Blog # 8 - Final blog, and thoughts about Comm 324

Hard to believe that week 10 is already upon us all!

Our final blog post is to reflect upon the concepts and knowledge that we learned in Comm 324 this spring, while choosing a topic that directly interested us and going into a bit more depth about it.

While I found myself very interested in several topics brought up over the course of the term, conflict was one that interested me the most. Although I felt we didn't spend as much time on it as I would have liked to (seemingly due to time constraints), I still learned a lot from studying it in Comm 324, specifically learning to identify and address it from an academic point of view.

I feel that conflict in the workplace can be extremely unnerving, frustrating, and difficult to overcome. Over my working career since I was a freshman in high school (spanning 8 or 9 different jobs), I have been in several situations in just about every job I've had where I've had to deal with conflict - mostly with unruly coworkers or supervisors. In Comm 324, we learned that conflict can be a good or a bad thing, but it mostly depends on how the conflict is managed. I have definitely experienced both sides of conflict management - from the conflict being positive and directly generating creativity and new ways to solve problems, to the conflict being negative and not quite getting resolved, causing a more frustrating situation later down the road.

As an example, when I worked at a warehouse for a commercial paper company in Portland as a freshman in high school, I worked under a supervisor that constantly degraded my work ethic and made it a point to single out every minor and major mistake I would make. Something as simple as putting spiral notebooks into a box, and forgetting to put one piece of stock printer paper in between each spiral so that the spirals wouldn't mark each other. This guy would lay into me every single time I made any mistake. Let it be known this was my first official job I ever had and the guy knew it. Finally I had enough, and decided to take him aside and tell him personally that he was over-managing me. I told him that he acted like he was trying to be a hard-ass when it wasn't needed. I asked that he treat me with the same respect as he treated the regulars at the company, with whom he seemed to have good relationships with. He came to his senses, apologized, and we got along fine afterwards. After that moment in time I have never had a problem telling a supervisor that he/she is over-managing my work. It wasn't easy, and I was scared out of my mind when I did it. But I knew that if I hadn't done it, he would have continued to walk over me.

In class we learned that the best way to deal with conflict was to communicate in a clear way that makes sense, and make sure to cite specific feedback pertaining to the issue, addressing inappropriate behavior in valence, timeliness, specificity, frequency, and sensitivity. This reminds me back to my example above, where I felt as though I handled the situation fairly well for a 15 year old at his first job. I attempted to address my supervisor's behavior - like Dave Leding told us to in his guest lecture - but I also slightly attacked him as a person saying he was being a "hard-ass", probably not the best thing to do to someone who is your supervisor. At one point, you can get so frustrated that the situation seems beyond your control. That being said, it never hurts to take a step back and take a deep breath, and try to come at the situation again with a clear, level head.

As I see where I can relate the topic of conflict from organizational communication to my past, I know that work conflicts will certainly be in my future as well. Not by choice, obviously, but I think that working in organizations will always present the possibility of conflicts of interest and other unforeseeable problems. I felt that this class adequately taught us how to identify and deal with conflict to a degree, and I will certainly take this knowledge with me into my future career. I think that presenting us with mock conflicts and having us navigate our way through them might have been an effective way of teaching this topic as well, and I recommend it for the future.

And that's a wrap for this term in Comm 324. Thanks for reading!

Blog #7 - Class Presentation from Dave Leding

In class last week, we had a guest speaker named Dave Leding who gave a lecture on his multitude of management experiences in the lumber, particleboard, and composites industry. Dave had a wealth of knowledge to share about organizational communication, backed up both from academic and work experience backgrounds. His talk focused strictly to management and how to make work productive (where previous managers have gone wrong and his approach to management), leadership systems and styles, motivation, tools, and "war stories": some of the more memorable moments of his career.

I found Dave's lecture to be highly informative and descriptive in term of solving managerial issues in organizational communication. He lectured us on several different methods to management such as the Lean Management strategy, Socio-Technical Systems, and the more traditional methods, while teaching us the pros and cons between them all. He provided examples of ideas from his own management that did work and ideas that were not so effective, even in one case leading to his termination. Even so, you could tell that Dave was a very humble person and that he really enjoyed what he did throughout his career and made it his intention to find the best out of every situation he could, even faced with some incredibly hard times.

