I Have a Dream of Holding on to the Dynamic Qualities of Interpersonal Communication

Legend has it that three quarters of the way through delivering his “I Have a Dream” speech, Martin Luther King decided to move away from the written text of his speech in order to speak from his heart.  Some people consider it ironic that the twenty-five percent of the speech that is most often quoted, and that is most often remembered and taught in history classes is the section that King delivered from his heart and not from the written text. But should we consider it ironic? Should we scoff at the idea that King’s written portion of the speech, although perhaps more rhetorically polished than the last quarter of the speech, was more removed from King’s heart-felt experience, and therefore, is not as easily memorable and recognizable to us today some forty-eight years after its utterance? Fast forward to 2011, and a similar question arises with respect to computer mediated communication. Should we be shocked that a good number of people, myself included, find that communicating in written text online is more removed from the actual face-to-face experience, and therefore does not have the same impact as communicating orally with someone face-to-face?  This question can be framed within the issue of orality as CMC moves our post-modern culture away from oral discourse and toward a more linear, and much more removed written discourse much in the same way as occurred in ancient Greek society when rhetoric moved Greek culture from a highly oral culture to a written culture. Although we should not be shocked by this movement--as it is a natural metamorphosis that occurs whenever oral communication transforms into written communication—we should take note that CMC is helping to make interpersonal communication less oral and more literate.

            Plato was one of the first philosophers to illustrate what he considered to be the dangers of moving from an oral culture to a literate culture. Although Plato was not against written discourse, in his 4^th century dialogue The Phaedrus, Plato—through the mouth of Socrates—warns that “even the best of writings are but a reminiscence of what we know” (Jowett translation, p.95), and are somewhat removed from the oral traditions which we find in our “own bosom” (p.95).  Here we see Socrates providing a caveat against the “novelty” of 4^th century written discourse and its perceived lack of engagement relative to what Raymond (1980) calls the “thrust and parry” of the more ancient oral dialectic (p. 60).   As Greek culture became less reliant on oral discourse and more so on written discourse, it is certain that Plato missed the nonverbals of oral discourse—its paralanguage, kinesics, affect displays, and haptics—as well as the oral mnemonic devices woven into the fabric of pre-literate, oral discourse that gave oral discourse its poetic beauty, it’s rhythm, and its heart.  Oral discourse, as illustrated by Dr. King’s moment of clarity in 1963, is from the heart. Written discourse is from the brain.

            In  Orality and Literacy (1982), Walter Ong sheds some theoretical light on Plato’s preference for the spoken word.  Ong (1982) notes that oral utterances exude a dynamic quality and a power deriving from their closeness to the “gut”of living organisms. Ong is particularly on to something here. When we reflect on oral utterances, we can see how closely related they are to actual experiences. Human babies become hungry, and so they cry. When my dog Max gets his claws clipped during a grooming session, the clipping hurts him, so he yelps. When my school’s football team wins a big game, we vociferously and enthusiastically cheer. In short, the oral utterance is closer to the gut, and to the heart of the experience than its written counterpart. It is perhaps this insight that is at the heart of Plato’s rejoinder.

            So here we are in 2011, in the midst of another cultural metamorphosis. Interpersonal communication is in a state of crisis, and by crisis, I mean “flux,” or “change.”  Crisis is not always bad. Crisis forces us to take stock of what is important, and to make some clear decisions about our future. The change that is happening in our culture is that CMC is reorienting how we do interpersonal communication. Face-to-face conversations are being replaced by texts, online chats, and discussion board posts. The question is not if CMC is going to replace face-to-face interpersonal communication or even if face-to-face interpersonal communication is better than CMC. The question is how we are going to react to the change, and how interpersonal communication is going to look after the change. Anderson and Rainie (2008) argue that by 2020 the evolution of user interfaces will have progressed to the point where our computer devices and cell phones will possess “subvocal” inputs that detect “almost speech,” a kind of verbal-nonverbal state of limbo that will supposedly positively impact the need for the dynamic quality of oral communication (p.14). Anderson and Rainie also predict technology that will be able to track desires by the movement of one’s eyeballs (p. 15). I have reflected in previous posts and papers my proclivity and preference for the “closer-to-the-heart” experience of oral, face-to-face interpersonal communication.  Perhaps in a former life I was a pre-literate member of a community that relied on bards and rhapsodes to help us remember the oral history of our community.

It is clear that interpersonal communication is moving from a more oral phenomenon to a more literate and computer-enhanced phenomenon. As we move into this new era, it is my hope that the technology does not abrogate the dynamic, gut-level, “closer-to-the-heart” qualities of oral discourse that prompted Martin Luther King to throw down his notes, and give one of the most inspiring, thought provoking, moving, and history-changing discourses in our country’s history.

References

Anderson, J. Q., & Rainie, L. (2008, December 14). The future of the internet
     III. Retrieved November 7, 2011, from Pew Internet and American Life
     Project website: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/
     The-Future-of-the-Internet-III.aspx.

Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New
     York, NY: Methuen.

Plato. (360 B.C.E.). Phaedrus [Translated by Benjamin Jowett]. Retrieved
     November 7, 2011, from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedrus.html.

Raymond, J. C. (1980). Media transforming media: Implications of Walter Ong's
     stages of literacy. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 10(2), 56-61.

           

Is Fact Discernible in the Media?

