Family: A Microcosm

The family is the most basic social institution. An ordinary person would not need any sociological or anthropological theory to be able to explain its importance in shaping one’s life and influencing his perception toward the world. It is the family that primarily influences a child’s attitude and beliefs because it is in the home, with his family, where he first learns the essential lessons in life. Hence, how he behaves in the society is a product of and an interplay with the values he acquires from his family.

The family is not just the smallest unit of society; it can also be considered as the smallest form of organization which may serve as a microcosm to its bigger counterparts – community, corporations and the government. The family, regardless of its size and composition, has hierarchy, resources, needs, goals and culture – things which are inherent to an organization. In this sense, one must understand the dynamics of family life in order to understand how it resembles with the more complex forms of organizations. Likewise, this resemblance tells us that one’s family life affects his dynamism or verve within his organizations and his attitude toward its members.

This does not mean, though, that one’s organizational life would be a replica of his family life. It also does not mean that the person one is in his family will be the same person one will become in his organization. This only means that a person, in his dealings within his organization, cannot get rid away of his family’s influence to his identity and personality.

Definitely, the family is just one of the many factors that affect a person’s performance and behavior in an organization. The society at large and his personal experiences also play a big role in the shaping of his character and philosophy in life. What is important to remember, though, is that wherever a person would be and whatever he will become, he owes a huge portion of his “self” to the institution where he first experienced life – his family.

Thesis Acknowledgments

I am deeply grateful to all of the professors and instructors who have guided me throughout my college life in the university, especially to the BA Organizational Communication faculty. I am fortunate to be educated by these academicians who generously and wholeheartedly shared their knowledge to their students. I hope that someday I will make them proud that I was once their student.

I would like to extend my very special thanks to Sir Jan Ponsaran and Sir Ernani Barrientos who made me experience UP education at its best. They always believed in the ability and determination of their students. Because of their sincere appreciation and encouragements, I was inspired to be the best that I can be. Sir “Ponsy” made me understand and appreciate my obligation in the society and it is through my training under the classes of Sir “Barry” that I was prepared to fulfill this obligation. I feel most fortunate to have had them as my mentors.

I would also like to thank my thesis adviser, Professor Rafael Villar, for being so patient. I am aware that oftentimes I act like a brat. Despite that, he was still there for me up to the last stretch of my college journey. He never gave up on me and I could not thank him enough for all the knowledge that he imparted. I am also thankful to my panelists, Dr. Diana Agbayani and Sir Jan Bernadas.

Additionally, I am fortunate to have been friends with other wonderfully competent and awesome students in UP Manila. Special thanks go to my blockmates, UPM College of Dentistry Block 15 ’08. I thank them for being my first family in UP, especially Gela and Jamie. I am also very fortunate to have met in UPM my best friends, Lyka and Yvette. I would also like to express my sincerest gratitude to the OrCom Class of 2012 for welcoming me in their family, especially to the girls of Blizzard who genuinely gave me their gift of friendship.

Need not be Mediocre

It feels so bad when you find a very good article about organization science and then find out that your JSTOR account has already expired. I wish I can read the article Organization Scientist: Myth or Reality before 2011 ends. To my dear readers, access to this article would be a perfect gift to me this New Year. 🙂

Anyway, in the first few lines of the research abstract, the debate about Protestant Ethic vs. Social Ethic had been introduced. Those who believe in Social Ethic claim that “success within organizational life is more related to one’s personal characteristics or interpersonal competence than to knowledge and technical skills.” This belief makes the Organization Man shift from his quest for competitive struggle to the quest for belongingness. The methods of science will satisfy the Organization Man’s need for belongingness. They also say that it is the average fellow that “industry looks for and rewards”.

Well, I support its first two contentions: 1.) the Organization Man’s need for belongingness and 2.) the scientific method in fulfilling this need. It is no question that aside from professional relationships, organizational members normally build and maintain personal relationships with their colleagues, subordinates, and even bosses. They do this for various reasons. Some do this for selfish political interests while others just want to make workplace their second family.

