Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cultivation Analysis
This theory argues that television (and other media) plays an extremely important role in how people
view their world. According to Cultivation Analysis, in modern Culture most people get much of their
information in a mediated fashion rather than through direct experience. Thus, mediated sources can
shape people’s sense of reality. This is especially the case with regard to violence, according to the
theory. Cultivation Analysis posits that heavy television viewing cultivates a sense of the world that is
more violent and scarier than is actually warranted.
Cultural Studies
Theorists in cultural studies maintain that the media represents ideologies of the dominant class in a
society. Because media are controlled by corporations, the information presented to the public is
necessarily influenced and framed with profit in mind. Cultural Studies theorists, therefore, are
concerned with media influenced and framed with profit in mind. Cultural Studies theorists, therefore,
are concerned with media influence and how power plays a role in the interpretation of culture.
Dramatism
This theoretical position compares life to a drama. As in dramatic action, life requires an actor, a scene,
an act, some means for the action to take place, and a purpose. A rhetorical critic can understand a
speaker’s motives by analyzing these elements. Further, Dramatism argues that purging guilt is the
ultimate motive, and rhetors can be successful when they provide their audiences with a means for
purging their guilt and a sense of identification with the rhetor.
Face-Negotiation Theory
Face-Negotiation Theory is concerned with how people in individualistic and collectivistic cultures
negotiate face in conflict situations. The theory is based on face management, which describes how
people from different cultures manage conflict negotiation in order to maintain face. Self-face and
other-face concerns explain the conflict negotiation between people from various cultures.
Groupthink
The groupthink phenomenon occurs when highly cohesive groups fail to consider alternatives that may
effectively resolve group dilemmas. Groupthink theorists contend that group members frequently think
similarly and are reluctant to share unpopular or dissimilar ideas with others. When this occurs, groups
prematurely make decisions, some of which can have lasting consequences.
The Rhetoric
Rhetorical theory is based on the available means of persuasion. That is, a speaker who is interested in
persuading his or her audience should consider three rhetorical proofs: logical, emotional, and ethical.
Audiences are key to effective persuasion as well. Rhetorical syllogism, requiring audiences to supply
missing pieces of a speech, are also used in persuasion.
Standpoint Theory
This theory posits that people are situated in specific social standpoints-they occupy different places in
the social hierarchy. Because of this, individuals view the social situation from particular vantage points.
By necessity, each vantage point provides only a partial understanding of the social whole. Yet, those
who occupy the lower rungs of the hierarchy tend to understand the social whole. Yet, those who
occupy the lower rungs of the hierarchy tend to understand the social situation more fully than those at
the top. Sometimes, Standpoint Theory is referred to as Feminist Standpoint Theory because of its
application to how women’s and men’s standpoint differ.
Structuration Theory
Theorists supporting the structurational perspective argue that groups and organizations create
structures, which can be interpreted as an organization’s rules and resources. These structures, in turn,
create social systems in an organization. Structuration theorists posit that groups and organizations
achieve a life of their own because of the way their members utilize their structures. Power structures
guide the decision making taking place in groups and organizations.
Copyright ©2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
McGraw-Hill Higher Education is one of the many fine businesses of
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc..
4. Elements of the Pentad <ul><li>Act (names what took place in thought or deed) (realism)
</li></ul><ul><li>Scene is background of the act or situation in which it occurred (determinism)
</li></ul><ul><li>Agent is the person or kind of person who performed the act (idealism)
</li></ul><ul><li>Agency is the means or instruments used to perform the act (pragmatism)
</li></ul><ul><li>Purpose (speaker’s) is the implied or stated goal of the act (mysticism) </li></ul>
5. Guilt-Redemption Cycle <ul><li>Ultimate purpose is purging of guilt (tension, anxiety, shame, noxious
feelings generally). </li></ul><ul><li>Negative feelings: from negativity in language, technology,
hierarchies, binary oppositions, pressure for perfection (rotten with perfection) </li></ul><ul><li>Guilt is
purged through self-blame or, more commonly, victimage , designating a common external enemy – this
helps identification. </li></ul><ul><li>Rhetoric: public search for perfect scapegoat </li></ul>
Culture in organization is a way people make sense of information. Verbal and nonverbal
communication within an organizational culture has three distinct things, artifacts, values, and
assumptions.
Artifacts, are things that you can see, they are made up of norms, standards, and customs. Norms are a
pattern of communication that shows what type of behavior is acceptable. Norms are the unconscious
rules of how to behave and communicate (bantz 1983). Whenever I see someone I am acquainted with I
always ask how they are doing, and they responded “good.” This is a cultural norm to say “good”
regardless of how the person is really doing.
Values shared by organizational members are important to organization culture. Values are a broad
tendency to prefer certain state of affairs over others (hfstede, 2001). Values are strategies, goals, or
qualities that are considered ideal to create guidelines for organizational behavior (Keyton). Even
though values are a key to understanding an organization culture, values are unseen and hard to detect
until they are shown in behavior.
For example, I worked at a place where there were 6 guys total. All of us worked full time, 5 of the guys
all shared the same values and belonged to the same religious organization. The manger held a lot of
similar values that his coworkers had, but there were also some that were clearly different. For example
the five coworkers all valued marriage and family. The manger however did not value marriage or
family. After trying to set him up on many dates, the manger final just said “look I don’t plan on getting
married! I tried it once and I did not like it and I don’t plan on doing it again.” Also, with my first baby I
asked to get 3 days off for when she was in the hospital and for the day after. He didn’t see the need for
me to have to take so much time off. I finally had to tell him that if I didn’t get the time I was done. He
then let me have the three days.
