Organizations and I-Thou Ethics

I teach a class on ethics and communication, and part of that class looks at the ideas of Martin Buber.  Buber distinguished two ways of communicating with others.  I-it communication treats the other person as an object, where you are trying to get something for yourself.  I-thou communication treats the other person as a unique individual and honors the other person for who they are.  I-thou communication is distinctively unstrategic as it involves caring more about the other person’s needs than you care about your own needs.  From an ethical perspective, actions would be ethical in so much as they avoid I-it communication and promote I-thou communication.  For example, you arrive for a meeting a few minutes early, and the coworker who annoys everyone approaches you.  Buber might argue that the ethical thing to do is to engage him or her in conversation.  I-it communication would involve brushing him or her off and moving on to talk to someone more interesting or more important to you.  (There’s a little more to it than this, but I think this summary conveys the point.)  The textbook for this class argues that I-thou communication is appropriate in every context, including organizations.  What do you think?  Could organizational ethics be defined by avoiding treating others as objects and instead honoring them as people?

Ethical Priorities

Ethics in organizations have been in the news so much in the last eight or nine years.  Perhaps I didn’t pay attention before Enron or perhaps the media didn’t pay as much attention, but it seems that there is a new corporate scandal about every month or two.  Because of recent legislation, more and more companies are conducting ethics training, but that isn’t new.  Enron executives had all participated in ethics training.  The question is not knowing the right thing to do—it’s prioritizing the right thing to do.  It’s making ethics an important part of performance evaluations.  It’s making honesty and integrity an important part of the bottom line.

Person-Centered Messages

One thing that is important in any type of communication is what has been called “person-centered messages” (Burleson & Caplan, 1997).  Before speaking, think “how is the other person going to hear this?”  Notice I did not say, “how would I hear this if I were in their shoes?”  There is a subtle but important difference.  Person-centered messages involve a skill of knowing how other people will react to what you say or do.  It’s a skill that some people are probably better at than others, but it’s something that all of us can work on.  Obviously, it is also something that improves as you get to know people.  Whether you are in an organization, a family, or any other context, thinking in terms of person-center messages makes you a better communicator.

 

Reference:

Burleson, B. R., & Caplan, S. E. (1997). Cognitive complexity.  In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, & M. M. Martin (Eds.), Communication and personality: Trait perspectives. (pp. 230-286. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Technology, Part 2

Isn’t it interesting that, in addition to the advantages that technology brings, there are also a number of problems.  Sometimes we can feel overwhelmed with the amount of information that comes our way—it becomes harder and harder to find what’s really important.  A number of scholars have also noted that technology makes it harder to separate work and non-work life.  Whereas, in the past, one could leave the workplace and leave work at work, today’s gadgets and gizmos make that impossible.  Even a simple cellphone can be a leash to work, but add to that the Blackberries, Laptops, IPhones and other such things, and work can begin to consume all of our time away from work.  These things can have advantages, for sure, but I think they can also cause work to take over our lives.  Have you felt these or other disadvantages of technology in your job?

Technology

You probably don’t need me to tell you that technology has brought a number of advantages to workplaces.  Our work is more efficient because of the technology that we have available, and information is at our fingertips.  We have the ability to communicate with people around the world in ways that would have been impossible only a few decades ago.  More subtly, many scholars claim that technology has helped to equalize status in organizations.  In the past, those wanting to speak with a CEO or “higher up” in an organization would have had a difficult time gaining access to him or her, but through email, one can easily send a message to anyone, regardless of status differences.  My job as professor has changed similarly where students can email professors about questions they have rather than having to more formally schedule a visit.  Technologies such as PowerPoint have created new ways of reaching students.  How has technology changed the ways in which you do your job?

Reduce Burnout–Connect to the Mission

I was speaking at a nonprofit last week, and I wanted to share one of the things that I shared with them.  Burnout is a serious problem in nonprofit organizations, just as it is in for-profit businesses.  Burnout reduces productivity, efficiency, and overall satisfaction, in addition to creating stress and anxiety.  One important way of reducing burnout is to reconnect to the mission of the organization.  Why do you work there?  This is especially important in departments that are more distant from the organization’s mission.  In nonprofits, IT divisions and development divisions may have little contact with the people that the organization helps, which means these people may be in greater danger of burnout.  Whatever your position, whatever type of organization you are in, connect back to the mission of the organization and think about why the organization exists and why you work there.  Remember, you want to be fired up about your job, not burned out.

Equifinality

Have you ever heard the word, “equifinality?”  Look at the parts of the word and think about what it could mean.  That’s right.  It is the idea that there are often a number of ways of getting to a solution that are approximately equal.  Have you ever noticed in situations like that, even though there may be a number of ways of fixing the problem, we tend to pick one and really take it personally when someone else suggests a different way?  Whenever we have a conflict, we pick an idea and really dig in to defend that idea, even when there may be multiple ways of accomplishing the same thing.  The next time you are in a conflict at work (although this idea works in other contexts as well), consider carefully if your position is the only way to solve the problem.  My experience has been that is rarely the case.  I can hear what you are saying.  “Sure there are other ways, but my way is just better than those ways.”  Sometimes that’s true and sometimes it’s just how we rationalize things to ourselves.  It may be helpful to ask yourself this question: are the advantages of sticking to your position greater than the costs of the conflict (time, future interactions, etc.)?  Sometimes, the answer may be yes.  Other times, it might be helpful to recognize equifinality, that multiple options may get to similar results.

Fields of Experience and Miscommunications

One last thing for now about miscommunications.  As we communicate with others, we can only speak about what we’ve experienced.  Even if we know the words, if we don’t know the concepts, we cannot use the words in meaningful ways because words are only symbols.  Because I can only communicate about things in my field of experience and the person to whom I talk can only understand things in his or her field of experience, our experiences have to overlap, at least some, in order for us to communicate (Schram, 1954, is generally credited with first explaining this).  My favorite example of this to use in classes that I teach is the directive, “let’s meet for lunch on the other side of the tank.”  Some people would look for an oil tank or water tank.  Others might be looking for an army base.  Growing up in a rural Texas town, I would probably have meant the artificial pond that the rancher next door uses to water cattle.  Perhaps a hick-ish example, but I think it emphasizes the importance of experiences.  So what to do?  When you are speaking with someone, you have to communicate in ways that they understand.  To bridge a communication gap, use a metaphor or some other description that connects something that they know to what you are trying to describe that they do not know.

 

Reference:

Schramm, W. L. (1954). The process and effects of mass communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Don’t Listen to the Noise

Another obvious source of miscommunication is noise, which refers to any thing that interferes with a message getting from me to you.  Noise could be mental distractions (annoyance at the person speaking, pre-lunch stomach grumblings, post-lunch sleepiness, etc), a room that’s too warm or too cool, or actual noise in the area.  When the noise is overwhelming, it may be time to politely do something about the noise.  Politely ask to postpone the conversation until you can move past the mental distractions, change the temperature or put on/take off a jacket or sweater, or tell the person at the desk next to you to keep it down.  Do whatever it takes to reduce the noise as much as you can.  The person with whom you are trying to communicate will thank you.