Previously,

Previously, I shared the philosophical thesis of Dr. Surez Ph.D., Dr. Roger Mills Ph.D. and D. Stewart M.S. on their principles of human functioning. How the knowledge that we all have the ability to think and formulate thought (our own reality) can effect the content of that thought (positively or negatively).

Pulling from their work We can see an interesting connection for Symbolic Interactionism and Organizational Sociology.

They note that early physicists were specialists in heat, some in electricity, some in gravity, some in optics others in mechanics and so on. Later with the growth of scientific knowledge, the physicist learned that heat could be turned into electricity, which in turn could be turned into light or mechanical energy, or could generate magnetic forces. They recognized “Universal forces” that similarities were more important than differences.

They recognized “Universal forces” that similarities were more important than differences. I would like to point out that people, organizations and departments have become fragmented and specialized by focusing on problems rather than remedies.

Research question: How does a person or group of people in an organization construct or reconstruct their content (D.V.) of social reality by their level of consciousness (I.V.)?

Our reality is self-created and we have the power to change that reality by continuing, dropping or sustaining a pattern of thought that holds together that reality.

Social theory and Management theory has focused on countless techniques to promote decision making, problem solving, communication skills, stress management, group dynamics, and have failed to bring about a long term resolution of organizational problems.

We can surely see a link between employees’, including managers’ level of cognitive functioning and its effect on such things as productivity, motivation, judgment, and job satisfaction. Consequently this reality then affects the “bottom line” because employees positive or negative thinking is the most valuable asset of any organization and its brand.

We can surely see through numerous articles, that the use of techniques for reducing or eliminating mal-productive behavior has the effect of directing awareness away from the level of consciousness leaving only a placebo effect.

One classic study, investigated the effect of working conditions on the rate of output at the Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne plant.

After years of measuring worker productivity, this study found that regardless of change that was socially instituted (different allotted rest periods, lighting, air conditioning, longer or shorter days) lead to temporary results of productivity because the workers felt special, they were interested in the experiment and because they knew that their production rate was being measured.

So this study, known as “The Hawthorn Effect” noted that when workers were happy they complied with the desires of the experimenters.

Sociologists Berger and Luckmann were also concerned with one’s unusual tendency to view subjective processes as objective realities. As people tend to capture everyday life in an ordered reality; that is, social reality seems to the individual to be independent of the person’s apprehension of it.

Interestingly enough we find that in the field of sociology that we are in fact measuring ourselves with our own theories, which in itself is a bias measurement as we have lost sight of the fact that we are part of the field that we are studying.

The predicament of early astronomers illustrates this point, as the science had an underlying assumption that the earth was a fixed and stationary center of the universe. So all studies and observations were carried out within this frame of reference; scientists charted the movement of the planets and stars under this assumption.

So though the early astrologer’s measurements were accurate, the result formulations were far from factual because the earth was not the center of the universe.

We can clearly see that scientists were not looking for an answer; they were protecting a theory, because it was simple, easy, and conformed to the patterns of what was observed.

Reality appears already objectified, and it seems to impose itself on the individual.

Berger and Luckmann defined social structure as recurrent patterns of action; they were interested primarily in the process by which that world, such as it is, is produced and how a sense of its objectivity is created and that whatever objective reality there “really” is out there, is produced by people.

We can certainly see how Symbolic Interactionism constructs or reconstructs meaning by the works of Thomas Kuhn who……… Emphasized the importance of people’s “core self’ as an object.

Through socialization, humans acquire a relatively stable set of meanings and attitudes toward themselves. The core self will shape and constrain the way people will define situations by circumscribing the cues that will be seen and the objects that will be injected into social situations. Human personality is thus structured and comparatively stable, giving people’s actions a continuity and predictability. Human behavior could, in principle, be highly predictable.

Or Herbert Blumer who…. Emphasized that humans have the capacity to view themselves as objects and to insert any object into an interaction situation. Individuals are not pushed and pulled around by social and psychological forces but are active creators of the world to which they respond. For there is always the potential for spontaneity and indeterminacy in human behavior.

If humans can invoke any object into a situation, they can radically alter their definitions of that situation and, their behaviors. Self is but one of many objects to be seen in a situation; other objects from the past, present, or anticipated future can also be evoked and can provide a basis for action.

When people, departments or organizations experience employees or management at a low level of consciousness (I.V), whether induced by organizational pressure or personal problems they are usually inefficient and unmotivated.

We can see how a temporary dip in cognitive functioning of one can be passed to another in the guise of an organizational issue or through commiseration, until a state of low moral exists.

Then you have groups of people who are reactive, defensive, and fighting for control, communication breaks down, procedures are overlooked, cooperation ceases, and productivity falls.

People become fixated with the details of what’s going wrong but fail to recognize the reason that things are going downhill.

The 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster shared what insecurity can do to people It became next to impossible for these decision makers to listen to the logic or the validity of warnings by their own engineers.

Group Think occurred in this situation when pressure to defend a self-image outweighed common sense.

If a worker is not aware that their level of consciousness is shaping reality, they will react negatively toward the workplace as the source of the problem, affecting the motivation, productivity, communication and morale of all.

Many studies also show that when people become more insecure than usual, their level of consciousness lowers and the conditioned or habitual ways of doing things becomes even more important to them.

Insecurities then leads one to cling to or recall an incident in which they felt they were wronged, they revive incidents, resentments, negative attitudes and they do not cooperate, provide assistance or expertise when needed.

A we-they or an I-you opposition can develop between people, departments or levels of management.

That is why it is important to ask the Research question: How does a person or group of people in an organization construct or reconstruct their content (D.V.) of social reality by their level of consciousness (I.V.)?

Previously,

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Previously, (20)

Previously,