Cultural Approach to Organizations

One organization that is it’s own culture that I know a lot about is the Kent State football team. The team is definitely a puzzle that has been put together from many different pieces. There are sub-cultures such as the coaches, the administration, the players and the training staff. These sub-cultures each have their own sub-cultures.
The corporate stories are those told by the administration and the coaches because they are the people in power. They tell stories about their view of the program and the players. The personal stories that the players tell tend to be different than that of the coaches. Even though our goals are the same, sometimes our views about both the coaches and other players are different. We will tell stories to each other that we wouldn’t dare tell the coaches. The collegial stories are usually about new players coming in. If someone has seen that person on tape or in person they will give their feelings about the recruits chances of playing.
There are many rituals and traditions in the KSU football program. One example is that we sing the fight song after every win, another is the 4th of July cookout we have every year. The KSU football program is a great example of the Cultural Approach to Organizations.

Adaptive Structuration Theory

A good example of Adaptive Structuration Theory is the University of Florida’s football team this past season, particularly the addition of Tim Tebow, a freshman quarterback. The team had a very specific structure before Tebow got there, Chris Leak was their leader and their quarterback and that was not a debated issue. Tebow took that structure and changed it to fit his need to play. Because of his ability, Tebow earned playing time and became one of the leaders of the team. Usually the rule and that the seniors are the leaders and it takes age to develop leadership skills, Tebow broke that rule and changed it to now the players at Florida might start to look at younger players to become leaders. Tebow appropriated rules from teams he played on in the past, when everyone was looked upon to be a leader. Communication definitely made a difference in this situation, it was because of his ability to communicate that Tebow was able to become a leader and change the structures of the University of Florida football program.

Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making

A great example of Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making is when the kids have to get the Babe Ruth autographed ball back from The Beast in the movie “The Sandlot.” In the movie the kids analyze the problem first, they know that nobody has ever gotten a ball back once it went over the fence into the beast’s yard. They set a goal to get the ball back, they tried to find alternatives by buying another baseball and attempting to sign in themselves to replace the one they lost. They also tried alternative ways of getting the ball back because they didn’t want to have to go into the yard themselves to get the ball and they tried every idea they could think of so they did a good job brainstorming. They developed some of the wildest ideas possible, from dropping one of them down on a pulley, or building a remote control catapult to throw the ball over the fence. Most of them were promotive when dealing with getting the ball back, they all understood how important it was to get it back and used most of their energy getting the job done.

Elaboration Likelihood Model

An example of ELM is when my dad and step mom were watching the State of the Union address that President Bush was giving this past year. My dad, being a republican, took the central route when he was listening to the address. He was more motivated to listen carefully because he likes the president. My step mom, a staunch democrat, took the peripheral route. My dad had very little noise because my little brother and sister were asleep so he was able to pay close attention. My step mom had some physiological noise because she was very tired.
Neither of them could say that they were objective or unbiased on the issues because they both have long standing biases when it comes to politics.
The president did get my step mom to become more central when he was talking about the war. Her brother was in the military so she became interested when he started talking about that. The peripheral cues that he gave when he began talking about the war got her attention.

constructivism

Cognitive complexity is said to be “a sophisticated set of mental constructs that enables a person to distinguish subtle differences among people.” (Griffin 2006 p. A-1) I interpret that as an ability to read people. I think this theory shows that some people are better than others at reading people and a great example of this is the differences in the Kent State football coaching staff.
The head coach, I feel, has a very good grasp of this idea and he shows it in the way he deals with his players. He knows that different players respond to criticism in different ways so he handles each player individually the way he thinks will get his point across best. Certain players respond to being yelled at, so he will yell at them; certain players respond better to being talked to calmly, so he will call them over and have a conversation as opposed to yelling at them.
One of the other coaches has less of a grasp on cognitive complexity, he treats everyone exactly the same regardless of what they respond to best.
The head coach’s construct abstractness is good, he understands each players states and motives and determines the best way to get his point across. The other coach has a poor grasp on construct abstractness because he doesn’t look that closely into each players mental state.
I think the reason that the head coach is better with players is because of his construct differentiation. He has developed a large number of constructs that he uses when dealing with his players, he has developed so many because he has been coaching for a long time. The other coach hasn’t been coaching as long so he hasn’t had time to develop as many constructs. The head coach uses person centered messages very well, whereas the other coach doesn’t use person centered messages.

