Metonymy and Management: Owning One's Work - Revision history

S217191: /* Limitations */

2022-03-25T11:55:59Z

Limitations

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:55, 25 March 2022
Line 62:		Line 62:

	When implemented and maintained, the use of personal metonymy can work to assuage feelings of disconnection in employees and managers alike. [[File:Cultural Dimensions.png\|400px\|thumb\|right\|Cultural Dimension Scale <ref name = "Cultural Dimensions Scale">" “Hoftstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory, https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/hofstedes-cultural-dimensions-theory/." </ref>]] However, there are some qualifications that must be made regarding successful use. The first qualification is that the success of personal metonymy may vary depending on the cultural environment in which it is used. Culture can be measured on a scale of many factors according to Hofstede’s Scale of Culture: one being collectivism vs individualism. Where a certain culture falls on the scale is indicative of their tendency to see themselves as a group or an individual working in a group when completing tasks together. This scale was created in order to facilitate interaction and work across different cultures, giving people a way to better explain their own processes and understand those of the people around them. This difference may affect how personal metonymy is used across cultures. A society that leans toward the collectivist end of the scale may feel uncomfortable using personal pronouns when speaking about their work within a project. The goal of personal metonymy is not to discourage collaboration. Its goal is merely to connect an individual to their work. This being said, in some cultures a certain degree of loss of individualism in the workplace may be more accepted by employees that view themselves primarily as a member of a team.		When implemented and maintained, the use of personal metonymy can work to assuage feelings of disconnection in employees and managers alike. [[File:Cultural Dimensions.png\|400px\|thumb\|right\|Cultural Dimension Scale <ref name = "Cultural Dimensions Scale">" “Hoftstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory, https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/hofstedes-cultural-dimensions-theory/." </ref>]] However, there are some qualifications that must be made regarding successful use. The first qualification is that the success of personal metonymy may vary depending on the cultural environment in which it is used. Culture can be measured on a scale of many factors according to Hofstede’s Scale of Culture: one being collectivism vs individualism. Where a certain culture falls on the scale is indicative of their tendency to see themselves as a group or an individual working in a group when completing tasks together. This scale was created in order to facilitate interaction and work across different cultures, giving people a way to better explain their own processes and understand those of the people around them. This difference may affect how personal metonymy is used across cultures. A society that leans toward the collectivist end of the scale may feel uncomfortable using personal pronouns when speaking about their work within a project. The goal of personal metonymy is not to discourage collaboration. Its goal is merely to connect an individual to their work. This being said, in some cultures a certain degree of loss of individualism in the workplace may be more accepted by employees that view themselves primarily as a member of a team.
	Another challenge in the implementation of personal metonymy arises in seeking out projects that are conducive to it. In the current post-industrial market, diversification of labor is an extremely common practice and is typically preferred by larger corporations in order to maximize efficiency. Implementing personal metonymy is especially important in situations where labor is diversified in efforts to thwart feelings of alienation in employees. However, it is worth noting that in situations where labor is highly specified, the use of personal metonymy can only go so far. With recent strides made towards the development of more highly functioning robots, this phenomenon could become something of the past. But, in our current situation, feelings of alienation become difficult to avoid when one’s job is extremely specific and allows for very little deviation from one process.		Another challenge in the implementation of personal metonymy arises in seeking out projects that are conducive to it. In the current post-industrial market, diversification of labor is an extremely common practice and is typically preferred by larger corporations in order to maximize efficiency. Implementing personal metonymy is especially important in situations where labor is diversified in efforts to thwart feelings of alienation in employees. However, it is worth noting that in situations where labor is highly specified, the use of personal metonymy can only go so far. With recent strides made towards the development of more highly functioning robots, this phenomenon could become something of the past. But, in our current situation, feelings of alienation become difficult to avoid when one’s job is extremely specific and allows for very little deviation from one process or communication with fellow workers.

	----		----

S217191: /* Limitations */

2022-03-25T11:54:43Z

Limitations

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:54, 25 March 2022
Line 61:		Line 61:


