1. For our unit 1 assignment I found myself diving further into the Syracuse database. My initial research began by looking up the topics we had already been reviewing for over the past two-three weeks. I found linking scholarly and academic articles with keywords such as homogeneity, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., helpful in narrowing down targeted interests. From here, I came across a few articles that opened a topic of conversation I at least had not considered yet. Language and the effect multilingualism has in the workplace particularly caught my eye. My preliminary understanding from the briefs I read suggested this form of diversity is an emerging topic worth further scholarly investigation. As the workplace becomes increasingly global, challenges in communication between employees with different linguistic backgrounds are inevitable. Topics worth following up on include case studies and understanding the dynamics between native/ nonnative language speakers. Seeing the effects this has from an individual, team, and organizational level overlaps with a few of the readings we’ve had such as Kaplan and Donovans ‘level of systems’ framework. Similarily, Gundemir’s take on leadership, goals, and perceptions coincide heavily with how minorities can find comfort in communicating in other languages at work.
3. Kaplan and Donovan’s intent was to place readers in a position of judgment where they could reassess the impact one’s words and actions have at the workplace. From the narrative of executive employee Kim, readers follow vignettes of her day to day schedule prompting readers to think about how her decisions stand with concurrent issues of diversity and inclusion. The storyline is broken down in the latter half of the chapter addressing solutions or alternative ways Kim could have better-approached a work-related scenario.
Kaplan and Donovan develop these sections speaking on the distinction of good intent versus impact, the importance of recognizing unconscious bias, and the problems with insider-outsider group relations. They’re able to reach a broad audience because of the familiarity Kim’s everyday anecdote presents, however, the extent of their writing only comes across as far as the simplicity of their solutions. The sometimes overly perfect measures Kim could have taken suggest ‘quick’ fixes for an otherwise complex system. Still, Kaplan and Donovan’s approach at its core reopens a lingering discussion dissectable for readers to understand the perspective of those who fall short of being included. The best use their key takeaways realize is that the reevaluation of systematic views at various scales only marks the beginning.
I like your wording of how the article used Kim as a reflection of the reader. Many people go about their day communicating unclearly to the people that surround them and it can be very damaging. The article replaces the reader’s position with a fictional manager to connect how the language a person uses can be beneficial, or destructive to a relationship. I also agree that the authors used overly perfect examples for Kim, the way humans explain ideas versus how they are used in daily life differ greatly, but to bring attention to those ideas are still very necessary.
As the authors explain, Kim is an amalgam, an aggregate of traits and situations that they’ve seen popping up throughout their work. (That’s why the examples are so spot-on–it’s not necessarily that one person made all these mistakes, but rather that the authors have seen all these mistakes made by managers. It’s a bit exaggerated for effect and brevity.)
This exaggerated type makes it pretty easy for the reader to find something they would recognize, something that sounds familiar. I would agree with you, Bryan, that that is a key aspect of K&D’s project–to get the reader thinking about how they have probably made some of the same mistakes–and that’s because they’re trying to convince folks to take pay for their consulting services.