Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Org Comm Theory Paper

Org Comm Theory Paper

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1|Likes:
Published by Tori Hernandez

More info:

Published by: Tori Hernandez on Oct 04, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





From Old to New: Communication TheoriesTori HernandezOrganizational Communication 305victoria.hernandez@qmail.queens.edu
Wake up, work, sleep, repeat. This use to be the average work day. When WorldWar II began, there was a need for manufactured products to be made at a fast pace.The job required no education but just someone to fill a position. The job was repetitive,standardized, and mundane. As time continued, there was a shift toward a different kindof work day. The idea of Human Relations came about, and idea where the employee’sopinion mattered along with the customer’s opinion. This changed the way communica-tion in organizations was viewed and approached.Older ideas of management included days that were “akin to a machine” (Zarem-ba, 2010, p. 33). Many theorists, including Max Weber, Henri Fayol, and Frederick Tay-lor, pioneered how classic management should work. Along with the idea of a machine,classic management theorists believe that “employees are parts of the machine”(Zaremba p. 34). According to Henri Fayol, there should be a clear division of work, likea hierarchy (Zaremba p. 38), Frederick Taylor believed that there is a systematic andscientific way to complete each task (Zaremba p. 34), and Max Weber believed in aclosed system of communication and a defined hierarchy “comprised of a stable order ofauthority” (Zaremba p. 41). All of these theorists believed that the best way to work anorganization was to have the central leader and let the employees follow behind. Theseclassical theorist believed that personal life should stay personal and that the company
is more important than the worker (Zaremba p.41). This way the employees’ focus wastheir job and nothing else while they were at work. An example of a standardized and re-placeable workplace would be McDonalds. McDonalds’ employees are considered “re-placeable” because anyone can be trained to work the cash register. There is no priorschooling or education needed in order to fulfill the job requirements; if an employee isnot happy working at McDonalds, managers have no trouble finding someone to replacehim or her. To McDonalds and other big cooperations, employees are expendable sothere is no need to make sure they are all happy all the time.A shift in looking at employees differently began in 1924 when a series of studiesbegan “to test certain principles of classical theory” (Zaremba p.42). The purpose was tochange different factors in employees’ work environments to see if productivity wouldchange. There were four different variables that the researches changed, which includ-ed lighting, work conditions, interviews with the employees, and communication be-tween workers (Zaremba p.42-43). It was proved that as lighting was increased that pro-ductivity increased, however, incentives like pay and coffee breaks did not have an af-fect on productivity. When employees were able to “vent” while in interviews, re-searchers found that the employees seemed “happier” (Zaremba p. 42-43). These stud-

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->