Portfolio

Introduction This portfolio contains the three best post made during the course Organisational Communication: Technology, Strategy and Innovation. The posts were all selected for different reasons and a small summary of the individual reasons is given at the start of each of the e-ctivities that was submitted. Every submitted post is a standalone that will consist of the lightly edited original post, followed by the polished part in which unanswered questions will be addressed and more light will be shed on interesting elements of that particular e-ctivity. In the conclusion, reoccurring themes will be discussed, connecting various elements of the different e-ctivities and the course overall. In addition, Etzionis (2000) utopia will be discussed in attempt to conclude the portfolio with possible solutions of a utopian organization instead adding more questions to the already unanswered ones from the posts. Every subject discussed in this portfolio is worthy of a complete studies of its own. Unfortunately, having a limited amount of time and resources not all questions and points of view, which came to mind when studying these subjects, could be addressed. The attempt was made to address and enrich the main point of every post as specifically as possible and end with an overall conclusion taking as many aspects into account.

E-tivity 3: Maybe we should keep the hierarchical organizations... I chose to add e-ctivity three to my portfolio for multiple reasons. The first reason is that I myself am not fond of very strictly hierarchical structured organization, but found myself arguing in favour of them in this post. The second reason, are the results of a previous assignment that will be further explained in the e-ctivity. We found that when employees have more say in their working arrangements, they are less satisfied with their job. This finding was a complete contrast to what we expected. The third reason is that because of this unexpected finding I wanted to explore the reason further and was curious about what the rest of the group had to say about it. The fourth and final reason is that it sparked a nice discussion in class with different people having different point of views about the subject. What I also liked about that discussion was that even a few solutions flourished. I will try to polish my post by answering some of the questions I left unanswered in the original post by using literature and responses from my peers given during the discussions offline. '...through the interaction between organizational crisis and change and new information technologies a new organizational form has emerged as characteristic of the informational/global economy: the network enterprise.' Manuel Castells, in his book: The Rise of Network Society (1996) If one follows Powell (1987 in Fulk & DeSanctis, 1995) in viewing the network enterprise it could be described as an organizational form in which order is not strictly controlled. This is in alliance with the idea of Fulk and DeSanctis (1995) that, one very common observation when discussing new organizational forms, is the flattening of the hierarchical structure within organizations. This observation is also made by scholars like Miles and Snow (1986), Nohria and Eccles (1992) and Monge and Fulk (1995 in Fulk & DeSanctis, 1995). Schreygg and Sydow (2010) use the term fluidity in contrast to organizing to explain the increased complexity and environmental turmoil that companies today face and have to keep in check. The solutions they propose are: highly flexible and fluid organizational forms, based on relentlessly changing templates, quick improvisation, and ad hoc responses (p.1251). But what if there will be backlash to these new organizational forms? Like for example the backlash in society in the form of fundamentalism (Castell, 2010). We might be too optimistic about this new way of working. For a different course we (my workgroup and I) examined the influence of different variables on job satisfaction. One of the variables that we examined was more independence

in work decisions. This variable entails that employees can have more say in working hours, workspace, etc. In other words, a more flexible working environment. We expected to find a positive influence of work independence on job satisfaction, but to our surprise we found a significant negative influence. When doing some extra research on why this could be, we found an article (not scientific) that stated that because people are more flexible in planning their working hours (so not a 9-to-5 mentality) they end up working a lot more in their spare time (nrc.nl, 2010). This can then causing stress related illness. I do agree that we are living in a very dynamic era, with a very dynamic environment. But, is letting everything unstructured the answer to dealing with these developments? I am not someone who is very fond of hierarchical organisations (or would want to work in one), but what if its a much better working environment? What if for most people a 9-to-5 working mentality is what they need? Giving structure and direction makes them have peace of mind and when that clock sticks 5 oclock they leave their work where it belongs and dont take it with them home. Leaving them a whole lovely evening (and weekend) to spend however and with whomever they want! Polish The expectation that work independence would have a positive effect on job satisfaction was based on the study of Campbell-Clark (2001), who concluded that work flexibility has a positive effect on job satisfaction. This was not confirmed by our analysis. The studies concerning this topic seem to contradict each other. The studies by Russell, OConnell and McGinnity (2009) and Costa, et.al. (2004) found a negative effect of flexible working arrangement on health of employees. Working from home seems to create pressure on both the professional and private lives of employees. People seem to work longer hours when at home, taking away from family time (Russell, OConnell and McGinnity, 2009). In the study of Atkinson and Hall (2010) the opposite was found. They conclude that flexible working hours makes employees happy and that it has a positive effect on their performance. Simply looking at these contradictions on merely one topic of the new working environment we can see that we need to focus on how to handle the vast amount of variation and change we find here. For this specific problem concerning work flexibility a solution might be setting clear boundaries for one self. The employee can have control over the work space, -time, -projects, etc., but also a clear time where all aspects of work need to be turned off.

