Interpreting the Effects of Organizational Communication Technologies (Ch 12)

One concept presented in chapter 12 caught my attention, the concept that "electronic media filter out nonverbal cues". While it is true that a written message would never convey emotions as well as a face to face interactions would, I still think that people have found a way to convey emotions nevertheless to a certain degree. For example, when I chat with my friends I use a lot of emoticons to express my emotions. If I am very surprised (WOW), happy (YEAH) or angry (!) I might use capital letters with appropriate punctuation. It seems that most people pick on these nonverbal cues and are able to deduct my mood. When I type an email it is more difficult to write down my emotions, not because I cannot insert emoticons, but because by the time the recipient reads the email, my mood might have changed so the email would have a the same tone as let's say a regular letter. 

Features of Communication Technologies (Ch 12)

I agree with the authors when they say that 'our notion of time' has changed but our notion of time is not the only one that has changed. Our expectations have also changed with time. Years ago if I contacted a business partner, let's say by fax I did not expect a response within the same day but now when I use email, even though I do not expect an instant response I do expect an answer within hours. Because people can now communicate so easily, there are more expectation on faster response time. While technology has certainly made communication easier, it has not provide a way to deal with increase quantity of communication. I can easily respond to one email but I cannot easily respond to 200 emails.

Ethics as an Issue for Organizations (Ch 14)

I agree with the authors when they state that "the nature of corporate legitimacy has changed dramatically in the past three decades". I have noticed a bigger focus on ethical organization behavior lately especially when it comes to the environment. Whether it is purely a PR campaign or a real concern about their impact on the environment, it seems that every company is trying to say 'look at what I am doing for the environment'. Customers with the same concerns might be more inclined to buy from an environmentally and socially responsible companies than from a company who's objective is purely to make a profit.

Coming to Terms with Ethics (Ch 14)

About a month ago, the company where I work (I will purposely not mention the name) gave all the employee a mini online training on "ethics". The whole exercise lasted approximately one hour. It consisted of five major parts on how to do business, treat customers and things you can do an not do. Each part has a "theory" section and a "question" section. Grades were not recorded, the only that was recorded is that you completed the training by the deadline. Basically the company was interested in exposing employees to ethical concepts. 

Before I took the training I did not think of it much, it was just one more thing to do but once I took it, it really helped clarify what was acceptable to do and what was not. Most of the time, common sense can be used but many other time, knowledge has to be used. One thing I learned is that we could call a number to ask about ethical behavior if we were in doubt. 

This training changed my behavior and made me realize that sometimes not knowing does not always mean that a person has no ethics.

Critics of Globalization (Ch 13)

One other interesting idea in Chapter 13 is about globalization being a "threat to communities and the environment". Also that global organizations are "undemocratic and detrimental to both local communities and the local environment". It would have been very interesting to evaluate the criteria the people who criticized globalization used. Aren't most business detrimental to either local communities or the environment also? I would imagine that whether global or local usually the goal of a business is to increase the wealth for the owner(s). So global businesses are no different than local businesses, the only difference lays in the fact that they are bigger.

Also, corporations do have a lot of power and certainly have influenced local businesses but ultimately it is the customer that makes a business successful or not. As long as people will continue to buy burgers, it will mean that there is a "need" for burgers. I remember reading an article about McDonald's being bombed, one way a group of French people decided to fight globalism. What perplexed me is that if everyone was agreeing with this group of French people, there would have been no need to bomb the place. People should just have stopped going there. If the location was not profitable, McDonald's would have left. My point is that it seems that the people that fight globalism are trying to impose their ideas on the majority of people that enjoy and benefit from globalism. 

 

Forces of Convergence (Ch 13)

The paragraph about "US cultural imperialism' and how the French complain that US exported culture received more instant recognition than do ideas or images from Paris is very interesting to me.

I travel to France on a regular basis and during my most recent trips I noticed just this fact: US culture was everywhere. This shocked me. Every store I entered played US music. All the movie theaters I walked by played US movies. The news were all about what was happening in the US. The US culture was definitely dominant. I wondered if this was good or bad. I came to the conclusion that this was probably both good and bad. Good because it exposed the French people to something different and bad because the French culture was not as dominant, at least in the media.  

Confronting and Defining Globalization (Ch 13)

I completely agree with the authors when they state that one factor that contributed to globalization is of course the use of communication technologies (mainly computers and internet). But as the authors also states, many people, the not so 'well-off members of the global society' do not have access to these technologies. Some of these people might not even be aware of that fact. The disconnection is a scary thought when I think of all the implications this has for people who do not have access to communication technologies. What does this really mean for them and their future and the future of their children? Does this mean that for these people 'catching up is and will be more and more difficult if not impossible? It certainly seems that way. And if one group does not 'catch up' what does this mean for everyone else?