Examine this chart and draw a line at the point that you believe that worker involvement is either impractical or improper (you can also draw circles around several policies rather than a line at one point). For your post, describe this point on the chart and discuss why you believe the rest of the items are not practical. For instance, you might believe that some procedures should be left in the hands of managers because they undermine the ability of a company to be profitable or because of likely conflicts between workers, or resistance from managers, etc. Be careful and detailed in your reasoning ad try to use concepts from the text to describe your point of view.
Finish the post by discussing what your views suggest for the possibility of establishing participatory and democratic workplaces. Does this mean that some of the theories we have discussed in class so far are invalid or unrealistic? Which ones? Note that you might think that all the items on the chart are practical, in which case discuss how workplaces would have to be reorganized to make workplace democracy a real possibility.
To answer this question, you will have to be familiar with the sections of our textbook that discuss “participation” and “participative management,” as well as “workplace democracy.” Most, but not all of this information is in chapter 8 of our textbook.
After looking at the chart on page 238 of our textbook “Organizational Communication: Balancing Creativity and Constraint,” it is clear to me that the point in which worker involvement is either impractical or improper is right after “Equipment Maintenance and Repair.” There are several reasons why I believe that after this point worker involvement is impractical.
1. The first reason deals with the simple definition of organizational communication. Organizational communication is required to direct a group toward a set of common goals. There is not one single company out there that does not have a central goal, thus is everyone had the power to “Hire Team Members,” “Schedule Vacations,” and “Make Compensation Decisions,” the company would not be able to function as one single being. Instead, the goal would most likely be lost among the crowd and the company’s system would fall apart
2. The second reason deals with the various definitions of dialogue. Dialogue has three levels representing an increasing degree of collaboration and respect for the other however, only the first two relate to this topic: dialogue as (1) equitable transaction, and (2) empathic conversation.
i. An equitable transaction from a communication perspective is one in which all participants have the ability to voice their opinions and perspectives. According to the text, “In defining dialogue this way, we call attention to the fact that not everyone in an organization has an equal say in making decisions or in interpreting events (p. 48).” However, nowadays, organizations are taking on and using the “teamwork” concept more often than not, which opens doors for more people to speak their mind. This nonetheless, still does not change the fact that everyone has their own separate positions and responsibilities and thus do not all have the right to make company decisions
ii. In defining dialogue as empathic conversations, we refer to the ability to understand or imagine the world as another person understands or imagines it. Achieving empathy is difficult for people who believe that their view of reality is the only correct view and that others’ perceptions are misinformed or misguided. Although this sort of situation can occur within upper management, is still makes more sense having at least one person “leading” the group than having various different clashing personalities fighting over the power.
3. The third reason is because, as stated on the question sheet, I do believe that some procedures should be left in the hands of managers because they undermine the ability of a company to be profitable as well as it takes away the chance of conflicts between workers. For every single job, organization or even schooling system I have belonged to, there has always been a hierarchical system of management. At work there are the employees, the managers, the head managers, and so on and so forth. In organizations, specifically school-related, there is a president and vice president, an advisor and the school which funds the organizations. Finally, in the schooling system there are the teachers, the principle and the board of directors. Not one person can handle all of the responsibilities that entail a job like those that I described, however several people trying to handle the same job would not work well either. It is human nature to work at things the way WE want to do it, and we don’t always necessarily think about other people around us.
According to the chapter in our book titled “Teams and Networks: Collaboration in the Workplace,” in order for there to be democracy in the workplace, a multiple stakeholder model is key. The multiple stakeholder model asserts that organizations ought to be concerned with the interests of many different individuals and groups and not just shareholders or stockholders.
Along with this thinking there are also four steps towards workplace democracy in which shared decision making among stakeholders is crucial. They are (1) create a workplace in which every member thinks and acts like an owner, (2) the management of work must be reintegrated with the doing of work, (3) quality information must be widely distributed, and (4) social structure should grow from the bottom rather than be reinforced from the top.
Even though these concepts seem promising in the eyes of your average employee, they are still very unrealistic and will most likely not be implemented any time soon. Overall, my views on the possibility of establishing participatory and democratic workplaces are very pessimistic and I do believe that the theories that we have touched upon involving democracy are invalid or even unrealistic.
