Etiquette

I have to say that I agree with the cell phone etiquette in our text. I fell that is rude when anyone engages in conversations on their cell phone when they are at the movies, out to dinner, and church services. Although, I have had dinner with some women from work and l let them know that I was expecting an important call and that I would like to sit at one of the ends of the table. I wanted to sit at the end of the table so I could easily walk away from the table when I received the call. I believe that by informing them that I was expecting a call and I need to answer it, as well as my placement in the seating arrangements it made it easier for all who attended dinner to understand why I would be on my cell phone. I also have to state like many of you that I hate it when people talk on their phones or text at the movies. It is so disruptive.
The etiquette for answering machines really should be based on the phone number. What I mean by this is that your business phone should not have jokes, weird music, or something snide recorded on it but on your personal home or cell phone it really shouldn’t matter. This is a phone that is paid by the individual not the organization.

I am probably one of the few who hates call waiting. I still have it on my phone only because my caller id will let me know who called and my phone service will automatically connect the call to my answering machine after 4 rings. Otherwise I hate it when I am trying to talk to someone and you keep hearing the beep, it’s like you feel like you have to answer it.

Conference call etiquette does make sense to some degree. I have been on a conference call with just my boss and I. He is a male and I am a female so after the first initial introduction we did not state who we are because we felt it was obvious because of the difference in tone. I do agree with the background noise and snide remarks. People need to remember that on a conference call everything that happens in the room can be hear d on the other side of the room.
I do agree the etiquette for long faxes. I have called several times to recipients to find out a good time to send a 20 page fax. I also thought it was good that the text mentions that faxes can be seen by anyone and they are not private so be careful what you fax.

The timing of communications has become very relaxed with a lot of people because of the technology available. There is a different between the time you call someone on their phone or send them an e-mail.

Screen names and ring tones can sometimes be interpreted by others as offensive or degrading. For instance, I have used sjsueducatedfool since I began SJSU. I have had both negative and positive feedback. This is not a screen name that I would use in the workplace. So it really depends on the environment the appropriateness of a screen name or ring tone.

Question 1

Organizations are tied to the environment by their location and resources to name a few. I like the example the book gives comparing living organisms to the ties organizations have to their environment. In a few of my business classes we studied location and the effects organizations have on the community such as employment and what they give back to the community. I like to compare the ties they have to ties we have to our planet. We haven’t been taking care of our planet, hence tomorrow is Earth day, we our experiences dramatic changes in temperature and extinction of species that our ecosystem needs to survive. This is just like an organization. Some organization have had to recently layoff employees which in turn slows down the economy of the community because the laid off worker can no longer purchase as many goods.

The relationship between San Jose State University and the city of San Jose is something I know little about. Once I think about it SJSU is a commuter college so the college gets a lot of out of town students attending. The university does promote economic means to the city. The ethical obligations SJSU has to its local community is to produce well educated individuals as well as recognized the connection between the city and the college and represent itself as such.

Concept that I liked

One of the concepts that I found interesting were the rules for disclosing. I never realized that there were rules to follow but after I read them they made sense. According to Townsend (2008) these are the rules for disclosure, “self disclosure is not appropriate in all relationships, consider the effect your disclosure will have on others, choose the right time and place for your disclosure, disclosures should also be related to what is happening in the here and now, disclosures should be gradual, and disclosures should be reciprocal” (p. 161- 162). The first rule is somewhat common sense. I wouldn’t tell my co-worker about an argument that I had with my mother but I would tell my husband. Sometimes however people just blab out personal information about themselves at the inappropriate time with people they know little about. Many of us have the common sense not to do this and we have the tools through education to guide us in our own communication with others. All of these rules will help increase relational skills and should be made easily accessible.

