Critical Essay: Veteran Employee Study

Recruiting, hiring and training new employees is a costly and time consuming activity for any organization, and a much more frequent event than in generations of workers past. For this reason, organizational leaders are more concerned than ever about finding and retaining quality employees. I chose this study because the authors, Gallagher and Sias (2009), approach the impact of new employees on an organization from a new perspective, adding valuable knowledge to this field of study.

A majority of existing research in this area is rooted in Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) that conceptualizes how strangers use information-seeking techniques to reduce uncertainty and anxiety that is experienced during a first encounter (Griffin, 2009). Other major contributors include Van Maanen and Schein (1977), whose seminal research defined the socialization process of newcomers; and Fredric Jablin's phased model of organization assimilation (Miller, 2005). The distinctively common thread among the approach of these researchers, and many who followed, is their emphasis on the uncertainty experienced by the new employee, with little or no regard to the uncertainty that might be experienced by veteran employees. Veterans have nearly always been considered the source of information for the new hire, not as seekers of information from or about the new hire.

Gallagher and Sias (2009) predicted that veteran employees experience some of the same types of uncertainty as newcomers, and that the information-seeking tactics used by veterans are similar, though with some differences, as those used by newcomers. Gallagher and Sias used a grounded theory qualitative methodology approach to gather and analyze data from a statistically complete sampling of 25 veteran employees from a diverse set of companies, ages, genders, organizational levels and job roles. They conducted in-depth interviews and reduced the data using open-ended and axial coding methods in a detailed, thorough and sound research methodology.

The results of the study were completely congruent with expectations, indicating that veteran employees experience uncertainty, and use a variety of information-seeking tactics to reduce the uncertainty when newcomers arrive. Veterans tend to be more covert in seeking information using tactics such as observation and indirect questioning. Veterans are surprisingly protective of the newcomers and go out of their way to be accommodating, gentle and non-threatening. A paradox exists between veterans and newcomers. Veterans are comforted when newcomers ask a lot of questions, while newcomers tend to avoid asking questions due to the perceived social cost.

Gallagher and Sias (2009) have found that there is a significant impact on the entire organization when a new hire is introduced into the system. This is significant to hiring professionals as well as managers and supervisors when planning the arrival of newcomers. It is, in essence, a change event with the potential for positive and negative effects on many aspects of the organization depending on how the event is planned, managed and executed.

References:

Gallagher, E. B., & Sias, P. M. (2009). The new employee as a source of uncertainty: Veteran employee information seeking about new hires. Western Journal of Communication, 73(1), 23. doi:10.1080/10570310802636326

Griffin, E. (2009). A first look at communication theory (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Higher Education.

Miller, K. (2005). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes (Fourth ed.). Thomsom Wadsworth.

Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. (1977). DSpace@MIT : Toward a theory of organizational socialization. (Working paper , Sloan School of Management ; 960-77. No. 2011). To appear in: Barry Staw (ed.) Annual review of research in organizational behavior, vol. 1, New York: JIP Press, 1978.: MIT Alfred P. Sloan School of Management. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/1934

    

Is this gadget cool or spooky?

"How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all?" - Firesign Theatre

Essay #2
COML 509 B2
Gonzaga University
Professor Alexander Kuskis
November 20, 2010

     A few weeks ago, I visited the library at our local community college.  After parking my car I walked across a large common area bustling with students headed in all directions.  Many were in groups of two or three and many were alone.  Nearly all, however, were performing multiple activities simultaneously.  Among those activities was walking, talking, texting, reading, checking e-mail and listening to music.  While I’m certain none were attempting all of them simultaneously, not a single person was performing only one task.   

The digital ecology of our world has become more dynamic than ever before; there is an almost universal sense of urgency in our daily lives.  We embrace the power of technological devices to deliver incredible amounts of entertainment, information and social interaction.   Multitasking has become a way of life for many of us and an obsession for some.  It is mythic in the sense that we have accepted it as a part of our culture as if it is the natural way things have always been.   Job seekers list multitasking on their resumes as a skill and employers filter job applicants based on that skill (Indiana School of Medicine, 2010).  Scientists conduct research to find ways to train our brains to multitask faster (Vanderbilt University, 2009). 