Assumptions are values taken for granted they are on such a subconscious level that members of the
organization no longer discuss Assumptions. These deeply held beliefs can be abstract and
hidden. Assumptions can be about relationships to other organizational members, clients, customers,
vendors, or the organization itself.
For an example, I own a small landscaping business. When I train some of the employees of how to do
things, I would say “Use your best judgment, and if you have any question give me a call.” Employees in
their first few weeks they would call me and tell me the problem. I would then ask “what do you think
you should do?” They would then tell me what they thought the solution was. Almost always I would say
“that sounds great to me.” At first one employee was confused at the way I trained because at his other
job his boss was micromanaging. They would tell him exactly what to do. Long after training that
employee whose past boss was micromanaging still did not understand how to do the job by himself. He
called me 5-10 times a day because the assumption was so deeply held. I had to vocally tell the
employee that I trusted in his ability to make judgment. It was not until I vocalized this that he started
doing the job on his own.
Culture in an organization is, how you would great someone, artifacts, people’s common values that
make up the whole organizations values, and assumption that people in the organizations culture may
look at as common sense. Artifacts, Values and Assumptions make up a culture in an organization.
Disadvantages of cultures in organization are that artifacts, values, and assumptions, are put in
employees regardless if they agree with inward and outward values. Company values are usually based
upon the founders or people who run the company. And a lot of the time artifacts, values, and
assumptions are made to bring money to the profit sharers. This can distort what the companies values
are compared to what employee’s values are. This can lead to more rules and bureaucracy. Incoming
people in organization are indoctrinated to what the organization culture is most of time with out even
knowing, because it is the social norm. In the long run, this can hurt companies because it can impair
creativity, in employees.
Although an organization culture may have weaknesses it does have strengthens as well. A solid
organizational culture could be one where the majority of the employees hold the same basic beliefs
and values as apply to the organization. Companies where the goals of management and employees line
up can influence team building and efficiency with communication, management and overall effective
productivity.
©[cartoonresource]/Adobe Stock
According to Irving, in a group sometimes there comes a situation when all the
members of the groupthink it is more important to come to a unanimous decision than
to carefully go through all their options to get at the most beneficial course of action.
Some famous examples of group – think are the Challenger space shuttle disaster and
the Bay of Pigs invasion. It has been reported that the engineers of the space shuttle
knew about some faulty parts months before takeoff, but in order to avoid negative
press, they went ahead with the launch anyway. In the second case, President Kennedy
made a decision and the people around him supported it despite having their own
doubts.
In groupthink, the members of the group place emphasis on everyone agreeing and feel
threatened if all do not agree on a course of action. This results on better options being
overlooked, people overcoming their basic thoughts of providing alternatives, critiques
or a new opinion. This results in poor decision making, unmet goals and problem
solving.
Groupthink occurs normally when there a strong sense of “we” in the group. In such a
case people want to be on good terms with their group no matter what the cost. They try
to maintain the harmony of the group and sacrifice individual critical thinking for
groupthink.
According to Janis Groupthink happens when there is a strong, persuasive group leader,
a high level of group cohesion and intense pressure from the outside to make a good
decision.
Janis listed eight symptoms of groupthink: The first two stem from
overconfidence in the group’s power. The next pair reflects the limited vision, members
use to view the problem and the last four are signs of strong compliance pressure from
within the group.
1. Illusions of invulnerability: Here the groups display excessive optimism and
take big risks. The members of the group feel they are perfect and that anything they
do will turn out to be successful.
2. Collective Rationalization: Here memebers of the group rationalize thoughts or
suggestions that challenge what the majority is thinking. They try giving reasons as
to why the others don’t agree and therby go ahead with their original decisions.
3. Belief in Inherent morality of the group: There is a belief that whatever the
group does it will be right as they all know the difference between right and wrong.
This cause them to overlook the consequences of what they decide.
4. Out – Group Stereotypes: The group believes that those who disagree are opposed
to the group on purpose. They sterotype them as being incapable of taking their
right decions and as being weak or evil.
5. Direct Pressure on Dissenters: The majority directly threaten the person who
questions the decisions by telling them that they can always leave the group if they
don’t want to agree with the majority. Pressure is applied to get them to agree.
6. Self – Censorship: People engage in self – censorship where they believe that if
they are the only odd one out then they must be the one who is wrong.
7. Illusions of unanimity: Silence from some is considered to beaceptance of the
majority’s decision.
8. Self – Appointed Mind Guards: They are members of the group who take it
upon themselves to discourage alternative ideas from being expressed in the group.
To avoid Groupthink, it is important to have a process in place for checking the
fundamental assumptions behind important decisions, for validating the decision-
making process, and for evaluating the risks involved. It is important to explore
objectives and alternatives, encourage challenging of ideas, have back –up plans, etc. If
needed gather data and ideas from outside sources and evaluvate them objectively.
If at any point group – think is detected, go back to the beginning and recheck the initial
alternatives, discuss in the group about the threats of group – think and then make an
active effort to increase the effectiveness of decision making by analysing all angles.
It is best to establish an open climate and assign the role of critical evaluator. Group
Techniques like brainstorming, nominal group technique, six thinking hats, the delphi
technique, etc can be used. Make it compulsory to go through certain practices like risk
analysis, impact analysis and use the ladder of inference. Use a policy-forming group
which reports to the larger group and use different policy groups for different tasks.