I do believe in the “Social Ethic” however I do not worship it considering that its third contention is actually doubtful. Does one really have to be an average fellow for him to get hired, be rewarded, and climb the career ladder up? I think it first has to be made clear what the proponents really mean when they say “average” because it may actually give the connotation of being mediocre and losing the desire for individuality and personal growth.

In Your Fist

Last November 23, 2011, my organization, the Public Relations Student Society of the Philippines UP Manila (PRSSP-UPM), held a seminar entitled In Your Fist: Influencing Public Policy and Legislation through Lobbying. As usual, it was a success. Lobbying, by the way, is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies. Lobbying is done by various people or groups, from private-sector individuals or corporations, fellow legislators or government officials, or advocacy or interest groups. (Thanks, Wiki!)

Lobbying is one of the most apparent facets of public relations applied in the government. However, studying PR alone will not be enough for a practitioner to survive in this profession; he has to understand the dynamics of politics, government, and state affairs. This is why I come up with the realization that my degree program, BA Organizational Communication, has to include at least fundamental courses in political science and other relevant disciplines.

The OrgScientist’s Bias

In my blog post Two Vistas in Organizational Communication, I talked about the two opposing perspectives in looking at organizational communication as a discipline. One perspective gives more importance in understanding organizational dynamics over communication. The other perspective sees communication as fundamental in any organizational situation. I would try to contribute to this debate by taking a stand.

I believe that there is one superior perspective: understanding the science behind and of organizations is more important than having knowledge on different communication strategies. As organizational communication scholars, we should recognize ourselves as scientists of organizations who solve problems, formulate policies, and implement changes based on methodical and precise investigation of the organization, its stakeholders, and the environment. Having this perspective does not mean that we should limit our way of looking at communication and consider it as a mere tool. We still see communication as the pivotal process that shapes the structure of an organization. We take full advantage of this in achieving the desired situation.

In creating a communication plan, for example, an orgscientist would first look at the organization’s need, its culture, its people, its resources, its identity, and the overall organizational makeup. Then, he analyzes the problem backed with his practical knowledge in the social sciences. With a good grasp on the problem or opportunity, the orgscientist sets a goal with well-defined objectives and then creates strategies and tactics parallel to and addressing the problem or opportunity.

A Solid Relationship starts with a Buzz

So the main question is: “How do we create buzz?” What I learned from Rosen’s book, The Anatomy of Buzz Revisited (2009), is that it’s very simple — a good product or service is all that’s basically needed in creating buzz. A buzz starts from a single comment and what’s a better way to get a comment than delighting your customers through quality products and good services? It is the comments of delighted customers that give way to word-of-mouth marketing. Basically.

Of course, creating buzz isn’t as easy as 1, 2, 3. It doesn’t end by just providing high quality products and services.  There are a lot of awesome products in the market but it doesn’t mean that they would automatically yield positive buzz. Negative buzz or no buzz at all is not an impossible scenario for them. A brand should not just delight its customers, it has to understand them. Knowing their “kiliti” would trigger them to talk about your brand. It is also important to give them the avenue to speak out their hearts and tell the world how much they love your brand. Offline and online, they’ll be so excited, you can’t stop them talking about (and promoting) your brand.

That’s how it works. Delight your customers, stimulate conversations, provide an avenue for conversations, and join them in their conversations. More than buzz and WOM, what you get is a solid relationship with your customers. By producing the best products and most exciting services, this relationship can be strengthened and sustained.

 

I promised a very special friend that my next blog post will be three-paragraph long only. Here it is! Challenge accepted. 🙂

Reference:

Rosen, Emanuel. 2009. Anatomy of Buzz Revisited. New York: Doubleday.

The Intimate Medium

In his book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, Marshall McLuhan provided a very academic and philosophical discussion on his declaration that the medium is the message. Medium was defined as anything that may serve as an extension of any human sense or organ while message is the psychic and social implications of using or interacting with the medium. In my understanding of his words, a medium is anything that amplifies, provides ease to, and augments human action. Message, on the other hand, is the result, consequence, or outcome that the medium brings. Before a person interacts with the content of the medium, he first has to interact with the medium itself. The developments of various media and their interplay with the human society were discussed. He declared that men are reaching the final phase of their extension which he dubbed as the “technological simulation of consciousness”.