One of the more notable examples I remembered from his talk was the nerf ball example. One day, when his work team wasn't exactly cooperating together, he stopped everyone from working, put them all in the same room, and gave them all a nerf ball and told them that they could throw it at  the person that was bothering them the most as a means of trying to get the group to release tension. Although it was a simple example, I thought that this was a creative way to release group tension without having it escalate any further. It really helped me understand via Dave's perspective that being a manager involves creativity in order to solve a problem - no problem is going to have one perfect solution. As a manager, you have to be willing to be creative, patient, and willing to go above and beyond the call of duty for your workers because only then will they respect you and trust you to be their manager and leader.

Another example that he used to promote team leadership was "I don't care if the cat is black or white, as long as it kills mice." I found this to be another simple yet effective saying to explain that it doesn't matter what walk of life someone comes from, if they get the job done and become a faithful and hard worker, that is all that matters in the end. I've found no different in my own experiences working - some of the hardest and most passionate workers I've met were people that I wouldn't have ever thought of to be that way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ubRzzirRKs

I found a video by a Youtube account named Scott Williams where he describes ten differences between being a leader and being a manager. He uses an acronym titled "BECC" - Believe, Encourage, Challenge, and Correct. As a leader, these four ideas are critically important to organizational communication. He also talked about how "leaders have followers". In order to be a successful leader, you must have a direction you want to go and followers that want to go that direction with you. I found it synonymous with Dave Leding's talk because I felt that a lot of the elements Dave described in his lecture were absolutely elements of being a leader, despite that he was titled "manager" for virtually all of his career. If I were able to ask him a question again, I'd ask him what his thoughts would be towards the differences of being a leader vs being a manager.

Overall I found his talk extremely enlightening and helpful. Dave provided many comical and serious real-world experiences that I was able to concretely relate to some organizational communication topics and ideas we've learned about in class the last couple of weeks.

Blog #6 - Supervisor-Subordinate and Peer Communication

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K95OlKIgrrw

I start out my blog this week with an example from NBC's Parks and Recreation, a comedy sitcom involving the lives of government workers in fictionalized Pawnee, Indiana. The scene depicts Ron Swanson, the Director of the Parks and Recreation department, giving his own personal thoughts on government and why he doesn't believe in it. Which is highly ironic, considering that he is the supervisor for the entire department. 

I use this example as a means of putting you, the viewer, in a hypothetical situation. Let's say Ron Swanson was your boss, and you were forced to work with him every single day. How do you think Ron's point of view and attitude about the work you both are required to perform would change your perception and your attitude about your workplace?

There are several factors that dictate relationships between subordinates and supervisors, including communication openness, upward distortion, and semantic information distance. This was described in lecture as the "Leader-Member Exchange Theory". 

Communication openness is the ability for supervisors and subordinates to both send and receive messages to each other in a respectful and open manner.  If this openness is hindered in any way, it can lead to upward distortion, which is the subordinate's tendency to distort information sent upward to the supervisor. Semantic information distance is the gap of understanding between a supervisor and his/her subordinate that exists due to the supervisor's and the subordinate's expectations on job duties and knowledge.

I can recall from personal experience that I am much more comfortable admitting to a mistake with a supervisor if I have a better overall relationship with the supervisor. It would lead to less upward distortion and an overall lower semantic information distance because I would be able to directly communicate and ask the information I will need to perform the job correctly without feeling nervous or anxious about asking. They say there are no dumb questions, but certainly I'd feel better about asking a question even if it was one I probably should know if I had a strong relationship with my supervisor. The worse the relationship, the higher the likelihood for a more closed relationship, increased upward distortion and a larger semantic information distance.

This leads to the topic of "Social Information Processing Theory", which theorizes that employee attitudes towards their job and workplace are socially constructed. This includes analyzing information received from other employees which leads to forming an opinion based on fellow employee's attitudes. 

Relating back to the Ron Swanson example, I recall having a fellow coworker when I worked at a local grocery store chain that was extremely pessimistic and overall very negative about his job, mainly because his own superiors did not put him in a position where he felt he could be successful without overworking and rushing to get everything done. It also so happened that the coworker was my supervisor. The sad matter of fact is that his griping turned out to be the very same experience that I had working under him. The list of tasks required for me to get done on a hourly basis were too timely, and led to me being very stressed about getting everything done on time. Although the store manager told us to not worry if we couldn't finish our jobs on time, it did not help me feel any different about not getting my work done on time. It ultimately led to me constructing my own opinion about my job and the workplace, which was not a very positive one.

The article we were asked to read for this week described ways to build positive workplace relationships, and included two main points: communicate roughly as much as possible, and rise above being a part of any office gossip. I wholeheartedly agree that these two ideas are critical to construction of a positive relationship between employees as well as a positive workplace overall. 

