Grapevine or Lifeline?

A few weeks ago, I attended a book signing by one of my favorite authors, Rita Mae Brown. She spent over an hour before the signing entertaining and informing us with her ideas about life and, particularly, non-human animals. Her new book, Animal Magnetism, is a memoir of her life with animals.

In comparing us with our non-human kin, Ms. Brown addressed the issue of language and why humans are the only species with a very sophisticated verbal communication system. Her theory is that language developed as a survival mechanism. Verbalization improved our efforts in cooperative hunting. Those noises evolved into words to provide more precise instructions, feedback, and alerts. She suggests it was language that made us so successful as a species.

This piqued my interest because I was learning about Sandra J. Ball-Rokeach’s Media System Dependency (MSD) theory. Her theory was, in part, influenced by Tamotsu Shibutani's theory that rumor is, as Ralph L. Rosnow and Eric K. Foster summarized it, “…a collective, problem-solving interaction that is sustained by a combination of anxiety, uncertainty, and credulity.” Our desire is to resolve ambiguities, especially about our well-being. To do this, we turn to our information sources. The media, in its many forms, can often provide us with the information we need to understand what is going on and clear up ambiguities. In many ways, we can be dependent on it.

This all hit me at a very personal level. You see, I work for a large (global…maybe even intergalactic) financial services company. Our organization has been in a state of turmoil for at least four years. The mortgage and American auto industry collapses have turned our world upside down. Thousands laid off, as many as three helpings of TARP funds, and what seem to be daily changes in management and structure have left those of us lucky enough to have jobs nauseous from the ride, dazed, and confused. How does this relate to MSD? Communication networks.

Feeding Our Heads

Ball-Rokeach’s theory looks at the nature of society, human motivation, power, the media system, and the relationships between individuals, interpersonal networks, the media, and the nature of the power of the media. Society is an organism comprised of interdependent parts. That organism is understood by the relationship between those parts. Our organization - the company for which I work - is also an organism comprised of different levels of employees from clerks to executives, various departments, and networks of employees that may cross departments and positions on the corporate ladder. The media in our organization is comprised of corporate communications, human resources, senior management, and other groups who disseminate official communications.

According to MSD, motivation is part of human nature; humans strive to survive and grow. This includes achieving understanding (social and self), orientation (interaction and action), and play goals (social and solitary). In our corporate world, our survival is equated to whether or not we continue to be employed. For most of us, the job is a necessity to survive in the rest of the world: money to pay for food, clothing, shelter, heat, medical care. It’s needed to ensure our basic needs of sustenance. But we also have less tangible needs that, still, are important to us like understanding where we are positioned in the structure (like a wolf in the pack or a chimpanzee in the tribe) and what our role is in the group. Work also provides some level of social interaction and satisfaction. Or, at least one hopes it does since we spend so much time there.

Information is a source of power as it is needed to attain goals such as survival and maintaining social structure. In modern society, media is an important generator and purveyor of information. No where is that true more than in an organization. While job specific information or knowledge does not endow one with power, detailed knowledge of what is happening within and to the company usually does. Not only does it give one the tools to make decisions on what one should be doing and where one should be situated at any given time, it also gives one the information to know when to fight and when to flee.

Media relies on organizations and other social structures for information and an audience in order to gain influence. It derives its power by maintaining control over information resources that individuals, groups, and society as a whole need to achieve their goals. It’s true that in an organization the greatest powers are the ability of management to hire and fire and, of course, the paycheck. But it also controls its employees by the dissemination or suppression of information.

While the media may be powerful, individuals do not always rely on the media for information. Instead, they may refer to other individuals in their interpersonal network (peers, family, experts such as doctors) or community groups (such as schools, social activist groups). In the work world, it's the networks are comprised primarily of co-workers and, to a lesser degree, other industry contacts.  Much of this depends on the individual’s goals, the credibility of the sources of information, and the availability of media sources, among other variables. And it’s that “availability of media sources” that, in my world, has been problematic.

Trying to Find Our Way in the Dark

The most recent example that impacted me directly was a departmental restructuring. Months ago, we were told that several departments with similar responsibilities would be merged into one. News would be forthcoming. Until then, it was business as usual. Months passed with only intermittent information.  Information on the plans was very vague.  Changes occurred around us without explanation.

Meanwhile, rumors of our parent company declaring bankruptcy or eliminating the business units we supported resurfaced over and over again. Management’s advice: keep your head down and do your best work.  Ignore the rumors.

Artificial Lighting

What management failed to recognize was that our human nature is to see the lack of information as a threat to our survival and growth. So, what did employees do? We sought out information to resolve our ambiguities. Some relied on updates from on-line financial news sites like http://www.bloomberg.com/. Others obtained information from people outside of the organization. But, for most of us, it was the daily, sometimes hourly, conversations with one another. Sharing e-mails that hinted at who was going to be in charge. Reporting on meetings where someone “slipped” and revealed information that was not intended for public disclosure. Monitoring the comings and goings of certain managers between sites. Speculating on who might end up where. And what, if any, positions would be eliminated.

