Communicative ethics in the workplace - Term Paper Example

?[Type the company Communicative Ethics in the Workplace Number [Pick the Differing environments and diverse job es cater to a wide variety of mental wavelengths as well as sociological and psychological characteristics each pertaining to an individual area of expertise. When postulating the idea of communicative efforts to breed desired results in any given situation, a careful analysis of the environment is key to success. Discussing the idea of communicative ethics in a precise manner is going to help us understand the underlying factors that make up human interaction in each scenario. Sticking to a very general and concise approach, each branch of communication involving diplomacy, creating credibility, and building trust will be elaborated on by examining ethical relations in varying contexts. Ethics is defined by two categories of thought relating on how to examine human actions within a specific paradigm. The first of these is called categorical ethics, whose main idea is defined primarily by Immanuel Kant as the “categorical imperative”. The categorical imperative states specifically that actions can be either right or wrong, that they must be categorized in some way or fashion and thrown into a labeled dichotomy. The basis of his idea stems from the humanistic quality of desire. If a human being needs or wants something then inherently the human will seek out a path of attaining what he or she so desires. Determining factors as to the actual motivations behind the desire are what Kant zeroes in on and labels as good or bad. The deeper aspects of the categorical imperative are a syllogism to measure out the morality of the action. By developing the ability to analyze given situations in varying circumstances we gain the ability to determine what action to take will have the most beneficial outcome for us as an individual. The desire for a specific outcome will change the shape of the methodology used to acquire it (Cheney, 2004). Discursive ethics are then bound by whether or not individuals are engaged in discourse for the basis of self motivation or a common understanding of the ethical dilemma of the other individual. This brings about the idea of subjective ethics, or whether or not when two humans engage in communicative discourse do they in fact consider or perceive each other’s subjectivity. This idea really stems away from the right and wrong dichotomy of Kantian ethics and displays the characteristics of meshing into the gray area. Subjective ethics takes the approach of rationally analyzing different situations and determining a basis of value for an action that may or may not be all good or all bad, sometimes completely being in between. In terms of corporate or social responsibility even imagine the topic of CEO compensation. How much compensation is really able to be classified as good or bad, more or less, enough or too much? Being virtuous and steadfast with decisions in the social world tends to breed positive results, overzealous attitudes and lax performance do not. Edmund Burke stated that each human in themselves carries a “lamp of experience” (Sherman, 2009). This lamp is a guiding light which illuminates all experiences which shape the subjective reality of an individual, therefore making each human interaction a subjective experience in which no one human can truly understand the subjectivity of another due to the lamps having taken each one on a different path in life. However, the closer two individuals come to understanding the subjective nature in the interactions taking place, the more value that can be placed on the discourse therein (Sherman, 2009). The idea of communication being utilized by any individual for the purpose of developing complex social relationships in the workplace will be analyzed thoroughly by examining what it is to use communicative ethics, understanding the diverse differences between workplace environments and their impact on communicative structure, and finally by grasping the total net profits and benefits of achieving the desired social bonds by utilizing good communicative ethics in the workplace. In terms of discourse ethics (argumentation ethics) we see that there are several structures to understanding the nature of communication between individuals, relying heavily on pre-determined agreements outlined in the structure and nature of the discourse. These understood invisible rules, called presuppositions, are an attempt at applying heavy rational to the structures of social communication involving people (Cheney, 2004). These exist for the purpose of exercising a bright line for what can be considered valuable discourse, discourse that does not discriminate, disappear, or lose intrinsic value due to improper demeanor by any participant (Sherman, 2009). These ideas take into account differences in human interaction based on different perceptions of communication. It’s rare for any two individuals to truly understand the exact nature of the words and linguistic expressions being communicated in any dialogue due to the previously mentioned rhetoric of differing life experiences. That being said an understanding should develop before the start of any communication or interaction between individuals that impartial subjectivity should be left out of the discourse and that only necessary and pertinent information be retained. Diplomacy is considered the interaction between two or more organized thought processes, be it a think tank, nation, or individual. Specifically the idea of diplomacy is carefully formulated ideas being executed with regard to a form of tact or strategy for the purposes of attaining a goal, preventing harm, or furthering yourself towards one of those two ideas. In relationship with discursive ethics and using diplomacy in the workplace one must understand the value in building relationships. Being diplomatic with regards to personal advancement requires a bit of diligence and understanding, as in having an open and objective viewpoint on your interpersonal relations and actions (Cheney, 2004). Being fully aware of how an individual will perceive your actions and react in relation to