- The first TED Talk I watched was Jason Fried’s talk entitled “Why work doesn’t happen at work.” His rhetoric approach was very effective in proving his point that people daily do work anywhere else besides the office due to numerous reasons. One being that there are many interruptions at the office and many distractions that prohibits you from doing your work. He then states that while there are distractions at home as well, those are all voluntary, the ones at the office are involuntary ands he then goes on to give examples of those distractions which he calls the M and M (managers and meetings). In addition to persuading the audience just using this information, he grabs the audiences attention by asking them questions. This is really effective because it gets the audience involved early and he gets a sense of where the crowd is at. Overall, this is a really interesting Ted Talk because its something that is very relevant today people who work for these managers who are in reality distracting them from doing work. He also gives suggestions on what to do to and this is really effective way of presenting his argument that people don’t often do work in the office.
- The other Ted Talk I watched was Renata Seleci: Our unhealthy obsession with choice. She begins this talk by telling a story about one of her friends who worked at a car dealership and gave a customer a tough decision. She would give the customer a offer for a car that would be perfect for their lifestyle at this moment, but then she goes on to give the customer another offer for another car and goes on to explain how this is going to be the perfect car for you in the future. She gives this example because she stated earlier how the ideology of choice is very successful in opening for a space to think about the future. This is a very effective way at giving evidence because its an anecdote from someone who she knows well to get the audience involved and prove her point about choice. In addition, the speaker uses quotes from famous philosophers to further prove her points. She uses Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard who points out that anxiety is linked to the possibility of possibility. This helps prove her point about anxiety that she started earlier. Overall, the evidence that the speaker uses is effective and informative and keeps the audience intrigued.
Unit 1 Assignment Draft – Dominique
Although we have read about diversity in abilities, we have not read an article specifically targeted at schools. This topic is important to me because my major is inclusive elementary and special education teaching, so it is important for me to understand diversity in the classroom. I believe that this topic is essential for everyone to understand because differences should be accepted and valued in society. In order to expand the canon, I decided to include an article about neurodiversity in the classroom called “Valuing Differences: Neurodiversity in the Classroom” which was published by Phi Delta Kappa International, an organization for educators. This article was written by Barb Rentenbach, Lois Prislovsky and Rachael Gabriel who wrote about their experiences as students and educators. This article is different from the others that we have read because the authors have disabilities, so they are writing using their experiences as people in the neurodiverse community. In this article, the authors list different ways that teachers can help students who have disabilities to succeed. The purpose of this article is to inform educators, and other people who work with those who have disabilities, and also to show them that there are things you can do to help your student or coworker succeed. Some people may believe that the best way to help people who have disabilities is to “fix” or “cure” them. However, people who are neurodiverse need to know that they are valued, accepted. They also may need accommodations that will allow them to succeed. All students should feel welcome and respected in the classroom, and this article explains exactly how to do that. In order to support what I have said, and learn more about neurodiversity, I have decided to include a YouTube video in my post. This video is by a woman named Amythest Schaber who has autism, and her thoughts on neurodiversity. Schaber says, “To put it simply, neurodiversity states that everybody on the planet has a different brain and that’s ok”. I like this video because Schaber has autism, so she has experienced some of the hardships that people with disabilities go through when others do not accept them. This video relates to the article that I chose because it gives a little background by explaining neurodiversity, and the movement that goes along with it.
Week of 6/8 Discussion
- In the Ted Talk “Why work doesn’t happen at work” by Jason Fried, the overlying message is that the structure of office work in our society is flawed because of mandatory distractions in the workplace. Fried is a technology entrepreneur who in this presentation it is easy to tell that he is passionate about this topic. It seems that the audience he is aiming towards would be people who currently work in an office environment (or who have in the past).
His message of why the office environment is actually counterproductive is because while asking the question “Where do you go when you want to get things done?” (which is something he’s asked many people for quite a while) hardly ever comes back with the answer of “the office”. He came up with the phrase “M&M” being the cause of the biggest distractions in the office- it stands for managers and meetings.
His style is very conversational, almost like he is talking to a group of his peers and not in an academic sense, and he uses a bit of humor to make his points come across more comfortable for the listeners.
2. In the Margaret Heffernan speech “The human skills we need in an unpredictable world” we hear a very powerful message. She is a former CEO of multiple companies, and the audience of her speech is/can be a very broad one: it can be geared towards a group of students or it can be more of a social/political speech such as a state of the union address. She begins with using an example of a grocery store chain switching to a digital format to capitalize on efficiency, and uses this to delve further into some anecdotal messages of how this actually makes people and companies less efficient because it doesn’t account for the human element, or that the world is just naturally unpredictable.