     This second discussion forum focuses our attention on the word “fact” and on if “fact” is indeed the truth.  The United States news and print media have enjoyed an historical reputation as being the “fact-finders” for Americans. Not only have we historically given over the authority of fact-finding to the press, but we also have assumed that the facts they will be finding are truths, and that these truths are immutable. But we need to look a little deeper at what these facts are that they are finding.   Romano suggests that facts are nothing more than metaphors for truth, in which the supposed “fact” is language that describes something about the world rather than describing the world itself (p.64).  So, for Romano, fact is somewhat removed from the immutable world of tangible things, just as writing a poem about an experience of love is somewhat removed from the experience itself. In addition, Romano suggests that how the press disseminates information is much the same process as how we read the information.  The press reports on the “facts” as they see them, but does so from their own cultural or political perspective, what Herman and Chomsky (1988) would call a “filter.”  We, likewise, tend to read or watch news that appeals to our own cultural or political perspectives.  Romano warns us to avoid this kind of biased processing of information and calls for us to proactively seek out sources of information that specifically do not align with our cultural and political perspectives (p.79). Only then can we be assured that the information we gather is indeed fair and balanced. The onus is on us, however, and not on the media to maintain the fairness and the balance. In short, we need to become good consumers of information. I tend to agree with Romano, and, I try to put this principle into practice. Although I lean more to the political right, I refuse to be categorized as such, and, I do not simply read conservative literature or watch conservative news (Fox).  Both the left and the right have commodified the news. I try to be aware of this insight as I seek out information.

            Herman and Chomsky (1988) use the word “propaganda” to describe a process by which media people, who they describe as “frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill” (p.2), find themselves the mouthpieces for a system that politicizes stories based on the special interests of the people who have financial controlling interest in the news corporations. In addition, their model makes a somewhat dated argument that the media has an anti-Communistic bias (p.2). Although I might agree that historically, the American press has been anti-Communistic, it no longer seems to be reacting to the Cold War. This is a portion of their model that needs a bit of updating. The rest of their argument appears sound, and, as I mentioned above, provides a stimulus for me to continue to practice being a good consumer of information.

References

Herman E., & Chomsky N. (1988). Manufacturing consent. New York, NY: Random House.

Romano, C. (1986). Grisly Truth About Bare Facts. In R. K. Manoff & M. Schudson

(Eds.) Reading the news. New York, NY: Pantheon. Retrieved from:

https://learn.gonzaga.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_40834_1%26url%3D.

Griffin, E. (2009). Communication: A First Look at Communication (7th ed.).

            Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. (Original work published 1991).

Is Virtual Community Possible?

     To respond to the question as to whether virtual community can be formed, one needs to first have a working definition of “community.” One of the better frameworks for understanding “community” I have come across in my career is one offered by psychologist M. Scott Peck in The Different Drum:  Community-Making and Peace (1987).  In this book, Peck describes community building as a conscious and deliberate process that demands people to recognize that the “shadow” and broken parts of our “selves” leads us to a state of emptiness in which we come to understand the deep human need for compassionate understanding (pp. 83-85). Using Peck’s description we can see that virtual communities are possible, but are less probable because of the degree to which people may be unwilling to be truly open and honest with one another in virtual communities. Two elements in Peck’s description of community building deserve special mention.

The first element in Peck’s description of community is the conscious and deliberate nature of community building. Applying this aspect to our COML 509 class experience, it is easy to see how we all have made a conscious and deliberate choice to undertake the rigors of a graduate program. The program demands that we engage in discussion forums. So our class experience fits this first aspect of Peck’s description of community building.

The second element in Peck’s description of community building is a recognition of the shadow part of our “selves” that opens us up to the possibility of sharing our deep need for compassionate understanding.  It is here where the Peckian notion of community building breaks down in our COML 509 experience of community.  By design, the COML 509 experience is more of a community of locality—the students are thrust together into a classroom community—rather than a community of sociability in which the community is defined by its interactions with each other (Lengel, Thurlow & Tomic, 2009, p. 109). We may indeed interact with each other in the COML 509 class, but the interactions stem from the necessity to fulfill course requirements rather than from the need to be social. I am not certain that I would feel that I knew my classmates more as a result of being in a face-to-face classroom with them; however, I feel like I would have more opportunities to get to know them if I were in a traditional classroom. I am an old-school guy. I need the nonverbals that even Skyping cannot reproduce in a “live,”and tangible experience of being face-to-face.

So is virtual community possible? It is possible, but much less probable.

References

Griffin, E. (2009). Communication: A First Look at Communication (7th ed.).

            Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. (Original work published 1991).

Peck, S. (1987). The Different Drum: Community-Making and Peace. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Is CMC a Richer Form of Communication Than Face-to-Face Communication?

Is CMC a Richer Form of Communication Than Face-to-Face Communication?

To answer the question as to whether CMC is a richer form of communication than face-to-face communication one must situate the question contextually within the purview of the individual. I don’t mean to answer the question as my typical high-school sophomore might answer it; however, the answer truly is, “It depends.” Probing this general statement a bit more, one might rightly see that on which side of the issue one falls depends on one’s particular needs, and from which form of communication one feels comfortable getting those needs met.   

