During our college years, we are barraged with dozens of invitations to join every manner of extracurricular activity or student group, especially during our freshman year. These groups, or organizations, range from the extremely informal to the highly formal in nature, some having strict guidelines for membership and member behavior. Take for example the two extracurricular activities that I have been exposed to during my college experience thus far: coed quidditch and the Greek system. Both organizations are fairly large in size and have student members in charge of operation, but they vary greatly in the characteristics of their constructed "dwellings", as well as their organizational communication, goals, and purposes.
When it comes to formality, coed quidditch was the least formal of the two organizations by far. I would characterize the coed quidditch organization as a laid-back, casual, roommate sort of dwelling, quite similar to many college living situations of shared dorms, houses, and apartments. There are rules and regulations for the organization to follow, but I imagine them as being written on a sheet of lined paper and hung on the fridge with an owl magnet. The group's organizational communication as a whole is consisted of far more informal practices (yelling through a megaphone to make announcements), structures (loosely defined titles of team captains and representatives), events (casually conducted games and tournaments), and goals (growing the organization in general). With such informal practices and communication, the organization invites a much more relaxed and casual type of communication within the organization and its members. Most members feel entirely free to voice whatever their opinion is on any matter, but this also results in a somewhat chaotic leadership and functioning.
The Greek system here at the U is much more formal than the coed quidditch organization. Whereas the quidditch league is something of a shared apartment, I would characterize the Greek system's dwelling place as a highly organized, hierarchical, multi-level business building. There are strict rules and regulations for the Greek members to follow, ones that are passed on to them by the national and regional boards of their particular houses as well as the international Greek board. I'd imagine them as an engraved gold plaque hung above a massive fireplace. The group's organization communication as a whole is far more formal than those of the quidditch league with specific practices (reporting to those higher in the group's hierarchy), structures (guidelines and scripts for most day-to-day interactions with other Greek houses), events (planned far ahead of time and often a tradition), and goals (to raise money or awareness for their nonprofits). With such formal practices and communication, the organization invites a much more proper and respectful type of communication within its organization and members. Most members feel free to voice their opinions, but understand that there are certain ways of doing things that must be followed, otherwise the house could suffer punishment or consequences.
By breaking down the two organizations, you strongly showed how organization communication ethics can be so varied and changing depending on the specific organization. Part of me feels as if a more formal organization is most beneficial to communication ethics because it provides more clear guidelines and boundaries and that allows the members to know how to conduct themselves. Of course, people may not agree with me, but I think that when an organization is more informal, it can be challenging to explicitly know the good. By showing contrasting organizations, I can see disadvantages and benefits of each. This is a really strong post that explicitly shows how ethics comes into play during organizational communication.
ReplyDelete