Further on however, she uses more concrete examples of this point: CEPI, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness has to prepare for upcoming epidemics. They do not know when, what, or where they will be, but they have to prepare anyways. This might not be efficient but it’s robust (which is one of the central themes of her speech.) Another is the English rugby club who goes on expensive, unorthodox team building trips and adventures which strengthens their bonds together. Banks holding more capital than they need, which is different from the past. Then she gets a bit more into the political economical realm about countries building trade relationships, putting in the time and effort into befriending many nations because it is better for their economy.
She smoothly translates this into the theme of automation in our industries and personal lives, saying that the more we allow technology to take over, the less we become involved in things, and it doesn’t suit us well to do this.
Draft of Expanding the Canon blog post-Michaela
To expand the canon and add to the discussion of organizational culture and diversity, I choose the article “Disability and employment – overview and highlights” from the “European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology”. This article includes a wealth of knowledge from the authors Katharina Vornholt, Patrizia Villotti, Beate Muschalla, Jana Bauer, Adrienne Colella, Fred Zijlstra, Gemma Van Ruitenbeek, Sjir Uitdewilligen, and Marc Corbière. These authors each add value in their own way, specializing in Social Psychology, neuroscience, psychosomatic rehabilitation, and more. This article, coming from a journal, is intended for a small audience of fellow scholars and people who focus specifically on the topics discussed. The purpose of this article is to outline how things stand in the existing research on disability and employment. It discusses one section of disabled people, those who have mental disabilities. Exploring topics such as the definition of disability, the legality of legislation regarding disability at work that is already in place in Europe and North America, things that enable employees and act as a barrier to employ the disabled. When discussing each topic they use existing facts from other resources and expand on where the research needs to go in the future. In conclusion, they present a solid plan for how research should continue in the field of disability and employment and the authors give suggestions on how things should be put into action. This article adds to the existing knowledge of the class because of its relation to diversity and inclusion. People with disabilities are a group of diversity that we have not discussed yet so this would open people’s eyes to another group that needs to be included. Similar to many of the readings we looked at in the past this text speaks about the inclusion of disabled people in the workplace, how there are low percentages of disabled people that are employed and extremely high levels of unemployment. Bringing awareness to how programs and legislations can be put in place to help incorporate these people, and keep them working mirrors what we have looked at with the inclusion of neurodiverse people and adds other strategies and data regarding organizational culture. It also opens the question of how we can bring the different sections of diversity into the conversation and not forget about certain groups. Another thought is how can each organization cater differently to each diverse group, because as you can see from the article I have chosen, and the past readings that each diverse group has specific accommodations. The existing legislation in “Disability and employment – overview and highlights” can lead as an example of how to implement systematic changes so that all companies must adhere to a set of rules that promote diversity and inclusion. To support my claim and enhance knowledge about disabled people I am using media. The media I have chosen is a ted talk from Elise Roy “When we design for disability, we all benefit”. Elise Roy is deaf and since she is disabled herself she adds a unique perspective. It is connected to the article I choose because as the article outlines research on disability and employment it leaves the question of how do we progress. Elise Roy gives insight on how design thinking and more specifically designed with disability in mind creates inclusion and a better culture for not only those that are disabled but everyone.
Discussion prompts for Week of 6/8
1. When watching Renata Salecl’s TED talk her rhetorical approach stood out to me. She begins this talk about human’s unhealthy obsession with choice by stating a choice that she had to make when preparing. Since it is the first thing she discusses it sets a theme. She connects the topic to herself making it feel relatable. What was interesting was that the choice that she had to make was deciding between three quotes, these quotes were also about choice, giving the audience an example that stays directly on topic, making a clear and concise purpose. As she continues with the talk she uses quotes from philosophers, and psychoanalysts to prove her points, using credited people to back up her argument makes her seem more reliable to the audience. She also gives real-life examples about herself, or her friend’s experience, which allows the audience to connect to their own life. That engages the audience because they can picture themselves in the situations she speaks giving them a better understanding. She also uses language strategically, for example, she addresses the audience as you, making them feel like they are in a conversation. To conclude she goes back to what she talks about when she first begins the speech, the choice she had to make herself. This rounds out and connects all the points she made to one conclusion, it makes the talk feel more whole like there isn’t a cliff hanger or missing piece. Overall her rhetorical approach is convincing and showcases her purpose, that everyone has individual choices but we also need to focus on choices as a society.