            In terms of communication theory, the human need for communication can be framed within the human impulse to converse and socialize.  As Lengel, Thurlow and Tomic (2009) point out, humans tend to operate out of a communication imperative (p. 51).  The communication imperative is a double-edged sword, however. It not only argues that humans are wired for communication, but it also argues that humans will overcome any technological or practical obstacles in a communication environment in order to maximize the possibility for relational fulfillment (Lengel, Thurlow & Tomic, 2009, p.51).   Therefore, in general, it can be argued that we need communication, in part, to relate in and to our world, and when we encounter communication barriers, we will do whatever it takes to remove or minimize those barriers so that we can more efficiently relate in and to our world.

            But the choice to relate in and to the world through CMC or through f2f communication depends also on the purposes behind the communication event.  In some cases, people will use CMC simply for information exchange. When one uses CMC simply for information exchange, one may have less of a degree of social presence than when one is using CMC for more intimate social encounters.  Newberry (2001) has shown that the degree of social presence can impact a person’s perception, appreciation, participation, and level of satisfaction in CMC.

But when one uses CMC for more intimate interpersonal encounters, the degree of social presence can be enhanced, and yet tempered by one’s comfort level. Walther (1996), as stated in Lengel, Thurlow and Tomic (2009), for example, argued that CMC can be even more friendly, social, and intimate than f2f communication (p.53).  But the “can be” element here is the wildcard. That CMC can be perceived as more friendly, social, and intimate than f2f communication does not necessarily guarantee that CMC will be perceived as more friendly, social, and intimate. Again, it all depends on one’s preference. For some people, CMC provides the anonymity that allows for a perceived freedom from constraints and/or a freedom from responsibility (Lengel, Thurlow & Tomic, 2009, p.62), both of which can maximize the need for relational fulfillment. For others, however, myself included, CMC pales in comparison to f2f communication because, in part, of a lack of social cues (RSC model) that make CMC much more difficult to manage and more “effortful” (Lengel, Thurlow & Tomic, 2009, p. 61).  In order to have my relational needs fulfilled or maximized, I need the nonverbal cues that cannot be fully experienced in CMC.  Although Skype offers a CMC exchange of nonverbal cues, I prefer the warmth of a smile, or the sternness of a look that derive their strength from the “live,” face-to-face interaction.  Even though Skyping is a “live” event, there is something removed about it, as if it were “almost live” or “virtually live.”

            It is this removed quality of the interaction in CMC that leads me to conclude that our online personalities are constructions, portions of which are true revelations of who we are, but which are also much more limited in their abilities to allow us to fully express who we are.  Lengel, Thurlow and Tomic (2009) point out that our identities are socially constructed, are a lifelong process, and can be one of multiple identities we take on to present ourselves in different ways to the outside world (p.97). Add the socially constructed and lifelong-process characteristics of identity to a tendency, in theory, for people to construct different personalities online, as is the case in identity play, as described in Lengel, Thurlow and Tomic (2009, p. 100),  and we can see that one’s online identity is a construction that can change at any moment.  The change can come from any number of variables including one’s comfort level with self-disclosure, one’s willful construction of a “real”, transparent identity (revealing who the person really is), or the construction of a more “avatar-ish,” and less “real” identity.

            I end this paper with the sophomoric response I offered at the beginning of the paper. Is CMC a richer form of communication than face-to-face communication? Because of the variables discussed above, “It truly depends.”

References

Lengel, L., Thurlow, C., & Tomic, A. (2009). Computer mediated communication:

            Social interaction and the internet. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. (Original work

            published 2004).

Newberry, B. (2001). Media richness, social presence and technology supported communication Activities in education. Retrieved November 6, 2011 from http://learngen.org/Resources/lgend101_norm1/200/210/211_3.htm

The Dynamics of Online Love: Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places?

The Dynamics of Online Love:  Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places?

Robert J. Peterlin

Gonzaga University

The Dynamics of Online Love:  Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places?

            In the mid 1970’s singer Johnny Lee lamented about looking for love in all the wrong places. Lee sang about searching for love in the “singles bars” where “good time lovers were never true.”  Little did we know in the mid 70’s that yesterday’s singles bars would become today’s Match.com. But if Johnny Lee were to subscribe to Match.com today, would he still find good time lovers are never true? This paper attempts to answer that question. Toward that end, the paper focuses on reasons why people might choose CMC environments to establish loving relationships, focuses on aspects of online romance and interpersonal attraction, focuses on an attempt by the online dating industry to create a science of dating, and finally, provides a personal example of online dating that, in concert with the CMC literature, has led me to conclude that online dating is a viable venue for finding love in the 21^st Century.

Reasons to Look for Love in CMC Environments

            We begin our search for love in online dating services by surveying the CMC literature identifying reasons why people might consider using CMC as a personal means of communication.  Walther (1996), as stated in Lengel, Thurlow and Tomic (2009, p. 53), coined the term hyperpersonal communication in CMC to describe how CMC can be perceived as being more friendly,  more social, and more intimate than face-to-face communication.  Walther identified three reasons why people might perceive CMC as more enjoyable than face-to-face encounters: members of an online group may think they share more similarities than they do; members of an online group can relax about the way they look because of the visual anonymity CMC affords them; and, members of an online group can slow down the composition of their messages in a more thoughtful process (Lengel, Thurlow & Tomic, 2009, p. 53).  In addition, Palme (2000), as also stated in Lengel, Thurlow and Tomic (2009, p. 59), identified comradeship, defined as the ability to counter loneliness, as an attraction to CMC. 

