to be a leader and out there…For them, I’d do anything. I love them. My team needed me. I had to play.” Do we get this type of passion for a team in the workplace? Why is it harder to implement the model of democracy and team-orientation in some settings than others when it seems so beneficial in any setting?
A final thought for those of you looking for jobs soon: Because of recent team trending, more than ever employers are looking for potential employees who can work well and are willing to work in a team setting. Are there some things we need to be working on before we enter the democracies, groups, and teams of the real world?
Sydney McWaters
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Spring Break is Over … Let’s Bring it together TEAM (or) GROUP!
Democracy. We hear about it in our governmental systems and we learn about it in history class, but now it is time to incorporate those lessons into our daily lives at work with organizations. Ms. Murray was gracious enough to allow the class some input on what the class wanted more or less of, what we thought was most interesting, what we disliked, etc. We learned about what work place democracy is, “the principles and practices designed to engage and represent as many relevant individuals and groups as possible in the formulation, execution, and modification of work-related activities.” So, really the point of a democracy is not only to vote on ideas, but for the boss (Ms. Murray), to actually listen, implement, and incorporate those ideas into the system. Some students took ownership of this privilege while others stayed silent. The amount that we decide to participate in the democracy of an organization ultimately may decide whether or not we are fully happy with the organization we are involved with. Why did you give your input? Why did you not give any input? Fear of speaking up, or maybe you just do not believe your ideas will really make a difference?
Participation is key when it comes to working in an organization. Well, some may disagree, but why? When we graduate and (hopefully) obtain a job we enjoy, we will be paid to perform tasks and duties throughout the day. If we perform these tasks, it is okay to head home and end your day, right? Now imagine the other employee who does the exact same job but also gets involved, participates in extra social events with other employees, creates new ideas and networks his way with other levels in the organization. That second employee, the employee who participates is more likely to enjoy that 10% raise, a promotion, or simply a more enjoyable work environment. Employee participation means that you would, “exceed minimum coordination efforts normally expected at work”. Also, for the sake of your organization the extra participation means increased productivity, job enrichment, job satisfaction, a greater sense of organizational democracy, and a more equitable society. So, would you change your mind about the amount of effort you put in to participate in the organization you work for?
We also discussed teams versus groups. The difference is that a team is committed to a common purpose while a group may only have something temporarily in common. Usually in a class or an organization, we hear the words, “get into groups”, and probably have a small panic attack, or at least I do. The mix of personalities and interests are usually so different that it may be difficult to finish a task. This was evident when we broke up into two groups and were randomly assigned a certain “role” within the team. The goal was to create a newsletter for our company and when it came down to it, one group was very unsuccessful because there were too many people that would either take control, or do the opposite and be apathetic to the situation. A main point that was made is that the facilitator needs to be a strong leader because of the many conflicting personalities. We found that the most productive situation is when the facilitator can take control and work with all different personalities. Who found it hard to play their role because it was so different than their own personalities? What did you notice was different about others when you took on the different role? Did others respond positively or negatively toward your behavior?
-Lauren N. Brown
Participation is key when it comes to working in an organization. Well, some may disagree, but why? When we graduate and (hopefully) obtain a job we enjoy, we will be paid to perform tasks and duties throughout the day. If we perform these tasks, it is okay to head home and end your day, right? Now imagine the other employee who does the exact same job but also gets involved, participates in extra social events with other employees, creates new ideas and networks his way with other levels in the organization. That second employee, the employee who participates is more likely to enjoy that 10% raise, a promotion, or simply a more enjoyable work environment. Employee participation means that you would, “exceed minimum coordination efforts normally expected at work”. Also, for the sake of your organization the extra participation means increased productivity, job enrichment, job satisfaction, a greater sense of organizational democracy, and a more equitable society. So, would you change your mind about the amount of effort you put in to participate in the organization you work for?
We also discussed teams versus groups. The difference is that a team is committed to a common purpose while a group may only have something temporarily in common. Usually in a class or an organization, we hear the words, “get into groups”, and probably have a small panic attack, or at least I do. The mix of personalities and interests are usually so different that it may be difficult to finish a task. This was evident when we broke up into two groups and were randomly assigned a certain “role” within the team. The goal was to create a newsletter for our company and when it came down to it, one group was very unsuccessful because there were too many people that would either take control, or do the opposite and be apathetic to the situation. A main point that was made is that the facilitator needs to be a strong leader because of the many conflicting personalities. We found that the most productive situation is when the facilitator can take control and work with all different personalities. Who found it hard to play their role because it was so different than their own personalities? What did you notice was different about others when you took on the different role? Did others respond positively or negatively toward your behavior?