	When implemented and maintained, the use of personal metonymy can work to assuage feelings of disconnection in employees and managers alike. [[File:Cultural Dimensions.png\|400px\|thumb\|right\|Cultural Dimension Scale <ref name = "Cultural Dimensions Scale">" “Hoftstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory, https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/hofstedes-cultural-dimensions-theory/." </ref>]] However, there are some qualifications that must be made regarding successful use. The first qualification is that the success of personal metonymy may vary depending on the cultural environment in which it is used. Culture can be measured on a scale of many factors according to Hofstede’s Scale of Culture: one being collectivism vs individualism. Where a certain culture falls on the scale is indicative of their tendency to see themselves as a group or an individual working in a group when completing tasks together. This scale was created in order to facilitate interaction and work across different cultures, giving people a way to better explain their own processes and understand those of the people around them. This difference may affect how ~~Personal Metonymy~~ is used across cultures. A society that leans toward the collectivist end of the scale may feel uncomfortable using personal pronouns when speaking about their work within a project. The goal of personal metonymy is not to discourage collaboration. Its goal is merely to connect an individual to their work. This being said, in some cultures a certain degree of loss of individualism in the workplace may be more accepted by employees that view themselves primarily as a member of a team.		When implemented and maintained, the use of personal metonymy can work to assuage feelings of disconnection in employees and managers alike. [[File:Cultural Dimensions.png\|400px\|thumb\|right\|Cultural Dimension Scale <ref name = "Cultural Dimensions Scale">" “Hoftstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory, https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/hofstedes-cultural-dimensions-theory/." </ref>]] However, there are some qualifications that must be made regarding successful use. The first qualification is that the success of personal metonymy may vary depending on the cultural environment in which it is used. Culture can be measured on a scale of many factors according to Hofstede’s Scale of Culture: one being collectivism vs individualism. Where a certain culture falls on the scale is indicative of their tendency to see themselves as a group or an individual working in a group when completing tasks together. This scale was created in order to facilitate interaction and work across different cultures, giving people a way to better explain their own processes and understand those of the people around them. This difference may affect how personal metonymy is used across cultures. A society that leans toward the collectivist end of the scale may feel uncomfortable using personal pronouns when speaking about their work within a project. The goal of personal metonymy is not to discourage collaboration. Its goal is merely to connect an individual to their work. This being said, in some cultures a certain degree of loss of individualism in the workplace may be more accepted by employees that view themselves primarily as a member of a team.
	Another challenge in the implementation of personal metonymy arises in seeking out projects that are conducive to it. In the current post-industrial market, diversification of labor is an extremely common practice and is typically preferred by larger corporations in order to maximize efficiency. Implementing personal metonymy is especially important in situations where labor is diversified in efforts to thwart feelings of alienation in employees. However, it is worth noting that in situations where labor is highly specified, the use of personal metonymy can only go so far. With recent strides made towards the development of more highly functioning robots, this phenomenon could become something of the past. But, in our current situation, feelings of alienation become difficult to avoid when one’s job is extremely specific and allows for very little deviation from one process.		Another challenge in the implementation of personal metonymy arises in seeking out projects that are conducive to it. In the current post-industrial market, diversification of labor is an extremely common practice and is typically preferred by larger corporations in order to maximize efficiency. Implementing personal metonymy is especially important in situations where labor is diversified in efforts to thwart feelings of alienation in employees. However, it is worth noting that in situations where labor is highly specified, the use of personal metonymy can only go so far. With recent strides made towards the development of more highly functioning robots, this phenomenon could become something of the past. But, in our current situation, feelings of alienation become difficult to avoid when one’s job is extremely specific and allows for very little deviation from one process.

S217191: /* Limitations */

2022-03-25T11:54:25Z

Limitations

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:54, 25 March 2022
Line 61:		Line 61:


	When implemented and maintained, the use of personal metonymy can work to assuage feelings of disconnection in employees and managers alike. [[File:Cultural Dimensions.png\|400px\|thumb\|right\|Cultural Dimension Scale <ref name = "Cultural Dimensions Scale">" “Hoftstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory, https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/hofstedes-cultural-dimensions-theory/." </ref>]] However, there are some qualifications that must be made regarding successful use. The first qualification is that the success of personal metonymy may vary depending on the cultural environment in which it is used. Culture can be measured on a scale of many factors according to Hofstede’s Scale of Culture: one being collectivism vs individualism. Where a certain culture falls on the scale is indicative of their tendency to see themselves as a group or an individual working in a group when completing tasks together. This scale was created in order to facilitate interaction and work across different cultures, giving people a way to better explain their own processes and understand those of the people around them This difference may affect how Personal Metonymy is used across cultures. A society that leans toward the collectivist end of the scale may feel uncomfortable using personal pronouns when speaking about their work within a project. The goal of personal metonymy is not to discourage collaboration. Its goal is merely to connect an individual to their work. This being said, in some cultures a certain degree of loss of individualism in the workplace may be more accepted by employees that view themselves primarily as a member of a team.		When implemented and maintained, the use of personal metonymy can work to assuage feelings of disconnection in employees and managers alike. [[File:Cultural Dimensions.png\|400px\|thumb\|right\|Cultural Dimension Scale <ref name = "Cultural Dimensions Scale">" “Hoftstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory, https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/hofstedes-cultural-dimensions-theory/." </ref>]] However, there are some qualifications that must be made regarding successful use. The first qualification is that the success of personal metonymy may vary depending on the cultural environment in which it is used. Culture can be measured on a scale of many factors according to Hofstede’s Scale of Culture: one being collectivism vs individualism. Where a certain culture falls on the scale is indicative of their tendency to see themselves as a group or an individual working in a group when completing tasks together. This scale was created in order to facilitate interaction and work across different cultures, giving people a way to better explain their own processes and understand those of the people around them. This difference may affect how Personal Metonymy is used across cultures. A society that leans toward the collectivist end of the scale may feel uncomfortable using personal pronouns when speaking about their work within a project. The goal of personal metonymy is not to discourage collaboration. Its goal is merely to connect an individual to their work. This being said, in some cultures a certain degree of loss of individualism in the workplace may be more accepted by employees that view themselves primarily as a member of a team.
	Another challenge in the implementation of personal metonymy arises in seeking out projects that are conducive to it. In the current post-industrial market, diversification of labor is an extremely common practice and is typically preferred by larger corporations in order to maximize efficiency. Implementing personal metonymy is especially important in situations where labor is diversified in efforts to thwart feelings of alienation in employees. However, it is worth noting that in situations where labor is highly specified, the use of personal metonymy can only go so far. With recent strides made towards the development of more highly functioning robots, this phenomenon could become something of the past. But, in our current situation, feelings of alienation become difficult to avoid when one’s job is extremely specific and allows for very little deviation from one process.		Another challenge in the implementation of personal metonymy arises in seeking out projects that are conducive to it. In the current post-industrial market, diversification of labor is an extremely common practice and is typically preferred by larger corporations in order to maximize efficiency. Implementing personal metonymy is especially important in situations where labor is diversified in efforts to thwart feelings of alienation in employees. However, it is worth noting that in situations where labor is highly specified, the use of personal metonymy can only go so far. With recent strides made towards the development of more highly functioning robots, this phenomenon could become something of the past. But, in our current situation, feelings of alienation become difficult to avoid when one’s job is extremely specific and allows for very little deviation from one process.