            Although some scholars—particularly those employing the cluelessness model—question the quality of interpersonal communication in CMC environments due to the lack of nonverbal cues, Walther’s Social Information Processing model of CMC refutes the cluelessness model by showing that over time, people compensate for the lack of nonverbal cues by developing new ways of “verbalizing relational content” (Lengel, Thurlow & Tomic, 2009, p. 51). At the very least, the CMC literature clearly makes a case for the sustainability of interpersonal CMC.

Online Romance and Interpersonal Attraction

            Although the literature makes a case for sustainable interpersonal CMC, the question arises as to whether a more intimate form of interpersonal communication can be established and sustained through CMC.  Patricia Wallace (1999), as stated in Lengel, Thurlow and Tomic (2009), identifies four reasons why people might consider CMC as a proper mode for establishing romantic relationships: the promise of future interaction; the promise of associating with like-minded people; the promise of self-esteem and humor; and the promise of self-disclosure and intimacy (pp. 139-140).

With respect to the promise of future interaction, just as with offline communication, in CMC the frequency of interaction appears to be a valid predictor of the possibility for intimate relationship (Lengel, Thurlow & Tomic, 2009, p. 139).  With respect to the promise of associating with like-minded people, the literature indicates that people who share similar attitudes and ideas are more likely to be attracted to each other (Lengel, Thurlow & Tomic, 2009, p. 139).  With respect to the promise of self-esteem and humor, the literature indicates that people who are attentive and who use humor in their interpersonal CMC are more socially attractive (Lengel, Thurlow & Tomic, 2009, pp. 139-140). Finally, with respect to the promise of self-disclosure and intimacy, the literature indicates that the anonymity of CMC allows people to let their guards down so that they can share a great deal more about themselves in a shorter period of time than if they were involved in face-to-face communication (Lengel, Thurlow & Tomic, 2009, p. 140). Despite all of this good news about the viability and sustainability of CMC relationships, does CMC provide any guarantees for finding love online? We turn next to “the science of love.”

The Science of Love

            CMC has given rise to a proliferation of online dating services many of which claim they unite people based on the “deep qualities” that bind people together (Frazzetto, 2010). In short, these dating services sell the science of love packaged with a promise to fulfill a basic human curiosity—a need to predict the future.  Among these services are science-based dating services such as ScientificMatch.com and GenePartner.com both of which go a step further by prescribing romance, emotional compatibility, and loving relationships based on genetics that are supposedly responsible for human attraction (Frazzetto, 2010).  Any claim to guarantee a match is dubious in its own right. But a claim to market compatibility on genetics is traveling down even a more slippery slope. Love is often not respectful of laws, of nature, or of predictability.

A Personal Story

            I end this paper with a personal story. I began periodically using online dating services in 2001 when I had just turned forty.  I was never one to frequent bars or other establishments where one would go to find potential life partners, but I recognized that I wanted to find companionship.  I had heard of the various online dating services, many of which were new at the time. YahooPersonals provided a relatively inexpensive service. It made no claim to match people on “deep levels;” however, participants were asked to fill out a personality profile that provided the basis for being matched with potential partners.  I had several CMC relationships through YahooPersonals over the years. In a number of these relationships I found myself resonating with Walther (1996). In particular, I was amazed at how little the conversations focused on looks. At the time, I was approximately one hundred pounds overweight; however, the lack of visual cues allowed my potential partner and I to focus more on my strong verbal skills, a quality that often provided the basis for my potential partner’s attraction.  I was also amazed at how quickly the relationships moved while engaging in CMC.  Being a private person, I was not comfortable with the rate of encroachment into my personal life. 

            It was this encroachment into my personal space that led me to give up on the online dating experience for many years until May, 2011.  At 49, I again felt the mid-life nudge for companionship.  So I subscribed to Match.com. Within a week, I was linked up with a woman with whom I shared the same profession, similar hobbies, similar senses of humor, and similar outlooks on life.  I found myself more attracted to these “birds-of-a-feather” qualities, as quantified by Wallace (1999), than any of the other qualities and attractions afforded by CMC.  Subsequent face-to-face interaction has made it clear that I am in love with this woman, and we are moving toward a more loving, and committed relationship.

            My story is one that concludes with a happier tune than Johnny Lee’s. My song would be titled “Lookin’ for Love in All the Cyberspaces,” and my lyrics would celebrate the “cyberspace” where “good time lovers were more real, more loving and more true” than I could ever imagine. There is no science to love, so I recognize there are no guarantees. But I like my chances better than if I were hanging out in the singles bars where good time lovers were never true.

References

Frazzetto, G. (2010). The science of online dating. Retrieved November 1, 2011 from http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v11/n1/full/embor2009264.html

EMBO reports (2010) 11, 25 - 27 doi:10.1038/embor.2009.264.

Lengel, L., Thurlow, C., & Tomic, A. (2009). Computer mediated communication:

     Social interaction and the internet. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. (Original work

     published 2004).