-Lauren N. Brown
There is no ‘I’ in team, but you can’t have a team without me!
The focus of class on Monday involved participation and teams. We began by discussing the meaning of workplace democracy, as well as the four steps towards workplace democracy. We also discussed why participation and teamwork is important and different opinions on whether or not people have to participate within an organization. We determined that people do have to participate within an organization in order to accomplish goals and complete their work.
Another topic that we discussed was the difference between teams, groups, and working groups and the distinguishing characteristics of each. The class was able to experience being part of a team first-hand through an activity called “Making Teamwork Work”. In this activity, we were randomly placed into two ‘teams’ and assigned roles to play for the activity. It was interesting to see real-life roles being played throughout the process. The roles included the group facilitator, the silent type, the intimidator, the monopolizer, the nice guy, and the unhappy camper. There was also a role in which the participant was supposed to ‘play themselves’. Seeing a team work together, being able to distinguish between the different roles, and applying those concepts to various team situations was extremely enlightening.
Personally, I began to look back on different teams I have been a part of in the past. I realized that I have never quite had one definite role. Sometimes I would classify myself as the silent type. Other times I would classify myself as a facilitating monopolizer. How could I, at one time or another, act in ways such as these opposite extremes? I assume the cause of these differences would be related to how comfortable I am in a situation, or even how passionate I am about the topic at hand. This makes me wonder if taking on different roles within a team is a universal feature, or does it depend on the individual?
After thinking about what we learned in class and the role playing exercise, several questions came to mind. Is there one particular role that is more important than another within a team? What participatory roles have you played within a team, or does that usually change depending on various factors for you as well? How would a team be different if one particular role were eliminated? Are all roles needed for a team to function properly?
By: Mary Kathryn Carroll
Another topic that we discussed was the difference between teams, groups, and working groups and the distinguishing characteristics of each. The class was able to experience being part of a team first-hand through an activity called “Making Teamwork Work”. In this activity, we were randomly placed into two ‘teams’ and assigned roles to play for the activity. It was interesting to see real-life roles being played throughout the process. The roles included the group facilitator, the silent type, the intimidator, the monopolizer, the nice guy, and the unhappy camper. There was also a role in which the participant was supposed to ‘play themselves’. Seeing a team work together, being able to distinguish between the different roles, and applying those concepts to various team situations was extremely enlightening.
Personally, I began to look back on different teams I have been a part of in the past. I realized that I have never quite had one definite role. Sometimes I would classify myself as the silent type. Other times I would classify myself as a facilitating monopolizer. How could I, at one time or another, act in ways such as these opposite extremes? I assume the cause of these differences would be related to how comfortable I am in a situation, or even how passionate I am about the topic at hand. This makes me wonder if taking on different roles within a team is a universal feature, or does it depend on the individual?
After thinking about what we learned in class and the role playing exercise, several questions came to mind. Is there one particular role that is more important than another within a team? What participatory roles have you played within a team, or does that usually change depending on various factors for you as well? How would a team be different if one particular role were eliminated? Are all roles needed for a team to function properly?
By: Mary Kathryn Carroll
Monday, March 21, 2011
Do not ignore..
Stop and ask yourself have you been impacted by something or someone? More than likely the answer is yes. Whether it is in a positive or negative way we all know how something can affect our everyday lives in a tremendous way. We started class off with a different vibe that affected most of us with great concern and care. This could be said to be a touchy subject to discuss in class, but we cannot ignore it and nor would we like to act like nothing even happened. We reflected on some funny things that Ricky had mentioned during class like "I walk from Krispy Kreme everyday." With knowing that we have all lost a fellow classmate and some to others a friend, I believed right from the get-go that our class should do something for Ricky’s family or if not I was planning on doing something myself. Once arriving at class Monday night we discussed different options and decided on sending a card to his family directly after our midterm. This is a great idea and much appreciation would come from this simple task if we all participate, where I know we all will. In addition to the card we can write a note of some sort to be sent along. My reflection may be slightly different from others in this class, but I believe highly in everything happens for a reason. What morals do you believe in?
