Agenda Setting

     Agenda setting is how the media agenda will cause the public agenda (aka-media tells everyone else what is important).  Thus, topics that are given much coverage in newspapers and television are the same topics that people think are important issues.  Three related agendas are taken into the discussion of agenda setting:
1) Media agenda-  topics given by media sources.
2) Public agenda- the set of topics that the members of the public deem are important.
3) Policy agenda- issues that decision makers think are salient.

     Miller (2007) argues that these three agendas can be viewed as dependent variables in a causal equation; thus, they are interrelated.
     Several factors are related to using this theory.  First, is orientation.  This is the combo of interest and uncertainty in an issue.  Secondly, is issue obstrusiveness.  A topic is obstrusive if the audience has had direct contact with the issue.  ( Foreign Policy is nonobstrusive and teenage pregnancy is).  Framing is the last factor this blog will mention and this is when the media emphasizes some issues and downplays others.
     Critiques of this theory include the fact that some scholars do not even look at this like a theory at all; they consider it to be more like a model.  The fact the this theory is simple contributes to it's "fruitfulness" and critiques.
For more information:
Miller, K. (2007). Communication Theories: Perspectives, Processes, and Contexts. McGraw-Hill publishing.

Social Cognitive Theory

     When discussing this theory, Bandura (who came up with it), emphasized on the social learning process and the cognitive behaviors that impact the learning process (Miller, 2007).  The main concept associated with the theory is observation.  Watching how people do things is a learning process and can cause an effect.  When children see adults using a fork or what they do to turn on the tv-they remember at some point.  The modeling process may also be associated with Social Cognitive Theory; you may see how someone unwraps a present, and after observing, one may actually be able to perform this task.

    When observation is not enough for learning, reinforcement occurs through the inhibitory and disinhibitory effect.  Inhibitory effect occurs when an individual sees another person get punished for a certain action.  For example, if you see someone burn their hand by touching the stove, you know the consequences without touching the stove yourself.
     Disinhibitory effect occurs when an individual observes someone get rewarded for certain actions.  The example for this is, when a student answers a question correctly in class and the teachers gives them a piece of candy.  This may encourage you to do the same thing.
     Social Cognitive Theory may be applied to a plethora of fields where things are learned through observation (Miller, 2007).  One example may be weight loss and infomercials.  We see how to do the exercise through the observing process.  Through the inhibitory effect, we see what happens when someone loses too much weight and becomes unhealthy.  Through the disinhibitory effect, we see someone losing a good amount of weight and toning their body.
     Another study could be the media and dating.  Many children and adolescences see and define dating expectations and perceptions from what they observe from tv.  From soap operas to MTV, the way young people look at dating is influenced.
For more information: 
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Hackett, G. (1994).  Toward a unifying Social Cognitive Theory of career and academic interest, choice and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45 (1), 79-122.
Miller, K. (2007). Communication Theories: Perspectives, Processes, and Contexts. McGraw-Hill publishing.

Organizational Information Theory (aka why we think like we do)

     Although many of us "don't care" what others think, it is almost inevitable to make decisions without thinking of others.  There is a three step process that occurs when organizing thoughts; these steps stem from Karl Weick's theory of organizing.  Weick defined organizing as, "the resolving of equivocality in an enacted environment by means of interlocked behaviors embedded in conditionally related processes" (p.91).  Basically this means looking at ones environment and seeing how and why we act and think like we do.
     Before we discuss the three steps, it is important to note that Weick wants to look at one's surrounding environment.  Not so much the physical surroundings but more like the atmosphere that has been created by surrounding individuals.  Now we will look at the interrelated processes starting with the first step.
     The enactment process, individuals look at this environment that has been created.  How one reacts to this affects the ongoing environment.  My example for this process is going to an event and being overdressed.  You can react in several ways.  However one responds impacts the environment.  If you just go with it and say that you like to dress up, than the environment will most likely be positive.
     Next is the selection process; here Weick argues that a main function of organizing is to make sense of the information environment.  Weick's recent ideas about characteristics of the sensemaking process are presented in his 1995 study.  One characteristic of sensemaking is social.  The explanation for this characteristic is that sensemaking depends on interaction with others.  Even thinking to oneself is never solitary because what we do "internally is contingent on others."  Going back to the overdressed example, your internal thoughts depend on maybe who you are with, who is at the event, etc.
     The last process is retention.  Miller stated, "When particular schemas are used to make sense of an equivocal information environment, they can be stored for future use." This retention may be used for anything, such as next I come to this party dress causal like everyone else.  Causal maps is a term that means to link certain behaviors with their predicted outcome; such as if I come to this party dressed up, everyone will look me.  Items retained are not necessarily consistent with each other.  If one never dresses up for this party again will they ever be noticed? Sometimes previous retentions might keep us back from going forward.
     The ways in which we respond to things, define who we are as a person.
For more information:
Miller, K. (2007). Communication Theories: Perspectives, Processes, and Contexts. McGraw-Hill publishing.
Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