Traditional Face-to-Face Learning Environments vs. Online Learning Environments

     As I see it, the online educational environment pales in comparison to the traditional face-to-face environment. In the face-to-face environment, students get to interact with each other, picking up on all of the nuances that body language adds to a message.  Instructors hold traditional lecture classes in which actual instruction takes place. Students can genuinely interact with each other and can question each other and the instructor in an immediate forum. The interaction appears to be more genuine rather than the compulsory, "Your-project-was-awesome..." reply that seems to be prevalent in the online student forums. If further clarification is needed, the clarification is also immediate. Last term, the instructions for some of the projects were so unclear, and the rules for the projects seemed to change day-to-day that it would have been a better learning experience for me, and less frustrating for me if I had been able to get all of my questions about the projects answered face-to-face rather than having to wait for email responses that sometimes were misconstrued.  This response is not a criticism. It is simply an observation, never having been previously exposed to online learning.
     It appears to me that instruction also lacks in the online environment. The role of the instructor is reduced to one who evaluates student-written papers and projects. This observation poses the question as to the need for an instructor when a syllabus listing readings, papers and projects suffices.  Certainly someone needs to evaluate these papers and projects, but to give that person the title of instructor is like confusing the role of a movie critic and a movie director. 
     The online learning environment benefits the students who do not need as much direction as students who need more direction. Perhaps these benefits are more available to graduate students who have a tendency to be more self-directed. But I know firsthand that I would not be as frustrated if I were able to talk face-to-face with students and instructors.

Working-With-Others Training as a Viable Method for Increasing Employee Morale and Productivity During the Current Economic Crisis

The following is the text of a paper Amanda Kuttenkuler and I are submitting to the Northwest Communication Association Conference in February, 2012. We'll need some luck to have it published. But we are at least giving it a shot.

Working-With-Others Training as a Viable Method for Increasing Employee Morale and

Productivity During the Current Economic Crisis

Amanda E. Kuttenkuler and Robert J. Peterlin

Gonzaga University

Abstract

The current American economic crisis presents myriad challenges to business managers and supervisors who strive to keep employee morale at a level conducive to effective employee productivity.  This paper, submitted as partial credit for the COML 508 (Theorizing Communication) course in Gonzaga University’s Communication and Leadership Master’s of Arts program, explores the current American economic crisis, the phenomena of employee morale and employee productivity during the current American economic crisis, and provides an argument for an employee training program based on a Working-With-Others training paradigm to help companies manage employee morale at a level conducive to effect employee productivity.

Working-With-Others Training as a Viable Method for Increasing Employee Morale and

Productivity During the Current Economic Crisis

Introduction

            That the American economy is stagnant and downturned is an understatement.  One needs only to look at the front page of any newspaper to see the economic indicators forecasting doom and gloom, while the political pundits echo the lament of approaching a possible double-dip recession and double-digit unemployment.  In a time of economic crisis, corporations big and small face the added challenge of keeping employee morale at a level conducive to effective productivity. This paper first provides a brief description of the current American economic crisis, and then focuses on the impact of a lack of morale in the workplace during times of economic crisis, followed by an investigation into the connection between employee morale and productivity, concluding with suggestions for utilizing a Working With Others employee training model--a particular type of employee training rooted in Stanley Deetz’ critical theory—to increase employee morale and productivity during an economic crisis. The reader should note that our literature review is embedded within each of the subheadings below rather than as a separate subheading.

The Economic Crisis

            The current economic crisis is not only an American experience, but some have argued that the American economic crisis is responsible for a global financial crisis the likes of which global citizens have not seen since World War II (Souto, 2009, p. 36; Post-Recession, 2010, p. 2).  While some scholars (Rouse & Schuttler, 2009) trace the American economic crisis to October 2008 after an historic stock market decline and a resulting $700 billion government bailout, others (Souto, 2009) place the blame on the collapse of subprime mortgage lending after the government and regulatory agencies underestimated the extent of the subprime mortgage problem. Still others (Post-Recession, 2010) focus their lens further back to the recession that began in September, 2007.

            Despite the lack of consensus pinpointing an exact time or occurrence that blew out the proverbial American economic tires, indications are that, although the American economy might currently be somewhat on the mend, consumer demand is still flatlining, and unemployment is stuck at nine percent (The Week, 2011, p. 21). The ongoing nature of the economic crisis appears to be feeding on itself creating pessimism among consumers who purchase and organizations that invest--two economic outcomes necessary for a healthy turnaround (The Week, 2011, p. 21).

            Given this realistic and pessimistic economic forecast, corporate managers, as was stated earlier, are faced with the challenge of stimulating employee productivity at a time when uncertainty about the lasting nature of one’s job and the resulting lack of employee morale threaten to further stagnate an already stagnant economy.  This paper focuses next on the issue of employee uncertainty regarding job status in the midst of economic crisis.

Employee Uncertainty

            In times of economic crisis, employees tend to become myopic, focusing their attentions inwardly on the uncertain long-term status of their jobs.  A poll conducted in 2009 by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) indicated that 30% of employees indicated they believed their jobs would be moderately or significantly at risk (Employee Job, 2009, p. 8). These modest numbers led Teresa Bailey, director of human resources at ConvaTec, and member of SHRM’s Corporate Social Responsibility Special Expertise Panel to state that she “was not surprised that in this economic state job security has moved to the number one slot as being most important” (Employee Job, 2009, p. 8). In the midst of the crisis of employee uncertainty, one might wonder if the field of communication has anything to offer to help frame this phenomenon.