E-tivity 5 Poor Little Megastore I chose to submit my post for e-tivity five because it is a very relevant topic for my (small) company at this time. We are conducting a research for Media Market The Hague concerning lost sales. Rising competitors for shops like Media Market are online shops. I found it an interesting topic to further polish and see what possible solutions could be available for them and other offline shops that can no longer compete with price reductions. The "value zone" of the company lies not in its array of technologies, but in the work of its frontline employees who, in their daily interactions, create customer value. In a bold move, the corporate hierarchical pyramid must be turned upside down, making management accountable to those in the value zone instead of the other way around. Vineet Nayar (2010)

In the conclusion of their article Pires et. al. (2006) state that consumer empowerment might mean that customers will switch suppliers in search for better, cheaper, quicker, etc. solutions. Another study by Van Nierop et.al. (2011) also shows that retailers informational website has a negative effect on the amount of money customers spent. As a possible explanation for this negative effect, according to Van Nierop et.al (2011), is that people are more informed about what they want and so they will be better equipped to self-regulate and thus spend less money. It seems that technologies (especially the internet) do empower customers in making better and more thorough decision. Also, it seems that customers are shopping online more and more (8,8 million in 2009 and 9,3million in 2010 according to CBS, 2011). What do these changes mean for offline-shops? It is practically impossible for them to compete with online-shops with price reductions, because they have much higher fixed costs. Take Media Market for instance (not trying to imply that we should feel sorry for such a large corporation, its just an example), while doing a research for them concerning lost sales (people with the intention of buying, but leaving the shop without a purchase), multiple people mentioned that they wanted to cross-check prices before buying the product they were planning to buy in the first place. They would also double check for more reviews and information online. Chances are that an online-shop will have the same product for lower price. So, what can Media Market do to compete with the online-shops? I will have to agree with Nayar (2010) who claimed that the value zone of the company lies not in its array of technologies, but in the work of its frontline employees who, in their daily interactions, create

customer value. This is an aspect which has the highest potential for offline-shops to be able to compete with online-shops. The interaction employees have with their customers, the attention they can give them and the interaction customers can have with products, to feel and test them, is what can distinguished an offline-shop. Make the service so perfect that customers will not even consider shopping online. Polish In what way can employees create customer value in an offline-store? An important element to first discuss when answering this question is how individuals go about making decisions. One reason is that people need to be motivated enough to actually start the decision making process (Gati, Krausz & Osipow, 1996; Greenleaf & Lehmann, 1995 in McNeill, 2011). When a person is motivated enough to start a decision process, they will have a choice between two or more outcomes. By examining the different values each outcome has and calculating what the chances are that these outcomes will actually occur, a customer can optimize their decision. Making a fully rational and fully informed decision is something that does not occur easily or naturally in most cases (Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1974 in McNeill, 2011). It should then be the task of the store employees to create an ideal environment for customers to make a choice. They should give the information that is needed; make it possible for the product to be tested, subtly empathizing the positive outcome of one decision while also mentioning the negative outcome of a different decision. In this way customers will be more certain that they are making the right decision, a decision they will not regret. It is important to do this because if a customer cannot create a big enough difference between the products, in some cases, they will end up choosing neither (Shafir, Simonson & Tversky, 1993 in McNeill, 2011). Also, when considering the options, customers will want to justify choosing option one and not choosing the other available options. In this way they are taking emotional consequences into account (Tyszka, 1998 in McNeill, 2011). The customer value that an employee creates can be very significant when looking at the decision process of an individual. In contrast to online-shopping a customer can make a decision together with a informed employee that should be knowledgeable about the product they are selling, creating a sense of security for the customer. Employees can balance the need for correct information but also for emotional support in the decision making process. An element that an onlineshop, most likely, lacks.

E-tivity 6 They're damned if they do, they're damned if they dont The last post I submit for my portfolio is my response to e-ctivity six. I found that comparing two different interpretations of strategic alliances left some interesting questions still unanswered. Lastly, I also found the response I received from my pear very interesting and it was a point of view I had not yet considered.