The Glass Ceiling: What happens once one breaks through it?

      Women in the workplace and the term "glass ceiling" are closely affiliated with each other when it comes to the line of hierarchy in an organization.  The term "glass ceiling" refers to an imaginary boundary that cannot be passed by certain members of an organization.  What happens when a person from a minority group, women in this study, were to pass the ceiling?  How does this affect the employee when it comes to performing their job?
      This study will explore why women leave positions of high authority in their organization.  A historical overview will help lay the foundations for previous and present research for the reader followed by a discussion section.  This review focuses on research and why some women have taken the steps they have.
Historical Overview
     In history, women have primarily been housewives or stay-at-home moms,while men were the financial supporters; in the last few decades this has changed.  Many women have risen to the level of their male equivalents by investing in themselves through education (Dean et. al., 2009).  Research has shown that over the last 20 years, a larger number of women have enrolled in undergraduate and graduate business programs (Giscombe & Mattis, 2003).  The traditional roles of women, defined by the past, have encouraged the creation of the glass ceiling in today's organizations.

     The phrase glass ceiling was coined in 1986 in the Wall Street Journal and has been a rising issue since then.  It applies to women to describe that which keeps them from advancing in the workplace solely on the premise that they are women (Baxter & Wright, 2000).  Barriers may also arise for men when it comes to promotions, but the idea here is that for women, each step is significantly harder.  The glass ceiling focuses on higher positions of management, as opposed to a generic manager.
Discussion
     The heart of these findings deals with the glass cliff and how it relates to women leaving an organization.  Haslam and Ryan (2008) described the term glass cliff as, "an allusion to the fact that their leadership positions are relatively risky or precarious since they are more likely to involve management or organizational units that are in a crisis."  An example of this might be giving a lawyer a client who is obviously guilty, or sending out a promotions person to a musical event that is not going to be as popular.  Appointing a women to a glass cliff position causes stress and pressure.  If the women appointed continues to fail during these challenges, one might conclude that there is a correlation between the two (Barreto, Ryan, & Schmitt, 2009)
     Finally having made it to a high position in the company, many women feel burned out and experience withdrawal (Barreto, Ryan, & Schmitt, 2009).  Another consequence of women in glass cliff situations is their perceived lack of support.

     Research has integrated the feelings of what one feels during this process into the gender-stress-disidentification model.  The following is the process: 1) break the glass ceiling, 2) attain a glass cliff position, 3) stress, 4) reduced organizational identification, and 5) organizational exit.  If these women continue to give and give to an organization, along with risky jobs that are most likely not rewarded, a leave from the company is very probable.  Keep in mind, when women leave organizations, they do not necessarily essentially leave the workforce all together.  The majority of women continue their careers with other companies.  To some, this may come across as lack of ambition and commitment, however, the research reveals that it is their surroundings that lead to many women to exit this organization.
     The purpose of this research was not to overcompensate for the women that choose to leave the workplace owing to family reasons.  Rather the focus of this research was to analyze the environment of women in high authority.
References/For more information:
Baxter,J., Writer, E. (2000). The glass ceiling hypothesis: A comparative study of U.S, Sweden, and Australia.  Gender & Society, 14 (2) 275-294.
Dean, A. Strachan, Y., Roberts, A., Carraher, S., Cash, R. (2009). Women and minorities in corporate America: An empirical examination. Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 14 (1).
Giscombe, K., Mattis, M. (2003). Women in corporate management at the new millennium: Taking stock of where we are. Diversity Factor, 11 (1) 5-10.
Haslam, S. Ryan, M. (2008). The road to the glass cliff: Differences in the perceived suitability of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding and failing organizations. The Leadership Quarterly.
 Ryan, M., Haslam, S., Hersby, M., Kulich, C., Kovac, D. (2009).  The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Manipulation Theory