Is the mania of multitasking good for us?  What are the consequences of life in a fast lane that continues to accelerate?  These and other questions are the concerns of many researchers, scholars and scientists who are just beginning to discover the impact of multitasking on human performance, learning, cognition and memory.  Multitasking, as a word, is actually a misnomer.   One of the few things that researchers agree on in this field of study is that the cognitive processing part of the brain is not capable of actually focusing attention on two or more tasks simultaneously.  Multitasking is actually the phenomenon of “task switching”; focusing first on one task, then switching to another.  Scientists are using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to learn the physical effects of multitasking, how to speed up the switching process, and which parts of the brain are engaged (Harmon, 2010). Other researchers are studying the cognitive aspects such as memory, intelligence and learning.  They have learned that constant task-switching is like catching fish with a net rather than a fishing pole dangling a hook. When a fisherman casts a net, he is attempting to capture everything within a broad area, but at a shallow depth.  A fisherman dropping a hook, in contrast, is attempting to lure a single fish at a much greater depth in a narrowly focused area of the water.   Multitasking,  “involves skimming the surface of incoming data, picking out the relevant details, and moving on to the next stream.  You’re paying attention, but only partially (Lin, 2009).”  You are casting a wider net, but you might not get that really big one cruising along the bottom.

How this activity truly impacts the ability of students to learn, office workers to effectively perform their jobs and the rest of us to go about our daily lives is anything but clear.  Many of the published findings reflect negative outcomes ranging from low productivity among multitasking office workers to the spawning of a new type of attention deficit resulting from information overload, to looming health problems caused by constant release of stress hormones and prolonged production of adrenalin (Rosen, 2008).  More recent research, however, is beginning to suggest that the changes that are occurring in our brains may actually produce positive outcomes not recognized by earlier studies.  Professor Clifford Nass of Stanford University suggests that research methodology has targeted the negative impact that multitasking has on focused information processing, rather than the potential benefits that might be achieved through the broad but shallow cognitive filtering.   The experimental results might be a difference in orientation; an innovative approach to processing that isn’t yet fully understood (Lin, 2009).

If, as Marshal McLuhan contends, each new medium is an additive extension to our senses and becomes integrally linked to our lives, then scholars might discover not simply “amputations” of current cognitive capabilities, but valuable new ones.   Researchers may need to develop new methods, and measures from deep within the context of media multitasking rather than attempting to fit new phenomenon into an old framework.  Though not everyone may be able to effectively and safely drive an automobile while texting or talking on a cell phone, we may find that we can learn to exploit the avenues provided by technological devices and learn to grasp deeper meanings, more complex understanding and an ability to be two places at once when we are not anywhere at all.

References

Harmon, K. (2010). Motivated multitasking: How the brain keeps tabs on two tasks at once: Scientific american. Retrieved 11/20/2010, 2010, from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multitasking-two-tasks

Indiana School of Medicine. (2010). Measuring preference for multitasking. Retrieved November 15, 2010, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2010/09/100914095934.htm

Lin, L. (2009). Breadth-biased versus focused cognitive control in media multitasking behaviors Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(37), 15521-15522. doi:10.1073/pnas.0908642106

Rosen, C. (2008). The new atlantis » the myth of multitasking. Retrieved 11/13/2010, 2010, from http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-myth-of-multitasking

Vanderbilt University. (2009). Multitasking ability can be improved through training. Retrieved 11/19/2010, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716113401.htm

Exploring Technology and Reality

Essay Number 1
COML 509 B2:  Social Dynamics of communications and Technology
Professor Alexander Kuskis, Gonzaga University

            “Technology discloses man’s mode of dealing with Nature, the process of production by which he sustains his life, and thereby also lays bare the mode of information of his social relations, and of the mental conceptions that flow from them.” – Karl Marx (Marx, 2010) p 570

In the 1930s and 1940s the typical American family gathered around the “radio machines” to listen to fireside chats with President Roosevelt and were encouraged. The family unit was brought together to share the event in each other’s company. They shared the experience and their reality was changed.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the family gathered around the RCA black and white console “TV machine” and were entertained by “Uncle Milt”, or Ed Sullivan, or have the sights and sounds of the Wild West coming into the comfort of their living room.  The family unit was brought together to share the experience, and their reality was changed. 

In the 1970s and 1980s, full color added to the experience, and thanks to technological advancement, televisions became mythic to our society.  Nearly everyone had one, and eventually, many households had more than one.  The family unit became more independent, choosing to view a variety of programming far more targeted to specific ages, interests, and individual preferences.  The experience was rarely shared, and their reality was changed.

