Initially, I was confused by the difference between
organizational communication ethics and business and professional communication
ethics. To me, they both meant basically the same thing, but as I read on, I
now understand that business and professional communication ethics adhere to
more “significant areas of distinction” (p. 175). Business and professional
communication addresses issues that are of the micro level of the organization.
Still, it seems that they may be interrelated, but on different levels.
I gathered from the reading that the ultimate goal of the
business and professional communication is to promote the survival and
long-term success of an organization. “Protect and promote the public goods of
survival and competitiveness through public accounting for direction and change”
(p. 186). Again, this reinforces the route that should be taken when
considering businesses and professionals; success and direction.
Within the Beyond Manners heading, I cannot help but relate
this to a current class that I am enrolled in; Career Planning. There is
incredible emphasis on the good of manners in order to receive a job during a
search or interview. This makes me reflect on the previous chapter of “common
sense.” What is common for some folks, may be incredibly awkward for some. My question
is, does the United States have a common standard for what is considered polite
within a business or professional setting? Or well mannered, perhaps?
Yes, that is what I was wondered about too. I did not write that question on my post because if I wrote that question other people might misunderstand me that I am thinking the United States is not polite country.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in the country where I am from, people think it is rude to make an eye contact with older people or people who has the authority, so we look at their philtrum when we talk with older people to show the respect.
In my opinion, politeness is necessary because politeness means 'you are more important than I am', so showing this respect in business is needed.
Thank you for your reply, Young. I am not certain on the area that you are from, but I recently did a report on the Japanese culture for a nonverbal communication class assignment. Upon my research, there was a lot of consensus that eye contact is not common within the Japanese culture. I am curious how this translates into the business or professional world that is increasingly becoming multicultural?
ReplyDeleteI do like that the book mentions that "ethics in the person" means that good people can be translated into good business and professional communication ethics (p. 178). This is an absolute truth as businesses do not run themselves,l people do!
The connections you draw between common sense, organizational ethics, and business and professional ethics relate to my post about the interconnectedness of ALL forms of communication ethics. Business and professional may differentiate itself from organizational in the sense that the supporting goods, the micro-level interactions via emails, memos, and water-cooler conversations that support survival, differ from the same applied ethics in organizational interactions, but all disciplines seem to stem from the formula that involves occupying a space of pragmatism between your good and the good of the Other. What changes is the ethical goal of that interaction. For organizational ethics, the goal of pragmatic learning is to enact the given purpose, or mission statement, of that body. For business and professional ethics, it is (much more specifically) the continued existence of and provision of services by the company in question.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to attempt an answer to your closing question: ". . . does the United States have a common standard for what is considered polite within a business or professional setting? After reflecting on the extremely varied services of different industries and the accompanying organizational ethics (Wall Street's anxious fervor, for example, or public education's traditional march), I noticed that your mention of "United States" speaks to a notable missing link in our coursework: there is no chapter for or reference to "geographical communication ethics" in our text. It is, perhaps, not so useful to think of the United States as a communicative body with certain standards (supporting goods) that enact a single good that the whole country represents. The scope of such a notion is breathtaking and, seemingly, impossible. Even for such time-honored valuances as freedom of speech, democracy, and diversity, there is serious contention among U.S. citizens--we truly can't agree on anything. While there are certain goods championed in the international communicative space by world governments, even they don't represent the full breadth of their citizenry's interests. Therefore, I think it's more useful to constrain discussion of a common standard of behavior to individual organizations and businesses, or even whole industries. But even for those, I don't think there is one.