Gossip is not something that is entirely fun to be around because it usually involves one individual venting and complaining about another, or about an aspect of the job they dislike. It can ruin the relationship between you and the person your coworker is complaining about, as well as the relationship between you and the gossiper. Overall it's best to avoid and reduce it at all costs. 

Communication is the only way to create a positive relationship as well as a positive setting in the workplace, so don't be that naysayer that hates his job or doesn't like the people he/she works with. Who really wants to work with someone like that, anyway?

Blog #5 - Organizational Socialization and On-Boarding: Avoiding uncertainty

In my research for my blog post this week, I found a short but fairly comical video showing how NOT to go about the on-boarding process, also known as organizational socialization or introducing a new employee to a company:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwelYJLsF6U

I found that this short video included several ideas discussed in class and the text reading last week that are important when it comes to being socialized into a company as a new hire. I can relate these ideas to some of my experiences of what I went through prior to joining an organization and being on the job for the first time.

Firstly, the video depicts Millie, the new hire, coming into a work situation where she presumably doesn't know anything about the job that she's been hired for. Obviously, without having worked there before, its hard to know what to expect, especially on your first day. What we witnessed in the video was the encounter phase of socialization, where Millie actually comes in to join the organization. There are several types of uncertainty that play a role in a newcomer's first day of work at an organization and Millie showed examples of each.

The first type is called referent uncertainty, which is uncertainty of the specific tasks that the new employee is required to perform. Millie asking Frank what her job actually entailed was a prime example of that type of uncertainty. 

The second type is called appraisal uncertainty, or the ability of the new employee to perform those tasks. Obviously, poor Millie likely didn't feel that she could perform the tasks appropriately given that she hadn't been told what the tasks actually were. 

The third type is relational uncertainty, or the uncertainty that follows regarding the creation of connections and relationships with the new employee's boss and coworkers. Millie found the communication style with Frank rather unappealing, which I think is completely acceptable given that it was her first day on the job. Instead of introducing himself face-to-face, Frank opted to speak with her via personal message indirectly. Although for the purpose of comedic effect, the communication style exemplifies a mistake that likely many organizations make when introducing a new employee.

I have experienced several early-job situations where I was asked to perform tasks that I hadn't been properly trained for, let alone having any idea of how to actually perform the task. One such example involved the routine required when emptying a bottle-return machine, one of the main duties of my job at a local grocery store chain, which I was asked to do on my second or third day on the job by myself. Although I had watched another employee do it on my first day, I had watched him perform it on a machine that had a broken lock, which did not require a key. He did not explain to me that the other machines needed a specific key to unlock them. In addition, when you took the collection bins from the bottom of the machine, he had simply taken them to the loading bay and dumped them into the larger collection totes, which are categorized by recycle material (glass, plastic, aluminum). He had emptied the bins into the larger totes but didn't stack the totes using the hydraulic pallet jack, which is required when a tote gets filled. He didn't tell me that I could be asked to perform a hand-count of bottles and cans by a customer. 

Ultimately, this resulted in me screwing up my first experience doing the task myself. I went out to a machine that was reported to be not working, only to learn that the machine was locked. When the customer asked me to do a hand count of the bottles since the only glass machine was malfunctioning, I told him that we were not allowed to do hand counts. He got frustrated with me and left angrily, and I went back to the store and found a person in charge that gave me the key I needed to open the glass machine. After emptying the bins into a glass tote in the loading bay that was full, I returned to the store to perform my other tasks. The customer had complained to an assistant manager that I had refused to hand count his glass bottles, and after that I had to end up hand counting the bottles anyway. In addition, the next day I was asked why the glass tote was not stacked properly alongside the other totes. When I responded that I wasn't aware they had to be stacked a certain way, my supervisor told me that he had to go out to the loading bay and move the tote himself because it was in the way of a loading truck, which wasn't technically his job. This resulted in a negative conversation that made my first couple of days on the job rather disappointing. It was not a easy conversation to have so early in my career at this organization, and it resulted in uncertainty about the relationship between myself and my supervisor that easily could have been avoided if I had been properly informed of the particulars of my task. But it provides a great example of the kinds of uncertainty that can occur when a new employee joins an organization. 

Blog #4: Critical Approaches to Organizations

The Critical Approach very much involves the connections of power between employees. For example, perhaps the power and control that a manager may have over an assistant manager, or the power an assistant manager has over entry-level employees.