The answer to that question is that communication theorists have much to offer in terms of understanding employee uncertainty. Shannon and Weaver’s seminal investigation of uncertainty (1949), for example, framed uncertainty as existing in situations when a high number of possible alternatives exist. Berger and Calabrese (1975) expanded Shannon and Weaver’s paradigm to include a “number of alternative ways in which each interactant might behave (p. 100).  Berger and Calabrese (1975) concluded that an inverse relationship exists between the level of uncertainty in a given situation, and the individual’s chance of predicting behaviors and outcomes.   It is clear that theory on the phenomenon of uncertainty can be applied to the current economic crisis. When employees feel uncertain about the long-term nature of their jobs, for example, they might describe a perceived decrease in their abilities to predict behaviors of their supervisors and other employees. This lack of predictability may, in turn, lead to low employee morale and a type of “employee shutdown,” phenomena that involve the employee pulling back from normal behaviors in the workplace. A brief description of employee morale follows.

Employee Morale

            Although employee morale is a construct that has been traditionally difficult to quantify because it has been described as a feeling rather than an actual outcome (Good, Huddleston, & Linz, 2006, p. 3), noted scholars (Abbot, 2003; Blum & Naylor, 1968: Griffin et al., 2004; Guion, 1958; Hart et al, 2000; Parker & Kleemier, 1951; Smith & Wakely, 1972), as described in Good, Huddleston and Linz (2006, p.3), have come to define employee morale as a feeling coinciding with job satisfaction, high work effort, creativity and initiative, a sense of pride in one’s work, a commitment to one’s organization, and “the desire to put the achievement of group (common) goals ahead of personal goals, thereby enhancing an organization’s performance” (Good, Huddleston, & Linz, 2006, p. 3).  In addition to the difficulty of quantifying employee morale, Good, Huddleston and Linz (2006) also note a history of haziness in regards to whether employee morale is best evaluated as a group experience (Milton and Stening, 1984; Smith, 1966, 1976) or as an individual experience (Doherty, 1988; Evans, 1992; Hart, 1994; Watson, 1988).

Despite this theoretical haziness, the literature indicates that employee morale is a palpable reality that affects employees, corporate managers, and the entire corporate environment. Millett (2010), for example, suggests six reasons why employee morale is an important construct:  improved productivity; improved performance and creativity; reduced number of leave days; higher attention to detail; a safer workplace; and increased quality of work. Mazin (2010) extends Millett’s work by adding that high employee morale leads to employee promptness, improved communication, decreased gossip, improved recruitment and retention, and increased creativity.

In addition to the intrinsic factors impacting employee morale, extrinsic factors also exist. Chief among these extrinsic factors is the leadership qualities of the immediate supervisor (Ngambi, 2011, p. 3).  Schuler (2004), for example, argued that most people who exhibit low employee morale blame poor leadership-related competencies such as communicating vision, energizing staff, demonstrating trust and loyalty, and developing teams. Likewise, Stevens (2009) identified lack of exemplary leadership as a contributing factor in decreasing employee morale. In addition,  Kasper-Fuehrer & Ashkanasy (2001) have shown that the onus is placed more heavily on supervisors to garner present and future employee trust in their supervisors during times of economic crisis (Ngambi, p.1). So it is clear that during times of economic crisis, the stakes are high for employees and supervisors individually, and also for the employee-supervisor relationship. Consequently, one must also account for the employee-supervisor relationship as a potential impacting factor on corporate productivity, an investigation of which follows.

Employee Morale and Productivity

            Although literature connecting employee morale to productivity is limited, a review of the literature makes a clear case for a correlation between employee morale and productivity.  Elton Mayo, who directed a series of experiments between 1927 and 1932 at Western Electric’s Chicago Hawthorne Plant (Neely, 1995, p. 5), conducted the first, and most famous of these types of studies. Mayo’s experiments studied the productivity of a control group by varying the lighting with which to accomplish their production task.  The control group continued to be productive despite the lack of lighting. Mayo concluded that morale and motivation were the reasons for the group’s productivity, coining this phenomenon as “The Hawthorne Effect”  (Neely, 1995, p.5).  In addition, the costs of low employee morale have been shown to be significant.  Ewton (2007) connects low employee morale with absenteeism costing U.S. businesses $760,000 per year in direct payroll costs.  In addition, the Gallup Organization (2008) estimated that at the time of their study, 22 million disengaged American employees existed, costing the American economy $350 billion per year in lost productivity. Once again the question might arise as to the viability of communication theory to help frame the issue of employee morale and productivity.  

            One way to frame the connection between employee morale and productivity is in terms of social exchange theory which researchers (Tsui et al.,1997) have extended to study the economic and social exchanges between employees and organizations (Iverson and Zatzick, 2011, p. 31).  According to social exchange theory, people will try to predict the outcome of an interaction before it takes place, and then will gauge their relationship behavior through a series of evaluations of perceived rewards and costs of interactions with each other (Griffin, 2009, p.117). When employees experience negative emotions including increased anger, depression, fear, guilt, risk, aversion, vulnerability, or powerlessness (Brockner, 1988, 1992), these negative emotions can impinge upon trust and support social exchanges between employees and the organization (Iverson and Zatzick, 2011, p.32), which, in turn, can lower employee commitment (Applebaum, Evard, & Hung, 1999; Brockner, 1992; Niehoff, et al., 2001).  Although no specific connection is made in the literature between this chain of events from increased negative emotions through lowered employee commitment to decreased productivity, since employee morale includes the negative emotions listed above, one can make that leap. Further study, however, is warranted to substantiate the leap.

