Julia Seargeant

Dr. Stephanie Bor

COMM 2170
April 29, 2015
RE: Self-Reflection Analysis of the Course
This was an interesting course for me. I enjoyed it a great deal more than I thought I would and
furthermore, I found the material to be real-world applicable despite its rather outdated
publication. I think perhaps that is because as much as organizational structure has evolved, it
has also stayed the same in many respects. Certainly there are aspects to business which have
changed, especially with the demands of technology, but human nature does not change so
easily. What I found most illuminating was the discoveries I made about myself. Some things I
definitely knew and others I did not. For example, as much as I thought I was of the modern
management persuasion, I realized there are a few aspects of classical management that I
believe have merit even today. I came to understand that the best success I can have as an
employee is in comprehending my organizational approach.
The assignment I enjoyed the most from this class was the fourth discussion (which follows).
This particular discussion posting was about an organizations internal subsystems and how
these systems affect the culture of the organization. It was fascinating to me to learn just how
much both internal and external environments influence the thriving and/or surviving of a
company.
Discussion 4
#1. Review the sections of your text that describe "subsystems" and "Implications of systems
school"(pp. 47-8). Also read case study #2, "Employee Layoffs," p. 125-7 in your text.
For this lesson, we will focus only on West Metro's internal communication systems. Instead of
answering the questions printed in your text, we'll analyze West Metro Hospital in terms of
systems theory, specifically its subsystems, or internal communication. We'll analyze
its suprasystems in a later unit [lesson 13] when we discuss "external communication."
1a. System goals versus subsystem goals (answer all four parts)
What are some of the system goals of West Metro Hospital (that is, the goals of the
hospital as a whole)? HINT: You will also find information that is relevant to this
question on the Lesson 4 Canvas Readings.)

There does not appear to be any cohesive set of goals for the organization on the whole. Based
on our reading, one could surmise that this organizations goal is to adapt for survival (Lesson 4
Canvas Readings) since the only objective that is conveyed is that upper management needs to
reduce hospital expenditures and has decided to do so by reducing staff.
In your own words, define the term "subsystem." Identify some of the various
subsystems (departments) of West Metro.
A subsystem, in simplest terms, is a department or division of an organization. In the case of
West Metro Hospital, some of the subsystems identified are: nurses, nursing managers,
executives, personnel director (HR), public relations director, and a communications/labor
relations consultant.
What are the goals of each of these subsystems? Do the goals of the subsystems and
the overall system compete with each other, or all they all harmonious? Why?
The goals for each of the subsystems is not only entirely different from one another, but from
the organization as a whole. The subsystem of the 5th floor staff, for example, is completely at
odds with management and in competition as evidenced by the announcement about a
fund to support those hurt by the decision.

How can an organization survive when its subsystems have competing goals?
I am not certain an organization can survive with competing goals. An option is to bring the
employees objectives in line with the organizations goals so that they become cohesive.
However, that can potentially take a significant amount of time without peer influence and
horizontal communication. Lately it seems like the approach most organizations adopt is to
simply replace the employee with someone willing to do more for less.
1b. Internal communication (answer all three parts)
To what degree are West Metro's subsystems and the entire system aware of each
other's goals (i.e., in systems terminology, is there adequate feedback)?
The internal communication for West Metro was essentially non-existent. Not only were they
not aware of each others goals, but not even minimal communication was attempted in any
direction upward, downward or even horizontally for that matter. Because there was no

communication, there could not be appropriate feedback. Presenting the executives with the
decision and plan 2 days prior to its implementation was a recipe for disaster.
How could West Metro improve its internal communication (feedback among the
subsystems and between each subsystem and top level management)? Be very
specific. Cite ideas from this lesson. Illustrate with examples from the case study.
First of all, I think the executives should have not only been in the meeting, they should have
been conducting the meeting. Outlining to the rest of the management personnel the
reasoning behind the decision would have fostered at least their understanding, if not over all
support. This would also have allowed feedback to take place from the very beginning. Allowing
those impacted most by the determination to have a voice and present some other options
would have helped get them on board with the decision rather than being dictated to by stuffy
executives. In addition to feedback and possible brainstorming of other solutions, the very
minimum that should have been accomplished other than a plan everyone had a part in
deciding is that individual departments could have been assigned tasks in the joint meeting.
This way they would be accountable to the other departments and/or available for assistance if
the need arose.
Additionally, in the joint meeting, it could have been agreed upon how much to communicate
to the other employees providing necessary but limited information about what was
happening. Or, even possibly holding individual department meetings to communicate the goal
of the hospital and see what solutions other employees could present. The more people who
can be involved in the process, the more creative the solution and even more solutions from
which to choose. Another advantage to this approach would have nipped the rumors in the bud
before they even began.
Assuming that West Metro had improved its internal communication, suggest ways
in which varying perceptions and priorities might be resolved (i.e., in systems
terminology, how could West Metro adapt to the feedback?)
Well, adopting the feedback model of communication, it would have realized the need for a
continuous exchange of information constant communication. Send a message, receive
feedback and adjust. I think practicing this on itself in the subsystem capacity, provides greater
ability to make appropriate adjustments when it eventually takes suprasystems into account.
Certainly the dimensions of the organization should be examined and evaluated revised if
necessary. Adopting complexity, formalization and/or centralization (132-133) in whole or in
any part would be advantageous in improving internal communications; remembering of course

that an organization is a culture an entity or being onto itself and as such change is inevitable.
Retaining fluidity during transition or adaptation will increase its survivability which is the
ultimate objective of any organization. (Lesson 4 Canvas Readings)