Critical approaches strive to identify and liberate "...workers from unnecessary restrictive traditions, ideologies, assumptions, power relations, identity formations... that inhibit or distort opportuntiies for autonomy, clarification of genuine needs and wants, and... greater and lasting satisfaction." This is the definition of emancipation from our Organizational Communication text, and is the main focus of the critical approach to organizational communication that we've discussed this last week in class.

I performed an interview with a close friend of mine who has worked for a very well-known pharmaceutical/grocery/cosmetics corporation for roughly 8 months. He asked that his name and the name of the organization be left out for this interview.

I asked him general questions pertaining to the structure of the organization as well as the structure of the store he works at. His title is a "service clerk", which is an entry-level position that works the floor restocking/restructuring shelves, performs janitorial work, participates in sales with customers, and effectively runs the cash registers at the front end of the store. There are several other entry-level employees in different departments of the store (cosmetics, photo, etc.) that are not technically his "subordinates", but there is such thing as "seniority". Seniority is used to rank equally-titled employees based on the duration of time the employee has worked at the store and the amount of training he/she has received. Since my friend has worked at this organization for almost 8 months, he feels that he has seniority over those that have just started in the last month or so, but ultimately under everyone else. His superiors include the inventory coordinator, the shift lead (someone given some managerial like powers such as overriding transactions, but not effectively a manager in title), the various assistant store managers, the executive assistant manager (EXA, or the assistant manager of assistant managers) and finally the store manager - all of which essentially have the ability to ask his help if needed.

Having gained this knowledge I asked him more in depth about the relationships he has with his coworkers, starting with his superiors. He told me that his relationships professionally are all strong, save for one assistant manager who consistently uses what he called "power trips" to get under the skin of employees. In his words, this particular assistant manager can be "particularly condescending, both directly aggressive and passive agressive to subordinates, and 'is an a**hole'". 

In one example, he said that the assistant manager has consistently used a condescending and annoyed tone over the store PA system to tell employees that he was not happy with something. In a separate example, the assistant manager asked him to press a button on his phone, which was the button for an automated message that asked for employees to come to the front to open another register. Technically if there are three or more customers in line, my friend is required to call for assistance, but as soon as the third person showed up in his line, the assistant manager in question immediately opened up another checkstand. When my friend pressed the button, the automated call for checkstand backup played over the intercom, and the assistant manager said "Good, I just wanted to make sure that it still worked" in a very nasty tone. He then proceeded to lecture my friend about how he needed to use the automated call more often, no matter what. My friend felt verbally abused by this particular assistant manager's tactics. 

As far as his subordinates and other coworkers, he said that their relationships are relatively strong but that he felt frustrated that there was a lack of communication surrounding when workers could leave at night. Commonly, he is asked to work a closing shift from 4:00 PM to 12:30 AM. The store closes at 12:00 and then the remainder of the time is spent closing the store down and making sure it is ready to be opened in the morning. He states that often, his coworkers will leave early - some due to understandable circumstances such as having to catch the bus (he has to catch a bus that leaves at 12:35AM to get home), so he understands that. That being said, there are some coworkers that are leaving early, to his knowledge, without a legitimate excuse. This generally leaves him short handed towards the end of the night and gives him more work to do, causing frustration because he isn't able to leave until that work gets finished.

I asked him then if he felt like he had a voice in the matter, and whether he felt able to approach a superior about this situation. He said that he felt like he could, but that he didn't want to disrupt the "harmony" or to instigate complaints towards his coworkers because getting what he wants ultimately wouldn't be worth getting several employees upset over it, in his mind. Despite having good professional relationships with the EXA and the store manager, he feels that their time is important and that it shouldn't "be wasted on such trivial matters".

I then asked about whether he has been able to contribute positively via communication to make his workplace more successful. He said that there was one instance where he learned how to get around a very annoying interaction with the checkout computer where customers are prompted to receive cash back with their debit or credit card purchase. Instead of having to back out of the entire transaction and have the customer swipe his/her card over again, he found a shortcut through the interface that resulted in a quicker checkout without having to have the customer reswipe the card. After this, he noticed that the store manager that he doesn't have a very good relationship with was dealing with a customer with that issue, and tried to explain the shortcut to him by showing it to him. The assistant manager scoffed and told him that his way wasn't any faster than the way they were instructed to complete the transaction - worse in fact. This made my friend frustrated and made him feel that he couldn't positively contribute to the workplace.

