Paper help needed tonight!!

Case Study

Being friends with your co-workers, can have pros and cons. On the one hand, it is nice to have a friendly rapport with the people you spend a lot of time around at work. Being friendly with the people around the office with makes coming to your job more enjoyable. No one wants to be in a hostile work environment after all. According to the American Psychological Association, research has shown that friendships in the workplace “can increase job satisfaction, productivity and job commitment while decreasing stress and turnover.” Healthy and ethical workplace friendships based on common interests and trust can help improve morale, give co-workers a better support network, and provide practical support for the job at hand.

There are of course also downsides to friendships in the workplace. According to one study published in the 2007 University of Auckland Business Review, workplace friendships sometimes caused difficulties such as “blurring boundaries, distracting employees and hampering productivity.” Another study focused more on the reasons for the drawbacks to workplace friendships, and found that the leading cause of problems was when co-workers failed to live up to expectations based on roles expected of friendship, such as negative reviews from a friendly supervisor or a co-worker not backing another’s ideas.

Theory

It takes two people, at least, to have a conversation. During a conversation, the participants communicate by creating messages, sending messages, and interpreting those messages. Through coordination and coherence, these messages hopefully create a shared meaning. The Coordinated Management of Meaning theory, or CMM, was first developed and introduced by Barnett Pearce and Vernon Cronen in 1978 (Griffin, 2013). In their theory, Pearce and Cronen assert that “persons-in-conversation co-construct their own social realities and are simultaneously shaped by the worlds they create” (Griffin, 2013, p.67). To better understand the meaning of CMM and apply it towards positive communication, consider the questions: “What are we making together? How are we making it? How can we make better social worlds?” (Griffin, 2013, p.67). By understanding that our communication patterns shape reality, we can use communication to effectively create a reality that we want to exist in together.

CMM theory looks at patterns in our communication. These communication patterns can be described, their creation and co-creation explained, and recommendations for more positive communication made all by using CMM theory (Pearce, 2004). CMM theory focuses on the products of our communication, and is also a way of understanding who we are because we can

be shaped and defined by our communication, as can our social worlds. Communication is our “primary social reality” (Pearce, 2004, p. 10). Pearce further elaborates. “Communication processes constitute our knowledge of ourselves and of the world in which we live; patterns of communication shape the persons that we are and the quality of our lives” (2004, p. 10).

There are several key concepts, or axioms, that can be used to conceptualize Coordinated Management of Meaning theory. To better understand CMM theory, I will describe three of them.

Coordination

According to Barnett Pearce, coordination is the “process by which persons collaborate in an attempt to bring into being their vision of what is necessary, noble, and good and to preclude the enactment of what they fear, hate, or despise” (1989, p. 32-33). In other words, coordination is the way in which our actions and the actions of others come together to create patterns. The patterns make up all the objects and events in our social worlds, and are co-created by us and those around us (Pearce & Cronen, 1980). These patterns are what create meanings and “stories lived” and “stories told”. According to Griffin, stories lived are “the co-constructed actions that we perform with others” (2013, p. 73). Stories lived include the actions that have made up the meaning of our lives. Coordination is what happens when we take our stories lived and fit them together with the stories lived of those around us, thus improving our lives together. However, meshing of stories lived does not have to include a common agreement or interpretation of an event.

Coherence

Coherence is how we use communication to make meaning and define ourselves and the world around us. While coordination was our “stories lived”, coherence is our “stories told”. These are the stories that we tell about ourselves, to ourselves and others, that give our lives meaning. We tell stories about our own identities as well as our collective identities with others and the world around us (Pearce and Cronen, 1980). Our stories can have multiple contexts and interpretations, and our “stories told” are often tangled in and in tension with our “stories lived”. How we handle this tension between “stories told” and “stories lived” is the management of meaning. There are several communication models that are a part of CMM that help us interpret the stories and the contexts that create them (Griffen, 2013).

Mystery

Mystery is the understanding that there is more to life than just what we see and create, and that not everything can always be explained. Sometimes we may have experiences or reactions that don’t follow any patterns. Furthermore, when we are focused on one version of reality, we may become predisposed to only seeing our world in that way, and therefore might miss other ways that reality around us can be interpreted (Pearce, 2004). According to Pearce and Cronen, if we attempt to reduce our lives to the mere facts in our daily existence, we are making a mistake and will not succeed in simplifying our lives in such a way (1980). While our “stories lived” and “stories told” contribute to our coordination and coherence of our lives and the universe around us, there are much more things going on than just our stories alone. Mystery can also be described as “stories unexpressed”. This is “the recognition that the world and our experience of it is more than any of the particular stories that make it coherent or any of the activities in which we engage” (Pearce, 2004, p. 12).

