Month: October 2020

We all have had a moment where we desperately needed to go to bed but for some reason, your brain tells you to think about that one moment in your past that still makes you cringe to this day. This is what happened to me a couple years ago, but oddly enough I did not cringe. Instead, I was hit with a wave of emotions and enlightenment. I have lived my whole life not as a lie but close to it. I believe an article written by Saylor Academy hit the nail right on the head when explaining Face Management theory. Face Management Theory “acknowledges that individuals are concerned about how others perceive them.” This was the lie but not a lie that I was living until recently. It can be classified as a lie, but not to another individual, but to myself. I was not true to who I was as an individual because I was always concerned with my public appearance and how others saw me rather than fulfilling my own destiny. I would act in certain ways depending on who I was around, dress differently, but more importantly, I was not expressing who I was because I was concerned that the image I expressed would not mix well. This lie caused me to appear happy and have a lot of friends, but the sad reality was I was lonely with zero true friends because I was not true to myself. I was too concerned with the Face rather than my own identity.

The article acknowledges that it is an assumption of Face Negotiation Theory “that people in all cultures work to maintain face in all situations [and]… the root of conflict is based on self-management on an individual and cultural level.” In a study done by Tomkins and McCarter in 1964, they discovered that there are only seven universal facial expressions. The expressions of anger, joy, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, and surprise are universal, but every other emotion felt depends on the culture surrounding the individual.  The main reoccurring factor is Face, or “the projected image of one’s self in a relational situation”(436). This theory acknowledges that different cultures have different facework or  “specific verbal and nonverbal messages that help to maintain and restore face loss and to uphold and honor the face gain”(436). The connections are made that connect the type of culture to the type of face concern to the type of conflict style that would be used to manage the conflict. In cultures, Collectivistic culture, or when “people identify with a larger group that is responsible for providing care in exchange for the group loyalty” is the main source of belonging. They build loyalty to the group and depend more on the ‘us’ rather than the ‘I’.

For me, I went wrong in a couple of places. First and foremost my I was overly concerned with the Face. I deemed the projected image of self to be greater than my true self. This caused me to act differently depending on who I was around to best fit in. I am not proud of this but it has taught me how to get along with a more diverse group of individuals. As a direct result of bonding with different groups from different cultures, my knowledge about facework has multiplied. I am able to pick up on specific cues and nonverbals from different cultures and understand the difference when deciphering their meaning. I believe collectivistic culture played a major role, but I also believe that the role it played should have been less substantial than it actually was. Instead of being one of the leading factors, I should have focused a little more on the I or Me as the individual rather than putting more thought into us or Team if I may. In hindsight, it is obvious that I have been avoiding the battle within me for a long time. I withdrew from having this conversation because I did not want to openly discuss this concept with myself because I feared the fact that I did not truly have a definition of who I was as an individual, and relied too heavily on others to mold my personality. I had no self-image, but who knew that all I needed to do was admit to myself my faults and life would find a way to set me on the path of finding my own individuality.

Chris White spoke at a ted talk in April of 2019. The main message throughout his lecture was a culture within the workplace that can create the best employees. His address focuses on the protest that was held at Google because the workers were tired of “checking our identities and workplace values at the door.” Not everyone feels that comfortable at work where they can speak their mind and protest for what they believe in without feeling at risk for their job. Mr. White later goes into great detail about walkouts and how they used to be public and a major deal, know they happen on a daily basis, and often going unnoticed by others in the form of “checkouts” or when we go blank while at work. From an employer’s point of view, there are three things that can be done to minimize this, the first is to unblock communication. These walkouts and checkouts happen because people feel like they have been silenced and they feel the necessity that they have to be heard. The next step is to become responsive. It is never enough just to hear people out we need to listen and address the issues. Finally, one needs to aim higher. Chris White believes that the worker is “more than just the sum of our resumes”.

Chris White’s saying goes hand in hand with Geertz’s belief that “culture is not just another piece of the puzzle; it is the puzzle”(238).  When one wants to understand and attempt to build a culture they must first know about the “webs of significance, [and] the systems shared meaning”, which is the very definition of culture (238). This is important to understand in both situations because no matter how close-knit the culture is there will always be “subcultures and counterculture”(238). Geertz gives an example of the different departments within a workplace and how they have their rivalries. The salespeople call the accountants ‘bean counters’ while the accountants call the salespeople faster talkers. They belong to the same company and have the same goal, but there is still this division. This brings cultural performance into the equation, or the “very actions by which members constitute a reveal their culture to themselves and to others”(238).

When considering what it takes to create a thriving culture it becomes evident why the people working at Google decided to walk out. Besides the ingredients to Chris White’s arguments of suppressing the voices of their workers, the lack of response from higher management to problems that were brought in front of them, and lastly not aiming higher. These were the reasons that the walkout occurred in the first place. To be a good leader and to have people who are willing to follow you and listen to you, you first need to understand their needs and listen to what they need to be happy. At the end of the ted talk, Chris White said that the people are more than a combination of their resumes which relates directly to the culture being the puzzle. The puzzle is always multiple pieces, and once you solve these pieces it generates a clearer picture for one to enjoy. But instead, the pieces are the individual cultures, and only through uniting all of the different cultures within the company can the company redeem new light. Once this new light is seen it helps unify the subcultures and counterculture and disperse of those rivalries between accountants and salespeople. Overall bringing the cultural performance from an I to a We.