Duck's Interpesonal Attraction: Filtering Theory

It has been a while since I have had to think about the filters I used to eliminate people from consideration as potential romantic partners. As I reflect back and review Duck’s interpersonal attraction filtering theory the interaction I encountered with the opposite sex had to at least make it through the first two filters of sociological or incidental cues and interaction cues. The reason for elimination of the sociological filter is the lack of communication or as Townsend puts it “frequency of interaction”, if he doesn’t pay attention to me, he might not be that into me. As for the interaction cue I need to be able to talk to someone and the conversation flows, it needs to be easy and not uncomfortable. I have found that the more effortless it is to communicate with someone it factors into the preinteraction, in other words they become more attractive to me.

The interaction cues and cognitive cues can lead me to judge others as unattractive. These filters consist of conversation management and similarities in beliefs and values. This is where I can really find out if a person has a heart and/or is caring. But I can also find out if they have views that are so different from my own it makes them unattractive to me. The preinteraction cues can be an initial reaction that someone is unattractive but if I get to know them the superficial goes away. I guess you can tell that I have eliminated someone by preinteraction cue to only reconsider them based on interaction and cognitive cues. So I do have to say that I agree with Duck’s theory that all of the filters are relevant factors in the decision to take a relationship to the intimate level.

Rigid Role Relations

Of the three patterns (rigid complementarity, competitive symmetry, or submissive symmetry) it is my opinion that competitive symmetry would be the most difficult to change. The power struggle to be dominate can destroy a relationship, as Townsend (2008) states, “this pattern can be stressful and frustrating and can take its toll on the patience of the partners” (p.148). I have to say that this pattern can also be the most damaging. Stress and frustration lead to unhappiness, which in turn can end a relationship.

The pattern that could be the most damaging to the self-esteem of the individual involved in a relationship is the rigid complementarity. I leaned toward this pattern because if one of the individuals is tired of being submissive or in the one-down-role can it can lead to a feeling of unworthiness. In other words the individual realizes that he or she has taken on a role in the relationship that is not healthy for their self-esteem.

I didn’t mention the submissive symmetry only because the example in the book given is something that I experience all the time with my husband. We have been together for 16 years now. Deciding what to eat is a major decision in our household. From experience someone is going to get hungry enough to make a decision and then everyone will eat.

Assumption of similarity

One of the concepts from Chapter 12 that peaked my interest is assumption of similarity. Trenholm (2008) describes this concept as, “a refusal to see true differences where they exist” p. 357. The example of a smile from the text was a great example. The fact that a smile can be interpreted according to culture is something that never occurred to me. The example the text used of the different interpretations surprised me; “a smile may be interpreted as a sexual invitation or as a sign of derision…extremely impolite” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 358). I really wish the text disclosed which cultures had the different interpretations. I usually smile as a sign of friendliness or acknowledgement and never considered this universal expression to be interpreted so differently. How naive.

Rationality, Perfectibility, and Mutability premise

I have to say that I do believe in the rationality and mutability premises. Trenholm (2008) defines the premises as such: “the rationality premise – the belief that most people are capable of discovering the truth through logical analysis…the mutability premise assumes that human behavior is shaped by environmental factors and that the way to improve humans is to improve their physical and psychological circumstances” p. 353. First of all the rationality premise makes sense to me if I apply it to people; on the other hand this premise which is practiced by our government (democracy) is not always 100% correct in discovering the truth or maybe I should say a little late in discovering the truth. A great example would be our financial crisis. The example in the book regarding the mutability premise of universal education is a good one. I understand that if everyone on our planet had the opportunity to be educated it would lead to a change in not only improved human behavior but an improved planet that we live on. The perfectibility premise is one that I do not agree with. In fact it makes me think of something I would hear from a cult leader. Humans are not born in sin and that is my opinion. The statement really sent me through the roof. We are all capable of achieving goodness through effort and control but it does not mean we were born in sin. I guess I don’t consider sex to be a sin. I could just go on and on about this premise but I won’t. Maybe I interpreted the definition of perfectibility premise differently than some of you. I would really like to hear your opinion.