After settling on this decision, we discussed what will be on the midterm for Wednesday night. The midterm will not contain information from What is Leadership and Leadership Vision. You must bring your ACT Card!
-Annie Logan
After settling on this decision, we discussed what will be on the midterm for Wednesday night. The midterm will not contain information from What is Leadership and Leadership Vision. You must bring your ACT Card!
-Annie Logan
Monday, March 7, 2011
Follow the Leader…
Leaders are around us every day. Weather it be a professor, boss, or someone you look up to. At the beginning of class Monday Dr. Chilcutt started us out with by putting us into groups so we could come up with a common definition and traits of a leader. In my particular group we identified a leader as a person who has professional authoritative qualities that separates them from others. We also discussed some character traits of a leader. Some examples we thought of were professional, someone you look up to, authoritative, controlling, and powerful. Did you have any other definitions or character traits that came to mind after our discussion in class? I was thinking that being a leader and having leadership capabilities are two separate things. In order to be a successful leader one must have leadership capabilities. Leaders can see if their leadership style is effective through feedback.
Dr. Chilcutt discussed the different types of leadership styles in class. There are A, B, C, and D leadership styles. We took a test to see what leadership style suited us best, and shockingly mine was pretty dead on. I was split between an A and B leadership style. If a leader knows his or hers style then they should be able to be more productive in what they do. They should be able to understand the kind of people they need to be around in order to be successful.
Knowing the qualities of a successful leader are important. When you are following someone as a leader or someone you look up to you want to make sure they are qualified as someone that is worthy of leading you. For example when voting for a person such as a president, weather if be for the university or the United States, you are going to make sure that person has qualities that make he or she capable of being a successful leader. I would have to say it’s somewhat hard to come by successful leaders. Not everyone can do it. It takes a person of great stature to take on such a role. Can you think of any organizations or teams that once had a successful leader then there was a change of leadership and the organization or team was not as well off? I would say this happens much more in sports teams than organizations, however it still occurs. One particular example that comes to mind is the Alabama football team. When asked the question, who was our defensive leader on the team this past year? Who would you say? It’s tough to say. Maybe Donta Hightower, Marcell Darues, or Mark Barron? You can’t really identify one. However two years ago when we won the National Title most people would answer that question by responding Rolando McClain was our defensive leader. He was the one responsible for everyone on the field at the time. He made the play calls, check off the audibles, and lead the team in tackles. Those are qualities a leader demonstrates.
In closing I leave you with a couple of questions. Who will be Alabama’s leader this year on the field? Would you consider yourself someone who has leadership capabilities? And lastly, what would you say your strongest leadership quality is?
Roll Tide-
Max McGIll
Dr. Chilcutt discussed the different types of leadership styles in class. There are A, B, C, and D leadership styles. We took a test to see what leadership style suited us best, and shockingly mine was pretty dead on. I was split between an A and B leadership style. If a leader knows his or hers style then they should be able to be more productive in what they do. They should be able to understand the kind of people they need to be around in order to be successful.
Knowing the qualities of a successful leader are important. When you are following someone as a leader or someone you look up to you want to make sure they are qualified as someone that is worthy of leading you. For example when voting for a person such as a president, weather if be for the university or the United States, you are going to make sure that person has qualities that make he or she capable of being a successful leader. I would have to say it’s somewhat hard to come by successful leaders. Not everyone can do it. It takes a person of great stature to take on such a role. Can you think of any organizations or teams that once had a successful leader then there was a change of leadership and the organization or team was not as well off? I would say this happens much more in sports teams than organizations, however it still occurs. One particular example that comes to mind is the Alabama football team. When asked the question, who was our defensive leader on the team this past year? Who would you say? It’s tough to say. Maybe Donta Hightower, Marcell Darues, or Mark Barron? You can’t really identify one. However two years ago when we won the National Title most people would answer that question by responding Rolando McClain was our defensive leader. He was the one responsible for everyone on the field at the time. He made the play calls, check off the audibles, and lead the team in tackles. Those are qualities a leader demonstrates.
In closing I leave you with a couple of questions. Who will be Alabama’s leader this year on the field? Would you consider yourself someone who has leadership capabilities? And lastly, what would you say your strongest leadership quality is?