     What is lying exactly?  What if you don't tell the whole truth?  What if you just try and change the subject, so you don't have to answer a question?  All these questions deal with manipulation theory and how people deal with not telling the truth.  This particular post looks at how the speaker manipulates "information that they posses so as to mislead listeners," (McCornack,1992).
     Many times people are in a position where they are confronted with a situation where they must reveal information.  The information may be detrimental to the receiver, thus many times the speaker will alter the information.  McCornack (1992) described decptive messages, "in the terms of the ways that sensitive information is manipulated and controlled."

     When looking at deception in close relationships, research has found that there are four lie types: falsifacation, distortion, omission, and relevance.

1. Falsification- to state information contrary to the truth or deny information.
2. Distortion-"manipulation of the true information through exaggeration, minimization, and equivocation, such that a listerner would not know all relevant aspects of the truth or would logically misinterpret the information provided," (McCornack, 1992).  
3. Omission-not providing all significant information regarding the situation.
4. Relevance-diverting the subject of conversation away from topic.

    One or several of these methods are used when deceiving a listener.  The listener does not realize the violations made by the speaker,  instead, they believe they are apart of a cooperative exchange.  Many messages involve what is known as "manipulating clarity," which basically hides the real facts.  For example, if someone (who you were interested in) asks you out, but you were occupied with another date, instead of saying, "I have already have a date" you say, "I have prior plans."  This hides the fact that you already have a date; some think that this protects the other person, but research claims that this falls under the category of deception.

     There are many forms of manipulation, these are just a few.  Just a word or phrase may turn the sentence into deception.  True communication takes place when the receiver truly understands the speakers intention and message.
For more information:
McCornack, S. (1992). Information Manipulation Theory. Communication Monographs, 59
O'Keefe, B. (1998). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasonign about communication. Communication Monographs , 55

He said, She said

     The grapevine plays a huge part in informal communication.  In this blog post, we will look at how the grapevine is essential and is ever present in almost every organization.  To start off lets define the term, "grapevine."  It's basically what you think, it is "the informal transmission of information, gossip or rumor from person to person," (Mishra, 1990).  This line of communication is the information network that is constant in organizations.  It can not be stopped or cut off.  The grapevine may appear in carpools, coffee breaks, mail room, and even after work is over.
     What is so surprising about this line of communication is how accurate most of the information passed is.  Between 75 and 95 percent of grapevine information is correct.  The 25 to 5 percent that is wrong can corrupt an entire organization.  This is why managers must be aware of the grapevine.  Managers have three ways of responding, they can 1) ignore it completely, 2) use it only when they need to, 3) be active participants.  (Personally I would fall in category #2.)
     How is this vicious form of communicating a good thing?  It is an outlet for stress.  Bottled up feelings will eventually burst; by using the grapevine, they relieve this emotion.  Another good quality of this is that management can see how their organization will react to certain issues (kind of like a test).  "The grapevine enables individuals to prepare for and think through management's goal changes and goal adjustment in advance of any formal statements," (Mishra, 1990).  (A formal statement would be a mass email from your boss, press releases, or a company meeting.)
     Only 10 percent of people carry on a rumor (which I find hard to believe).  This number comes from forwarding emails and carrying on a message.  There are three types of people: bridgers, dead enders, and isolates.  

1. Bridgers are people who receive or initiate the message.  These people thrive on telling others information.
2. Dead Enders are people who hear the rumors but do not pass them along.  If they do pass it along, it is to other dead enders.
3. Isolates are people who do not hear the rumor so they can not pass it along.  These people are out of the loop (either they work out of office or are social isolates).

There are all types of communication circles and ways of spreading information.
For more information:
Crampton, S., Hodge, J., Mishra, J. The informal communication network: Factors influencing grapevine activity. Public Personal Management
Mishra, J. (1990).  Managing the grapevine. Public Personal Management, 19

Intro 2 blogging

Hi, my name is Lori.  I am a graduate student with a focus in Communication.  I thought I would share information that I find intriguing and analyze theories that stem from this area of research.  Many times I might not agree with a theory but I will clarify when it's my opinion versus the actual researchers work.  I hope you enjoy reading the things I have researched!