2. Margaret Hefferman’s TED talk is a great example of how a speaker works with evidence. One form of evidence she uses is telling real-life stories. She tells these stories to introduce her topic of technology and human skills but she incorporates her own bias and judgment to show what side she is arguing. In the talk there are transitions from the real-life examples to her argument, connecting back between that evidence when she needs support in communicating her purpose. She makes her points more clear by summarizing the credited facts she includes as evidence, for example, she uses a word like “so what that means” to connect her evidence back to her claims. She walks the audience through the argument by using tools like metaphors to give them something to relate her point to. That allows her to talk about a wide variety of topics, such as global warming and company predictions, and still be able to relate it to her argument on efficiency and the unexpected. Evidence from past mentalities is paired with the thought of the future to encourage that her ideas enhance positive change that others should believe in.
Discussion Post Week of 6/8, Dominique
- One of the TedTalks that I found interesting was Fried’s talk about work, and how people don’t actually get their work done at their offices. This speaker was very engaging and interactive with the audience. He was giving a formal speech, but spoke in a way that made it seem like he was having a conversation with just one person. He made jokes, and asked rhetorical questions that kept the audience thinking. He also spoke about the fact that he is manager, and that many managers need to work on not interrupting their employees, including himself. His awareness of this issue made him likeable, and easy to listen to. In order to explain his ideas, he gave the audience some insight into what it is like to be working, and have your day interrupted at the office. He also talked about employees, and how he has found that all of the people he talked to about the subject preferred to work somewhere other than the office. He spoke to the audience member’s experiences in their favor, which most likely helped them know that he understands their struggles at work. Overall, I thought that this TedTalk was very interesting, and made a lot of sense.
- One of the talks that I listened to that I thought worked well with evidence was Heffernan’s speech. This is because she gave many examples that enriched the information she was speaking about. For example, she began her talk by speaking about a business chain that wanted to become more efficient. Heffernan says that this business embraced technology called a task allocator in order to do this. Instead of the business allowing for collaboration, the employees got assigned tasks, completed them, then went back to get more assigned. This did not end up being very efficient because the new technology could not predict different changes throughout the day at the grocery store. The main purpose of her talk was to show that if we rely on technology so much for efficiency, we will lack skills to deal with changes or unexpected occurrences throughout the day. I believe that Heffernan was smart to begin her TedTalk with evidence like this because it gave the audience a clear understanding of what she was going to be talking about.
Drafting your Unit 1 blog post
Over the last few weeks, we’ve been working with a shared body of readings that have given us some insights into workplace cultures and, in particular, the challenges, complexities, and value of diverse workplace cultures. Now that we’ve got a foundation of knowledge, it’s time to build on that by expanding our reach into some of the questions and issues these readings have raised for us.
Each of you is contributing to that expanding body of knowledge by suggesting an article to the rest of us. Your Unit 1 blog post will provide a summary of this text in addition to your commentary about what we can learn from this text and why it should be part of our shared canon of work on organizational culture and diversity. Read on for some pointers.
Let’s think first about the summary piece.
Unlike the other summaries that you’ve been writing, your readers (us) have not read the piece that you are summarizing, so that really raises the stakes for the work that you do in your summary. We’ll be totally reliant on your explanation of what this source is, what it does, and what it says, so please be sure to read through the comments that you’ve gotten from me on your prior summaries, to review the Handout on summary here or on Blackboard, and to consider what we’ve learned from the TSIS and Harris readings.
A few reminders:
We need to know precisely WHAT you’re summarizing—what kind of text is this? Can you tell us a little something about the author and/or publication that would help us understand something about this piece?
We need to know what the authors are DOING in this text—are they reporting a list of facts? Are they making an argument? Have they conducted their own research? Reporting someone else’s findings? Responding to some other argument they disagree with? Diving into a public controversy? The authors might have several purposes in their text—help us to understand what their purposes are (to use Harris’s term, their project) so that we can really get what this text is. Verbs can really help you here–select action verbs that really help to pinpoint the work the author is doing (arguing, advocating, explaining, addressing, debating, contesting, etc.)
We need to see the BIG PICTURE of what the author is saying—as a rule, we don’t need the sequential play-by-play, but we do want to have some clarity on the overall point of the piece, as well as the major sub-points that add to our body of knowledge.
