Running head: SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND BEHAVIOR 1

Symbolic interactionism and employee behavior

Name:

Institutional Affiliation:
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND BEHAVIOR 2

Symbolic interactionism refers to a perception of social behavior that emphasizes on non-

verbal and verbal communication along with their subjective acquaintances which bases on the

role language plays in transforming children into social beings. Symbolic interactionism centers

on the non-verbal and verbal communication skills that make individuals have the capability of

drawing the meaning of life experiences. This makes it easier to deduce that as people socialize

and interact with the experiences of the world, their behaviors diverge depending on the meaning

they get from the social interaction. Chamberlain-Salaun, Mills & Usher (2013) found out that

people adapt to things they expect to do depending on how other people are going to perceive

them. Such people mostly take time focusing on the things they expect to do after which they

gradually adjust to what people deem fit for them. On a similar note, socialism experts claim that

communications and interactions are necessary when it comes to realism. It, therefore, implies

that social interaction can be used to construct thoughts and convert the ideologies. Focusing on

job settings, this paper gives a description of symbolic interactions and how employees make use

of it to imply submission in their working locations.

How employees use symbolic interactionism to imply submission

Social situations accompanied by thoughts and communications are critical in impacting

an individuals behavior. For employees, symbolic interactionism directly influences the

behavior they exhibit at work particular those employees who are compelled to conform to

regulations and codes governing their work. Every organization has its own set of rules and

codes of conduct that employees must abide by while at work. These rules permit the occurrence

of certain things and prohibit other things from taking place within the organization. For

example, most rules have strong affiliations with dressing code and the language that should be

spoken while at work. For effective following of the rules Dionysiou & Tsoukas (2013) argue out
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND BEHAVIOR 3

that the employers who set these rules should act as role models since they are conversant with

these rules, thus the employees can emulate them in a way that could enhance the success of the

organization. This therefore implies that when the employees get to be employed in the

organization, they are compelled to comply with the rules particularly language and any other

behavior the company permits. By exhibiting behavior that complies with what the employers

require as well as adopting uniformity in the language used, employees become submissive to

the company.

It is worth mentioning that the symbol and the language used in work environment are

critical in determining the behavior of the employees as well as their actions. This is the point at

which that commanding and official language the employers use become important in

influencing the perceptions of the employees. Following the language used by the employers,

employees eventually believe that it is necessary for them to adhere to the rules of the

organization and the code of ethics required from them in if maintaining their job positions is a

concern. Thus, submissiveness enables the employees to avoid being fired. The language the

employers use lead the employees towards adapting to a particular form of behavior that matches

the codes the company has outlined in its regulations. Therefore, in agreement with Oliver

(2012) symbolic interactionism in the context of actions and language impacts the employees

thoughts and behavior in a way that enables the employees to be submissive to the outlined

regulations.

Finally, employees get to realize the necessity of abiding by the regulations of an

organization as they interact every day in a work environment. For example, firing some

employees for failure of following the regulations of a workplace make the rest of the employees

adhere to the rules of a working place in a way that would enhance sustainability. Hiring and
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND BEHAVIOR 4

later firing employees due to lack of adhering to the law has no difference with having no

employees applying for that job position. Symbolic interactionism facilitated by experienced

interactions enhance the submissiveness of the employees in their respective work positions. On

a similar note, there is a rational behavior promoted which is afterward strengthened with

subsequent promotions and increment in salary. For a business, this implies that the employees

through rational behavior assist the organization meet its goals and thus get promoted for their

loyalty in the workplace. Therefore, with this in mind, most employees would vary their behavior

to match what the organization requires in order to get promotion through increased output.

How the employees vary behavior in the workplace if they choose to use symbolic

interactionism to suggest parity with the management.

The employees may choose to use symbolic interactionism in a way that would suggest

impartiality in their workplace through embracing a behavior that would enhance management

parity. This gives an indication that the employees are acting unanimously and are harmoniously

working as a team to execute the strategies of the organization in a way that is deemed fit for

management parity. Since employees are looking for impartiality in functioning, it, therefore,

implies that the language they use is in many ways contradicting the code of ethics and the

regulations of the company. The employees use language and behave in a way that influences the

prosperity of the business. In fact, when a disagreement arises between the employees and the

employers, the employees demonstrate to show that they also possess some power over the

managers. In such a scenario, even the few employees who are loyal are gradually influenced by

other employees and eventually find themselves in the demonstrations. The employees,

following symbolic interactionism, bring out the perception that they have to deviate from the

rules of the organization for them to be heard (Oliver, 2012).

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND BEHAVIOR 5

On the contrary, the employees might exhibit worse behavior with the thought that the

management will give in to their demands and expectations suppose they fail to operate

proficiently. All the employees then mobilize and learn to poorly respond to their positions at the

job since they are sure that the management will react upon realizing a negative outcome in the

operations of the business. Therefore, as in agreement with Dionysiou & Tsoukas (2013),

employees may use symbolic interactionism to promote poor behavior in the pursuit of seeking

parity.

Conclusively, symbolic interactionism is important as it shows the power individuals

possess in transforming the environment they dwell. To some point, it also shows that individuals

should not be held responsible for what happens in the society which they should be conforming

to since they are the determinants of the behavior and the circumstances dictated by particular

setting. Thus, individuals from another perception transform the society bestowing changes on

the society. Therefore, social interactionists exhibit some interest in the patterns that interaction

create leading to realism that supports existence.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND BEHAVIOR 6

References

Chamberlain-Salaun, J., Mills, J., & Usher, K. (2013). Linking symbolic interactionism and

grounded theory methods in a research design. Sage Open, 3(3), 2158244013505757.

Dionysiou, D. D., & Tsoukas, H. (2013). Understanding the (re) creation of routines from within:

A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 181-205.

Oliver, C. (2012). The relationship between symbolic interactionism and interpretive description.

Qualitative Health Research, 22(3), 409-415.