To practice principles of ethical communication, you must seek to understand and implement behavior that aligns with ethical communication standards such as honesty, respect, or mutual understanding. You practice ethical communication at the point in which you ask yourself if you are treating others with kindness, dignity, and respect. To practice ethical communication, it is not necessary to be perfect, but it is necessary to learn from your mistakes. I attach a report from my organizational communication class, COM 300, where my team analyzes our group decision-making process and behavior in planning a social justice event about sexual assault awareness. In the paper, we acknowledge that, at first, we did not practice ethical communication in our group. We state that uncertainty within our group contributed to a cycle of distrust we did not create an ethical and honest environment. The lack of predictability within our group caused a cycle of distrust and questionable actions of members. It was apparent that our group was unable to create an open and communicative environment, which prevented us from making ethical, cohesive decisions. By calling out our mistakes as a group, we practice ethical communication because we critiqued our actions in an honest and respectful way in an effort to improve our behavior.
Advocacy Event: Sexual Assault
COM 300-01 Organizational Communication
Dr. Sara Baker
Southern Connecticut State University
Allison Andrade, Shi Atkins, Nayda Caban Garcia, Paxton Kowalski, Rebecca Kuzmich, Kennan Martin, Quashante’ Ollivierre, Jaak Rakfeldt, Stephanie Turcotte, Amani Ward, Eric Williams, Devon Wrinn
Sexual assault is a violent crime in which the offender seeks power by taking away someone else's power and control. Around college campuses especially for freshman, sexual assault is something that not many people know about or understand how serious it is. Our group figured that it is on us to stop sexual assault, and education is key when talking about sexual assault. In the beginning of the semester, we worked on a sexual assault event that was going to take place in the student center, instead we changed gears and decided to work on a proposal that consisted of what the sexual assault awareness event would entail. Weick’s theory of organizing can be applied to our advocacy team’s process of organizing a social justice event because the process was complex and involved using communication cycles and assembly rules to reduce unpredictability in the information environment.
We wanted to inform Southern's community about sexual assault and its effects, inform students about the resources available on campus to help individuals deal with sexual assault. We also wanted to inspire students who have experienced sexual assault to seek supportive help by resources on campus, as well as plan logistics of our solution to the best of our ability so they can be implemented in the future. The purpose of this paper is to apply Weick's theory of organizing and the context of social justice and social change through our teams organizing process. This paper discusses how our group used Weick’s theory throughout our project, and the challenges we were faced with but overcame.
Karl Weick created his theory of organizing rooted in the idea that an organizations exist in an environment. This environment is not only a physical space, but also an information environment. Individuals in the organization create this information environment through the process of enactment. An information environment can change as different members perceive organizational goals and information differently. These varied interpretations make interaction and the process of organizing confusing and complex for organizational members. To better understand and reduce unknowns within the enacted environment, organizations use assembly rules and communication cycles (Miller, 2015).
At the beginning of the semester, we began our first meeting by saying our name, our year, concentration, and something we like to do. This opening to our first meeting was meant to introduce ourselves but it also served to resolve who we were going to work with. When we began our work on the sexual assault advocacy project, there was a high level of unpredictability in the enacted information environment. For example, we brainstormed many ideas for what our project could be, but we had no clear direction. It was quite difficult to make any progress with this information because there were no roles in the group yet besides team leaders, and there were many scheduling conflicts. This problem began to resolve when we created subgroups. To organize who did what and focus our efforts, we divided into three smaller groups regarding research, outreach, and promotion. We also resolved equivocality by taking minutes and setting specific dates and times for when we wanted tasks done in the group. All this information was sent out as an email by a group member to the rest of the group. These are both examples of our group using assembly rules to minimize the confusion while we worked on our project. Assembly rules are the guidelines and formats that organizations use to limit confusion and simplify communication.
Central to Karl Weick’s theory of organizing is reducing the unpredictability ingrained in enacted information environments. Members must communicate to organize and make sense of the information environment. For our advocacy project, our goal was to organize an event that spread awareness of sexual assault. Through our organizing of this event, we can point to equivocality and sensemaking in Weick’s theory of organizing to help explain the processes taking place.
In Organizational Communication: Approaches and Processes author Katherine Miller defines equivocality as, “the unpredictability that is inherent in the information environment of an organization,” (Miller 2015). In the beginning of our organizing, equivocality was high. Our group members did not fully understand our topic of sexual assault, what we would do for our event, when we would be able to work on the event together, when the event would be, or how we would work together to put on a successful event. Members did not know what their individual roles would be in the group or what tasks they would do to facilitate the event. The course the group would take was dependent on the communication of the group to organize. Our team needed to communicate to reduce these unknowns through a process called sensemaking. According to Weick, sensemaking is “reducing equivocality in an enacted environment,” (Miller 2015). In other words, sensemaking is what group members did to move towards our goal of hosting an advocacy event.
