Prepare a paper less than 1000 words reflecting on the role of dialogue in an organisational context Essay Example
The Role of Dialogue in an Organisational Setting
The Role of Dialogue in an Organisational Setting
Irrespective of the form of organization, dialogue is the facet that sustains and maintains relationships within it. As part of communication, the conversation between two individuals poses an effect on the employee and the overall organization as well. This is because organizations comprise systems. Thus, they constitute a range of parts that assume a considerable role on the general framework. Hence, dialogue among co-workers, managers and supervisors within the firm constitutes a significant determinant of the level of satisfaction that a person exudes for his occupation. Based on my experience, I learnt that dialogue is a main facet in any archetype of organizational modification and transformation. The manner in which dialogue takes place in contemporary organizations is considerably different from the way different elements conversed within the common bureaucratic structure of conventional firms. Hence, my reflection illustrates the role that dialogue imposes on the transformation of the organisation due to its effect on the organisational culture.
The Role of Dialogue in Transforming Organisational Culture
My internship required me to communicate with employees and customers due to the nature of the work I was carrying out. Nowadays, most service organizations focus significantly in establishing value creation for the customers. From the role that I assumed within the firm, I was capable of fully realizing the importance of dialogue as an organizational communication medium. In addition to this, I also learnt that dialogue does not necessarily involve exhibiting a predisposition towards extroversion. According to Müller and Kieser (2003), organizations are generally comprised of different personalities and experiences. Because of this, it is imperative to ensure that the respective workplace supports such diversity in order to enable cohesion and uniform attainment of organizational goals and objectives. In this respect, as much as it is imperative to support organizational dialogue, it is also vital to establish measures capable enough of counteracting the defects of negative workplace discourse.
In realization, I came to understand that dialogue, similar to most forms of communication possesses a myriad of benefits that can be assistive in successful organizational performance and evolution. One of these advantages involves its effect on organizational culture. Indeed, dialogue is capable of modifying the organizational culture. Relating to my experience, organizational culture simply comprises the behaviours, norms, mores and ways of life that are acceptable to most or all members of the organisation. Hence, in order to impose an impact on the culture, dialogue affects certain parts of the workplace surrounding that causes a complete transformation in summation. Thus, based on what I saw, dialogue imposes an effect on behaviours among participants. One of the common practices that we engaged in companies involved engagement in collaborative groups. Indeed, the supervisors believed that employees based within groups were highly capable of transforming the performance and culture of an organization with reference to how well or dismal they interacted.
At first, my reaction to such sentiments was contrast in relation to my education in teamwork within organizations. Based on the premise of social loafing, Mostovicz and Kakabadse (2011) claim that individuals will work minimally when based in groups rather than when they work individually. Since every member of the faction is required to contribute something to the project, it is highly likely that he or she will implement less effort than required. This statement is rational. My experience with groups especially in schools further supports this notion. When dealing with work such as educational assignments, a few students within any group apply considerable effort in comparison with other members. However, based on what I perceived at the organization, all employees can undeniably collaborate and attain specified aims collectively due to the manner in which they converse among themselves. Even though social loafing is evident even in teamwork studies, it is one-sided to discard the role that conversation can imply on resolving the issue.
The change regarding my personal perception of group work is in accordance to studies that focus on the effect of dialogue on organizational transformation. Accordingly, I did not expect to have a profound and different view of organizational teamwork and the possible role that a communicative element such as dialogue can impose in enhancing the activity. Kellett (2007) visualizes dialogue as a connection between the ways in which participants associate. In short, participants are capable of learning on how they can accommodate each other disparately. This case was rather similar in my organisation. Dialogue had transformed this particular milieu by enabling participants to interact and communicate in a way that supports the aim and culture of the organisation. Apart from this, the impact of dialogue on participant behaviour further depicted the effect of diversity in an organisational context.
Diversity has become an integral part of the contemporary organisation. This is largely part due to the impact that it poses on a variety of aspects such as performance and motivation among employees. Additionally, diversity is also an indicator of the way the common organisation has shifted over the years in terms of management practice. As the force of globalisation continues to bridge different backgrounds, cultures and languages in the labour market, organisations have attempted to gratify the demands that arise from such a diverse arbitrage of employment. Such trials involve trials and policies based on employment discrimination and guidelines aimed at achieving diversity. My organisation has also involved itself in acknowledging diversity by initiating dialogue as an imperative facet in this procedural task. One of these ways involves the acknowledgment of disability as more of a varied aspect rather than an inability.
Over the years, several companies have exuded unsavoury attitudes towards disabled applicants and prospective employees. However, because of the negative effect that such attitudes pose on their reputation, most companies have perceived disability as not only imperative based on reputation. Additionally, such organizations have viewed diversity as an important element in transforming the organisational culture. Nonetheless, enabling support for disability within a firm requires collaboration among the employees via communication mechanisms such as dialogue. In this respect, while supporting an argument critically, Cottrell (2011) advocates for examples and illustrations for purposes of validating a particular argument. Based on this, our organisation engaged in dialogic means that would see the firm implement various structures that would enable the integration of disability within the organisational culture. Similarly, Best Buy, which is one of America’s largest electronic firms, utilized dialogue as a vital technique in establishing frameworks aimed at supporting disabled applicants and employees (Christian, Porter & Moffitt, 2006).
Overall, it is evident that dialogue assumes a considerable role in the organisational context. As uncomplicated as it sounds, this communication medium assists firms in working towards common goals and objectives based on the way it unifies the organisation’s sub-systems if utilized accordingly. In relation to my experience, I learnt that dialogue, in its role within this respective setting, poses a credible impact on the transformation of the organisation. This is due to its implications on the organisational culture. In my internship, dialogue in the firm modified the overall organisational culture by allowing positive interactions and accommodative behaviours among participants. Additionally, dialogue was also responsible for the integration of diversity by supporting disability within the firm.
Christian, J., Porter, L.W., & Moffitt, G. 2006, ‘Workplace diversity and group relations: An overview’, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 459-466.
Cottrell, S. 2011, ‘Critical reflection: Developing effective analysis and argument’, in S. Cottrell (ed.), Critical thinking skills: Developing effective analysis and argument, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, pp. 207-30.
Kellett, P.M. 2007, ‘Dialogue and dialectics in managing organizational change: The case of a mission-based transformation’, Southern Communication Journal, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 211-231.
Mostovicz, E.I., Kakabadse, A., & Kakabadse, N.K. 2011, ‘The four pillars of corporate responsibility: Ethics, leadership, personal responsibility and trust’, Corporate Governance, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 489-500.
Müller, A., & Kieser, A. 2003, Communication in organisations: Structures and practices, Oxford, NY.
More Important Things