... strategic alliances... are very different from the traditional forms of cartels and other oligopolistc agreements, because they concern specific times, markets, products, and processes, and they do not exclude competition in all other areas... The complexity of the web of strategic alliances, of subcontracting agreements, and of decentralised decision-making for large firms would have been simply impossible to manage without the development of computer networks. Manuel Castells (1996)

Osarenkhoe (2010) states in his article that in the long run competitive behaviour may lead to a monopolistic position of an organization. This is in contrast to a state of perfect competition of the classical economist view who believes that if the markets are in a state of competition, value will keep in balance. But, this balance can also be in jeopardy if organizations would start alliances with one and other. For example, prices could be negotiated between large companies making it an unfair market for consumers and potential new competitors. Prices will not depend on supply and demand, and the economic climate will make it impossible for new competitors to enter the industry. Another angle to this question, about cooperation and collaboration, is that can companies survive without it? In other words, do organizations still have a choice to say no, or are they pushed in a position that they have to cooperate and collaborate with competitors and other organizations in order to survive? Another problem is that if companies keep completely to themselves, they could find themselves in a tunnel view. Hatch and Schultz (1997) names this organizational narcissism where companies dont listen to their environment. This can than lead to their downfall. What I find can be concluded from this short assessment is that organizations need to be in a complete dynamic state of flexibility, adjusting to multiple stimuli, that are often in complete odes with one and other. This is in line with the Late Modernity theories for

organizations, but where does this leave the human aspect? What is best for consumers, employees, individuals, groups, etc.? Polish To address the human aspect of strategic alliances we should examine corporatesocial enterprise collaborations as discussed by Di Domenico, Tracey & Haugh (2009). In their study they focus on what they call cross-sector collaboration, defining it as: a collaboration between corporations and social enterprises. These collaborations involve the formation of a political-economic arrangement that seeks to reconcile wealth creation with social justice, and the efficient functioning of markets with the welfare of communities. (pp. 887). They suggest that these types of collaborations are important because they can create a different economical environment in which community welfare and wealth creation can be brought closer together. Collaborating to benefit community welfare can also benefit the commercial organization partaking in the alliance. Multiple studies have shown that corporate social performance creates different benefits for the organisation like, customer loyalty, satisfaction, strengthening of corporate image and greater recognition by (potential) customers (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006 in Luo & Bhattacharya, 2009). A lot of companies still seem to just participate in corporate social performance if it is in some way (financially) beneficial to them (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2009). In other words, it appears that corporations only perform socially responsible as a mean to an end. This to me is a scary thought.

Conclusion There are certain themes I recognized, that kept coming back in my post during the course. These themes seem to be, the dynamic nature of the current environmental we live in and the human aspect of the different organizational obstacles we were confronted with. I also found that all of these themes were already present in my first post for e-ctivity one and kept reappearing in my other posts. Never the less, I also found myself viewed the issues form different perspectives. For example, in the first e-ctivity I mention Giddens (1999) who states that organizations try to manage and control modern industrial civilizations. This is in contrast to the idea that hierarchical structures are being equalized and organizations should be in a state of flexibility, reacting to the different stimuli they receive, which I mention in the sixth e-ctivity. Another example is that I mention that the public should take action against corporations that only think about profit. This is in accordance with all of the submitted posts in my portfolio. The third post, mentions flexible working hours for employees, the fifth ectivity empathises the importance of employees on the store-floor in contrast to electronic information and the sixth e-ctivity questions how different human aspects can be taken into account when forming alliances or companies completely disregarding their environment. To summarise, when we discuss important issues in our contemporary society we need to consider multiple aspects of our dynamic environment. On the one hand we have organizations trying to survive in competitive era and on the other hand we have the human/individual perspective and value of life. But is there a solution that can somehow grasp a large part of the different aspects discussed throughout the course and can it be some sort of solution? Etzioni (2000) attempted to create a utopia in which he envisioned a good society and community. I will reflect his view of a good society on a good organization taking into account how a company could treat different stakeholders. Etzioni starts by saying that social bonds within communities is important for the social well-being if most humans. These bonds do not necessarily need to be tightly knit, they can also be loos bonds. An organization and relationship between colleagues, customers and other stakeholders is a perfect example. We do not all need to be best friends with (all) our colleagues, but we need to be able to interact with each other and get the job done. The same goes for relationships with customers and other stakeholders. An employee does not need to have close relationships with all of the organizations customers, but some sort of bond (even if its temporary) needs to be present during an interaction. Also, a company can exclude some people from being part of their community. The people that are hired are selected based on certain attributes and in some cases companies can also select with whom they do

