Tackling the Paradigm Monster...Tylenol #224 Please
The Case of the Withering Non-profit Health Organization
THE INFORMATION BELOW IS NOT TO BE COPIED, EDITED, OR SOLD WITHOUT THE EXPRESS, WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR.
Revisiting the Four Paradigms or Worldviews: The case of the withering non-profit health organization
Jim L. Query, Jr., Ph.D.
1/28/1999, Draft 1
The purpose of the information below is to clarify the nature of the four paradigms discussed in class. Should you have additional questions, please touch base with me. Thanks!
Perhaps a good starting point is to first consider a sample scenario. Then, demonstrate how a communication scholar and/or practitioner would approach that situation based on the four paradigms and delineate underlying goals. It is essential to note also that the situation--or target--need not change. Indeed, it may be much easier to grasp if the situation is identical across the four paradigms.
Scenario
In a relatively large metropolitan area, a non-profit organization (NPO1) had been in operation for about nine years. During its initial five-year period, NPO1 had experienced many growing pains; yet, largely due to the drive and perseverance of its board of directors, the organization had made some significant strides in developing a support group network, implementing small-scale fund-raising campaigns, presenting talks throughout the community, providing help-line assistance by phone, and securing donated office space in an easily accessible medical support building.
Unfortunately, however, the bulk of the board of directors--those chiefly responsible for policy--were also family caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Additionally, due primarily to the small size of the organization, the board of directors also implemented their own policies. In most non-profits of sufficient size, this juxtaposition of roles and responsibilities would be very damaging, and ultimately, catastrophic.
As the loved ones of the board members died, a high level of burnout and stagnation set in. These debilitating feelings are quite typical and can trigger harmful health outcomes if not lessened in a timely fashion (see Query & Flint, 1996). Regrettably, no sustained and meaningful assistance was forthcoming and the organization moved very close to entropy; that is, disarray, destruction, and/or death. Just how bad was the situation?
Some of the problems follow. The organization had dysfunctional and obsolete office equipment ranging from a manual typewriter last repaired in 1951, an answering machine that worked well when coaxed with a slap on its side, to poorly legible literature for help-line callers and office walk-ins. There also was no fax machine, no computer equipment, no liability insurance, few current videotapes about the disease, and an archaic and practically useless accounting system. There was no regular creation and dissemination of a newsletter, nor was there a systematic, current, and accurate mailing list of benefactors and/or callers. Not surprisingly, there was also a pervasive sense of despair, depression, and aggravation among the organization's volunteers.
The goals of the organization remained unchanged from those at its inception. These included Support, Education, Advocacy, and Research. Due to the great impact of the problems above, however, only the support and education goals were being addressed, and then, in a very small way.
Now, how would an organizational communication scholar tackle this situation from each of the four paradigms? Let's first revisit some of the key tenets of each approach.
The Functionalist Paradigm
Main thrust
Organizations are cast as objects, often machines, and their communication processes can be measured and related to a wide array of organizational features. The most common practice is to relate these communication processes to outputs or some type of productivity (often examined through quantitative means).
The Interpretivist Paradigm
Main thrust
Organizations are cast as cultures forged from the inner and shared experiences of organizational members and key publics. The lived experience of individuals is emphasized as crucial to understanding the essence of organizing. Communication processes can be best captured by in-depth interviews, participant observation, and other qualitative data collection approaches. A common goal is to explain the meanings that shape the quality of daily life within the organization.
The Radical Humanist Paradigm
Main thrust
Organizations are cast as oppressive (see Putnam, 1982) in that some individuals seek to impose some level of control on others and often in an unethical and dehumanizing manner. The primary tools of this oppression are symbolic and meaning-driven. Such messages usually seek to dramatically constrain the behavior of the targeted audiences (see Caterpillar current article). A primary assumption is that some type of behavior is undesirable and in need of change.
The Radical Structuralist Paradigm
Main thrust
Organizations are cast as oppressive (see Putnam, 1982) in that some individuals seek to impose some level of control on others and often in an unethical and dehumanizing manner. The primary tools of this oppression are power differentials and gross inequalities found in concrete structures such as the chain of command (aka, the ol' boys network) and other tangible communication channels. Such messages usually seek to dramatically constrain the behavior of the targeted audiences (see Caterpillar current article). A primary assumption is that some type of behavior is undesirable and in need of change.
The Scoop Concerning the Concepts of Order and Reality
Order refers to job descriptions, chain of command positions, relationship of departments to one another, and the allocation of resources.
A regulative view of order seeks to maintain the status quo.
A radical view of order seeks to make major changes in the existing operations. Most scholars view this approach as an extreme since it is often linked to oppression and manipulative control of others (please refer to the Caterpillar current event article).
The whole notion of order then is heavily shaped by political forces (see Daniels & Spiker, 1994).
Reality is cast as a dichotomy for purposes of understanding the paradigms. Hence, the types of reality are objective and subjective.
An objective view, sometimes called the external view (see Fisher, 1978) is consistent with the main thrust of functionalism and to a lesser extent--radical structuralism--and views organizations and communication in concrete, tangible ways.