Relational Dialectics Theory

The example I decided to use for Relational Dialectics Theory is my relationship with my ex-girlfriend. I want to preface this entry by saying that this is going to sound like I am being harsh when I talk about her. I don’t mean to and don’t really want to but our relationship was very fitting in with Relational Dialectics.
When it came to Integration/Separation we definitely fit that mold, however, we didn’t fit it in the way that most people consider normal in a relationship. Usually it is the guy who wants to go out with his friends and the girl wants to spend more time together. In our situation she didn’t want to spend every day together, which I was alright with but I wanted to spend more time together than she did. We also were very secluded as opposed to being included with each other’s friends. We had no mutual friends, I didn’t know her friends very well and my friends didn’t like her very much so we never went out together. There was definitely always tension between us and our friends.
When it came to Stability/Change we tended to lean towards stability. One of the reasons that our relationship ended was that it became very predictable and it became a dialectic that was too much for us to deal with.
She was a horrible communicator so when it came to expression/nonexpression we definitely had some issues. I tried to be very open in dealing with her but she had problems expressing herself to me which was quite straining on me. She also struggled with revealing anything about herself to me. She actually said “there are things I will never tell you” which is not something you want to hear after being in a relationship for a year.
Maybe if I had a better grasp on Relational Dialectics when we were together then we would have made it but oh well, life goes on.

Social Information Processing Theory

An example of Social Information Processing Theory is in the movie “Out Cold.” In the movie two of the characters form a very special bond through use of the computer, the twist is that they know each other and don’t like each other at all. However, because of Computer Mediation Communication, they have a very intimate moment. Both characters, Eric and Pigpen, are men but they both log on to a lesbian chat room and make up fake names and characteristics about themselves. The hyperpersonal perspective applies to their situation because they both hide the fact that they are men and highlight their fake attributes as women. This situation is intended to be funny for the purposes of the movie but it applies to this theory anyway. When Pigpen and Eric were having their conversation they used verbal cues to show how they were feeling. They both used expressions of affinity and disclosed information that was intended to make the other more comfortable. Because they were both so interested in finding a woman who was looking to have a very sexual conversation they both over attributed the similarities that they had. This situation is obviously isn’t what Walther had in mind when he was talking about Computer Mediated Communication but it shows how much this form of communication has evolved since they first started doing research

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

The best example of Uncertainty Reduction Theory that I can think of is my first week as a student at Kent where I was forced to develop a relationship with someone I had never met before because I had a randomly assigned roommate. We both were very motivated to reduce uncertainty because we were going to be living together all year and wanted to be comfortable with each other quickly. We both had a high incentive value for one another because, again, we had to live together all year so it was important that we got along. We were forced to deal with the uncertainty interactively. Axioms one, three and six particularly applied to our situation because once we talked we were more certain that we could live together. At the beginning uncertainty was very high and so was our information seeking behavior, for the first week we did very little but ask questions about each other. Axiom six was especially accurate in our situation because once we realized that we both played sports and had a lot in common our uncertainty levels went way down and we were comfortable with each other.

Expectancy Violations Theory

An example of Expectancy Violations Theory that I have observed is the interaction between Uncle Jerry and Rob on a recent episode of the MTV show “Rob and Big.” In the episode Rob and Big go to Mississippi to visit Big Black’s family. When Rob meets Big’s uncle Jerry he seems normal at first but as the episode progresses Jerry develops a very low Communicator Reward Valence. He does this by gradually getting closer and closer to Rob to the point where Rob has to tell him that he is too close. Jerry’s behavior may have been normal for him, but Rob, who had never met him before was obviously expecting him to act differently. Jerry also failed to meet Rob’s expectations in the way he talked. Jerry continually repeated himself and it made Rob uncomfortable.
The funny thing about this situation is that Jerry acted the same way when he was interacting with both Rob and Big Black, the only difference is that Big was expecting it because he knew his uncle and knew how he was going to act. Rob, who had no idea Jerry was like this, was uncomfortable and was constantly trying to avoid the uncomfortable situations with Jerry.

Social Penetration Theory

A real life example of Social Penetration Theory, specifically the Comparison Level of
Alternatives, that I have seen is the interaction between Marshall and the men he works with on an episode of CBS’ “How I Met Your Mother.” In the episode Marshall goes to work for a new firm and initially hates working there, especially the way that the other guys there interact. They are very loud and boisterous. Marshall wants to quit his job but he needs the money in order to pay for his upcoming wedding so he is forced to become friends with these guys. The Comparison Level of Alternatives fits in this situation because he has no other options. If he doesn’t get along with the people he works with then they will probably fire him, so he becomes friends with them, and eventually begins to act like them because he is left with no other options.
Social Penetration Theory also states that as a relationship grows the breadth and depth of information that we are willing to disclose increases. This happened to Marshall in the episode. At the beginning he didn’t tell the guys anything but once he got to know them he began to share much deeper and broader information and eventually developed a relationship with them through self disclosure.