The Dramatistic Pentad

The Dramatistic Pentad is what stood out to me in chapter 22. The five crucial elements of human drama – act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose and the similarity of the writing practice who, what, where, when, why, and how made it easy for me to understand the concept of the elements of the pentad. These descriptions offer a way of determining why a speaker used a specific rhetorical strategy. The act is what was done, the scene represents where and when the act was done, the agent is the person who performed the act, the agency is the means used to perform the act, and the purpose is the goal of the act. I referred to these elements when watching the presidential debate. The act was the debate, the scene was Tuesday at Ohio State University, the agent was Obama or McCain, the agency as I saw it was media and the purpose or should I say goal of the act was to get the voters support. If you watched the debate let me know if you described the elements in the same way or if you interpreted them differently. I’d be interested to know.

Aristotle's theory of pathos

Aristotle’s theory of pathos, found in chapter 21, is intriguing. The fact that theory came about 2300 years ago is amazing. The theories consist of anger versus, mildness, love or friendship versus hatred, fear versus confidence, shame versus shamelessness, indignation versus pity, and admiration versus envy. When I read over the catalogue of opposite feelings, they are true to this day. For instance, love or friendship versus hatred is defined, “consistent with present-day research on attraction, Aristotle considered similarity the key to mutual warmth. The speaker should point out common goals, experiences, attitudes, and desires. In the absence of these positive forces, a common enemy can be used to create solidarity” (Griffin, 2009, p. 284). I experience this at work, at school, and life. The last sentence about common enemies used to create solidarity is so true at work. There have been numerous budget cuts yet they continue to hire administrative positions. The classified staff has found solidarity in our common enemy administrators.

Metaphor

In chapter 19 the section regarding metaphors made a lot of sense to me. I have used metaphors to help my son understand what I am trying to explain to him and it works. I didn’t realize that ethnographer’s widely used metaphors as a starting place for assessing meaning in the corporate culture. It is easier for me to understand as well. Griffin (2009) describes a metaphor, “Clarifies what is unknown or confusing by equating it with an image that’s more familiar or vivid” (p. 253). It makes sense to use a metaphor to describe features of a corporate culture. Describing the corporate culture using metaphor’s, that those you are communicating with can relate too, can assist in the process of the intended message being sent and the receiver comprehending the message in the way it was meant to be interpreted. They will get the big picture.

Strategy: overt managerial moves to extend control

While reading Chapter 20 I was taken back by what Deetz was implying. The ramification of managers/CEO’s wanting control. Money is the ultimate goal and people are second. The definition of managerialism found in strategy: overt managerial moves to extend control (Griffin 2008)is , a systematic logic, set of routine practices, and ideology that values control over all other concern (p. 265). This is what has caused the financial crisis we are experiencing right now. I have a very high FICO score and I cannot get a $1300 student loan in the private sector. Griffin (2008) states, “because of stock options and “golden parachutes,” top management has benefited more than any other group from the merger mania of the last two decades (p. 265). This is so true, I mean I cannot get a small student loan and the CEO of Wamu worked only three weeks and received a golden parachute of 19 million. Alright enough venting. This really does prove that Deetz’s critical theory of communication in organizations affects everyone. Big corporations have become the dominate force in society.

The symbolic interpretation of story

After reading chapter 19, Cultural Approach to Organizations of Geertz & Pacanowsky, the symbolic interpretation of story is something I have experienced at my own place of employment. There are three types of narrative; corporate, personal stories, and collegial stories.

An example of a corporate narrative from my place of employment would be that of our current President. At Christmas there is an annual EOP & S party for families of college students that our having hard times. A dinner is provided and gifts for the children. If enough funds are not raised to ensure a successful party he generously makes up for the amount needed out of his own pocket. They say that he donated over $2000 last year alone. The corporate story should represent company policy and the beliefs of management to go out into the community and help others that are less fortunate.

A personal story is from an employee who dispatches for campus police. The police codes she uses have not changed but the way they log in where their officers have changed. They have gone from paper to computer and still to this day she will write down an officer’s location. The computer system has crashed and her notes have helped an officer that was struck by a vehicle. The paper may sometimes be mightier than the computer. Hopefully you can tell that this is a story told by an employee about herself. “No”, it is not me.

A collegial story is that of an instructor, who will just not retire, well she has retired but she still works adjunct even though her husband is a judge and her daughter is an attorney. She definitely has enough income to live on. Everyone wonders why she doesn’t just leave because as an adjunct she serves only serves on committees and works on student success. She is never in her office and no one ever sees her with students. As you can see this is a negative personal account from a colleague.

Conversation with Randy Hirokawa

After listening to the conversation between Griffin and Hirokawa I believe I had a better grasp on Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making. It is really basic. As Hirokawa stated, “the theory is designed to explain why groups make good or bad decisions” (Griffin, 2008). There are four functions which we have all read about but I found it interesting that Hirokawa mentions that there is one function that is more important than the other. That function is evaluation of positive and negative characteristics, yet there is no hierarchal order for the functions as long as all are implemented in the group setting.

When Hirokawa was asked how he can tell when a decision is good his reply was quite interesting. The fact that good and bad is subjective and that it should be determined by those that are impacted is a belief that I share with Hirokawa. I found it very important that Hirokawa stated, “the theory has at this point not been developed to the point where it properly accounts for … social factors” (Griffin, 2008). This statement made the theory make more sense to me. I kept questioning why factors such as conflict or culture were not mentioned.

References

Griffin, E. (2008). A first look at communication theory. In Conversations video [Randy Hirokawa - Functional perspective on group decision making]. Retrieved October 1, 2008, from http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073385026/student_view0/conversations_video.html

Adaptive Structuration Theory

In chapter 18 Adaptive Structuration Theory of Marshall Scott Poole there is a part in the chapter that explains the use and abuse of rules and resources. The term appropriation which means the rules and resources used in a group setting have a history, they are used from another group. I just experienced this in a class where we had to form in groups. We don’t exactly know why we have formed in groups, obviously for a project but we don’t know what the project is. We had to write five norms for the group to follow. We have one member who is similar to the character of Josh in the text. From his guidance and experience with the professor we were able to agree on the five norms with a consensus. The irony of that one of our norms was that majority rules. Our group did this just like the example in the text. We will use the majority rules norm only if necessary. The one thing that Griffin writes that I did not consider when agreeing to this norm is if the majority rules norm is used it can create a strain in the group structure throughout our project, this would not be good.