A subjective view positions organizations and communication in terms of self and other constructed reality( internal and/or shared meanings). It is consistent with the main thrust of interpretivism and to a lesser extent radical humanism.
Focusing in on One Small Part of the Crisis
Recall the lack of a systematic, current, and accurate mailing list of benefactors and/or callers.
Now, how would a functionalist view this challenge?
One approach would be to examine the incoming calls and letters (tangible communication processes), then quantify and code them to develop an accurate data base that could be linked to fundraising efforts (productivity).
Now, how would an interpretivist view this challenge?
One approach would be to examine how the volunteers assign meaning to the incoming calls and letters (sense-making processes). A related question could be, to what extent does their pervasive sense of gloom adversely color their interpretations of the organization's mission and vitality? While there usually is not a direct link to productivity per se, the implications are like aqua velva.
Now, how would a radical humanist view this challenge?
One strategy would be to evaluate messages that limit volunteer initiative and their motivation to help others through professional and compassionate means. Consider such phrases as, don't worry about it, they will never know the difference. We're the only game in town so they will play by our rules. A radical humanist would seek to foster change by emphasizing the callous and dehumanizing nature of organizational symbols and language.
Now, how would a radical structuralist view this challenge?
One strategy would be to evaluate the role of the board of directors. In particular, they could examine the concrete ways--such as providing constantly changing and inconvenient volunteer work schedules--in which the board (structural) reinforces the blocking of volunteer initiative at the expense of the targeted population.
The Take on Order and Reality
With this exemplar in-hand, it should be much easier to ID each paradigm's take or position on Order and Reality.
Functionalism
- Order is regulative------>Why? The example above reveals...
- Reality is objective----->Why? The example above reveals...
Interpretivism
- Order is regulative------->Why? The example above reveals...
- Reality is subjective----->Why? The example above reveals...
Radical Humanism
- Order is radical--------->Why? The example above reveals...
- Reality is subjective---->Why? The example above reveals...
Radical Structuralism
- Order is radical--------->Why? The example above reveals...
- Reality is objective----->Why? The example above reveals...
Bibliography
Daniels, T. D., & Spiker, B. K. (1994). Perspectives on organizational communication (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark.
Fisher, B. A. (1978). Perspectives on human communication. New York: MacMillan.
Putnam, L. L. (1982). Paradigms for organizational communication research: An overview and synthesis. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 192-206.
Query, J. L., & Flint, L. J. (1996). The caregiving relationship. In N. Vanzetti & S. Duck (Eds.), A lifetime of relationships (pp. 455-483). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Revisiting the Four Paradigms or Worldviews: The case of the withering non-profit health organization
Jim L. Query, Jr., Ph.D.
1/28/1999, Draft 1
The purpose of the information below is to clarify the nature of the four paradigms discussed in class. Should you have additional questions, please touch base with me. Thanks!
Perhaps a good starting point is to first consider a sample scenario. Then, demonstrate how a communication scholar and/or practitioner would approach that situation based on the four paradigms and delineate underlying goals. It is essential to note also that the situation--or target--need not change. Indeed, it may be much easier to grasp if the situation is identical across the four paradigms.
Scenario
In a relatively large metropolitan area, a non-profit organization (NPO1) had been in operation for about nine years. During its initial five-year period, NPO1 had experienced many growing pains; yet, largely due to the drive and perseverance of its board of directors, the organization had made some significant strides in developing a support group network, implementing small-scale fund-raising campaigns, presenting talks throughout the community, providing help-line assistance by phone, and securing donated office space in an easily accessible medical support building.
Unfortunately, however, the bulk of the board of directors--those chiefly responsible for policy--were also family caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Additionally, due primarily to the small size of the organization, the board of directors also implemented their own policies. In most non-profits of sufficient size, this juxtaposition of roles and responsibilities would be very damaging, and ultimately, catastrophic.
As the loved ones of the board members died, a high level of burnout and stagnation set in. These debilitating feelings are quite typical and can trigger harmful health outcomes if not lessened in a timely fashion (see Query & Flint, 1996). Regrettably, no sustained and meaningful assistance was forthcoming and the organization moved very close to entropy; that is, disarray, destruction, and/or death. Just how bad was the situation?
Some of the problems follow. The organization had dysfunctional and obsolete office equipment ranging from a manual typewriter last repaired in 1951, an answering machine that worked well when coaxed with a slap on its side, to poorly legible literature for help-line callers and office walk-ins. There also was no fax machine, no computer equipment, no liability insurance, few current videotapes about the disease, and an archaic and practically useless accounting system. There was no regular creation and dissemination of a newsletter, nor was there a systematic, current, and accurate mailing list of benefactors and/or callers. Not surprisingly, there was also a pervasive sense of despair, depression, and aggravation among the organization's volunteers.
The goals of the organization remained unchanged from those at its inception. These included Support, Education, Advocacy, and Research. Due to the great impact of the problems above, however, only the support and education goals were being addressed, and then, in a very small way.