Roll Tide-
Max McGIll
Saturday, March 5, 2011
hmmmmm....Leadership
We all have somehow been influenced by leadership. Let's go back to grade school, where you might have been on a cheerleading or football team where there were captains; or high school, where you were voting for SGA president and class presidents. What characteristics or traits in those particular individuals influenced you to vote or title them to represent that particular organization, team or squad? In today's reading we discover the role of "leadership" and what makes a leader. Just because one is a leader, does this mean that they have good "leadership"? My opinion is that "leaders" and "leadership" are two different words, with two different connotations. A leader is a title issued to an individual, meaning, this title can be handed down (for example, if the mom hands the family business down to her daughter- which is more along the lines of "old leadership") or it can be given, by votes. And we can probably think of that cute, bubbly, popular cheerleader who ran for class president, and won- simply because she was that cute, bubbly popular cheerleader. Now, she may or may not had leadership qualities, but because she was "popular" or "well-known" she most likely won over the nerdy guy, who sits in the back of the class, who knows the in-s and out-s of the school, the school mission, models effective behavior, brings important issues to the open, intelligent, has good ideas, etc, just because she was popular and well known. In this scenario, the cheerleader, who won class president, would be the "leader," and the nerdy kid, would be "of leadership qualities." Which is why I question does a leader, necessarily mean they have "leadership."
We learn through our reading, that leadership is a perception. It is "something" seen in others that perhaps influence attitude or action. But what exactly is that "something." In certain situations such as businesses or corporation, one might look for interactive leadership, where that leader is familiar with the business, mission, goals, and can effectively communicate that knowledge to his/her staff. In school or extra-curricular activities, you might look for more of a empowerment leadership, where you are encouraged or expected to deliver high performance and the leader is their to execute confidence in your ability. What types of traits do you look for in a leader? For me, it is leadership that exudes agreement versus control. I, like Mrs. Murray, am not a fan of authority. When leadership is forced and the leader feels better than- or in a powerful state- I tend to resent or rebel. Whereas, when leadership is an agreement, much like the constitutive approach of leadership, where it doesn't highlight the importance of the ability to manage meaning, but to persuade or influence in a social way. Those leaders who take time to understand the issues, listen to the concerns, and interactively decide a solution. Now, when I say agreement, I don't mean I will always agree with certain leadership styles or actions done by that leader, but the simple fact of understanding and equality, where my opinions or out-look is taken into consideration.
Another interesting question the book asked was- which goes hand-in hand, with the question asked on the first day about the need of bureaucracy... Is leadership needed? In todays "new leadership" we are caught up in independence, democratic, laissez-faire society, where people can make their own decisions, and have more a free-will. But image if that cheerleading squad didn't have a coach or captains, who would issue and execute practices and punishment, who would care to abide rules without a leader to enforce them? SO, do we need leaders?
By: Amoi Savage
We learn through our reading, that leadership is a perception. It is "something" seen in others that perhaps influence attitude or action. But what exactly is that "something." In certain situations such as businesses or corporation, one might look for interactive leadership, where that leader is familiar with the business, mission, goals, and can effectively communicate that knowledge to his/her staff. In school or extra-curricular activities, you might look for more of a empowerment leadership, where you are encouraged or expected to deliver high performance and the leader is their to execute confidence in your ability. What types of traits do you look for in a leader? For me, it is leadership that exudes agreement versus control. I, like Mrs. Murray, am not a fan of authority. When leadership is forced and the leader feels better than- or in a powerful state- I tend to resent or rebel. Whereas, when leadership is an agreement, much like the constitutive approach of leadership, where it doesn't highlight the importance of the ability to manage meaning, but to persuade or influence in a social way. Those leaders who take time to understand the issues, listen to the concerns, and interactively decide a solution. Now, when I say agreement, I don't mean I will always agree with certain leadership styles or actions done by that leader, but the simple fact of understanding and equality, where my opinions or out-look is taken into consideration.
Another interesting question the book asked was- which goes hand-in hand, with the question asked on the first day about the need of bureaucracy... Is leadership needed? In todays "new leadership" we are caught up in independence, democratic, laissez-faire society, where people can make their own decisions, and have more a free-will. But image if that cheerleading squad didn't have a coach or captains, who would issue and execute practices and punishment, who would care to abide rules without a leader to enforce them? SO, do we need leaders?