Critical Theory of Communication in Organizations

            After having rooted the current economic crisis, employee morale, and productivity in theory, we move next to a discussion of a possible solution to the issue of keeping employee morale at a level conducive to effective productivity.  Although Stanley Deetz admittedly did not construct his critical theory in order to solve issues of morale and productivity within corporations, we believe that his critical theory provides the best available theoretical framework for engaging the problem; therefore, we extend critical theory to touch on these issues. 

Deetz originally developed his theory to explore ways for corporations to ensure financial health while simultaneously increasing the participation of employees (Griffin, 2009, p.262).  It is precisely the employee-participation element within critical theory where the issue of employee morale and productivity can be framed.  Critical theory places a high premium on participatory democracy within corporations that invites open dialogue among the various corporate stakeholders.  Deetz calls this practice codetermination (Griffin, 2009, p. 264). As noted above, Good, Huddleston, and Linz (2006) linked employee morale to a perception of contributing to the common good of a corporation. Employees tend to exhibit higher morale when they perceive that their voice is being heard, and when they perceive they are positively contributing to the corporation’s goals. Deetz, however, takes the issue of employee-corporation forums a step further to include employees’ concerns being represented in joint corporate decisions (Griffin, 2009, p. 268).  Deetz argues, as quoted in Griffin (2009), that increasing democratic participation has positive payoffs, creating “better citizens, and better social choices, [providing] important economic benefits” (Griffin, 2009, pp. 269-270).  It is unclear exactly what Deetz means by “important economic benefits;” however, one can extrapolate from this statement the possibility for an argument for an increase in employee morale resulting in an increase in productivity.  We affirm specific strategies borne of critical theory that increase employee morale and that also have the possibility of increasing productivity.  The next section of this paper focuses on several specific strategies for impacting those employee outcomes.

Strategies for Increasing Employee Morale

We start with a blanket generalization:  any effort to increase employee morale during times of economic crisis ought to focus first on the attitudes and behaviors of supervisors. At first glance, this statement might appear oxymoronic since this study deals with the issue of employee morale and productivity.  However, as stated earlier, employees are affected by the leadership qualities of their supervisors.  In addition, classical management theory offers suggestions that can help managers acquire the tools for dealing with their organizational challenges (Ngambi, 2011, p.762 ).

The first step in the acquisition of such tools is a corporate buy-in to Deetz’ notion of participatory democracy.  This is no small task given the somewhat entrenched top-down nature of communication exhibited in American corporations.  We believe, with Deetz, that employees will work harder, and feel more of a sense of ownership in the business, if they perceive they have an equal voice in major corporate decisions.  Exactly how to accomplish such a task is a question for further study, and is a limitation of our suggested solution.  This part of the solution, however, requires a more bottom-up model of communication rather than a top-down communication model.  Training that effectively uses this bottom-up model of communication is what we advocate.

Working With Others Training Program Model

            In 2003, Byron and Bierly developed an exciting training paradigm using the bottom-up communication model.  Byron and Bierly called their training program Working With Others (2003).  As originally published, the Working With Others (WWO) training program is a one-day training course  designed to “elevate the success of all” (Working With Others, 2003).  Key to the training is the development of a skill set that allows managers and others to express their ideas and to understand the ideas of others in ways that keep all stakeholders connected and moving toward a common goal (Working With Others, 2003). It is easy to see the extension of Deetz’ theory here, in that the training places a premium on participatory democracy.

            The training is conducted in an action-learning format in which the participants resolve problems in a group setting while learning and applying such WWO skills as understanding another’s point of view, representing another’s point of view, clarifying to determine another’s point of view, solving problems while understanding others’ points of view, and hitchhiking—a skill that allows a person to add his or her ideas in a way that “builds better solutions while maintaining positive relationships” (Working With Others, 2003). 

            This WWO model training has proven to be somewhat effective in helping to change the culture in corporations from a more bureaucratic culture to a more inclusive and democratically participative culture.  In one study of twenty-two different training groups, for example, participants indicated that their effective use of WWO skills accounted for 64% of the success they achieved in their jobs (Working With Others, 2003).  Another study indicated that for every dollar spent in WWO training, the business received $10 in measurable benefit (Working With Others, 2003). In addition, Vitalo and Byron (2004) describe a series of coaching sessions for a design management team using the WWO training model.  The head of the design organization conducted a follow-up quantitative study two years after the training sessions. The results showed a 54% improvement in morale and climate as measured on a morale scale, a 10% reduction in absenteeism, and a 28% improvement in productivity resulting in savings of $2.6 million per year (Vitalo & Byron, 2004).

            We like the nascent success of WWO training and think it has potential with some tweaking. Although Vitalo and Byron do not specify the number of coaching sessions provided for the management team in their study, we suggest more research and redesign of the WWO program to account for an ongoing series of training sessions. We would also include more of a full spectrum of employees in the training sessions, since the assumption is that communication would be from the bottom-up.  As a follow-up to the training sessions, we suggest ongoing communication in various forms of media to reach everyone in the company, especially those who are working and cannot be involved in the training sessions. Such media would include webinars, bulletins, memos, posters, and mass emails. We also suggest monthly meetings of stakeholders built on the bottom-up communication model.