For example, group members researched our topic of sexual assault, brainstormed what we wanted our event to include, and set tasks for ourselves to progress towards our goal. These selected patterns of sensemaking proved to be ineffective for our group in the time we had. As we all held this information with slightly different meanings, the information environment was complex, and we did not communicate effectively or make sense enough to host our event on the selected date.
We then moved towards creating a proposal of the event instead which increased equivocality again. We had to figure out what a proposal was and how we would create a proposal for the event. Ultimately, our event proposal was approved, and we were able to move forward. Through the entire process, our group faced equivocality in our information environment that would only be reduced with effective patterns of sensemaking through our communication.
As stated above, the communication within the group was complex because we had more than the favorable number of group members. Due to the large group we had differing communication styles, thought processes, personalities, attitudes, relationships, and experiences or lack of group experiences. According to Miller (2015), “through communication cycles, organizational members introduce and react ideas that help to make sense of equivocal environment.” Once the sensemaking process has been proven effective, a result proposed by Weick is a retention process, in which rules and cycles are saved for future organizational use.
Unfortunately, the original plan to host an event backfired and was cancelled. Prior to changing our course of action from an event to a proposal, the communication climate was divided. The communication was solely between the members within the subgroups, instead of it being interdependent.
Another factor that lead to out weak communication was that we did not create an ethical and honest environment. The lack of predictability within our group causes a cycle of distrust, secret conversations, and questionable actions of members. It was apparent that our group was unable to create clarity in our environment, which prevented us from making effective cohesive decisions.
After we knew that our event was cancelled, our group realized that we had to change our communication style. The first step towards doing so was resorting to a traditional medium for communicating. In other words, we communicated through email. When a new medium was established, we then used that to list project proposals.
Shi sent out the first email with possible ideas for the new proposal. After she had sent it out, Kennan responded with feedback on the ideas, and suggested a vote. Voting was one of the methods the group had used previously when choosing the type of event to host for social Justice month. The group continued with this method when deciding on the project proposal, which proved to be effective. Since there were twelve of us, majority rule was the right method. The use of email made it easier for people to get clarity on decisions.
Before we divided into subgroups, communication remained primarily within the groupme. Due to a lack of interdependent communication causing high equivocality, we decided to have one person type up each subgroup assigned task, deadlines for completion, and the members in each subgroup, then send it to everyone in one mass email message. The communication cycle that was altered went from an environment of miscommunication to interdependent communication, which made the process of creating the proposal smoother with less confusion.
Our group was overall extremely vocal; everyone was able to voice their opinions and ideas. While sometimes our communication methods were not as effective as we had wished for, we were still able to maintain contact in a way that everyone could contribute if they wanted to. Sometimes, in group settings group members can overpower one another, and not everyone feels comfortable sharing their thoughts. Group members can often be more vocal than others and ultimately take over the conversation. However, this was not the case for our group. There were not any group members who took control of the conversation. While some talked more than others, everyone was given the opportunity to contribute. This was done from the beginning, so it set the tone for our group’s communication patterns.
A second point that worked well for our group was that everyone wanted to contribute. Everyone always shared their ideas they had for our project. For example, when we first gathered as a team before we split up into subcommittees, we were brainstorming possible events that could work well for our topic, and everyone in the group stated something that they thought could work well to execute our project. We always had multiple ideas, so there was not a dull moment within our team. Although we had problems executing and delivering our event, this is one aspect of organizing that worked well for everyone. There was always a task at hand, and we were able to prioritize them. We all made decisions that would best benefit everyone and not just one person.
A third strength present in the group dynamic was our ability to deal with conflict. There was a great deal of conflict amongst group members over group communication and differences of opinions. The conflict surrounded how our group might accomplish holding a successful event focusing on sexual assault awareness. During the first month of school, many group members felt that ideas were brought up but no direction was taken. Conflict arose again in a later meeting because of a lack of progress towards the event. In the second month, conflict came in the form of members communication on groupme, a texting application. Dr. Baker was sought out for advice on how to deal with the conflict of only certain group members communicating. The groupme conflict hindered progress and further divided the group more than it already was. After the project was taken away, there was conflict in regards to how a proper proposal was supposed to be completed. In the final weeks of the project, the group realized that no matter how much conflict occurred, to receive good grades, we had learned from our conflict. Instead of repeating it, group members organized and came up with deadlines. The final deadlines were crucial in reducing uncertainty some members had about the final proposal. Without having to be vocal, each member having a say, and adapting to group conflict, the group's ability to organize and perform would be impossible.
