A MEMBER’S VIEW FROM THE SHOP ROOM FLOOR!
LANGUAGE MATTERS
The college recently ballyhooed the publication of an employee handbook. However a review of the handbook’s contents reveals an amazing capacity for direct contradiction that undermines any concept of language as a vehicle for coherent communication, as well as any sense of the handbook’s credibility.
It’s as if the ghost of Gregory Bateson haunts these hallowed halls. One of Bateson’s less conspicuous but still significant contributions was the concept of the “double-bind”, defined as:
- A psychological impasse created when contradictory demands are made of an individual, such as a child or an employee, so that no matter which directive is followed, the response will be construed as incorrect.
- A situation in which a person must choose between equally unsatisfactory alternatives; a punishing and inescapable dilemma.
Language without meaning might rightfully be termed “noise”, as might language so contradictory that it becomes meaningless through logical impasse.
Consider, for example, this excerpt from page 12 of the manual under the “Values” section:
“Responsibility: We encourage open and honest communications, fairness, mutual respect, collegiality, and civility in all college-related matters. The Community College of Baltimore County will continue to have high expectations for the work of its employees, the academic rigor of its offerings, the scholarship of its students, and the involvement of the community and the workplace in the college's future.”
OK. Good enough so far, right? Now contrast this with the following from page 31 of the manual under the heading of “Confidentiality”:
“Information regarding CCBC’s finances, operations, documents, computer systems, educational materials, students or personnel is considered confidential and proprietary information for the exclusive use of authorized personnel for matters related to CCBC’s operations only.”
Now it doesn’t take an academic pedigree to see that these two statements cannot be meaningfully reconciled with one another. Both CANNOT be true.
Not long after the recent IT reorganization, at least one union member was threatened with a disciplinary procedure for responding to an email of which he was a recipient, because the sentiment expressed, though honest, fair, respectful, collegiate and civil, was not what one administrator wanted to hear, or more importantly, wanted other administrators and staff to hear.
Regarding the later statement, CCBC is a public institution required by law to maintain some degree of transparency. Labeling “operations” as confidential is problematic since it allows the college to potentially conceal unethical and possibly illegal behaviors while requiring employees, possibly victimized by these processes, to remain silent about them. And it is a far cry from encouraging honest and open communication. What is the college hiding?
Also contrast the following from page 18 of the manual with the hollow assertion that honest communication is highly valued at CCBC:
“MEDIA RELATIONS: All contact with the news or radio media must be referred to the Public Relations Department. Employees are not permitted to discuss confidential or sensitive information with any media persons without prior approval from the Public Relations Department.”
So, umm, CCBC, which is it? Do you encourage honesty or merely “yesmanship”? And what is it about employee honesty that you are afraid of? I think we know the answers already, we live them daily.
Page 16 of the manual offers still another sterling example of double-speak. Consider the mutually exclusive nature of the following two statements under the ACCEPTABLE USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY:
“The college can monitor any or all transmissions on campus computers or systems. All electronic, print or other media are the sole property of CCBC. No rights or privacy should be inferred or expected.”
And
“In order for use and administration to be acceptable, it must demonstrate respect for the following:
The rights of others to privacy…
Individuals’ rights to be free from intimidation, harassment and unwarranted annoyance”
How can we respect something per the 2nd statement when its existence is explicitly denied in the first?
What seems to be suggested here is that enforcement of the policy would violate the policy itself. It confirms a right of privacy disclaimed in the earlier text.
Now, speaking quite honestly, nobody can take this document seriously in its current form.
Although the Employee Handbook might never have been intended to contain departmental policies, it might have been better if it did, or if there were another centralized repository of these policies so that they might be more clearly specified and widely disseminated.
And here again we enter into territory that agitates the rational mind.
Departmental policies are established by the design and/or consent of the relevant administrators in that area. One example of such policies might be that of the new centralized Help Desk. All calls for technical support are to go through the help desk.
However, in reality, that is unless you are an administrator, perhaps even one who helped to design and/or enforce the policies. They routinely disregard the policies they themselves put into place and require everyone else to abide by. It’s this kind of arrogant exceptionalism that inspires cynicism and indifference upon each new proclamation and teaches us that not only are we are not in this community effort together, but moreover that our administrators are more often an obstacle to our work than facilitators by way of any sort of worthy or inspirational example.