their own subjective understanding of the action is the centerpiece for developing strategic relations in the business realm. Acting then using specific mannerisms as a tool for bringing about reactions beneficial to your strategy and meeting the ends which are more desirable are necessary for advancement. Two very in-depth methods of diplomatic interaction are useful for achieving success by understanding and utilizing soft and hard power communicative structures in the workplace. Determining which method should be utilized brings us back to examining the nature of moral behavior and ethics. Whether the actions taken are considered right or wrong, or fall within the moral gray area, is completely relative to what type of actions you take. Soft power action would be taking the initiative to promote positive collaborative ideas that breed about universal benefits or at least give off that appearance. Another method of soft power action would be by slowly building upon a relationship where the other party falls more positively interested in you over time. Soft power when utilized effectively will work better than hard power because it seems to draw upon a more virtuous approach of developing an attraction through patience and understanding. World leaders over the course of history have been utilizing soft power militarily and non-militarily for decades. Increasing morale by spreading falsified or factual information is a method of utilizing soft power to benefit the overall outcome of given situations (Cheney, 2004). As in the same manner of determining whether an individual is utilizing soft power, it’s not so much about the action taking place, but the methodology behind the action itself (Cheney, 2004). Moving on to examine then the use of hard power, you would notice a seemingly more nefarious method being used to achieve the same results. Hard power generally just refers to force, coercion, compensation, or dominance as methods for achieving extended results. In essence diplomacy can be used in a variety of ways to tap into the social structure an individual in working in, and thus different results in varying quantities can be achieved both ways. Whether or not individual’s diplomatic interactions bring about negative or positive results however is back into the eyes of the beholder. Establishing credibility relies on three main components, developing interpersonal relationships, establishing oneself with a high level of integrity, and maintaining ethical behaviors through communicative discourse. The development of a close interpersonal relationship is the beginning of establishing credibility, for it is only once a bond is formed that it can be deemed as worthwhile or credible. Dedicating oneself to working diligently to complete tasks in a timely fashion, or earlier than expected, and of the top tier in quality is the best way to establish the integrity required to build higher level relationships that will lead to advancing oneself further in the corporate world. By following the guidelines of discourse and maintaining objective and subjective mindsets within each environment you will achieve the goal of establishing yourself as a credible and important asset to any social structure in which you are placed. When it comes to establishing trust it needs to be understood that trust is a multi-faceted agreement between two parties for the consent of each to allow specific vulnerabilities and in return acquire cooperative strengths and or allow for other alliances and benefits to occur between them. Trust can be developed in group or personal settings in various ways. In group settings mass appeal through utilitarian actions would be key to developing a strong sense of clout. Methods of attraction utilized through soft power acts such as encouraging associates to complete tasks, taking initiatives to solve problems, and taking the lead in various projects with respect to associates will help establish a reputation built on trust with your peers. However in some group scenarios competition and the use of hard power will come in handy, you can still build trust even if people are fearful of you and somewhat respect the level of integrity you place in your work (Beebe, 2006). The next concept of building trust through discursive methods is focusing on the build of personal relationships. One on one human interaction is a great way for two individuals to engage in productive discourse with one another that will bring about greater results (Cheney, 2004). Having a supervisor pull someone into an office and talk to them as opposed to holding large meetings to disclose new company information helps both parties feel as if there is a higher level of importance to the work being done. Utilizing persuasive speech and suggestive dialogue one can control the flow of conversations and in some cases create newer communicative structures to further their advancement in interpersonal relations and create a firm bond of trust between all parties. Communicative ethics are imperative in all situations of discourse. Utilizing these discursive ethics in diplomatic relations, to further establish and build upon individual credibility, and strengthen the ties of trust in personal relationships, one can truly become an influential and invaluable part of any constructed environment they so choose (Bateman, 2007). The communicative structures that take place in any workday scenario are completely relative to the workplace itself. We start by analyzing the type of workplace that exists, the type of tasks completed in each workplace, and the social dichotomy of each workplace. Office style business structures usually present a very linear and obvious superiority chain. Within these environments talking down to a superior or displaying negative attitudes towards them will result in penalty or breed non-desirable results. Being diplomatic in specific situations is a game of playing your cards right and being strategic (Cheney, 2004). You may not want to rush into completing a project in a faster pace than other associates if the quality of your work will suffer, your work itself is a direct communication of your worth to the company. You may want