My younger brother's YouTube channel.

FaithNlogic

ORG COMM 250: social network of learning

They placed the employees
into a social network of learning—
"from the get-go".

This week in my Organizational Communication course: assimilation.

ByBobBarrett
legalBob.com

This concept is much more inspirational than that.

I enjoyed this week’s theme, well, once I started getting it. At first I was not sure what assimilation was, however, after reading the examples and the diagrams I became impressed with its logic.

Assimilation is the process of incorporating new employees into the organization. Not by throwing them into practice seminars, or prolonged meetings. This concept is much more inspirational than that.

With all my working experiences, I realized that I learned the most when fellow coworkers involved were all part of the learning process.

Periodic partner switching.

I enjoyed a statement said by one of the other students—whose name was Jonathon—his story was about his mission service. He said trainers have a vital role in assimilating trainees into the work.

I would include that what makes missions providential is the periodic companion switching. This builds a greater social learning process within the mission.

Make new friends within the company—not to teach them.

I enjoyed a story about Capital One. The company had a systematic way of flying new employees out to a convention.

Their primary purpose was to let them make new friends within the company—not to teach them. This enabled them to learn from the ones who know the subject best, who know what matters now, and who can assist in verifying appropriate methods. 

I felt the most prominent part of their assimilation of new employees was that they placed the employees into a social network of learning right from the get go. This to me sounds pretty reasonable.

No one within 20 miles to help me.

My first encounter with assimilation’ per-say was backwards. My first time working for Mitch & Harris Construction was exhausting.

The night before, I finished working my last shift at Broulims grocery store. The day before, I had a busy school and homework schedule. I had been without sleep for 26 hours, and my first job as a construction worker was to tar the frame of a small building—do not ask me why.

This project was taxing, and there was no one within 20 miles to help me. I rubbed hot tar for 8 hours—alone.

When the sun started to fall below the horizon, my boss returned to evaluate my work… Yea, he threatened not to pay me.

“Do you have any idea what you are doing?” said Mitch.

That night I slept for 16 hours. Placed this matter in the, “how not to incorporate a new employee” category.

Some of the most artful tricks

My favorite example of assimilation is the web among sales rep of a door to door company. My experience with summer sales felt comfortable with this socialization process.

Every morning the managers would have the reps practice role-playing their deceptive sales tactics. This was quite successful. However, it was not the most effective learning tool.

What made a masterly sales rep was the one who learned from the other employees outside of the meetings.

Some of the most artful tricks I’ve learned were from watching experienced sales reps in live action with potential customers.

I could do anything

Assimilation also occurs early on in age, also known as, anticipatory socialization. I was fortunate to attend a prestigious art high school. They instilled in me the idea that I could do anything in the careers of art.

When I was on an LDS 2 year service in southern Mississippi, I met a few different artists. They were poor, inconsistent, and unstable. These experiences where...well let us say I no longer maintain this need to be an artist.

“The Case of Religious Freedom"

“@LDSNewsroom: “The Case of Religious Freedom” http://bit.ly/lnoNBO #lds #mormon”

"I will not provide the rope for my own lynching"

ByBobBarrett
legalBob.com
Updated 5/25/2011 11:54:21 PM MST

“I will not provide the rope for my own lynching”,

Justice Clarence Thomas doesn’t usually speak.   The extra attention seems to bring chills to his spine. Despite the introversion, he has been ruthlessly attacked by civil rights advocates for his “change” intolerant approach as a black American leader.

This brings an odd question. Why does Thomas claim to be a fighter of issues like civil rights when his historical jurisprudence towards this civility has been quite the contradictory. Justice Thomas is the least likely – ever – to vote in favor of them. A blind man only familiar of his character might even dare to think… he grew up wealthy. May even think his grandparents were “cool-aid” conservatives—pretty much slave owners. but that would be impossible.   He’s African American.

For some, it has become cynically appropriate to attend the stereotype; 

white people are conservative; nonwhites are liberal. Justice Thomas has rebuked the politically deaf stereotype; often placing civil rights leaders as part of the problem.  He thinks they are in reality the real hypocrites. 

3They “[four-letter word] and [expletive], moan and moan, whine and whine, [that’s all civil rights leaders are good for],” he said.  

So, why does he claim to be an advocate for such a predominantly liberal issue as civil rights? To answer this requires taking a few steps in the shoes of the judge, the student, and (in his case, shoes may be expecting a bit much) southern boy.

As expected for it’s times, growing up in a southern community, Thomas had frequently encountered racism.

3In a small town, in Georgia; Justice Thomas was born in a “ranshakeld” home, often without running water or power. After a few years, his mother was unable to continue in raising him. Young Clarence was sent to spend the rest of his childhood with his grandparents.

 His grandfather felt he needed to help him toughen up –“get tough skin" against racism. He did this by verbally abusing Clarence, and often required him to do heavy labor. 

 3 “I could do more with a teaspoon than you can do with a shovel”, said his grandfather while Clarence was digging. “You['re] worth less than a carload of dead men,” he repeated. 

This often bleak and demanding atmosphere is what instilled the groundwork needed to change "young" Thomas into "Supreme Court Justice" Thomas.

When most of the country today is accusing him of being anti-civil rights, many are misunderstanding his intentions. Thomas firmly believes the best way to fix racism is by this "tough skin," and to him "skin" is neither black nor white.

Often he argued against affirmative action claiming it was hypocrisy of his culture; 

once while on a similar topic, he even dared to say, 

 “this is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace [and] from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree”. 

8Today, these words continue to be re-quoted by the media.

3Still today he fights for principles of ‘tough'in up’,

even further, when an African American is fighting for “generosity," conversely they are fighting for an acceptance of weakness, said Thomas. He also strongly opposes the idea 

“all blacks [are] equally disadvantaged by virtue of their race alone”. 

This thought brings insult to his long held principles. 

Justice Thomas confronts, even today with great animosity from what many believe is his own culture. Repeatedly, his responses to the opposition have been almost brutal. When faced with civil rights issues, he has made it clear he is pro "letter of the law".

Many accuse his ideology of lacking compassion. Although, this argument becomes quite problematic when one has not yet walked in the shoes of young Clarence—well shoes would be assumptive. For a boy who was “lacking compassion”, how could the accusers walk in the young boy’s shoes, when often the boy (who apparently lacks empathy for the mis-fortunate,) may have not owned a pair of shoes himself?

Read Sources