I appreciate the fact that people still can share some values and morals. The chapter refers to very severe morality problems which of course everyone can agree as being insane and wrong, but I hope that people can agree where the line of morality is crossed. As this world continues to get worse and worse hopefully people will not begin to cross more lines of morality. I am grateful that story tellers and writers usually have the bad guy caught and the good guy victorious. Call me naive, but that is the only way I usually will like the story I am receiving.
In regards to my emphasis' of business management and communication I found it interesting when the author talked about sitting at the front of a movie theater and not watching the movie but turning and watching the audience. Simultaneously they will have the same reaction if what they are viewing they find to be enjoyable. I wonder if there is more factors involved then just the quality of the movie? Even if someone doesn't like the movie, when everybody else in the theater seemingly shows approval will they also show approval in fear of being the outcast? Is it better to discuss things in large or small groups? How do you create an environment where your employees feel comfortable enough to discuss things openly and without fearing of being judged by their co-workers?
I appreciate your question of how to create an environment where employees can be open and share their thoughts and not feel like they are going to be judged. You mentioned the part of the book about an audience watching a good movie. It has always been amazing to me to witness the effects of people gathering together. People almost always laugh harder when watching a comedy with other people as opposed to by themselves. There is a great power when groups are created. Also at the same time there are troubles including things like group think and spiral of silence theory, where a few people express opinions and everyone else follows blindly. A great way I have heard to break up those problems is by doing one on one interviews and ask how they feel about certain things. This is something small that does not take care of the entire problem, but it does give people a chance to say their opinions out loud. Oddly enough once someone has said it out loud to a co-worker it is easier for them to do it again in a large group context.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that part of your research questions is about the difference between large or small groups. It would be an interesting component to study. Looking at it from our evolutionary "core" subconscious aspect of it. In small groups accountability is easily identified to each member of the group, and one is less-likely to go unnoticed, or neglected. However a larger group is strong in numbers. In the workplace setting, I would assume that small groups would be a better place to discuss sensitive information because of the accountability of each member, they are more likely to be more emotionally involved.
ReplyDeleteThere will always be a group bias. At least that's what I learn in sociology. Everyone usually conforms to what the group thinks, unless there is no emotional attachment to the group. There usually always is though. I just think that morality is relative. Everyone has different interpretations of right and wrong. I think it's okay to eat pig because of my cultural background, Muslims don't believe in eating pork at all. I believe in abstinence before marriage, some people don't. Even things that almost everyone can agree on (like rape is bad), there will always be somebody who doesn't think so.
ReplyDeleteYour comments made me think about a podcast I was listening to the other day. It was about movies and they were talking about the experience of going to the theater versus watching a movie at home. The host of the show said that the fact that he is there in the room with a hundred other people makes the experience completely different for him and makes him feel like he is a part of something bigger.
ReplyDelete