to leverage specific leadership qualities you have to and the ability to communicate well over other associates as a stepping stone in the right direction (Beebe, 2006). Establishing and maintaining credibility can be done by completing tasks when you say you can do so. Managing your own time wisely but sticking to the words that come out of your mouth will leave a lasting impression on your work ethic to the company, your superiors, and your associates. Other methods of bolstering credibility would entail working one on one with superiors to create innovative yet profitable ideas for the company and follow through with the execution of these ideas (West, 2004). Building trust within this work environment will be done through maintaining an attitude of indifference while never selling out any peer for personal gain. Being a dependable and loyal person associate’s view as a helpful addition while not appearing to hinder the progress towards their own goals will build a reputation of someone with whom they can rely on, and consider trustworthy. Refraining from libel or slanderous speech, bulletins and communications otherwise, will make your decorum rise to that of a higher nature (Cheney, 2004). The tasks at hand utilize mostly intrinsic ideas including sitting at a desk, using a computer, and communicating with clients or associates. When in meetings with clients you can utilize the aforementioned skills in diplomacy to leverage different outcomes for your benefit. Being intelligent about your job and its nature down to a science is a great way to impress any client looking to acquire services and therefore establishes much credibility in their eyes (Sherman, 2009). Being consistent and proving yourself to be efficient in all cases involving any form of interaction between the two parties will increase trust beyond levels of mere tolerance and into a thriving symbiotic relationship. Working in a more labor intensive and demanding blue collar job will ask differently of you in each given situation. Acting diplomatically in an intense work environment can be difficult and somewhat stressful depending on the actual tasks (Cheney, 2004). So assuming workplace job tasks include routine repetitive labor it’s important to understand the impact on the human psyche, and sometimes may not even deal with employee/client relations. Diplomatic discursive ethics applied to this work environment would require the individual to analyze the appropriate times to engage in intellectual discussion with members of management, to act and display excellent behavior and diligence on the job while being observed, to speak intelligently and of future plans to improve work and make you an asset to the company (Bateman, 2007). If the job involves sales of any type of good or service then it’s up to how well you can prove product knowledge and display customer intimacy at the same time to increase revenue. If the job involves no customer interaction then utilize the ability to inquire about further information on how the operational structure of the company is set up, and always make it a point to learn as much as possible about your job and the company. In order to establish credibility in a job of this nature one must understand the strict and underlying nature of such an establishment (Cheney, 2004). Employees are considered by the company to be that of cogs in a machine, and as such communication and dialogue will be performance based. Essentially the best method of establishing yourself will be to work hard and work effectively. Being able to work with associates as a team to accomplish work together will prove your ability to adapt to different situations, knowing how to address customers with respect to individual behaviors and personalities as well as developing a firm communicative relationship with them will show dedication to the company (Cheney, 2004). Personal relationships with clients/customers built on intimacy are the key to developing a trust that will last and expand with each customer and your superiors. Knowing how to help customers who complain and have problems or need information about certain products, and taking care of their needs fast and efficiently will typically build a lasting and strong relationship. In conclusion we’ve come to realize how utilizing communication skills in varying work environments can bring about the desired reactions from the structure you operate within, and that what’s most important is how well the execution of the communicative ethics is carried out (Cheney, 2004). When understanding how acting in the best interest for personal gain can still create the desired effect of building trust, gaining credibility, and enhancing diplomatic relations a true and pure knowledge of discursive ethics is created. Empowering one to maintain and constantly promote the exercise of this knowledge throughout varying work environments and social conditions is paramount to achieving success and continuing down the virtuous path of doing what is right. In a system where everyone wins, and everyone has tangible net profits financially as well as socially, the system works. Full utilization of the aforementioned skills relating to communication, a firm understanding of differing workplace environments and social conditions, and the ends of all methodology bringing about profitable results in a variety of social spectrum draw the clear picture of communication in the workplace being used effectively. Works Cited Bateman, T. S. & Snell, S (2007), Management: Leading & Collaborating in a Competitive World. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin Inc. Beebe, S. and Masterson, J (2006), Communicating in Small Groups: Principles and Practices, New York: Pearson. Cheney, G., Christensen, L.T., Zorn, T.E., and Ganesh, S. (2004) Organizational Communication in an Age of Globalization: Issues, Reflections, Practices." Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Sherman, L (2009), The Book on Formulaic Communication. Calgary, AB, Canada: Star-Ting Inc. West, R. and Turner, L (2004), Introducing Communication Theory Analysis and Application, New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies Read More