S217191: /* Limitations */

2022-03-25T11:53:12Z

Limitations

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:53, 25 March 2022
Line 61:		Line 61:


	When implemented and maintained, the use of personal metonymy can work to assuage feelings of disconnection in employees and managers alike. However, there are some qualifications that must be made regarding successful use. The first qualification is that the success of personal metonymy may vary depending on the cultural environment in which it is used. Culture can be measured on a scale of many factors according to Hofstede’s Scale of Culture: one being collectivism vs individualism. Where a certain culture falls on the scale is indicative of their tendency to see themselves as a group or an individual working in a group when completing tasks together. This scale was created in order to facilitate interaction and work across different cultures, giving people a way to better explain their own processes and understand those of the people around them This difference may affect how Personal Metonymy is used across cultures.[[File:Cultural Dimensions.png\|400px\|thumb\|right\|Cultural Dimension Scale <ref name = "Cultural Dimensions Scale">" “Hoftstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory, https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/hofstedes-cultural-dimensions-theory/." </ref>]] A society that leans toward the collectivist end of the scale may feel uncomfortable using personal pronouns when speaking about their work within a project. The goal of personal metonymy is not to discourage collaboration. Its goal is merely to connect an individual to their work. This being said, in some cultures a certain degree of loss of individualism in the workplace may be more accepted by employees that view themselves primarily as a member of a team.		When implemented and maintained, the use of personal metonymy can work to assuage feelings of disconnection in employees and managers alike. [[File:Cultural Dimensions.png\|400px\|thumb\|right\|Cultural Dimension Scale <ref name = "Cultural Dimensions Scale">" “Hoftstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory, https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/hofstedes-cultural-dimensions-theory/." </ref>]] However, there are some qualifications that must be made regarding successful use. The first qualification is that the success of personal metonymy may vary depending on the cultural environment in which it is used. Culture can be measured on a scale of many factors according to Hofstede’s Scale of Culture: one being collectivism vs individualism. Where a certain culture falls on the scale is indicative of their tendency to see themselves as a group or an individual working in a group when completing tasks together. This scale was created in order to facilitate interaction and work across different cultures, giving people a way to better explain their own processes and understand those of the people around them This difference may affect how Personal Metonymy is used across cultures. A society that leans toward the collectivist end of the scale may feel uncomfortable using personal pronouns when speaking about their work within a project. The goal of personal metonymy is not to discourage collaboration. Its goal is merely to connect an individual to their work. This being said, in some cultures a certain degree of loss of individualism in the workplace may be more accepted by employees that view themselves primarily as a member of a team.
	Another challenge in the implementation of personal metonymy arises in seeking out projects that are conducive to it. In the current post-industrial market, diversification of labor is an extremely common practice and is typically preferred by larger corporations in order to maximize efficiency. Implementing personal metonymy is especially important in situations where labor is diversified in efforts to thwart feelings of alienation in employees. However, it is worth noting that in situations where labor is highly specified, the use of personal metonymy can only go so far. With recent strides made towards the development of more highly functioning robots, this phenomenon could become something of the past. But, in our current situation, feelings of alienation become difficult to avoid when one’s job is extremely specific and allows for very little deviation from one process.		Another challenge in the implementation of personal metonymy arises in seeking out projects that are conducive to it. In the current post-industrial market, diversification of labor is an extremely common practice and is typically preferred by larger corporations in order to maximize efficiency. Implementing personal metonymy is especially important in situations where labor is diversified in efforts to thwart feelings of alienation in employees. However, it is worth noting that in situations where labor is highly specified, the use of personal metonymy can only go so far. With recent strides made towards the development of more highly functioning robots, this phenomenon could become something of the past. But, in our current situation, feelings of alienation become difficult to avoid when one’s job is extremely specific and allows for very little deviation from one process.

S217191: /* Project, Program, and Portfolio Application Model */

2022-03-25T11:50:33Z

Project, Program, and Portfolio Application Model

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:50, 25 March 2022
Line 54:		Line 54:


	Achieving fluidity throughout an entire program when implementing personal metonymy begins with the portfolio managers’ choice of projects that are conducive to it. [[File: Program, Project, and Portfolio Model 2.png\|400px\|thumb\|right\|Program, Project, and Portfolio Model<ref name = "Program, Project, and Portfolio Model">" Boswell, Stella, "Program, Project, and Portfolio Model", March 13th, 2022 " </ref>]]As shown in the fluidity diagram, the first step is for portfolio managers to consider the potential threat that alienation poses in a given project or program when choosing the next endeavor for their company. The next step in the model of implementation must be carried out by ~~project~~ managers. The ~~project~~ managers should be encouraged to use personal metonymy when ~~providing updates~~ regarding their project in the context of the program or speaking with clients. As shown in the diagram, the project coordinators’ objective is to avoid alienation from the program that encompasses their project. For example, a construction manager of a hospital being built as part of a city’s public health program could tell a reporter, “I have the resources available to change the status of our city’s health.” In this situation, the project manager is using personal metonymy to make themselves representative of the resources and initiative of the city’s undertaking. With the project managers feeling acutely connected to the program, the next step of the model can come into play. The final element of the personal metonymic model is the use of metonymic language by employees working underneath the project managers. An example of this would be a construction worker on the hospital site saying to an inquiring citizen, “I plan to have the job finished in March.” While of course it is primarily the task of the project and program managers to ensure the time frame, the construction worker is representative of these goals, especially because he is an integral part of whether the project remains within the time frame. With each level of management dedicated to implementing personal metonymy, a trickle down effect is able to occur. The project managers feel connected to the entire program, and the project employees ultimately feel connected to ~~their~~ project and the program. This is all made possible by the intention held by the portfolio managers to take on initiatives that make this harmony possible.		Achieving fluidity throughout an entire program when implementing personal metonymy begins with the portfolio managers’ choice of projects that are conducive to it. [[File: Program, Project, and Portfolio Model 2.png\|400px\|thumb\|right\|Program, Project, and Portfolio Model<ref name = "Program, Project, and Portfolio Model">" Boswell, Stella, "Program, Project, and Portfolio Model", March 13th, 2022 " </ref>]]As shown in the fluidity diagram, the first step is for portfolio managers to consider the potential threat that alienation poses in a given project or program when choosing the next endeavor for their company. The next step in the model of implementation must be carried out by program managers. The program managers should be encouraged to use personal metonymy when conducting meetings with project managers regarding their project in the context of the program or speaking with clients. As shown in the diagram, the project coordinators’ objective is to avoid alienation from the program that encompasses their project and, in turn, influence those working within the project to feel the same connection. For example, a construction manager of a hospital being built as part of a city’s public health program could tell a reporter, “I have the resources available to change the status of our city’s health.” In this situation, the project manager is using personal metonymy to make themselves representative of the resources and initiative of the city’s undertaking. With the project managers feeling acutely connected to the program, the next step of the model can come into play. The final element of the personal metonymic model is the use of metonymic language by employees working underneath the project managers. An example of this would be a construction worker on the hospital site saying to an inquiring citizen, “I plan to have the job finished in March.” While of course it is primarily the task of the project and program managers to ensure the time frame, the construction worker is representative of these goals, especially because he is an integral part of whether the project remains within the time frame. With each level of management dedicated to implementing personal metonymy, a trickle down effect is able to occur. The project managers feel connected to the entire program, and the project employees ultimately feel connected to both the project and the program. This is all made possible by the intention held by the portfolio managers to take on initiatives that make this harmony possible.

	----		----

S217191: /* Project, Program, and Portfolio Application Model */

2022-03-25T11:45:48Z

Project, Program, and Portfolio Application Model

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:45, 25 March 2022
Line 54:		Line 54:


	Achieving fluidity throughout an entire program when implementing personal metonymy begins with the portfolio managers’ choice of projects that are conducive to it. [[File: Program, Project, and Portfolio Model 2.png\|400px\|thumb\|right\|Program, Project, and Portfolio Model<ref name = "Program, Project, and Portfolio Model">" Boswell, Stella, "Program, Project, and Portfolio Model", March 13th, 2022 " </ref>]]As shown in the fluidity diagram, the first step is for ~~program~~ managers to consider the potential threat that alienation poses in a given project or program when choosing the next endeavor for their company. The next step in the model of implementation must be carried out by project managers. The project managers should be encouraged to use personal metonymy when providing updates regarding their project in the context of the program or speaking with clients. As shown in the diagram, the project coordinators’ objective is to avoid alienation from the program that encompasses their project. For example, a construction manager of a hospital being built as part of a city’s public health program could tell a reporter, “I have the resources available to change the status of our city’s health.” In this situation, the project manager is using personal metonymy to make themselves representative of the resources and initiative of the city’s undertaking. With the project managers feeling acutely connected to the program, the next step of the model can come into play. The final element of the personal metonymic model is the use of metonymic language by employees working underneath the project managers. An example of this would be a construction worker on the hospital site saying to an inquiring citizen, “I plan to have the job finished in March.” While of course it is primarily the task of the project and program managers to ensure the time frame, the construction worker is representative of these goals, especially because he is an integral part of whether the project remains within the time frame. With each level of management dedicated to implementing personal metonymy, a trickle down effect is able to occur. The project managers feel connected to the entire program, and the project employees ultimately feel connected to their project and the program. This is all made possible by the intention held by the portfolio managers to take on initiatives that make this harmony possible.		Achieving fluidity throughout an entire program when implementing personal metonymy begins with the portfolio managers’ choice of projects that are conducive to it. [[File: Program, Project, and Portfolio Model 2.png\|400px\|thumb\|right\|Program, Project, and Portfolio Model<ref name = "Program, Project, and Portfolio Model">" Boswell, Stella, "Program, Project, and Portfolio Model", March 13th, 2022 " </ref>]]As shown in the fluidity diagram, the first step is for portfolio managers to consider the potential threat that alienation poses in a given project or program when choosing the next endeavor for their company. The next step in the model of implementation must be carried out by project managers. The project managers should be encouraged to use personal metonymy when providing updates regarding their project in the context of the program or speaking with clients. As shown in the diagram, the project coordinators’ objective is to avoid alienation from the program that encompasses their project. For example, a construction manager of a hospital being built as part of a city’s public health program could tell a reporter, “I have the resources available to change the status of our city’s health.” In this situation, the project manager is using personal metonymy to make themselves representative of the resources and initiative of the city’s undertaking. With the project managers feeling acutely connected to the program, the next step of the model can come into play. The final element of the personal metonymic model is the use of metonymic language by employees working underneath the project managers. An example of this would be a construction worker on the hospital site saying to an inquiring citizen, “I plan to have the job finished in March.” While of course it is primarily the task of the project and program managers to ensure the time frame, the construction worker is representative of these goals, especially because he is an integral part of whether the project remains within the time frame. With each level of management dedicated to implementing personal metonymy, a trickle down effect is able to occur. The project managers feel connected to the entire program, and the project employees ultimately feel connected to their project and the program. This is all made possible by the intention held by the portfolio managers to take on initiatives that make this harmony possible.