Ultimately this boils down to several factors relating to Critical Approaches that I read about in the text as well as saw in class. Firstly - the idea of hegemony plays a big role in my friend's relationship with his coworkers and the organization - in that he accepts his own frustrations for the good of "harmony" in his workplace. His superior, an assistant manager, controls him via outlandish uses of power that he has by means of being his superior (bureaucratic control), through means of simple control - explicit, direct exertion of authority in a condescending way.

When I asked if there were ways to improve the imbalance of power in his workplace between him and the assistant manager, he said essentially the same as he did before about his coworkers leaving early - that the store manager views her time as "valuable" and would likely listen to him but not carry out any kind of a foreseeable change. I feel that the relationship between the communicators here is disturbed because my friend does not feel able to tell his superiors about his frustrations, documenting a repeated violation of the ideal speech situation as described in lecture. This is an example of systematically distorted communication, and unfortunately will not likely yield any changes in the near future for my friend.

This organization does not sound quite like one that would be a joy to work for, and is synonymous with my experience working for a large corporate grocery chain whose name I've stated in a previous blog. I personally feel that the general trend is: the closer an organization is to being a part of the corporate world, the less malleable the organization is to change and ultimately the more difficult the emancipation of employees is going to be, simply on the basis that the rules and protocol are so strict that it doesn't allow for much change or innovation within the system. A Critical Approach is no doubt an important one to have when looking at organizational communication, but in some cases it may be lost on certain organizations. 

Blog #3: Organizational Culture at Market of Choice, Corvallis, OR

This week, I decided to observe the organizational culture at Market of Choice, one of the premiere grocery stores found in Corvallis, OR.

We were asked to observe the culture at a workplace for thirty minutes, and look for five different aspects that help make up culture of an organization. My observations were as follows:

1) Physical structure and layout of the organization:

Even looking at the Market of Choice store from the outside in gives people an idea of the way that they like to run things. Their building is a very impressive mixture of modern design built in with wood and stonework throughout the front entrance, with a very clean and pristine eating area just outside the main doors. As you walk in through the front sliding doors, you are blasted with warm air from above, which in a sense wakes you up and makes you reset all of your senses for your experience in the store. I found this as a ritual of sorts, as it is something that happens upon entering and leaving the store.

The layout of the organization is very much like any modern grocery store you would normally be used to shopping at. There are registers at the front of the store, along with several departments: floral, meat/seafood, dairy, your standard grocery aisles, beer/wine (VERY extensive, easily the best in Corvallis), deli, bakery and a coffee shop. Every department in itself could represent a subculture. Just inside the front entrance, you notice that the bakery, coffee shop and the deli are all combined in one section together. Over by the coffee shop is an impressive sit down eating area complete with a gas fire place that actually gives off heat! I could see this being a very nice place to sit down and eat during a cold winter day. I think that the fire itself is an artifact of Market of Choice in it's own right - giving off warmth and light for those looking to shop there.

2) Decor, furniture, decorations, etc.:

The store's decorations were seasonal, with most departments advertising their seasonal fare. You can tell that Market of Choice values seasonal products, making sure that their shoppers are presented with the best possible choices given the growing and production season. There is also a lot of furniture and decor that give off an earthly and sustainable vibe.

3) Employee attire and manner of self-presentation:

The employees that I observed - mainly a couple of checkers, a courtesy clerk and a store manager / PIC of sorts, were very professionally dressed in a collared dress shirt with the Market of Choice logo embroidered on, and were either wearing dress khakis or pants. Their uniforms were all earthly toned as well. The store manager had a different colored name tag that was clearly labeled with the words manager on it. He also wore a dress tie.

4) General atmosphere/feel of the workplace:

When I purchased a couple of products from one of the checkers, she was very nice and professional. Upon observing her interactions with her coworkers, it gave off the vibe that the atmosphere of the store was laid back, but professional. Everyone seemed engaged in their own activities, but it gave off the feeling that workers were not being rushed to get their jobs done, which is something I've seen in other grocery stores.

5) Communication patterns:

Upon viewing communication between coworkers, I noticed that they were very direct and quick answering each other's questions. I saw a lot of smiles and laughing between coworkers as well, showing that they likely enjoy what they do. The interactions all seemed positive from an outsider's perspective.

http://www.marketofchoice.com/

This is a link to their website, which I think is also a great representation of an artifact of the organization. From the website you can clearly tell that they are committed to giving their customers the best possible products available by season and that they are focused on making their organization healthy and sustainable, as well as the customers that shop there.

