skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Today is the last day of Week 5, the final day to blog as well as take Quiz 5. So declare your independence by finishing up your work for the week early and then relaxing and enjoying the fireworks tonight. Or if you're a dog owner like I am, closing all the windows and turning up the music so your pup won't be terrified by all the loud booms, pops, and bangs.
~ Professor Cyborg
In the web lecture on democracy and dialogue I discuss various approaches to democracy and how they apply to organizational communication. As with organizational life in general, scholars and organization members think of democracy as rational, logical, and systematic. Yet the recent events in Iran (millions of people demonstrating and protesting the presidential election process) reveal the emotional side of democracy. That's why I find dialogic democracy appealing--it recognizes the passion underlying democratic processes.
One of the negative influences of classical theories of organization has been the removal of emotion from organizational life. Some displays of emotion are allowed in limited quantities. For example, it's okay to show happiness (but not too much) and displeasure (but again, not too much). In a previous entry, I talked about emotion labor, the idea that organization members must manage their emotions in specific ways. Dialogic democracy allows for a more authentic or honest expression of emotion. That doesn't mean you should blurt out whatever you're feeling at the time. Part of coordinating your behaviors with others involves a degree of self monitoring. That is, just because you think or feel something doesn't mean you have to tell others about it (consider the case of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, whose admissions about an affair have been referred to as streams of consciousness and other members of the GOP saying they wish he would "just shut up").
Dialogic democracy recognizes the importance of emotion as part of the human condition and encourages organization members to recognize the role emotion plays in organizational communication and decision making. This approach to emotion presents a clear distinction from other views of democracy as well as more traditional theories of organizing.
~ Professor Cyborg
I woke up this morning, as all of you did, to newspaper headlines around the state highlighting the our elected leaders' failure to pass a budget. Frantic Budget Talks Fall Short in the San Jose Mercury News, 11th-Hour Votes on State Budget Fail in the LA Times, Governor, Lawmakers Blow Deadline as Budget Hole Deepens in the Sacramento Bee, No Deal as State Budget Deadline Nears in the San Francisco Chronicle, and California State Senate Fails to Break Budget Deadlock in the San Diego Union-Tribune. How can this happen? What have you learned in this class over the past 4+ weeks that could help out the politicians in Sacramento?
In Chapter 11 Eisenberg et al. discuss new logics of organizing, such as management as poetry and communication as discourse, voice, and performance. The authors argue "the 'old' logic of organizational communication rested solidly on a seemingly bedrock principle that assumed hierarchies of all kinds were 'givens'" (p. 347). They go on to predict that current forms of organization and ways of organizing will change, especially with the use of new media. Yet the current state of California's government suggests that little has changed in this giant bureaucracy. California found itself in a similar situation in the early 1990s and the state seems to be repeating history. State politicians have to find new ways of communicating and managing the government; the old ways just aren't working. In the meantime, people who depend on the state--those who are the most fragile and at risk, such as children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities--will be receiving IOUs. IOUs don't pay the rent or buy groceries.
~ Professor Cyborg