	----		----

S217191: /* Project, Program, and Portfolio Application Model */

2022-03-25T11:45:12Z

Project, Program, and Portfolio Application Model

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:45, 25 March 2022
Line 54:		Line 54:


	Achieving fluidity throughout an entire program when implementing personal metonymy begins with the ~~program~~ managers’ choice of projects that are conducive to it. [[File: Program, Project, and Portfolio Model 2.png\|400px\|thumb\|right\|Program, Project, and Portfolio Model<ref name = "Program, Project, and Portfolio Model">" Boswell, Stella, "Program, Project, and Portfolio Model", March 13th, 2022 " </ref>]]As shown in the fluidity diagram, the first step is for program managers to consider the potential threat that alienation poses in a given project or program when choosing the next endeavor for their company. The next step in the model of implementation must be carried out by project managers. The project managers should be encouraged to use personal metonymy when providing updates regarding their project in the context of the program or speaking with clients. As shown in the diagram, the project coordinators’ objective is to avoid alienation from the program that encompasses their project. For example, a construction manager of a hospital being built as part of a city’s public health program could tell a reporter, “I have the resources available to change the status of our city’s health.” In this situation, the project manager is using personal metonymy to make themselves representative of the resources and initiative of the city’s undertaking. With the project managers feeling acutely connected to the program, the next step of the model can come into play. The final element of the personal metonymic model is the use of metonymic language by employees working underneath the project managers. An example of this would be a construction worker on the hospital site saying to an inquiring citizen, “I plan to have the job finished in March.” While of course it is primarily the task of the project and program managers to ensure the time frame, the construction worker is representative of these goals, especially because he is an integral part of whether the project remains within the time frame. With each level of management dedicated to implementing personal metonymy, a trickle down effect is able to occur. The project managers feel connected to the entire program, and the project employees ultimately feel connected to their project and the program. This is all made possible by the intention held by the portfolio managers to take on initiatives that make this harmony possible.		Achieving fluidity throughout an entire program when implementing personal metonymy begins with the portfolio managers’ choice of projects that are conducive to it. [[File: Program, Project, and Portfolio Model 2.png\|400px\|thumb\|right\|Program, Project, and Portfolio Model<ref name = "Program, Project, and Portfolio Model">" Boswell, Stella, "Program, Project, and Portfolio Model", March 13th, 2022 " </ref>]]As shown in the fluidity diagram, the first step is for program managers to consider the potential threat that alienation poses in a given project or program when choosing the next endeavor for their company. The next step in the model of implementation must be carried out by project managers. The project managers should be encouraged to use personal metonymy when providing updates regarding their project in the context of the program or speaking with clients. As shown in the diagram, the project coordinators’ objective is to avoid alienation from the program that encompasses their project. For example, a construction manager of a hospital being built as part of a city’s public health program could tell a reporter, “I have the resources available to change the status of our city’s health.” In this situation, the project manager is using personal metonymy to make themselves representative of the resources and initiative of the city’s undertaking. With the project managers feeling acutely connected to the program, the next step of the model can come into play. The final element of the personal metonymic model is the use of metonymic language by employees working underneath the project managers. An example of this would be a construction worker on the hospital site saying to an inquiring citizen, “I plan to have the job finished in March.” While of course it is primarily the task of the project and program managers to ensure the time frame, the construction worker is representative of these goals, especially because he is an integral part of whether the project remains within the time frame. With each level of management dedicated to implementing personal metonymy, a trickle down effect is able to occur. The project managers feel connected to the entire program, and the project employees ultimately feel connected to their project and the program. This is all made possible by the intention held by the portfolio managers to take on initiatives that make this harmony possible.

	----		----

S217191: /* Portfolio Management */

2022-03-25T11:44:43Z

Portfolio Management

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:44, 25 March 2022
Line 49:		Line 49:


	Portfolio management is the first area in beginning a program where implementing personal metonymy can be considered. While it is true that the management of the portfolio of an organization does not typically involve working directly with clients or with all employees of a company, the choice of taking on one project versus another should include deliberation regarding the congruence of the project and the goal of personal metonymy to emphasize feelings of connection in employees to their work. When conducting a risk analysis for a project, it is in typical fashion to construct a matrix diagram weighing the likelihood of certain risks and their severity if they were to occur.[[File:Risk Analysis Model.png\|280px\|thumb\|right\|Risk Analysis Model<ref name = "Risk Matrix">" “Risk Matrices.” Risk Matrices, CGE Risk, 24 July 2017, https://www.cgerisk.com/knowledgebase/Risk_matrices" </ref>]] Likelihood of alienation in employees is a risk that must be considered. According to David Coburn in his piece titled Job Alienation and Well-Being, after the Industrial Revolution and rise of more division of labor, “monotonous and repetitive work has been claimed to have undesirable consequences for the worker, ranging from lowered job satisfaction and unhappiness to higher felt powerlessness and lower mental and physical health”<ref name = "Job Alienation and Well-Being">" Coburn, David. “JOB ALIENATION AND WELL-BEING.” International Journal of Health Services p. 42" </ref>. These criteria, such as repetitiveness and monotony can be helpful in calculating the likelihood of alienation to occur. Projects that would involve high specification of labor and little interaction with fellow employees or clients are more likely to induce sentiments of alienation in the participants. It is somewhat difficult to gauge the severity of a situation in which employees feel alienated, however there is possible risk regarding both monetary and humanitarian aspects of a program. There is the severity of the loss of interest and consequent lack of effort invested into the project. This will more than likely result in a poor product being delivered which will affect the stakeholders and incur all of the monetary and corporate consequences that follow. The second area of risk is the severity of the effect of the project on the well-being of the employees. This can be seen in deterioration of the spirit of employees and will incur consequences of a more humanitarian nature. Shortcomings in either category can result in severe damage to a company or organization and should be highly valued when considering a potential project or program. In terms of avoiding these risks, it is necessary to consider how conducive to personal metonymy the project is. We must ask if it is possible to envision situations in the duration of the project where employees can personally implement metonymic language. Are there opportunities for employees to feel as though they are representative of the project as a whole or its mission? Is there room for employees to complete tasks of a different nature throughout the project and see their contributions come to fruition? These questions are more easily answered when a business or organization has set in place a standard of encouraging employees to use personally metonymic language. With employees reminding themselves of their role through the use of personal metonymy, it will become easier for them to identify when they begin to feel less pride or the onset of alienation. Emphasizing the importance of feeling in this way can act as a preventative ~~element~~ for sentiments of disconnection and encourage employees to reflect if they do feel disconnected. The specifics of applying this will be discussed further in the next section.		Portfolio management is the first area in beginning a program where implementing personal metonymy can be considered. While it is true that the management of the portfolio of an organization does not typically involve working directly with clients or with all employees of a company, the choice of taking on one project versus another should include deliberation regarding the congruence of the project and the goal of personal metonymy to emphasize feelings of connection in employees to their work. When conducting a risk analysis for a project, it is in typical fashion to construct a matrix diagram weighing the likelihood of certain risks and their severity if they were to occur.[[File:Risk Analysis Model.png\|280px\|thumb\|right\|Risk Analysis Model<ref name = "Risk Matrix">" “Risk Matrices.” Risk Matrices, CGE Risk, 24 July 2017, https://www.cgerisk.com/knowledgebase/Risk_matrices" </ref>]] Likelihood of alienation in employees is a risk that must be considered. According to David Coburn in his piece titled Job Alienation and Well-Being, after the Industrial Revolution and rise of more division of labor, “monotonous and repetitive work has been claimed to have undesirable consequences for the worker, ranging from lowered job satisfaction and unhappiness to higher felt powerlessness and lower mental and physical health”<ref name = "Job Alienation and Well-Being">" Coburn, David. “JOB ALIENATION AND WELL-BEING.” International Journal of Health Services p. 42" </ref>. These criteria, such as repetitiveness and monotony can be helpful in calculating the likelihood of alienation to occur. Projects that would involve high specification of labor and little interaction with fellow employees or clients are more likely to induce sentiments of alienation in the participants. It is somewhat difficult to gauge the severity of a situation in which employees feel alienated, however there is possible risk regarding both monetary and humanitarian aspects of a program. There is the severity of the loss of interest and consequent lack of effort invested into the project. This will more than likely result in a poor product being delivered which will affect the stakeholders and incur all of the monetary and corporate consequences that follow. The second area of risk is the severity of the effect of the project on the well-being of the employees. This can be seen in deterioration of the spirit of employees and will incur consequences of a more humanitarian nature. Shortcomings in either category can result in severe damage to a company or organization and should be highly valued when considering a potential project or program. In terms of avoiding these risks, it is necessary to consider how conducive to personal metonymy the project is. We must ask if it is possible to envision situations in the duration of the project where employees can personally implement metonymic language. Are there opportunities for employees to feel as though they are representative of the project as a whole or its mission? Is there room for employees to complete tasks of a different nature throughout the project and see their contributions come to fruition? These questions are more easily answered when a business or organization has set in place a standard of encouraging employees to use personally metonymic language. With employees reminding themselves of their role through the use of personal metonymy, it will become easier for them to identify when they begin to feel less pride or the onset of alienation. Emphasizing the importance of feeling in this way can act as a preventative measure for sentiments of disconnection and encourage employees to reflect if they do feel disconnected. The specifics of applying this will be discussed further in the next section.

	===Project, Program, and Portfolio Application Model===		===Project, Program, and Portfolio Application Model===

S217191: /* Portfolio Management */

2022-03-25T11:44:04Z

Portfolio Management

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:44, 25 March 2022
Line 49:		Line 49:


	Portfolio management is the first area in beginning a program where implementing personal metonymy can be considered. While it is true that the management of the portfolio of an organization does not typically involve working directly with clients or with all employees of a company, the choice of taking on one project versus another should include deliberation regarding the congruence of the project and the goal of personal metonymy to emphasize feelings of connection in employees to their work. When conducting a risk analysis for a project, it is in typical fashion to construct a matrix diagram weighing the likelihood of certain risks and their severity if they were to occur.[[File:Risk Analysis Model.png\|280px\|thumb\|right\|Risk Analysis Model<ref name = "Risk Matrix">" “Risk Matrices.” Risk Matrices, CGE Risk, 24 July 2017, https://www.cgerisk.com/knowledgebase/Risk_matrices" </ref>]] Likelihood of alienation in employees is a risk that must be considered. According to David Coburn in his piece titled Job Alienation and Well-Being, after the Industrial Revolution and rise of more division of labor, “monotonous and repetitive work has been claimed to have undesirable consequences for the worker, ranging from lowered job satisfaction and unhappiness to higher felt powerlessness and lower mental and physical health”<ref name = "Job Alienation and Well-Being">" Coburn, David. “JOB ALIENATION AND WELL-BEING.” International Journal of Health Services p. 42" </ref>. These criteria, such as repetitiveness and monotony can be helpful in calculating the likelihood of alienation to occur. Projects that would involve high specification of labor and little interaction with fellow employees or clients are more likely to induce sentiments of alienation in the participants. It is somewhat difficult to gauge the severity of a situation in which employees feel alienated, however there is possible risk regarding both monetary and humanitarian aspects of a program. There is the severity of the loss of interest and consequent lack of effort invested into the project. This will more than likely result in a poor product being delivered which will affect the stakeholders and incur all of the monetary and corporate consequences that follow. The second area of risk is the severity of the effect of the project on the well-being of the employees. This can be seen in deterioration of the spirit of employees and will incur consequences of a more humanitarian nature. Shortcomings in either category can result in severe damage to a company or organization and should be highly valued when considering a potential project or program. In terms of avoiding these risks, it is necessary to consider how conducive to personal metonymy the project is. We must ask if it is possible to envision situations in the duration of the project where employees can personally implement metonymic language. Are there opportunities for employees to feel as though they are representative of the project as a whole or its mission? Is there room for employees to complete tasks of a different nature throughout the project and see their contributions come to fruition? ~~All of these~~ questions are more easily answered when a business or organization has set in place a standard of encouraging employees to use personally metonymic language. With employees reminding themselves of their role through the use of personal metonymy, it will become easier for them to identify when they begin to feel less pride or the onset of alienation. Emphasizing the importance of feeling in this way can act as a preventative element for sentiments of disconnection and encourage employees to reflect if they do feel disconnected. The specifics of applying this will be discussed further in the next section.		Portfolio management is the first area in beginning a program where implementing personal metonymy can be considered. While it is true that the management of the portfolio of an organization does not typically involve working directly with clients or with all employees of a company, the choice of taking on one project versus another should include deliberation regarding the congruence of the project and the goal of personal metonymy to emphasize feelings of connection in employees to their work. When conducting a risk analysis for a project, it is in typical fashion to construct a matrix diagram weighing the likelihood of certain risks and their severity if they were to occur.[[File:Risk Analysis Model.png\|280px\|thumb\|right\|Risk Analysis Model<ref name = "Risk Matrix">" “Risk Matrices.” Risk Matrices, CGE Risk, 24 July 2017, https://www.cgerisk.com/knowledgebase/Risk_matrices" </ref>]] Likelihood of alienation in employees is a risk that must be considered. According to David Coburn in his piece titled Job Alienation and Well-Being, after the Industrial Revolution and rise of more division of labor, “monotonous and repetitive work has been claimed to have undesirable consequences for the worker, ranging from lowered job satisfaction and unhappiness to higher felt powerlessness and lower mental and physical health”<ref name = "Job Alienation and Well-Being">" Coburn, David. “JOB ALIENATION AND WELL-BEING.” International Journal of Health Services p. 42" </ref>. These criteria, such as repetitiveness and monotony can be helpful in calculating the likelihood of alienation to occur. Projects that would involve high specification of labor and little interaction with fellow employees or clients are more likely to induce sentiments of alienation in the participants. It is somewhat difficult to gauge the severity of a situation in which employees feel alienated, however there is possible risk regarding both monetary and humanitarian aspects of a program. There is the severity of the loss of interest and consequent lack of effort invested into the project. This will more than likely result in a poor product being delivered which will affect the stakeholders and incur all of the monetary and corporate consequences that follow. The second area of risk is the severity of the effect of the project on the well-being of the employees. This can be seen in deterioration of the spirit of employees and will incur consequences of a more humanitarian nature. Shortcomings in either category can result in severe damage to a company or organization and should be highly valued when considering a potential project or program. In terms of avoiding these risks, it is necessary to consider how conducive to personal metonymy the project is. We must ask if it is possible to envision situations in the duration of the project where employees can personally implement metonymic language. Are there opportunities for employees to feel as though they are representative of the project as a whole or its mission? Is there room for employees to complete tasks of a different nature throughout the project and see their contributions come to fruition? These questions are more easily answered when a business or organization has set in place a standard of encouraging employees to use personally metonymic language. With employees reminding themselves of their role through the use of personal metonymy, it will become easier for them to identify when they begin to feel less pride or the onset of alienation. Emphasizing the importance of feeling in this way can act as a preventative element for sentiments of disconnection and encourage employees to reflect if they do feel disconnected. The specifics of applying this will be discussed further in the next section.