Blog #2: Zappos' success, Systems and Cultural Approaches

This week, I was easily able to find connections between the articles presented on the success of the online shoe retailer Zappos and chapters 4 and 5 of the text. Chapters 4 and 5 of the text talk about Systems and Cultural Approaches to organizational communication and there are several examples from the readings that explain why Zappos has been a successful example of these communication ideals.

Chapter 4 specifically discusses organizations as a "system" not much unlike that of a biological system: one that actively and regularly exchanges resources in and out in order to promote growth and to prevent entropy. The chapter gives specific examples that describe the clear differences between an organization being mechanistic and like a living system, bringing such topics into discussion such as holism, equifinality, and the idea that a system must interact with the environment around it - not simply follow a pre-determined set-in-stone path from start to finish. I found that the articles specifically talk about the necessary ingredients that have led to Zappos' recipe of success, mostly referring to the high quality treatment of their employees and the consumers that purchase their products. This makes sense when you learn that Zappos' employees are offered a life coach, given free access to literature and materials that can help them learn and grow in the realm of being successful both in work and life, and that they are offered $2000 to leave periodically if they wish - just to make sure that they know they are doing the kind of work that they love. I found these points particularly eye-opening when I read them because it shows that Zappos' founder Tony Hsieh truly values growth and care of his employees while trying to help them be the best possible people they can be.

Chapter 5 talks about organizations approaching communication from a cultural metaphor, explaining that there are certain values, rites, rituals, and a vibrant cultural network that make working for a organization unique. Getting employees to buy into this idea of their work being not just a family or an ever-evolving living system, but something as far advanced as a culture, is an alternative method of organizational communication. It embraces the fact that true cultures involve synchronization of multiple entities together instead of being unitary. This makes cultures complex, and more the result of values, assumptions, and behaviors blended together in a melting-pot like scenario. I think that Zappos also embodies the cultural approach to organizational communication in that it embraces and promotes the complexity of it's employees and the relationships they have with their customers. Employees are encourages to try new things and not be afraid to make mistakes, which could lead to new ideas and promote positive changes within the system. I think that this also creates as sense of uniqueness to the company in that it allows its employees to get away with choices that other, more corporate, stricter companies may not allow. This creates a sense of culture from the outside, where consumers are looking for the best customer service possible - and from the inside, where employees can feel free to be creative and unique in solving real-world transactions and problems as they see fit.

I personally found the chapters enlightening as well as informative, and that they related quite well to the readings about Zappos. I think that these approaches show positive movement from the more classical approaches towards something that seems more realistic as well as something that I could see myself agreeing with. As I continue my career in fisheries and wildlife, seeing companies such as Zappos in the fold gives me hope and excitement that I can find a company that holds similar values towards my employment and my overall sense of well being.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiFMJfrCO_0

Continuing the theme of last week, I found a interesting video on Youtube from the Coffman Organization, detailing the importance of the cultural strategy. I found it was a great way to explain what the cultural approach really is and what it means to employees. Let me know what you thought of it below.

Thanks for reading! 

Blog #1 - Human Relations and Human Resources Approaches

Upon finishing this week's readings, a couple of thoughts stood out to me among others.

Clearly, companies that invest care into their employees' well being (which includes the work-life connection "balance") are going to have higher retention of said employees. The article describes the Nestlé Purina Petcare Company as one example of such a company. They allow employees to bring in their pets to work, thus helping to bridge the gap between home and work life. The SAS institute offers their employees several at-work benefits including a gym, a healthcare center, and a daycare center. These are aspects of human relations discussed in Chapter 3 in that they aim to satisfy human needs in order to keep employees happy and motivated to work. It would be fairly incredible to work for such a company that values their employees so highly.

The chapter offered several different approaches to human resources but the one that stood out most to me was the Pfeffer's Seven Practices of Successful Organizations. When I read the table describing the different approaches, it made me reflect on the previous jobs I've held and made me realize that they weren't quite up to these standards. 

For example, I worked for Safeway Inc. a couple of summers ago and I certainly did not feel like the management styles incorporated "selective hiring", "employment security", "Self-managed teams", nor "comparatively high & contingent compensation". My job title as "courtesy clerk" was really just a glorified janitor. I was extremely underpaid for the amount of physical labor and work that I had to do (which mostly involved running bottle return machines in a very busy downtown store), and there was no equality of treatment between employees that got their work done and those that only got half of what they were supposed to get done and left the rest for everybody else. 

The readings from this week gave me a lot of food for thought to think about my past work experiences and what elements make up a strong human resources program. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxLQrMFJni4

Thanks for reading!