By: Amoi Savage
Workplace Relationship
We started class on Monday by watching a clip from the movie The Devil Wears Prada. In this clip, the main character Andy Sachs is running countless errands for her boss, Miranda Priestly. As the clip progressed you could tell that Miranda had very little respect for Andy, and as soon as Miranda would enter the office she would throw her purse and coats on Andy’s desk as if it was a coat rack. Miranda saw Andy as a way to accomplish those mundane tasks that she simply didn’t have time for during her busy day. The second clip we watched was from the movie Office Space. In this clip, Peter comes into work on a Monday and as soon as he sits down he is confronted by his boss, Bill Lumbergh. As soon as the conversation between Peter and Bill concludes, Peter is again confronted by a “higher-up”. This conversation unfolds just as the previous one had. You can tell Peter is very frustrated by this and wants to change some things about the communication within his office.
The showing of these clips led into the class discussion of workplace relationships, organizational climates and organizational networks. Organizational networks are defined as systems of communications linkages within the workplace. An example of an organizational network is the University of Alabama’s very own elearning system. These organizational networks share three common characteristics; the nature of information, media/virtual networks such as Twitter and Facebook, and Network Density or the number of connections among people in the network.
Organizational climates define the emotional quality of an organization. There are specifically two different types of climates, defensive and supportive. Defensive climates are generally rigid in structure and contain very little support. On the other end of the spectrum are supportive climates, which tend to be more welcoming and supportive. Communication within organizations is based around six dimensions; Strategy vs. Spontaneity, Dogmatism vs. Flexibility, Control vs. Collaboration, Evaluation vs. Description, Detachment vs. Empathy, and Superiority vs. Equality. These dimensions define the drastic difference between supportive climates and defensive climates.
Workplace relationships can be divided into romantic relationships and professional peer relationships. While there are several different types of professions peers, there are only two types of romantic relationship. Professional peers include informational peers, collegial peers, special peers, and virtual peers. Romantic relationships include mixed-status relationships which are relationships between coworkers of different organizational status. The other romantic relationship is a supervisory relationship where one person outranks and supervises another.
The central and most important theme among all workplace relationships is communication. Whether this communication is verbal or non-verbal it is extremely detrimental to the success of any organization. As we discovered in our case study on Monday, two way communications between informational peers can make a difference in job security. Granted, certain topics that are shared between informational peers are often very private and should only be made known between certain workplace peers.
Certain companies have a strict policy not to hire couples or even relatives. Should these companies always abide by this policy or should they give some couples/relatives a chance to work with one another?
By: Ross Fielder
The showing of these clips led into the class discussion of workplace relationships, organizational climates and organizational networks. Organizational networks are defined as systems of communications linkages within the workplace. An example of an organizational network is the University of Alabama’s very own elearning system. These organizational networks share three common characteristics; the nature of information, media/virtual networks such as Twitter and Facebook, and Network Density or the number of connections among people in the network.
Organizational climates define the emotional quality of an organization. There are specifically two different types of climates, defensive and supportive. Defensive climates are generally rigid in structure and contain very little support. On the other end of the spectrum are supportive climates, which tend to be more welcoming and supportive. Communication within organizations is based around six dimensions; Strategy vs. Spontaneity, Dogmatism vs. Flexibility, Control vs. Collaboration, Evaluation vs. Description, Detachment vs. Empathy, and Superiority vs. Equality. These dimensions define the drastic difference between supportive climates and defensive climates.
Workplace relationships can be divided into romantic relationships and professional peer relationships. While there are several different types of professions peers, there are only two types of romantic relationship. Professional peers include informational peers, collegial peers, special peers, and virtual peers. Romantic relationships include mixed-status relationships which are relationships between coworkers of different organizational status. The other romantic relationship is a supervisory relationship where one person outranks and supervises another.
The central and most important theme among all workplace relationships is communication. Whether this communication is verbal or non-verbal it is extremely detrimental to the success of any organization. As we discovered in our case study on Monday, two way communications between informational peers can make a difference in job security. Granted, certain topics that are shared between informational peers are often very private and should only be made known between certain workplace peers.
Certain companies have a strict policy not to hire couples or even relatives. Should these companies always abide by this policy or should they give some couples/relatives a chance to work with one another?
By: Ross Fielder
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)