Table of Contents
Case Study 4
The social role stereotypes can explain the military misunderstanding between Suzanne and Lt. Meyers. The negative qualities of Lt. Meyers, for example, are overconfidence and determination in wanting Suzanne to receive punishment. In addition, Suzanne exempts communal qualities like gentility and affection. Prescriptive prejudice is evident when Lt. Meyers regards Suzanne as less effective. Lt. Meyers, Suzanne, and SSGT Lakey exempt emotional intelligence (Severin & Tankard, 2010). In self-awareness, Lakey knows Lt. Meyers dislike in other people and his demand for punishment to Suzanne. Further, Lt. Meyers displays self-regulation in that he expresses his rage towards Suzanne for being at a different place.
Suzanne exempts motivation in revealing if her superior regulates the issue and the negative remarks by Lt. Meyers will be removed from her file. SSGT Lakey portrays empathy in sympathizing with Suzanne. He speaks with Lt. Meyers about settling the issue between him and Suzanne. There are different message designs logics portrayed by the individuals in the military misunderstanding scenario. Lt. Meyers displays expressive design, Suzanne ‑ conventional design, and MSGT Robinson ‑ rhetorical design. Moreover, the forms of miscommunication due to MDL are visible and can dictate what happened regarding the misunderstanding. Sharing same MDL leads to individuals acknowledging their communication problems. MSGT Robinson acknowledges Lt. Meyers’ issues. He continues to assure Suzanne that he will regulate the matter between the two.
Case Study 5
Lily’s face needs shifted throughout the case when Mia was assigned to work under her supervision in her sector. When confronted by Mia, Lily did not follow TT predictions in that she used excuses to justify her fears about biased attitude from the other employees. Using Politeness Theory (PT), Lily’s interaction with Ben was instrumental. Ben portrayed a positive face in informing Lily that she needed to sack Mia.
According to Severin & Tankard (2010), Social Exchange Theory (SET) explains individuals’ personal relationships why and when they continue and develop them while, on the other hand, end others. In case of Mia and Lily who are two great friends, the cost and rewards of their friendship were futile. Lily gained advice in matters concerning her work from Mia. She would come for assistance when she wanted to fire someone from her job. Consequently, Mia gained information from Lily regarding members of their company. The two friends depended on each other for support and companionship.
The lay-off of Mia from Lily’s sector would have an impact on their friendship. With Lily following her superior’s command, she would have lost her companion whom she shared meals and outspent time together. However, given their closeness, the lay-off will not result to them ending their friendship, because Lily acted upon her superior’s wish. Their built trust has enhanced their friendship with each of them confiding on one another in case one of them has something perturbing them.
Dialectical perspective helps in explaining the method individuals’ use in sustaining their overtime relationships (Wood, 2003).The internal dialectics used is openness-closeness. For instance, Lily revealed her fears about bias or prejudice from the other employees regarding Mia when they were at the pub. On the other hand, the external dialectics viewed is revelation-concealment. Mia received information regarding the other employees under Lily but never revealed to anyone else.
Nevertheless, selection strategy is one way in sustaining relationship. Proper management of the information on table will enhance friendship between the two individuals. Additionally, Lily should have talked to Mia about what was disturbing her instead of being quite until later. In this situation, integration strategy would have been an appropriate option.
Along with the first order offer - 15% discount, you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
Communication Privacy Management dictates the decisions people make on whether to conceal or reveal any private information because of specific rules set (Lee, 2003). The private information in this case is about the other employees of Lily and who would face the sack, whereas the privacy rules are risk-benefit and cultural criteria. Mia and Lily developed boundary coordination through both boundary linkage and ownership to separate their work and personal lives. They kept their job affairs from interfering with their personal lives by not letting any of them affect their relationship. Lily experiences boundary turbulence with how she will be able to fire Mia under the orders of her superior.
Case Study 6
The tourism company has troubles that Hofstede’s cultural dimensions can explain. For instance, Uncertainty Avoidance. According to Yushiko, there is a difference in Japanese culture with American culture. The latter displays a high uncertainty avoidance culture, where they codes of behavior are strictly maintained, while the Japanese display a low uncertainty avoidance culture in that they take risks and innovate. Mark and Yushiko did accommodate during their interaction when they met in person. Through convergence, the language used was appropriate, and Mark finally was able to get help from the company regarding the volunteers.
In relation to Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory (AUM), the biggest contributors to the Granovetter Church predicament are reaction to outsiders, the connections with transients, and strangers’ social categorization. Ultimately, Gudykunst advice to both Mark and Yushiko in engaging in communication that is more mindful is to exempt conscious behavior (Lee, 2003). Mark and Yushiko recognized each other’s face needs during their conflict. Through high power distance culture that heavily relies on status difference and hierarchy, Yushiko was unable to direct Mark to the director, because she was a low-level employee in the company. The strategies used were avoidance and collaboration. These strategies were consistent with the face negotiation theory.
Yushiko chose to avoid Mark’s passive aggression while also collaborating with him to help him meet the director of the company. Face negotiation theory seems to provide the appropriate explanation for this case. On the contrary, other situations like the failure of the director in listening to Mark’s concerns may arise. Politeness theory and CPM are alternative theories used if such a situation occurs. Using the theories will help in bringing the two conflicting parties to mutual understanding.