To make McLuhan’s book more relevant to our society today, let us consider a new technology or medium and scrutinize what could be the message that it conveys. Let us give consideration to the mobile phone which is more popularly called by the Filipinos as ‘cellphone.’ As a medium, the cellphone has been continually evolving. From being just a simple gadget used to communicate with someone, it can now have a lot of features such as camera, camcorder, organizer, music player, and a lot more. However, it did not fail to serve its fundamental function which is to call or send text messages to someone.

The New Face of Labor

Specialization leads to extinction.

The development of labor and its implications on economics have shaped nations through out the years. History has witnessed how households, workers, and firms have played their roles in producing the different faces of labor over time.

Indeed, division of labor became pivotal to firms and businesses. Adam Smith is right when he described it as one of the central drivers of economic progress. Division of labor during the Industrial Revolution was exclusive to physical labor. However, as new technologies arise, new challenges and opportunities are also being introduced. Thus, new platforms for organizations emerge. Corollary to this is a new face of labor. As expected, these technological innovations will be maximized by organizations. Managers and owners of today’s organizations have a mindset that is open for unlimited possibilities.

Perhaps this mindset has led economies and organizations worldwide to the Era of Hyperspecialization. Hyperspecialization is defined by Thomas Malone, Robert J. Laubacher, and Tammy Johns in their article, The Age of Hyperspecialization, as the “atomization of work previously done by one person into more-specialized pieces done by several people”. Now, we say, that hyperspecialization is the new face of labor. Ergo, we should look at how this encompassing change in the world of business can affect organizations in the Philippines.

Is Indie the New Mainstream?

Cinemalaya Philippine Independent Film Festival 2011 became very close to my heart. It revived my interest in the Arts and led me to my wishful thinking of pursuing a filmmaking career in the future. It also reminded me of how rich our culture is and made me even more proud of being a Filipino.

The Cinemalaya Foundation, Inc. and its annual indie film festival however are still on the stage of establishing an institutional identity and image. It may be successful in reaching its national target market, but what about going international and global? Though Cinemalaya has already been screening international films, I believe that as an organization, it is still far from reaching its full potential. The artistic arm of our country still has more to offer.

Nevertheless, it is true that independent films are reviving the dying film industry in our country. In this year’s Cinemalaya, I watched seven entries and also witnessed the opening ceremonies in Greenbelt 3. It is this year that Cinemalaya was first brought to Greenbelt and I am proud to be part of the said event.

I can say that aside from the effective management of the administration, the success of Cinemalaya 7 both in Greenbelt and in CCP is because of the warm support given by the Filipino film audience. During those nights I spent in CCP, I observed that the members of the Cinemalaya audience are mostly youth – college students, young professionals, and amateurs in the indie film industry. The demographics only tell us where the industry is heading. Indeed, Cinemalaya 7 owes greatly its success to the trendsetters of today’s society.

Co-creation of content as a social obligation

This is a follow-up post to a blog entry on my Tumblelog. Click here to see post.

The key points of my previous blog entry are as follows:

• The communications industry needs not mere intellect but the willingness to let go of a piece of one’s self – his dreams, ideologies and even identity.
• The power to manage media does not need a responsible user but a wise one. What destroys a person in the communication profession is not his lack of ethics but his ignorance of the power vested in him.
• We cannot always blame the unethical communication practitioner because media manipulation and exploitation have been there even before he entered the battlefield of trickery.
• Consumerism and cultural intrusion of brands are not results of mere exploitation of the public’s sheer ignorance. It is not human ignorance that the organizations exploit but the willingness of the people to welcome brands to their lives.
• As an answer to the never-ending need to strategize in targeting markets; organizations intrude the online culture. The hype that social media can give them is indispensable.
• Communication is a business in itself. Failing to invest in communication and public relations is a corporate suicide.

In my previous post, it was established that as individuals in a society, we have the capacity to determine the extent to which a brand will penetrate our lives and culture. Before, it was assumed that the general public is a passive audience. Now that communication has evolved and the social media is penetrating and shaping cultures around the world, it is but timely to say that every individual who has access to the Internet also has the power in making or breaking a brand.