Now, how would an organizational communication scholar tackle this situation from each of the four paradigms? Let's first revisit some of the key tenets of each approach.
The Functionalist Paradigm
Main thrust
Organizations are cast as objects, often machines, and their communication processes can be measured and related to a wide array of organizational features. The most common practice is to relate these communication processes to outputs or some type of productivity (often examined through quantitative means).
The Interpretivist Paradigm
Main thrust
Organizations are cast as cultures forged from the inner and shared experiences of organizational members and key publics. The lived experience of individuals is emphasized as crucial to understanding the essence of organizing. Communication processes can be best captured by in-depth interviews, participant observation, and other qualitative data collection approaches. A common goal is to explain the meanings that shape the quality of daily life within the organization.
The Radical Humanist Paradigm
Main thrust
Organizations are cast as oppressive (see Putnam, 1982) in that some individuals seek to impose some level of control on others and often in an unethical and dehumanizing manner. The primary tools of this oppression are symbolic and meaning-driven. Such messages usually seek to dramatically constrain the behavior of the targeted audiences (see Caterpillar current article). A primary assumption is that some type of behavior is undesirable and in need of change.
The Radical Structuralist Paradigm
Main thrust
Organizations are cast as oppressive (see Putnam, 1982) in that some individuals seek to impose some level of control on others and often in an unethical and dehumanizing manner. The primary tools of this oppression are power differentials and gross inequalities found in concrete structures such as the chain of command (aka, the ol' boys network) and other tangible communication channels. Such messages usually seek to dramatically constrain the behavior of the targeted audiences (see Caterpillar current article). A primary assumption is that some type of behavior is undesirable and in need of change.
The Scoop Concerning the Concepts of Order and Reality
Order refers to job descriptions, chain of command positions, relationship of departments to one another, and the allocation of resources.
A regulative view of order seeks to maintain the status quo.
A radical view of order seeks to make major changes in the existing operations. Most scholars view this approach as an extreme since it is often linked to oppression and manipulative control of others (please refer to the Caterpillar current event article).
The whole notion of order then is heavily shaped by political forces (see Daniels & Spiker, 1994).
Reality is cast as a dichotomy for purposes of understanding the paradigms. Hence, the types of reality are objective and subjective.
An objective view, sometimes called the external view (see Fisher, 1978) is consistent with the main thrust of functionalism and to a lesser extent--radical structuralism--and views organizations and communication in concrete, tangible ways.
A subjective view positions organizations and communication in terms of self and other constructed reality( internal and/or shared meanings). It is consistent with the main thrust of interpretivism and to a lesser extent radical humanism.
Focusing in on One Small Part of the Crisis
Recall the lack of a systematic, current, and accurate mailing list of benefactors and/or callers.
Now, how would a functionalist view this challenge?
One approach would be to examine the incoming calls and letters (tangible communication processes), then quantify and code them to develop an accurate data base that could be linked to fundraising efforts (productivity).
Now, how would an interpretivist view this challenge?
One approach would be to examine how the volunteers assign meaning to the incoming calls and letters (sense-making processes). A related question could be, to what extent does their pervasive sense of gloom adversely color their interpretations of the organization's mission and vitality? While there usually is not a direct link to productivity per se, the implications are like aqua velva.
Now, how would a radical humanist view this challenge?
One strategy would be to evaluate messages that limit volunteer initiative and their motivation to help others through professional and compassionate means. Consider such phrases as, don't worry about it, they will never know the difference. We're the only game in town so they will play by our rules. A radical humanist would seek to foster change by emphasizing the callous and dehumanizing nature of organizational symbols and language.
Now, how would a radical structuralist view this challenge?
One strategy would be to evaluate the role of the board of directors. In particular, they could examine the concrete ways--such as providing constantly changing and inconvenient volunteer work schedules--in which the board (structural) reinforces the blocking of volunteer initiative at the expense of the targeted population.
The Take on Order and Reality
With this exemplar in-hand, it should be much easier to ID each paradigm's take or position on Order and Reality.
Functionalism
- Order is regulative------>Why? The example above reveals...
- Reality is objective----->Why? The example above reveals...
Interpretivism
- Order is regulative------->Why? The example above reveals...
- Reality is subjective----->Why? The example above reveals...
Radical Humanism
- Order is radical--------->Why? The example above reveals...
- Reality is subjective---->Why? The example above reveals...
Radical Structuralism
- Order is radical--------->Why? The example above reveals...
- Reality is objective----->Why? The example above reveals...
Bibliography
Daniels, T. D., & Spiker, B. K. (1994). Perspectives on organizational communication (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark.
Fisher, B. A. (1978). Perspectives on human communication. New York: MacMillan.
Putnam, L. L. (1982). Paradigms for organizational communication research: An overview and synthesis. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 192-206.
Query, J. L., & Flint, L. J. (1996). The caregiving relationship. In N. Vanzetti & S. Duck (Eds.), A lifetime of relationships (pp. 455-483). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Organizational Flow Chart
