Reflection 3

Gideon Kunda´s book, The Engineering Culture (2006) is an anthropological field study where he is studying the culture in the high-tech company “Tech”. Tech is a well established company in the forefront of high technology in the early 1990s and is committed to recruiting students with top grades from high-ranked universities in USA. The book aims to describe the normative control from a different angle than the previous organization theory. The universal starting point of the normative control shows that control affect members from the organization purpose and ignores the subjectivity of sub cultural groups. Thus, the employees' inner drive is closely linked to the organization's overall objectives and is therefore in the organization's best without coercion.

In the book Kunda shows that there are contradictions to the theoretical description of normative control. He shows that there is not always connectedness between the organization and its members. Kunda mean that member’s role is distanced from the organization among members at the lower level of the hierarchical structure. The members on these levels are more inclined to criticize the culture and question norms and values, while members higher up in the hierarchy tend to be more internalized in the culture. 

Kunda mean that the members are not driven by loyalty; membership and satisfaction of work, instead the members tend over dramatize their roles. The culture and interaction rather take form as a political power struggle between the members that tries to fit in to the structure and to climb higher in the hierarchy. The members strive to climb the structure in a way that seeks affiliation and acceptance within the company. Tech supports members as long as they doing right, but let members be personal liable when they fail, “Tech takes care of those who take care of themselves” (Kunda, 2006, p. 20). The ambition is thus working to reach the top and become a part of the organization with fear of exclusion and failure. The book illustrates distressed people with bad health, alcohol problems and suicidal tendencies. The normative control in Tech seems to bring some competition to the company but how far would it go? 

I think Kunda illustrates an interesting standing point in his way of presenting the reality related to the previous assumptions about normative control. He shows a distance in affects between the physical world and what the theory has given us. He makes difference between culture that the management can affect and the culture that the members internalize. I think the differences are important to understand and don’t take the rituals and the pictures of culture for granted. The management in a company can do whatever they like to control their employees but cannot guarantee that the employees are associated with the culture fully. There will always be groups that wouldn’t internalize the culture. In this case only the top segment of the organization has internalized the culture, which is an interesting discovery, than it probably those who developed the normative control within the organization.  

Reflection 2 - Why work doesn´t happen at work (TED talk by Jason Fried)

Jason Fried discusses, in his TED talk, why employees don’t tend to be productive at work within the work time. Companies build up places where the work is aim to happen. Fried argue about the exclusivity of every individual’s ability to concentrate and get things done, which don’t always have to be at the work office. I agree with him in this part, there are many distractions that affect the productivity of the daily work.  But the whole idea have made me fragmented, there is always pros and cons about this kind of topic. Play with the thought about none-office companies.

Cons

The individual – The employees that appreciate working at other locations or other times can be left out. The other colleagues forgets about the person and the person doesn’t become a part of the group. This can lead to lack of the team spirit within the company.

The Counterparts –There are some norms within the business industry that requires availability of the counterpart when business is done. If all employees would make their on schedule there may be a risk that the company couldn’t be available for the suppliers and customers.

The Company - I think Fried forgets something important about having many people at the same place in the same time, the interaction. Interaction between people can contribute fast and necessary decision making. There are decisions that are urgent and problem-solving extending over several different areas of work within the company.

Pros

The individual – The employees can do their work on chord and then save valuable time to do other things to improve theirselves. The individual can than choose to do the work whenever or wherever he/she want. This result in a more productive day and hours can be saved instead of losing this on disturbances.

The Counterparts – If employees like to work at different times of the day the counterpart can utilize the services of the company. The company then can improve the availability and also the customer service.

The Company – The companies get more flexible and hopefully more productive when they let employees decide when and where by themselves. Save time and money by don’t let the employees distract each other.

Of course there is things that don’t are urgent and problem-solving that can be solved apart from others. But to be a part of the company I think that knowing your colleagues is a good thing.  I see the company like a cycle that needs every part to build a entirety. That’s why I think the distance between workers should not be every day but there may be some day of the week that workers are allowed to work where ever and whenever they want. 

 

Reference

http://www.ted.com/talks/jason_fried_why_work_doesn_t_happen_at_work

The Year of the Paywall

English Reflection 1 – The Year of the Paywall

When I read the article my first thought was why anyone doesn’t want to pay for their newspapers. It doesn’t matter if it is on your computer, phone or in your hand. But when I gave it a second thought I realized that me myself is very conservative about this kind of stuff. I rather read the newspaper holding it in a paper copy than scrolling it on the computer or in my phone. But as the society changes so does the way we modify our habits and the people adjust to it. It’s about the need of information, you can be updated all the time and don’t have to wait to the next issue of the paper to get the latest new.

I think the digital newspaper is a great way to spread the news of today. The availability to the readers that now can read the morning news on their way to work, instead at the breakfast table to save time and keep updated all the time.  It seems also be a huge benefit for the companies in the newspaper business, in reducing the paper consumptions and the print costs. 

But from where comes the revenues? In the end someone has to pay for the free lunch and when the newspaper business tends to be eradicated, these companies have to do something about it. So why don’t charge the users for the services they offer, like any other business does? I think the Paywalls phenomenon isn’t such bad thing. The newspapers have just got another shape, why shouldn’t costumers pay for the benefits they received.