Oct 28th Jessy

I think that Kirby and Dr. Krone’s work on work-family polices is one of the first studies that I have read which deals exclusively with structuration theory, and I loved its usefulness. What interests me most with structuration theory is the method’s link between discursive alignments and materialism. With strutruation theory, we are able to see that the ways we talk about policies has a direct impact on their implementation and successfulness. As Kirby and Dr. Krone write, “[c]consequently, interpersonal, organizational, and public discourse surrounding organizational policies impact the structuring of those policies, and ultimately, policy implementation in that written policies may differ from policies ‘in-use’” (Kirby & Krone 51). In the workplace the authors studied, the negative connotations surrounding work-family policies meant that many individuals would shy away from such policies because they feared that they would be punished, ridiculed, or resented by their fellow employees, which in many cases did indeed occur (53). This studied reminded me of my grandmother who has refused to file for unemployment benefits because she doesn’t like how the involvement in such systems makes her “feel.” She is worried that she will be seen as lazy and un-useful to society. The methods we use to talk about unemployment benefits impacts the ways that the policy is utilized because it in some cases prevents people from participating. Although the work-family policies were there to help members of the organization, communicative apprehension prevented or limited its use and effectiveness. Interestingly, Kirby and Dr. Krone suggest that such concerns can be mitigated if we rework the organizational meaning of such programs (74). Can you think of any other issues dealing with organizational communication where policy failure can be linked to the way that members of the organization talk about the policies?