By Madeleine G.
I found my text through the EBSCOhost database
through the UW—La Crosse online library. Access to this website is privileged
because of my status as a student. For example, finding this specific article
via a Google search would not be simple, which I will address later in this
paper. I chose this particular article because working in teams is a difficult
task to perfect, and I wanted to see what certain scholarly articles had to say
about group work. Three professors at the University of Central Florida wrote
the article, most likely for a college class. It is very detailed and specific,
with an abundance of elements of the Official Style.
Often times the Official Style has
higher grade levels and lower reading ease. Here are the readability statistics
for this article:
Grade Levels
 A grade level (based on the USA
education system) is equivalent to the number of years of education a person
has had. Scores over 22 should generally be taken to mean graduate level
text.
|
The most
prominent element of Official style that I noticed right away was word choice.
It is extremely wordy. Take, for example, the second sentence of the article.
“This resulted in unanticipated forces
acting against the entry and the ultimate destruction of the craft” (Shuffler,
M.L., Wiese, C.W., Salas, E., & Burke, C.S., 2010). ‘Unanticipated forces’
is an interesting choice to use here, when the authors could have stated it
more simply and not as abstract. Instead, they could have wrote, ‘Since the
satellite was built incorrectly, it destructed.’ This is a much more direct
statement, and easier to comprehend for a broader audience. Another example is,
“Shared leadership may be particularly important to virtual teams, where team
members’ separation from the leader and from one another may necessitate the distribution of leadership functions”
(Shuffler, et al., 2010). This first
part of this statement is fine. It is the second part that I take issue with.
It could instead read, ‘Shared leadership may be particularly important to
online teams, where separated members of a team call for the spread of
leadership within the group.’ This sentence is in plain English and easier to
understand. A third example is the following sentence: “Furthermore, we present
propositions regarding factors that may aid in reducing any hindrances in
shared leader behaviors brought about by virtuality and distribution”
(Shuffler, et al., 2010). An alternative sentence could be: ‘We provide ways to
help minimize complications when working in virtual shared leadership
situations.
After further
analysis of the passage from this article, I felt that although the authors
were writing to their desired audience, I do not think that it needs to be in
the official style. I think that it is used in this piece because it is
speaking to privileged people who have access to work in or operate virtual
teams. I also
find it contradictory that when working in teams, no one writes to each other
using official style, especially in virtual teams. In fact, virtual teams may
rely more on video technologies rather than actual writing. This article is
most certainly written to those privileged enough to obtain the article and
also to understand it. What of those who are not able to work in virtual teams,
or are not at a leadership status? What if the leaders in charge are being
intentionally or unintentionally harmful to their subordinates? One example I
think of is the tragic case of The Challenger Space Shuttle in 1986. These
questions lead me to the main idea of activity systems working within the text
of this article.
For
the purpose of this assignment, I will be focusing on the students and
professors at universities that have the opportunity to access the article. The mediating artifacts are the online .pdf file,
through the EBSCOhost database, which requires a login and password. To the
authors’ credit, they did provide a translated Spanish version of the title and
abstract, which is interesting. They must have been thinking of others in their
activity systems when writing this piece. The authors are most certainly
writing to inform and to teach future leaders, while offering ways to be
effective and minimize negative consequences when they write, “…we present a
set of propositions regarding specific leader functions whose sharedness may be
differentially impacted by the degree of virtuality and distribution within a
team. Furthermore, we present propositions regarding factors that may aid in
reducing any hindrances in shared leader behaviors brought about by virtuality
and distribution” (Shuffler, et al., 2010). The desired outcomes for the
authors and the readers would be to successfully work together in teams with
multiple leaders to prevent events such as The Challenger Space Shuttle
explosion, or as they say in the article, the Mars Climate Orbiter satellite.
These examples also go to show that they are not always achieved in practice,
as can happen with desired outcomes. Rules and norms in the activity system
that may not be typical are people who have immoral intentions that may come
across this article, who use the leadership tactics provided for negative
reasons. I also think of those who this article may be useful to, but cannot
access it. Even business professionals most likely do not have access to the
database because of the login and password process, where the information could
be potentially very beneficial. Because of these reasons, there are various
communities involved in the activity system at work in this context,
specifically college students, professors, and business professionals. In terms
of divisions of labor within the activity system, they are wide-ranging, and
what truly sparked my interest when analyzing the activity systems within the
text. The article blatantly separates the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ through the
use of language and technology. The official style is one that is often taught
in institutions of higher education. These are people who have power over those
who do not even have the opportunity to learn about how to get power via this
article.
The Official Style does have
its purposes. In this particular context in the article, it is used
appropriately for the authors’ perceived view of audience. However, after a
more critical analysis, it is apparent that this prose style is not always
appropriate to use. It can be very exclusive to others and also further
separates the line of privileged and under-privileged. The reason why I do not
think this article should be written in the Official Style is because it is relevant,
important information that should be readily available to those who need to
access it. It would be beneficial for those who want to learn more about the
concepts and ideas in the article. Overall, it could be much more simplistic
and therefore more relatable to a broader audience to include more people in
the activity systems.