business. But, a perfect organization should also have some restrictions on which criteria they can use to exclude potential members. Etzioni names race, ethnic-origin, religion and sexual orientation as only a few criteria exclusion cannot be based on. He says: the bonds of good communities () are based on affinity whose nature remains to be defined. (pp. 190). Because in an organization lots of different people from different backgrounds need to work together, the way that conflict is handled is of great importance. Keeping conflicts within the boundaries, the community itself created, will help in the fairness of solving the disagreement. However, an organization should be flexible enough to be able to change if the boundaries (as defined) are not fitting anymore to the current organizational culture. Another important element of maintaining a sense of fairness in a company is to balance the difference in salary. There can be a difference but this difference should have some restrictions. Actually, there has never been full equality within communities, not even in countries with a communist government. Instead, a good organization will divide the assets based on rules as developed by the members themselves. An organization should have a high and rising minimum salary, and the highest possible income should be restricted to a certain point. Creating an organizational environment where everyone can have input and such rules can be developed, is done by having moral dialogues with the members. These dialogues generate values that will shape the shared culture within a company rather than solely base the culture on traditions and corporate history. On these shared values rules, regulations and day-to-day activities can be based. However, in a growing globalized world creating values is becoming more and more complicated. An utopian organizations might have to combine, local agreement, worldwide parallelism, official and procedural rules, but also certain values that are self-evident. The elements mentioned above might be unreachable for most organizations, but having an ideal that we try to work towards, can sometimes be the first step to actual achieving set goals. An overall conclusion I can make concerning this course is first, that it was not what I expected it to be and I was pleasantly surprised. Second is that it showed me how to view different issues concerning organisations and our society from a broad perspective. I personally am an advocate for looking at the bigger picture and not getting stuck on details. Of course, when viewing issues form a lot of different perspectives you might end up with more questions than when you started (as I find myself now). For me this is something that I appreciate very much, because it pushes me to find more answers and grow in my way of thinking and hopefully also grow as a person in the end.

References

Campbell-Clark, S. (2001). Work cultures and work/family balance. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 58, 348-365.

Carol Atkinson, Laura Hall, (2011). Flexible working and happiness in the NHS. Employee Relations, 33(2), 88105.

Castell, M. (2010) End of Millennium: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford

CBS. (2011). Geraadpleegd via http://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/menu/themas/vrije-tijdcultuur/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2011/2011-3335-wm.htm op 14 maart 2012.

Costa, G., Kerstedt, T.A., Nachreiner, F., Baltieri, F., Carvalhais, J., Folkard, S., FringsDresen, M., Gadbois, C., Gartner, J., Grzech-Sukalo, H., Hrm, M., Kandolin, I., Sartori, S. & Silvrio, J. (2004). Flexible Working Hours, Health, and Well-Being in Europe: Some Considerations from a SALTSA Project. Chronobiology International, 21(6), 831844.

Di Domenico, M., Tracey, P. & Haugh, H. (2009). The dialectic of social exchange: theorizing corporate-social enterprise collaboration. Organization Studies, 30(8), 887-907.

Etzioni, A. et al. (1999). Face-to-face and computer-mediated communities, a comparative analysis. Information Society, 15(4), 241-248.

Fulk, J. & DeSanctis, G. (1995). Electronic communication and changing organizational forms. Organization Science, 6(4), 337-349.

Giddens, A. (1999). Risk. The second Reith lecture. BBC.

Hatch, M. J. & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31 (5/6), 356 365

Luo, X. & Bhattacharya, C.B. 2009). The Debate over Doing Good: Corporate Social Performance, Strategic Marketing Levers, and Firm-Idiosyncratic Risk. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 198-213

McNeill, I.M. (2011). Why we choose, how we choose, what we choose: the influence of decision initiation motives on decision making. Kurt Lewin Institute dissertation, series 2011-8.

Van Nierop, J.E.M., Leeflang, P.S.H., Teerling, M.L. & Huizingh, K.R.E. (2011). The impact of the introduction and use of an informational website on offline customer buying behaviour. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28(2), 155165.

Osarenkhoe, A. (2010). A study of inter-firm dynamics between competition and cooperation - a coopetition strategy. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 17(3/4), 201-221.

Pires, G.D., Stanton, J. & Rita, P. (2006). The Internet, consumer empowerment and marketing strategies. European Journal of Marketing, 40 (9-10): 936-949.

Russell, H., O'Connell, P.J. & McGinnity, F. (2009). The Impact of Flexible Working Arrangements on Worklife Conflict and Work Pressure in Ireland. Gender, Work & Organization, 16(1), 73-97.

Schreygg, G. & Sydow, J. (2010). Organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 21(6), 1251-1262.