It is official, “the cat is out of the bag.” This saying is one that we all have been hearing for as long as people have been telling secrets. But it’s funny how once that bell is wrong it is impossible to unring it. When I was in the second grade my teacher Mrs. Serano taught us a valuable lesson. There were rumors going around the entire school that one girl kissed a boy behind a bush during recess. When a second grader here’s this it spreads faster than the wildfires in California, within the hour it was the topic of the playground. Once my teacher heard about the rumor, and having both of the kids in her class she figured the topic of secrets and rumors needed to be addressed. The next day there were tubes of toothpaste on everyone’s desk. We were all puzzled. She told us all to poke as many holes in the tube as we wanted and squeezed all of the minty freshness out onto paper towels. But what she said next caught all of us off guard. She said, “Now put all of the toothpaste back into the tube”. No one could figure out a way where this could be done. This essentially taught us Communication Privacy Management theory, as well as the importance of trusting who you tell your secrets to. The article To Reveal or Conceal: Using Communication Privacy Management Theory to Understand Disclosures goes into detail regarding when you should and should not share private information.

Communication privacy management theory (CPM) expresses the importance of privacy and how the right to control your own privacy is in your hands until you share with another individual. Private information is any “content of potential disclosures; information that can be owned”(146). This sensitive information is typically surrounded by a feeling that you have the right to own this information. In theory, this process is easygoing and should remain drama free. But it gets complicated when considering the collective privacy boundary or “an intersection of personal privacy boundaries of co-owners of private information, all of whom are responsible for the information”(149). This is crucial when you are communicating private information with your friends because they need to understand their own role in keeping the secrete. If your friend is a shareholder they are more committed to “handling private information according to the original privacy holders rules”(151). People tend to get themselves into trouble because they assume that all of their friends are shareholders disregarding the possibility that people are going to share the information with people who tell everyone.

Let’s face it, we all have those secrets that we do not want certain individuals to know. Whether it is that one thing you did in college that you mom can never know or even something that you did that was funny at the moment but you regret but know you are going to take it to the grave. This private information will always remain private as long as you do not tell a soul. But we are all humans, and people tend to witness these moments, so instead of trusting yourself to take this secret to the grave, you must trust the people who were also there. In the case above, regarding the young children kissing behind the bush, private information was shared with an individual who had no respect for privacy. This individual told one person who told another and the train continued until everyone knew. Their mistake was the fact that they assumed they were a stakeholder, but in reality, they did not deserve to share that information, they should have been a shareholder. When word got out deliberate confidant people sought out to find what everyone was talking about just to say that they knew what happened behind the bush. In hindsight, only two people should have known what happened but one individual told one person they believed they could trust. It just goes to show how once the cat is out of the bag, the individuals who possess this new-found knowledge can either listen to take the role of a shareholder or act against their wishes. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is impossible to put the cat back into the bag.

At this point in our life, we have all worked in groups in one shape or form. Whether it is for a group project for your least favorite class, or working in your dream job to accomplish a life-changing project. Either way, you must bond with your group. Now picture this, you took charge of the group either as a leader or even a boss. Is it better to force the group to establish strong ties or to let them continue their actions and let the group decide what ties are going to be established? Personally, my boss thought that forcing all the co-workers to have strong ties would be most beneficial. Although scholars can see benefits from strong ties, this instance it held the team back from reaching our full potential. Here is why weak ties can be more important to group health than forcing the development of strong ties. Ian Leslie wrote an article that shows the importance of weak ties and how they can boost happiness and create a greater sense of belonging.

Caroline Haythornthwaite focused her studies on Media Multiplexity or the understanding that “Strongly tied pairs use more media to sustain their relationships than weakly tied pairs” (161).  The tie strength is the “degree of connection between people determined by the amount of time spent together, emotional intensity and intimacy”(161). A strong tie is essentially when people invest a significant portion of their time and energy to a specific bond. In addition, a weak tie is like a friend we see from time to time that we have only met once or twice and occasionally wave. Although an individual needs strong ties for good friends and romantic partners, all of their ties do not need to share this same level of involvement. Ian Leslie believes that “by engaging in a wide variety of conversations with weak ties people can learn about how to cope with the various difficulties of life”. Although strong ties can create deeper relationships, forcing these ties make individuals burn out

Strong ties are meant for only a select few people in your life. Personally, I believe these ties should remain for the individuals you truly care about in your life like your family, close friends, and romantic partners. In the case above, my boss thought that the closer the tie between the group would be beneficial, and in many ways, I agree with him. A group with a stronger tie can lead to the group working more efficiently, and work better with one another. But in this case, it is like trying to hold a boulder from falling off of a cliff with a thin rope. The rope can hold this weight for only so long, but inevitably the rope is going to break causing the boulder to roll uncontrollably down the cliff. Strong ties take a lot of energy to keep and actually takes a significant amount of effort from all parties involved to keep strong. Forcing this tie caused the rope to fray and no one in the group had the strength to keep it all together. Our group fell apart. In hindsight, if the boss never forced these ties instead let us figure out who we wanted to be close with and who we wanted to keep on the outside of our circle, I believe the group would have been stronger. I know the idea of weak ties making a group stronger sounds weird, but remaining the strong ties that very few individuals wanted made the group grow apart from each other.

Why your ‘weak-tie’ friendships may mean more than you think