The Organizational Culture Theory is so down right real that when i heard about it, everywhere i felt the presence of the efforts of different organizations to be known. And it makes sense actually. When an a group conditions itself to trying to accomplish a particular goal/goals, the group has to compose itself, organize, set ground rules, set standards of performance and make everything more structured and systematic; ergo, an organization.

Here in the dorm, we have this certain particularity with freshmen about, apart from introducing them to the roller coaster we call college, instilling that sense of respect in them; that they should respect authority and upperclassmen. So we have rituals like the baptism where we engage them in a water balloon fight where it's freshmen vs the rest of the dorm. We all had to go through it. WE have our own OrSem too to imprint in their heads our core values.

With the formation of these ground rules and standards, in effect, a culture is formed. What i love about this theory is its accuracy and almost infallibility; all because it's so tangible that one cannot deny the concepts in this theory.

Moreover, with this culture and the desire to be prominent and famous, or maybe even infamous, organizations invent and reinvent certain strategies to reach out to the viewing public to get them more involved. And since this organizational culture is made real so well among its members, one cannot help but look at the world through the eyes of the organization that they are in.

This culture can come in the form of material to verbal to ritual that organizations could create their own people. I think that this theory goes over the bounds of just organizations. Even little groups of people cannot avoid creating their own sub-culture with the concepts of Group Think. It's intriguing really what people can do in a group. Whoever these people may be. And now I'm reminded of one of the greatest quotes of all time; "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in a large group." One person can only do so much.

Whoever, whenever, wherever; all you need is man power. So it is true that two heads are better than one. Or even better, three, or four, or five and on and on and on.

The Social Exchange Theory; to me, it pretty much works like economics. It’s about making the most out of the choices we have. It’s about Cost-Benefit Analysis.

Personally though, I think the theory has a problem. As logical as it sounds, assessing relationships according to the benefits and costs they incur, that ‘logical’ way of seeing relationships could be its flaw. When I said that the Social Exchange Theory was like economics, I also meant that it makes it seem like people and relationships are different commodities in a grocery store. While I was in class, I couldn’t help but notice how the discussion went in a direction that neglected the very crucial fact that we are dealing with people here. And there are many more factors that govern the choices we make, factors that are inherent like emotions.

The Social Exchange Theory puts on a “thinker’s” shoes rather than a “feeler’s”. If it were up to me, I’d assess my relationships according to the way I feel because if I had one motto in life it would be “kung ayaw mo, eh di ‘wag”, but that’s just me. All my personality tests say I’m a feeler and more humanistic. Maybe that’s why I look at The Social Exchange Theory that way. Again, I’m not trying to dis the theory. I’m just saying that from my point of you, it’s flawed in that way. Still, I have to say was wowed when I heard about the theory and Cost-Benefit analysis in relationships.

The past few weeks, we talked about non-verbal communication, cognitive dissonance and uncertainty reduction. One thing about non-verbal communication, our culture is so good at that; from our nods of “yes” or “no”, our “I don’t know” shoulder shrugs, our eyebrow greeting to our using lips as Global Positioning Systems. But sometimes, non-verbal communication fails us because we are so constrained by society, our roles, our positions and the ‘agents of socialization’.
In my Sociology and Anthropology class, our teacher told us this story about meeting a Muslim speaker at a convention or something. After the event, he wanted to congratulate her, so he did. As he was reaching for a handshake, the Muslim speaker withdrew her hand as to deny him the pleasure of successful non-verbal communication. After that, the speaker thanked my teacher for the gesture of coming over and congratulating her. My teacher was like, “WHAT THE FUDGE?” Her hands displayed an insult but her mouth said otherwise. My teacher then inferred that she refrained herself from physical contact because Muslim culture sees that as a taboo.
After taking the two points of view in non-verbal communication, I then thought that because we live in a society where we are constrained and sometimes coerced by the social constructs that surround us, non-verbal communication, even communication in general could fail as a means of message exchange. Hey, that could be a new theory.
In my SA class, I also got a societal view point about the Uncertainty Reduction Theory. The social structures and constructs also direct the way we act in order to reduce stress and uncertainty. These “agents of socialization”, from birth, tell us our place and how we should act in society. They force us to take up multiple ideal selves, acting gigs and alter egos to fit in. This is explained by the Dramaturgy Theory. Like William Shakespeare once said, “All the world’s a stage.” We are but actors in a play called life. We may have the freedom of choice, but our choices are limited in order to agree with where society has placed us. Then again, we are constrained by our roles and statuses by social constructs, the agents of socialization and the “voice of judgment.”
I’m not dissing the comm theories here. I’m just amazed at how society affects the way these theories work.