In the decades since, we have leapt toward the blossoming realm of computer-mediated communication (CMC) at break-neck speed.  Before each new technology and CMC device can be explored, understood and normalized to our consciousness, another distracts us from its study.   We haven’t the time to emotionally assimilate it into our being, nor frame it into its proper context.   The nuclear family unit can now sit in the same room and individually interact with CMC devices.  They explore separate global communities as independent actors, engage in multiple forms of entertainment, express diverse emotional intimacies and create individual, private and unrelated realities; all the while, sharing nothing with each other.  Their reality has changed.

            Philosopher Martin Heidegger wrote, “… the essence of technology is by no means anything technological. Thus we shall never experience our relationship to the essence of technology so long as we merely conceive and push forward the technological, put up with it, or evade it (Heidegger, 1977. p 109). ”   He implores us to grasp the breadth of the meaning of not only the technology itself, but the essence of it, what it reveals about us and the world we live in, and how our interaction with it changes the world we think we know, the history we thought we knew, and the future we hope awaits us.  Further, he warns of the dangers of so embracing technology that we lose sight of it as the means to an end, rather, allowing it to become the definition of how we exist, forgetting to question our relationship with it.

When communication technology was simpler, theorists like George Gerbner studied the societal implications of broadcast mass media.   In his media cultivation theory, Gerbner noted that television seemed to create an altered perception of reality, one that can be influenced by the tone, content and repetition of images.  Facts become negotiable to individuals consumed by the lure of the “TV machine”.  Diverse individuals become homogenous in their opinions, orientations and perspectives (Griffin, 2009).  If such changes are possible with media that are two dimensional, non-interactive and uni-directional, then what are the social and psychological impacts we can expect from living and interacting in virtual worlds where each individual is in control of all elements of their environment?   Theorist Marshall McLuhan described the digital age as one that is returning human society to “retribalization”.  He saw a global village where everyone shared membership in the tribe, bounded by the digital technology environment; connected, yet disconnected (Griffin, 2009). This retribalization may in fact be the beginning of reality defined not by the essence of humanity, but by the unquenchable thirst for gratification and immediacy further driving the objectiveness of technology to provide an Orwellian physical existence without regard to its essence.  Perhaps it is hyperbolic and alarmist to draw such conclusions. Could it be that humanity is merely reaching another milestone of self-actualization?  We may simply have not yet uncovered the modes of thought that will balance our tendencies to overindulge, or escape to a reality of our own making, unbound by physical or cultural limitations.  Linear thinking may be supplanted by a more spherical thought process which will move us closer to a higher plane of cognition and release powers within us that can simultaneously embrace contextual perceptions of multiple creations of reality.  Such reconciliation might bring us closer to the natural world that seems to be forgotten in the digital age by enhancing our appreciation for that which is not within our control.  We may, in fact, more deeply enjoy the unpredictability and random order of nature and the wonders of those parts of our world that we have no role in creating.

Only time will tell how reality will change.  We should not be fearful of the change, but we should also not fail to question it critically, and with open, unbiased exuberance.  We would be wise to ponder the words of Master Seng-Ts’an:  “Asserting that the world is real, you are blind to its deeper reality; denying that the world is real, you are blind to the selflessness of all things (Seng-Ts'an, C.E. 700).”

           

References

Griffin, E. (2009). A first look at communication theory (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Higher Education.

Heidegger, M. (1977). Martin Heidegger: The question concerning technology and other essays [
The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays.
Translated by William Lovitt. New York: Harper & Row

Marx, L. (2010). Technology: The emergence of a hazardous concept. Technology and Culture, 51(3), 561-577. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu/journals/technology_and_culture/v051/51.3.marx.html

Seng-Ts'an. (C.E. 700)The mind of absolute trust, from a literal translation by Robert F. Olson. Retrieved 11/5/2010, 2010, from http://www.selfdiscoveryportal.com/cmSengTsan.htm

Toe Dipping

The sole motivation for the existence of this blog cmes from a strong professorial suggestion... In other words, if you are a grad student in communication, and taking a class in CMC (Computer Mediated Communications), you might want to consider getting some first-hand experience working with the tools you are studying.  So, if you happen to run across this blog in a randomized search somewhere, don't expect anything profound or deeply moving.  This is a learning experience, so don't expect it to be perfectly compliant with the highest quality standards, nor entirely follow politically correct blogger etiquette.  My goal, instead, is to better understand the medium.  If along the way I can provide something to think about or a chuckle or two, it will be an unanticipated but gratifying benefit.

"Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is to not stop questioning."

- Albert Einstein