Activity 1
The article by Cutter and Tilley (2020) discusses Slack's advantages and shortcomings as an online communication platform that links employees and employers of an entity virtually. Slack has guaranteed quick communication in the workplace, allowing different management levels to set up meetings, exchange messages, and send recordings. For instance, the platform is much faster as it enables the swap of information in seconds more rapidly than in emails with provision for emojis and funny videos. (Cutter and Tiley, 2020). Accordingly, the technology is also simple to operate and convenient since individuals can work from their homes' comfort. For example, in the middle of the pandemic, the innovation has offered a timely solution, which was evident through an increase in the number of users in the first two weeks of stay at home orders.
Additionally, the platform is informal, allowing workers to engage freely. Dissimilar to formal channels of communication such as emails, which are restrictive in content and concept, Slack allows users to be casual, which is a fundamental element in organizations when employees can air grievances in the simplest ways. For instance, the ability to send memes, videos, and funny images create a sense of friendliness among colleagues as they learn to keep in touch beyond the imperatives of their work demands. According to Cutter and Tilley (2020), Slack's idea of communication is to minimize passive-aggressiveness and guarantee genuineness and transparency. In that case, for individuals, it means they can find grounds to share concerns without restriction on professionalism but still engage with one another respectfully. Indeed, when employees do not feel they have a hand on issues, they can turn to resentment, building ugliness (Cutter & Tilley). For instance, if there is a conflict with a colleague, workers could turn their characters into cruel memes or videos.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
However, despite the undeniable benefits, the innovation has contributed to a toxic working environment. When workers can express themselves on an open forum, they have a channel where some individuals will send inappropriate content such as videos, messages, and cruel memes. It is also an opportunity to speak ill, bully, and demean the other people with insignificant repercussions. Such was the situation for Weiss, a former senior editor of the New York Times who had to resign because her work and character were openly belittled in the platform. When individuals send indecent images and gendered slurs, it creates a sense of toxicity in the organization and adversely impacts the sense of belonging. As Cutter and Tiley (2020) agree, instant messaging platforms become a dumping site for passive aggressiveness and airing of grievances when everyone works virtually. In that case, private conversation makes it to the platform leading to conflict and misunderstanding.
For a conducive workplace to flourish, organizations ought to enact strategies that guide Slack utilization. As much as it is easy to blame the technology, employers have a more significant role in implementing detailed procedures that guide communication. Through policies, jokes can be isolated from deliberate vindictiveness. As a platform where people can jock around and send easy-going messages, it is upon entities to set boundaries and allow employees to express themselves to the management if they feel they are being harassed or irritated. Additionally, set rules guarantee that organizations can police activities for indications of harassing. For instance, when Weiss resigned, the New York Times spokesperson disagreed with her harassment description leading up to the resignation, which created a mismatch regarding inappropriateness especially when the incident is not fully investigated. Although Slack continues to develop tools that allow users to respond to messages and reduce the noise, employees should air grievances to the administration.
Activity 2
Question 1
No, the authors' qualifications and credentials concerning educational qualifications, expertise, past publications, or experience are not provided. Although Cutter and Tilley present valuable information for a renowned publishing company, there is no indication of their knowledge in assessing technological inventions. According to Ahmad and Ayub (2019), authors' authenticity can be ensured through education in the area as included in the publication or website, which cements their credibility. Although the authors give details of their email addresses, the lack of an explanation of whether they have been writing on the subject matter fails to limit the scope of what readers can write to them. Indeed, viewers can only assume that the authors are journalists based on the presentation for Dow Jones Newswires, which is renowned for publication of wall street journal on business matters.
Question 2
The writers had conflicting views towards Slack and managed to present concerns from both sides but overemphasized positive aspects. From the article's title, readers can project that there will be a presentation of two sides, which they will have to evaluate and decide whether the positives outweigh the negatives. In essence, the writers are not advocates for the platform, but they also want readers to know it exists in all its positives and negatives. However, for every criticism against the invention of promoting bullying, cruelty, and targeted vendettas, the authors did not find users who agreed with the possibility of these weaknesses.
Nonetheless, the authors were biased because they addressed concerns from both sides but overemphasized the platform's advantages. By presenting positives, negatives, and solutions, they indicate that they are open-minded. However, they only managed to seek views from people who support Slack but not its critiques. As Shirazi (2019) outlines, bias can occur when writers cite particular sources over others because of the unfair representation of opinions. For instance, when MS Weiss resigned, they use the spokesperson's sentiments that discredits her understanding of jokes, which shifts blame to victims. Still, given that article failed to incorporate technology experts' views, it could be said to focus on opinions about Slack. If the authors' argument is complimentary, so are their approaches to defending the platform.
Question 3
Indeed, the article influenced interest in the subject as the author’s presentation invoked the need to learn more about Slack as an advanced innovation. After the reading, I wanted to know more about its success and how issues can be tended to. For instance, even if the platform offers an opportunity for engagement, there are risks to usage such as unprofessionalism by users, which is a significant concern because I do not want to experience bullying. However, it did not answer whether it is more idealistic to use the platform or turn to other sources such as video conferencing for better experience and protection from adversities.
Nonetheless, there was insufficient data to outline the success rate of Slack's utilization by other firms, which hindered the change of perception. Slack being a tool for communication for millions of users; it could have been impactful to present a detailed examination of its progress. Also, its quantified advantages compared to disadvantages could help inform perceptions based on facts but not opinions. Indeed, if a thorough investigation were available, then there would have been evidence to back up the claims to support or oppose Slack's utilization as a communication platform.
References
Ahmad, M., & Ayub, M. (2019). Evaluating Research: Diversity and Credibility of Information Sources. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331564426_Evaluating_Research_Diversity_and_Credibility_of_Information_Sources/citation/download
Cutter, C., & Tilley, A. (2020). Slack Has Made Remote Office Communication Easier. It Can Also Be Less Civil: https://news.futunn.com/stock/14057288?src=3
Shirazi, M. (2019). For a Greater Good: Bias Analysis in Writing Assessment. SAGE Open . 9(1). 215824401882237.