Background

At the rescue center where I work as Executive Director, we have a small volunteer staff and work in close proximity to each other. Not being friendly to the volunteers who work for me would create a very unpleasant situation. There are some volunteers who I have formed more intimate friendships with over time. One such volunteer is Brittany, who is such a close friend at this point, she is more like family. Brittany has been volunteering with us for three years, often helps with special projects outside of her regular animal maintenance duties, has adopted two animals from the rescue, and always includes us in her generous year-end donations. Outside of work we regularly have lunch dates, keep up with each other’s personal lives, and she was an honored guest at my wedding. Despite her years of dutiful service to the organization and friendship to me, there are times that she can really drive me crazy. Brittany is often a minimum of thirty minutes late to her volunteer shift, has called in more times than some of our volunteers have worked, and often makes plans and promises that she later can’t keep. Often, I excuse these negative habits because of all the good she has done for the organization and for me, but this sometimes creates unfavorable communication patterns between us.

For this case study, I will be examining my relationship with Brittany and applying the Coordinated Management of Meaning theory, or CMM, to help analyze and explain our communication. I will explain the theory and define the terms that I apply to this real-life communication situation, analyze our communication based on principles of the theory, and then provide recommendations to improve our relationship and our communication.

Analysis

CMM theory looks at patterns in our communication. These communication patterns can be described, their creation and co-creation explained, and recommendations for more positive communication made all by using CMM theory (Pearce, 2004). In this particular case between Brittany and me, our communication is not effective because of the tension between coordination, coherence, and mystery. We are currently not succeeding in co-constructing the social reality between us that we really desire.

Coordination

Coordination is also what is described as “stories lived.” These stories lived are the actual things going on in our lives that we are doing. In our case, Brittany’s stories lived – her actions – include the numerous positive things she does to help the rescue as a volunteer and donor and the things she does for me as my friend, as well as the negative behaviors such as not always keeping her commitments and obligations. Her actions have created a predictable pattern of unaccountability. When I see Brittany’s name on our volunteer schedule for a particular shift, I have gotten to the point where I assume that she will not make it rather than that she will. In this case, my actions are also part of the stories lived. My actions include not communicating directly with Brittany about these issues and getting frustrated with her.

Coherence

Coherence is our “stories told.” These stories are how we communicate and describe ourselves, our thoughts, and our motivations. I believe that both Brittany and I have “stories told” that don’t always match our “stories lived”. Brittany thinks of herself as a devoted volunteer and friend to the rescue and me. She loves and cares about our organization and staff, and I’m sure she considers us one of her priorities. She does acknowledge that she often runs late and often has to cancel her shifts, however she defines this part of her identity as if it was just a silly quirk of character rather than considering herself unreliable or inconsiderate.

Mystery

Mystery is our “stories untold.” In our case, much of the mystery comes from our lack of honest communication. I feel like I don’t always really know what’s going on with Brittany that causes her behavior when she is late or absent. There may be things going on in her life that she doesn’t disclose to me, and she may use other excuses because she doesn’t want to share the truth. How I really feel about the situation is a mystery to her as well because I don’t open up and share how disappointed and frustrated I feel with her. When we have discussed her lack of accountability in the past, I have dismissed it and said I understood or didn’t mind, which wasn’t really true. Much of the miscommunication between us is due to our coordination, coherence, and mystery being in tension and there being a lack of openness for understanding.

Recommendations

This lack of honest communication is getting us nowhere. However, there is a solution if we apply concepts from CMM. CMM teaches us that we can create the outcome we want by recognizing the unwanted pattern and then changing our communication. Brittany and I both want to create a social world in which we are close friends and coworkers. We want a world where we can both count on each other, and both respect and value one another. In our perfect social world, Brittany would be a reliable volunteer and friend, and she wouldn’t have so many conflicts arise that cause her to be late or absent from her duties at the rescue or our dates to do things as friends. Ideally, we would both also be able to honestly communicate with each other about how the other’s actions make us feel, and help work through that instead of ignoring the situation and dismissing our feelings. One possible step we could take to break the cycle is to better explain our points of view without getting frustrated at the other person’s reality of the situation. For example, I could explain to Brittany how I really feel about the times that she shows up late or not at all. I could find a way to express my disappointment and explain that I feel let down because I value her so highly. Brittany could be honest with me about her abilities and availability instead of committing to more than she can handle. She can also be truthful about why she cannot keep her commitments instead of giving excuses that are sometimes wild and far-fetched. Hopefully, if we co-create a social world where we can have honest and open communication, it would solve many of the problems we are experiencing.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Communicated Management of Meaning theory is all about co-construction of our social worlds through coordination and coherence, or “stories lived” and “stories told”. This shared meaning is how we communicate and create with others around us. However, we must always be aware that there are also “stories unexpressed” as well.

Reference

Griffin, Em. (2013). A First Look at Communication Theory, 8th Ed. NY: McGraw Hill.

Pearce, W. Barnett, & Cronen, Vernon. (1980). Communication, action, and meaning: The

creation of social realities. New York: Praeger.

Pearce, W. Barnett. (1989). Communication and the Human Condition. IL: Southern Illinois

University.

Pearce, W. Barnett. (2004). Using CMM "The Coordinated Management of Meaning”. Retrieved

February 12, 2015, from http://www.pearceassociates.com/essays/cmm_seminar.pdf