One challenge that we were able to overcome was when we figured out that we were not going to be able to execute our event. After learning this, we all maintained our composure. Instead of being upset with each other and blaming one another we were able to adapt and do the alternative option which was create a proposal. When we found out that we could create the proposal, we handled the situation well and figured out our next steps to make our proposal and finish the project. At this point, we communicated effectively in our subcommittees and the larger group. Everyone took on a task within the proposal, presentation, and paper that made our proposal for the sexual assault project smoother.
A second challenge the group faced was finding a productive way of communicating with there being twelve students. However, as a group the idea of one representative from each subgroup in charge of weekly communication could have enhanced our ability to progress at a faster rate. Certain members had difficulty accepting direction given by other members who were not identified as the team’s leaders for no apparent reason besides the fact that the person did not have a title. With the lack of communication, a form of structure and hierarchy was needed in the group to push communication. This challenge was felt throughout the entire process of planning the event. The proposal helped to refresh and refocus our group.
As an entire group we were able to come to the consensus that sensemaking is a group process and that it is not just about one person taking the role and configuring everything the group needs to get done but everyone needs to work together. Everyone must contribute and take on a task. The entire process involved a lot of communication, time, and patience. These are three traits that every group should practice, creating an efficient process for everyone. It is one of the most difficult tasks the group most overcome, but with communication, time, and patience we concluded that a large group can achieve its goals.
Something else we were able to learn was to be flexible and trust the process. Our original plan when starting this project was to plan and fully execute an event from start to finish. Towards the end of our project, we came to the realization that holding an event was not a feasible idea. We had to simultaneously shift the trajectory of our project while still utilizing all the work that we had accomplished thus far. While this was an unexpected change for our group, we were able to adjust to our new plan. Ultimately, we were able to create a proposal for a future event that incorporated all the work that we had completed prior. Our group learned to be flexible with one another and our goals, and in the end, we were successful.
In conclusion, the sexual assault group wanted to inform the Southern Connecticut State University community of the issue of sexual assault. In the process of organizing, we learned from each other as a group along with educating ourselves on how to begin a proposal project for future classes to possibly hold a successful event. This project helped us understand how Weick’s theory of organizing was important for the group to be able to be work together successfully and get tasks done. Getting important tasks done on time and in a professional manner took discipline and commitment from every single member of the group. Although the group had difficulty when it came to communicating and settling on certain ideas that were going to be successful to create a proposal, we were able to find creative solutions to make decisions. Solutions included voting for ideas as a group, using our resources, emailing each other, using Dr. Baker to help communication flow in a professional manner, and using the technology that we have such as computers and cellphones. Another important resource that we used was VPAS to gain knowledge of the topic. It is valid to conclude that the group came together and put our knowledge and skills together for group success. Although it was clear that we had communication difficulties within the group, all members were able to conduct themselves in a way that was conducive for our success in organizing an event to spread awareness of sexual assault. Overall, each member proved to be professional by accepting individual thoughts and ideas. Each member has worked hard to contribute towards a successful proposal while navigating through the complex process of organizing.
As a result of doing the advocacy project, we were able to connect our takeaways to the communication departmental learning outcomes. The first learning outcome of the communication department is to be able to demonstrate understanding of the discipline. As communication majors, something we have always learned is to be aware of what is going on in our society by recognizing current issues and trends. We demonstrated our understanding of the communication discipline by recognizing sexual assault is a social justice issue, so for our project we wanted to educate students on the issue and provide them with information for the resources provided at southern to help people who may have been victims of sexual assault. The next learning outcome we realized we demonstrated from the communication department is creative and critical thinking. As a group, we were able to think of creative events to incorporate into our project like the poetry slam, hand-painting pledge singing, and cup of tea. We came up with these events as fun ways to make students more aware of our issue. The third learning outcome we were able to demonstrate from our department is performance skills. We demonstrated this skill by finding a way to communicate verbally and non-verbally as a group; in the beginning, communicating between twelve members was hard, but once we converted to communicating through email and in person, our communication improved. The last learning outcome we achieved is personal and professional identity. We all worked together professionally by completing our work in a timely manner and remaining respectful of our group members. Our advocacy project shows our ability to demonstrate communication departmental learning outcomes.
Pictured is the flyer made by the promotion group, informing students of the Sexual Assault Awareness Event that would have been held on campus.
Work Cited
Miller, K. (2015). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.