Make sure you name the author and article you’re discussing—there should be no ambiguity here. And if there are multiple authors, credit them all the first time, and thereafter, you can use the first author’s last name and “et al” if there are 3 or more authors. (Technically, APA style requires that you only use “et al” if there are 6 or more authors, but come on….. If you’re submitting for publication in a professional or scholarly journal, follow that rule, of course; elsewhere use your judgment.) Please include a full bibliographic citation at the end of your blog post, detailing all the publication information for this particular article. (Again, remember to consult the assignment sheet for the criteria that your source must meet.)
Let us see what you’re working with–use the “Add Media” button to provide us with direct access to the article you’re contributing. If it’s a web-based source (on the open web), insert the link using that button. If the article is from a subscription database, please link it as a PDF. See my post from earlier this week, linked below, for instructions on how to do that.
Now, let’s think about the commentary piece. Think about your audience and your purpose.
Remember that you know what we know–that shared body of knowledge built from the texts we’ve read together. Feel free to draw connections/contrasts with other pieces we’ve read and discussions we’ve had.
Write in your own voice–you don’t have to adopt the scholarly tone of the articles that you’re working with. Write as if you’re speaking to us. Be direct.
Remember that your task here is expand our knowledge, to complicate the discussion we’ve been having by injecting something new and explaining its significance. Tell us what you think this article means, what you think is important about it, why you think it matters, what you want us to learn from it.
Please categorize your draft post as Expanding the Canon, and tag it with “draft,” “week of 6/8,” [your name], and “canon.” This will help me and others to easily identify what’s what.
One final request–please double-check all of your recent posts to ensure that they are properly categorized and tagged, and edit them as needed. When I’m grading posts, I sometimes have to go hunting to find your work, and that’s not especially helpful. You’ll find the instructions for tagging and categorizing in each of the prompts, which you can easily access by clicking “prompts” on the tag cloud. Contact me with any questions.
What makes a source “scholarly”?
Note that the Unit 1 assignment calls for you to choose a source from a scholarly or professional journal. As I’m reviewing your summaries, it’s clear that not all of you have done this. Read on if you’re not sure what I mean by “scholarly,” or if you’d just like a little refresher, and then see my next post (linked below) for some more pointers about crafting your draft.
Scholarly journals are different in some important respects from popular magazines, the kind that you see at the checkout line at the grocery store or on the display in a bookstore. You can see some of those differences just at a glance–
- non-flashy covers (really the opposite of flashy–like this: )
- few to no advertisements (and those that are present are typically announcements about various professional conferences and publications)
Those visual differences are just the tip of the iceberg. Here are some other critical differences between scholarly publications and popular magazines:
- authors published in scholarly journals are credentialed experts in their respective fields who typically specialize in certain topics–as opposed to professional journalists who might write about a range of topics that they haven’t spent years studying, maybe a different topic every week or every month
- articles in scholarly journals are aimed at a fairly narrow audience of other scholars/professionals in that field who will understand the often highly-specialized jargon they employ (and who can make sense of their various graphs, charts, formulae, etc.)–as opposed to popular magazines that aim for a broad readership to increase circulation/sales
- authors of scholarly articles must demonstrate the legitimacy and solidity of their research to their readers, and so you’ll see in-text citations for their detailed data and analysis–as opposed to popular publications that are not so focused on clarifying their research methods and giving readers access to all of their sources
- articles in scholarly journals have been peer-reviewed, read by a panel of other experts in the field who have endorsed their methodology as sound and their findings as important contributions to the field of study before agreeing that it should be published–as opposed to popular magazines where there is not such a rigorous process of critical review
Professional journals are a bit less stodgy in terms of their visual appearance and a bit less rigid in their review process, but are nonetheless going to feature work by practitioners who are experts in their field, as opposed to journalists who may be more free-range in their topics. And they will typically utilize a pretty research-heavy approach to share information with their readers, other practitioners in the field, who are intent on staying on top of the latest news and research. They may be a bit flashier in appearance than scholarly journals (more images, more reader-friendly formatting), but are still going to have very visible research in the form of footnotes or in-text citations/links and a references list.
You’ll find easy access (and some research assistance) on the SU library website.
Your focus for this Unit 1 canon addition needs to be on scholarly or professional literature. If that’s not what you had in your first draft, it’s not too late–please keep searching, contact Karen with questions, and re-submit a new summary by the end of the day on Wednesday. You can then take an extra day to assemble your draft, and submit that by the end of the day on Thursday. That way you can make a truly valuable contribution to our growing body of knowledge.
