Critical Theory of Communication in Organizations Essay -- business Co

Critical Theory of Communication in Organizations The critical possibility of communication developed by Stanley Deetz was designed to explore focuss to tick off the organizations health while increasing the representation of diverse human interests. He does this first by showing that corporations have become political as well as economic institutions. Deetz then employs advances in communication conjecture to point out how communication practices within a corporation keister distort decision making. Finally, he outlines how workplaces can become more racy and democratic through communication reforms.Humanists feel that meanings ar in heap not words. Deetz accepts this but goes another step and indispensablenesss to know whose meanings are in citizenry. The companies meanings, the CEOs meanings, the perception the companies give as their meanings, this is what Deetz is looking for. When people use slang in big business, they begin to put unified values in to play. A ccording to EM Griffin, this theory is critical in that he wants to critique the assumption that whats serious for General Motors is good for the country. Furthermore, Deetz feels that most people fall into the norm that is presented to them from corporate America. Companies in forthwiths society are appearing more democratic. They appear as more focused on the worker, the consumer, and society than their monetary needs. Is this to say that they are not concerned with money? No. The bottom line for the smart set is cash. However, the latest strategy is perception. How the company is perceived, makes a huge difference in how society interprets them. This theory allow for help us understand accord practices in the workplace. Corporations tend to make critical decisions for the public, regardless of if they know or not. The four criteria Deetz uses to discuss ways that public and corporate decisions can be made are strategy, consent, involvement, and participation. These four points are how I am personnel casualty to evaluate his theory. In the first criteria, strategy, Deetz describes the problem to be managerialism, which he defines as a kind of systematic logic, a set of routine practices, and political orientation. Managers have one thing on their mind control. Some employees go forth conform to the ways of their bosses, however some will reform against them. Deetz uses an practice session of stockholder... ...heory that has galore(postnominal) truths to it, that most corporate employees would take as a surprise. They do not want to know that this is the reality of their world. What kind of person would want to know that they are being controlled by the people that give them the prospect to make a living? Most people already micturate it. Although most people do not have much of a choice in the matter, I think that most would continue with what they are doing. What is the difference between working at PriceWaterHouseCoopers and Chilis restaurant, anyway the major salary difference. I work at Chilis, a large corporation with so many rules that you would think I was making more than $2.83 an hour (excluding tips). They dictate the way I communicate to customers, the way I dress and the style of my attire and how I look. They dont give the impression that work comes before family, but they do live me to pay them for the meals I eat while at work. Overall, Stanley Deetz has made many good points in evaluating how a corporation is organized. If only people would wear down away from the corporation, but this is the way we made it, the way our world is run, and it will never be the same again.