Conclusions

            This paper has argued that the current economic crisis is serious and has potential disastrous ramifications for American corporations because of decreased employee morale due to the uncertainty about one’s job which may lead to decreased productivity.  Dealing with the resulting decreased employee morale and decreased productivity is not a pipe dream; it is an imperative.  Selecting the right approach to this very real problem can make or break a company during these very difficult times. 

            This paper has also argued that the right approach to dealing with this problem is to train corporate stakeholders in communication practices that completely shift the corporate culture, a paradigm shift rooted in critical theory’s emphasis on participatory democracy. We recognize that this task is enormous, and may be quite difficult to undertake given the history of the inherent systemic embedding of the bureaucratic, top-down model of communication.  This inherency provides a limitation to this paper’s arguments and to any theoretical application aimed to change corporate culture. Finally, the paper argued for training programs modeled after the WWO paradigm to engage all levels of a corporation to learn and utilize problem-solving skills while simultaneously affirming the ideas of workers from all levels of employment. We recognize that the training we suggest is not a panacea; however, we believe that it applies theory that fulfills Griffin’s (2009) criteria for good theory.  The proof, however, as always, is in the execution.

References

Applebaum, S. H., Everard, A., & Hung, L. (1999). Strategic downsizing: Critical
     success factors. Management Decision, 37(7), 535-552.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial
     interaction and beyond: toward a developmental theory of interpersonal
     communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112.

Brockner, J. (1988). The effects of work layoffs on survivors: Research theory
     and practice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 213-235.

Brockner, J. (1992). Managing the effects of layoffs on survivors. California
     Management Review, 34(2), 9-28.

Doherty, J. (1988). Psychological morale: Its conceptualization and measurement.
     Educational Studies, 14, 65-75.

The economy: Why there's no recovery [Editorial]. (2011, October 14). The Week,
     11(536), 21.

Employee job satisfaction: understanding the factors that make work gratifying.
     (2009, June). Society for Human Resource Management.

Evans, L. (1992). Teacher morale: An individual perspective. Educational
     Studies, 18, 161-171.

Ewton, Z. (2007). Sustaining employee morale: Keeping the peace or burning down
     the house. Retrieved October 14, 2011, from http://www.associatedcontent.com.

Gallup Organization (n/d). Health care practice. Retrieved October 14, 2011, from

http://www.galluporganization.com.

Good, L. K., Huddleston, P., & Linz, S. J. (2006). Worker morale in Russia: An
     exploratory study. Manuscript in preparation, The University of Michigan,
     Ann Arbor, MI.

Griffin, E. (2009). Communication: A First Look at Communication (7th ed.).
     Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. (Original work published 1991).

Hart, P. M. (1994). Teacher quality of work life: integrating work experiences,
     psychological distress and morale. Journal of Occupational and
     Organizational Psychology, 67, 109-132.

Iverson, R. D., & Zatzick, C. (2011, January/February). The effects of
     downsizing on labor productivity: the value of showing consideration for
     employees' morale and welfare in high-performance work systems. Human
     Resource Management, 50(1), 29-44.

Kasper-Fuehrer, E., & Ashkanazy, N. M. (2001). Communicating trustworthiness and
     building trust in interorganizational virtual organizations. Journal of
     Management, 27(3), 235-254.

Mazin, R. (2010). The effects of high morale on employee performance. Retrieved
     October 8, 2011, from http://ehow.com.

Millett, T. (2010). 6 reasons why staff morale is important. Retrieved October
     8, 2011, from http://EzineArticles.com.

Milton, C. R., & Stening, B. W. (1984). Organizational behavior in Australia.
     Sydney, Australia: Prentice-Hall.

Neely, G. H. (1999, July). The relationship between employee morale and employee
     productivity. Tulsa, OK.

Ngambi, H. C. (2011, February). The relationship between leadership and employee
     morale in higher education. African Journal of Business Management, 5(3),
     762-776.

Niehoff, B. P., Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G., & Fuller, J. (2011). The influence
     of empowerment and job enrichment on employee loyalty and downsizing
     environment. Group and Organization Management, 26(1), 93-113.

The post-recession workplace: Competitive strategies for recovery and beyond.
     (2010, September). Society for Human Resource Management.

Rouse, R. A., Ph.D., & Schuttler, R. S., Ph.D. (2009, September). Crisis
     communication: a mixed method study of supervisor leadership and employee
     performance during the 2008-2009 financial crisis.

Schuler, A. D. (2010, May 19). Turning around low morale. Retrieved October 8,
     2011, from http://schulersolutions.com.

Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication.
     Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Smith, K. R. (1966). A proposed model for the investigation of teacher morale.
     Journal of Education Administration, 4, 143-148.

Smith, K. R. (1976). Morale: A refinement of Strodgill's model. Journal of
     Education Administration, 14, 87-93.

Souto, B. F. J. (2009). Crisis and corporate responsibility: Threat or
     opportunity? International Journal of Economic Sciences and Applied
     Research, 2(1), 36-50.

Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative
     approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does investment in
     employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1089-1121.

Vitalo, R. L., & Byron, J. S. (2004, May). Using working with others sessions to
     elevate morale and organizational productivity. Retrieved October 8, 2011,
     from http://vitalentusa.com/learn/wwo_morale.php.

Watson, D. (1988). Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of positive and
     negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
     1020-1030.

Working with others training program. (n.d.). Retrieved October 8, 2011, from
     Vital Enterprises website: http://www.vitalentusa.com/products/
     wwotp_learn_about.php.