	===Project, Program, and Portfolio Application Model===		===Project, Program, and Portfolio Application Model===

S217191: /* Portfolio Management */

2022-03-25T11:43:19Z

Portfolio Management

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:43, 25 March 2022
Line 49:		Line 49:


	Portfolio management is the first area in beginning a program where implementing personal metonymy can be considered. While it is true that the management of the portfolio of an organization does not typically involve working directly with clients or with all employees of a company, the choice of taking on one project versus another should include deliberation regarding the congruence of the project and the goal of personal metonymy to emphasize feelings of connection in employees to their work. When conducting a risk analysis for a project, it is in typical fashion to construct a matrix diagram weighing the likelihood of certain risks and their severity if they were to occur.[[File:Risk Analysis Model.png\|280px\|thumb\|right\|Risk Analysis Model<ref name = "Risk Matrix">" “Risk Matrices.” Risk Matrices, CGE Risk, 24 July 2017, https://www.cgerisk.com/knowledgebase/Risk_matrices" </ref>]] Likelihood of alienation in employees is a risk that must be considered. According to David Coburn in his piece titled Job Alienation and Well-Being, after the Industrial Revolution and rise of more division of labor, “monotonous and repetitive work has been claimed to have undesirable consequences for the worker, ranging from lowered job satisfaction and unhappiness to higher felt powerlessness and lower mental and physical health”<ref name = "Job Alienation and Well-Being">" Coburn, David. “JOB ALIENATION AND WELL-BEING.” International Journal of Health Services p. 42" </ref>. These criteria, such as repetitiveness and monotony can be helpful in calculating the likelihood of alienation to occur. Projects that would involve high specification of labor and little interaction with fellow employees or clients are more likely to induce sentiments of alienation in the participants. It is somewhat difficult to gauge the severity of a situation in which employees feel alienated, however there is possible risk regarding both monetary and humanitarian aspects of a program. There is the severity of the loss of interest and consequent lack of effort invested into the project. This will more than likely result in a poor product being delivered which will affect the stakeholders and incur all of the monetary and corporate consequences that follow. The second area of risk is the severity of the effect of the project on the well-being of the employees. This can be seen in deterioration of the spirit of employees and will incur consequences of a more humanitarian nature. Shortcomings in either category can result in severe damage to a company or organization and should be highly valued when considering a potential project or program. In terms of avoiding these risks, it is necessary to consider how conducive to ~~Personal Metonymy~~ the project is. We must ask if it is possible to envision situations in the duration of the project where employees can personally implement metonymic language. Are there opportunities for employees to feel as though they are representative of the project as a whole or its mission? Is there room for employees to complete tasks of a different nature throughout the project and see their contributions come to fruition? All of these questions are more easily answered when a business or organization has set in place a standard of encouraging employees to use personally metonymic language. With employees reminding themselves of their role through the use of personal metonymy, it will become easier for them to identify when they begin to feel less pride or the onset of alienation. Emphasizing the importance of feeling in this way can act as a preventative element for sentiments of disconnection and encourage employees to reflect if they do feel disconnected. The specifics of applying this will be discussed further in the next section.		Portfolio management is the first area in beginning a program where implementing personal metonymy can be considered. While it is true that the management of the portfolio of an organization does not typically involve working directly with clients or with all employees of a company, the choice of taking on one project versus another should include deliberation regarding the congruence of the project and the goal of personal metonymy to emphasize feelings of connection in employees to their work. When conducting a risk analysis for a project, it is in typical fashion to construct a matrix diagram weighing the likelihood of certain risks and their severity if they were to occur.[[File:Risk Analysis Model.png\|280px\|thumb\|right\|Risk Analysis Model<ref name = "Risk Matrix">" “Risk Matrices.” Risk Matrices, CGE Risk, 24 July 2017, https://www.cgerisk.com/knowledgebase/Risk_matrices" </ref>]] Likelihood of alienation in employees is a risk that must be considered. According to David Coburn in his piece titled Job Alienation and Well-Being, after the Industrial Revolution and rise of more division of labor, “monotonous and repetitive work has been claimed to have undesirable consequences for the worker, ranging from lowered job satisfaction and unhappiness to higher felt powerlessness and lower mental and physical health”<ref name = "Job Alienation and Well-Being">" Coburn, David. “JOB ALIENATION AND WELL-BEING.” International Journal of Health Services p. 42" </ref>. These criteria, such as repetitiveness and monotony can be helpful in calculating the likelihood of alienation to occur. Projects that would involve high specification of labor and little interaction with fellow employees or clients are more likely to induce sentiments of alienation in the participants. It is somewhat difficult to gauge the severity of a situation in which employees feel alienated, however there is possible risk regarding both monetary and humanitarian aspects of a program. There is the severity of the loss of interest and consequent lack of effort invested into the project. This will more than likely result in a poor product being delivered which will affect the stakeholders and incur all of the monetary and corporate consequences that follow. The second area of risk is the severity of the effect of the project on the well-being of the employees. This can be seen in deterioration of the spirit of employees and will incur consequences of a more humanitarian nature. Shortcomings in either category can result in severe damage to a company or organization and should be highly valued when considering a potential project or program. In terms of avoiding these risks, it is necessary to consider how conducive to personal metonymy the project is. We must ask if it is possible to envision situations in the duration of the project where employees can personally implement metonymic language. Are there opportunities for employees to feel as though they are representative of the project as a whole or its mission? Is there room for employees to complete tasks of a different nature throughout the project and see their contributions come to fruition? All of these questions are more easily answered when a business or organization has set in place a standard of encouraging employees to use personally metonymic language. With employees reminding themselves of their role through the use of personal metonymy, it will become easier for them to identify when they begin to feel less pride or the onset of alienation. Emphasizing the importance of feeling in this way can act as a preventative element for sentiments of disconnection and encourage employees to reflect if they do feel disconnected. The specifics of applying this will be discussed further in the next section.

	===Project, Program, and Portfolio Application Model===		===Project, Program, and Portfolio Application Model===