As I read this homework selection, I thought of two ideas. First, this book's definition of organization was particularly interesting to me. It states on page 4 that, "Organizations are places that carry us from cradle to grave by shaping our sense of identity, role, and meaning in life." Initially, I rejected this notion because I believe that I determine my own life's trajectory, not other people. Yet, the more I thought about it, I wondered, "Would I really know what it meant to be an individual if I were not once part of an organization?" The response to my question came in two different forms.
First, I thought of Kenneth Burke's concept of segregation and congregation. Surely, I could not have understood individuality and understand myself without playing a role in an organization. Secondly, I recalled a class exercise in which my group had to analyze the following paraphrased statement: "People spend their whole lives living in boxes just so they can end up in one." Although this example was speaking more of expressing individuality, it shows how organizational cultures define and shape how people understand their personal, social, and professional roles.
The other topic that piqued my interest was the difference between being organization insiders and outsiders. I used to wonder why companies hired outside consultants, who knew nothing about the problems within the company, to tell employees how to communicate effectively. As table 1.1 shows, an outsider is less familiar with an organization's dynamic and can thus "see more" (11). Even when I used to complain to my family about problematic situations at work, they would sometimes respond with, "Oh, that is just this" or "That means you just need to do that." In my opinion, the situations were always much more complicated, but as outsiders, they were able to see the grand scheme. Although their outsider perspectives seemed to trivialize my situation and offered another perspective, they were still partial. My take on situations was much different because I was an insider; yet, I was also biased because I was too familiar with the operations of the organization to make obvious or reasonable conclusions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The outside observer certainly plays a major part in fixing problems that internal players have become too near-sighted to see. Nonetheless, I think outside observers' comments can only go so far. I think you're right in saying that situations can be more complicated than an outside observer make take into consideration.
With that in mind, it's always good to take the suggestions of outside observers and mull them over with an inside perspective. In this regard, I think ethnographers--especially participant observers--have a unique role within the organizational structure. They are both active observers and internal players. More so than any special traits they bring to the table, I think the mere fact that they're consciously examining their roles and the roles of everyone else around them makes them invaluable to cultural studies.
But what if we trained employees to be as "aware?" Instead of just completing the job, what if we asked them to be participant observers? Do you think this is too ambitious of a goal?
As I read this post, I thought of the musical, How to Succeed in Business. I don't know if any of you have seen it, but it is an entertaining parody of corporate life. One of the characters sings a song about how he always thinks, says, and does what the company would want. At one point, the main character sings, "Your brain is a company brain," and he replies, "The company washed it, so I can't complain." He has no individuality and that makes him the ideal employee. He is proud of himself, because he feels that this gives him complete job security. The refrain of the song is, "Whoever the company fires, I will still be here."
Although this is clearly an exaggeration of office politics, I feel that there must be a grain of truth in it somewhere. Do companies really value and promote individuals who think outside the box, or do they prefer those who adhere unquestioningly to the company line? We'd all like to think it's the former, but in my own brief experience in the workforce I find that I have more often been encouraged to conform and follow directions exactly rather than think up new, creative solutions. Maybe, it's just because I was a newbie and at the bottom of the ranks. I hadn't had the chance to earn the right to make changes. Or maybe organizations are uncomfortable with people whose views they see as unorthodox.
April, you have started us off in a reflective way, particularly your analysis of your reactions to the idea that we are part of organizations from cradle to grave, and your application of the insider/outsider ideas to your vexed job and family's response. Daniel, you are pinpointing how participant-observers, who are key to the idea of cultural analysis, might operate within an organization, even if they do not have the perspective of outsiders (also selective). Lara, I haven't thought about HTSIBWRT for years, but it is very relevant--and brings a particular kind of work anxiety to bear on our thinking. The idea of brainwashing was part of 1950s and 1960s paranoia, and your recall of the lyrics shows it operated as well in the corporate ladder, also a major trope of the times--and still a part of ours. You're expressing the tension between constraint and creativity (heavy on the former) that EGT discuss.
Post a Comment