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