While some of the discussions may have created unnecessary anxiety, it made us feel slightly more empowered to have just a little more information than we did from our own sources. The discussions also helped us prepare for the worse and to consider our alternatives should we lose our jobs or find ourselves in situations that would make us unhappy.

A Little Bit of Sunlight

So, what finally happened? Well, they did eventually announce the restructuring of our department. We now feel more empowered because at least we have the information – now correct information – we need to make good decisions about our own futures.  Knowledge is, afterall, power.

The status of the organization as a whole and the business units we support is still unknown. Recent announcements of offices closing or reducing staff along with comments from our new CEO have not been encouraging.  Bloomberg will continue to see lots of hits from our servers for the foreseeable future.

That Was My Intention

They say that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I intended many months ago to maintain a regular presence here. You see what happened with that!

Intentions are interesting. It’s hard to know if they will ever lead to actions. Often times, they just sit there, waiting to be used. You might intend to thank someone for a kindness or exercise every day or read the newest best seller. But those intentions don’t mean a lot unless you act on them.

Can you tell if someone is likely to act on their intentions? According to Martin Fishbein and Icek Aizen you might not be able to tell by just looking at someone but it’s likely you can tell by their attitudes and beliefs. Fishbein and Aizen’s Theory of Planned Behavior, or TpB, states that human action is guided by three considerations: behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs.

Naughty or Nice

Can TpB predict “naughty or nice” behavior prior to Christmas? Let’s take a look at the three predictors:

• Behavioral beliefs involve the likely outcomes of behavior and the evaluations of these outcomes. A child may believe that if he is good, he’ll get lots of toys from Santa; if he’s bad, he’ll get nothing or coal. (However, if the child’s a natural artist, a lump of coal might provide hours of fun. Find that mark!)
• Normative beliefs involve beliefs about what others expect and how motivated the individual is to comply with those expectations. A child might ask himself when presented with an opportunity to torment his little sister without his parents catching him “What will Santa think if he sees me? He’ll probably be angry.” Whether or not he leaves his sister alone will depend a lot on how much fun he thinks he might actually have making her miserable compared to how much he thinks he might lose in Christmas loot. Which motivates him more? The immediate fun or the toys at risk?
• Control beliefs involve the presence (perceived or actual) of factors that may facilitate or impede the individual’s performance of the behavior and the perceived power of these factors. How much control does the child have over his behavior or over what his parents might have told Santa? Can he really convince Santa to bring him what he wants if he’s good? Or does Santa leave good gifts on a whim and leave underwear more often than not?

Typically, if the child really believes he’ll get more toys by being good, that Santa is really swayed by good behavior and that it’s better to have toys than to make his little sister cry, and that he has the power to convince Santa to bring him the toys he wants (despite his parent’s possible objections), the more likely he is intend to be “nice” instead of “naughty” and to actually follow through on those intentions.

Attitude Adjustments

Intervention to change attitudes and behavior can be directed to any of the determinants: attitudes, subjective norms, or perceptions of behavioral control. For the child waiting for Christmas, we would want to target determinants that indicate the need for significant change. If attitudes toward the behavior are positive, then attempts to improve attitudes will have little effect. If the child believes he’ll get the same amount of presents whether he’s naughty or nice, we’d want to try to change that perception.

Then we can attack the strength of the belief or the scale the values of the beliefs. In this case, we’d need to turn the belief completely around to attack the strength. Or, we can introduce new beliefs. This might mean introducing the idea that the dog is Santa’s spy so, even if his parents aren’t around, the dog could thwart his efforts to secure lots of Christmas goodies.

The most important factor, though, is that the individual must be capable on carrying out the desired behaviors. For some children, this is a matter of self-control. And there are those who have little or none. They are fighting a losing battle over “naughty” versus “nice.”

Reading Minds

So, how do you determine intentions and likelihood of action? Aizen recommends a questionnaire that measures how often the subject participates in the behavior as well as predictor variables including intention, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. The responses to the questions are ratings along a bi-polar scale, usually of seven rankings with terms like “strongly agree…strongly disagree”, “harmful…beneficial”, "unpleasant…enjoyable", and “extremely likely…..extremely unlikely”. Belief composites can be compiled from the data and can be used to predict behavior.

While it’s unlikely we’ll get the child to fill out or even understand the questionnaire, we can use this method to evaluate to evaluate likely behavior for any number of things from adoption of technology to use of condoms to making commitments to pets. Understanding motivation to act can point us in the right direction to influence either changes in attitudes (and, we hope, behavior) or introduce new beliefs.

Now, if we can just figure out how to more effectively promote “nice” over “naughty.”