Reflection Paper #1 Interpersonal Communication in the Workplace

The first Chapter in Sias, “Organizing Workplace Relationships”, contends that all

organizational activities occur in the context of interpersonal relationships. Relationships are the

essence of living systems. Workplace relationships include: supervisor-subordinate, peer-

coworker, workplace friendships, romantic relationships and customer relations. Sias outlines

four different theoretical perspectives that give us different lenses with which to view workplace

relationships; the theories are: Post positivist (objective, rooted in scientific method), Social

construction (reality is co-created, subjective, constantly changing), Critical (Marxist influences,

socially constructed systems of power, control and domination), and Structuration (duality of

structures that both enable and constrain communication).

I think back to my workplace relationships at Northwestern Mutual Life (NML). In the

supervisor-subordinate relationship, Walter was my “boss” and I the subordinate. In dealing with

all other assistants, he was authoritative and directed. Because of my hybrid position, I was an

analyst and a financial planner, the rules did not necessarily apply to me. I created my own rules

within the confines of the space. Looking at Critical theory, I was able to move the socially

constructed system of power that pervaded the organization and adapted it to meet my needs.

For example, it was important to me to work part-time: I was a single mother and my children

got off of the school bus at 2 pm, I wanted to be home when they arrived, so my workday was

adapted to an 8 – 2 schedule. No one else in the Company worked those hours. Additionally, I

took the month of July off (this without pay). I did not accept that hours were not flexible, and

so I negotiated and was able to alter the politics and power structure in the office.
 Using a Critical theory perspective to identify the various methods of power, control and

domination at NML, I see a male dominated workplace. Males were in charge, and even though

it was six years ago that I worked there, the mindset was almost mid-20th Century (where the

women were deferential to the obviously superior male leaders, where the classic sales

organizational management theories of hierarchy and centralized power reigned). Informal,

theoretically relationship-building communications were slaps on the back, chuckles about

sporting prowess at the water cooler, off color jokes to liven meeting down-time. Women were

outside of the power structure, useful and valued only where their skills impacted the 90% male

sales network. Even female salespeople were marginalized. Their coping strategy was to play

the game, accept the secondary status, and use the resources available to excel for personal gain.

They created their own external support network which, in my opinion, allowed them to function

within the confines of this chauvinistic organization. I, too, worked within the system, followed

the lead of the women I admired there, and struggled against the power politics because of my

personal financial goals. I was able to work there for three years, until the trade-off became too

much for me to accept; I quit when I could no longer protect my core self from the malignancies

of that workplace.

Workplace relationships at NML were in hindsight predictable. My supervisory

relationship was brittle, non-authentic and transaction based. I enjoyed my peers and coworkers,

but could not relate to their ways of dealing with the difficult work environment (over the three

year period, turnover was so high that for one position I interviewed/trained/worked with over 20

people, all of whom I helped pack up and was on good terms with when they left). Believe me,

there were no romantic relationships. Customer relationships were warm and cordial. With all
my time at NML, the workplace relationships that survived longer-term were born out of a

common view of the oppressive nature of the organization. Two friendships, with two different

women at two different levels within the Company, were forged as a result of enduring the

hardships together, bonding against a common enemy, and having a similar, critical views of the

organization. We were able to continue the friendship outside of work, and both friendships last

to this day.

Critical theory is not concerned with managerial effectiveness, but rather with

institutional oppression and exploitation. I can say that NML was not managerially effective,

that my contributions to the Firm and my “boss” were driven by my personal desire for

excellence and integrity. I gained what I needed, accommodating working hours and a good

paycheck, for that I endured what felt to me like oppression and exploitation.
 References

Sias, P. M. (2009). Organizing relationships: Traditional and emerging perspectives on

workplace relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.