Please see this post for some more guidance on assembling your draft:
Discussion prompts for Week of 6/8
This week you will be watching three TED talks and reading another article that all intersect with our big umbrella topic of organizational culture. (Think of this like a Venn diagram:
I think this can be a helpful analogy because it is much the same tactic that we take in research: we are not simply looking for the one “perfect” source but rather for a source that interacts with our ideas in someway that move them forward. And the more voices we hear from in that research (the more perspectives we incorporate), the more likely we will arrive at a fuller understanding of the topic we’re examining.
For this week’s discussion I would ask that each of you respond to question #1 and then either #2 or #3. Please categorize your list as “Discussions/ Homework” and tag it with “week of 6/8,” “unit 1,” and [your name].
- We use the term “rhetoric” to discuss how we make arguments (what we do and how and why, not just what we say). Since a hefty portion of your work in this upcoming Expanding the Canon blog post hinges on rhetorical analysis, let’s do some practice–working with one of the TED talks for this week (Heffernan’s, Fried, or Salecl), talk to us about what you find interesting in their rhetorical approach. How do they engage the audience? What kinds of strategies do they use to explain their ideas? What do you think is interesting or significant about the way that they present their arguments and appeal to their listeners?
- Choose one of the talks that you watched this week and examine how this speaker works with evidence. What kind of evidence do they use? How do they explicate the connections between their evidence and their claims? Be specific. How do they walk the audience through their argument? What are some of their argumentation tactics that you find effective? Note that you will need to watch the talk at least a second time, and take notes while you are doing it; you can also access a full transcript of the talk on the TED website.
- Choose one of the talks, and discuss how this presenter adds to our body of knowledge around organizational culture. Who is the speaker/author, and what kind perspective do they contribute? (You may need to do a quick Google search to get a sense of who they are.) What kind of connections do you see between this take and other things we have been learning about organizational culture? If you were to make a Venn diagram (or a few) articulating the connections between this text and other ones that we’ve read, what would it look like? You can have some fun with this using an online Venn creator like this one or by sketching it out by hand and incorporating the image(s) into your post):
Please post your responses by the end of the day on Wednesday, 6/10, and respond to at least 2 of your classmates’ posts by the end of the day on Saturday, 6/13.
Overview of Week of 6/8
We’ll be closing out Unit 1 this week, so that means your first Unit assignment deadline is approaching (Sunday, 6/14).
Read on for an overview of how we’ll be moving toward that:
Look for feedback from me in the next couple of days on the summary of your article that you submitted yesterday. You’ll work with that feedback to finalize your summary, which will become part of your Unit 1 blog post (along with your commentary on how this article would enrich our understanding of the specific organizational culture issue/area you’re exploring). Be sure to review the unit 1 assignment sheet. Consider your purpose carefully.
While you’re waiting for that feedback, start thinking about and looking at your options for a media component (link, video clip, image, etc.) to incorporate into your post. You’ve got a lot of latitude to work with here. I suggest using the assignment’s purpose as your starting point. Here’s what I mean: while you’ve read this article (probably multiple times by now), your classmates probably haven’t. You’re suggesting that this text ought to be part of our canon, that looking at it would enrich our knowledge and understanding of this important issue. You need to show and tell us how that’s the case. You’ll be offering summary, analysis, and commentary. The media element is there to round that out. For example, your media component might:
- provide some background knowledge that would be crucial to our understanding (i.e. through a link or a video)
- contain some visual context for the scope or complexity of the issue (i.e. an infographic) or assist with our understanding of change over time or comparison (i.e. graph, chart)
- offer an opportunity to explore this issue further (i.e. through a link) for those who want to learn more
You may incorporate more than 1 element if you would like; just make sure you have at least 1. Also be sure to attend to the following:
- if using a link, make sure it is functional–use the “Add Media” button in the +New Post window to “Insert from url”
- if using an image, make sure it is high-resolution so that it’s legible–again you’ll use the “Add Media” button to “Upload files” and “Insert into post”
- if using an image, provide a caption that includes the source information (where you found the image–the actual web page, not just “Google search”)
- whatever your media component, be sure that you explain its relevance in your post–don’t leave your reader to draw their own conclusions about its significance. Walk us through what you want us to learn from this item.
Here’s the other work on tap for this week:
- draft of your blog post (let’s extend the deadline here to the end of the day on Wednesday, 6/10)
- a few TED talks to watch (linked from Blackboard) for more perspectives on diversity and organizational culture (and in preparation for this week’s discussion)
- discussion work on the blog–see the prompt here:
I’ll be reading your drafts (due Wednesday) and getting you feedback by the end of the day on Friday. Your final version of the blog post is due by the end of the day on Sunday, 6/14.