ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 22)

PERCEPTIONS OF PEOPLE IN ORGANIZATIONS

by

Charles Lamson

In the past several articles, we discussed how people in organizations exhibit a wide variety of personalities. Most likely you thought first about how these various personalities applied to you - or which ones you thought of yourself as being low or high, and maybe which ones did not seem to apply to you at all. Then you may have thought about your current supervisor, or a past one, and thought how well that person seemed to fit one or more of the personalities described. If you engaged in either of these activities, you were involved in "person perception."

Person perception is a normal activity in which we engage whenever we come in contact with another person; it may range from a very intense activity, such as when you are interviewing someone you might want to hire where you consciously focus on that  person and consciously try to figure out what makes him or her "tick." Or it may range all the way down to a fleeting notice of the other person where you simply record in your memory how that person appeared or was behaving at that moment. Over time and with sufficient contact, we form fairly stable ways of perceiving other people in our environment. We come to expect those people to behave consistently with our perceptions, and we adapt our own behavior in accordance with those expectations. The other people engage in the same person-perception process with us at the target. I develop an image of you, you develop an image of me. In addition, each of us develop an image of ourselves. Would it surprise you if your supervisor saw you differently than he/she saw her/himself? Would it surprise you if your supervisor saw you differently than you see yourself? Many people are actually surprised when these differences come to light to light. However, we should not be. With the possible exceptions of people in our immediate family, we usually spend only a small portion of each 24-hour day in the presence of any other given individual. Similarly, our supervisor spends the majority of her/his day outside our presence. Hence, few people are around any other person for a large enough portion of the time to really get a good opportunity to see how that other person behaves, much less thinks, most of the time.

Another element which leads supervisors and subordinates to mispercieve each other is a very common human reaction, which sometimes is referred to as "basic attribution error." Basic attribution error occurs when we attribute the causes of our own behavior, particularly our bad behavior, to external factors and the cause of another person's behavior to internal factors; this is referred to as an "error," because we exaggerate the impact of other people's personalities on their behaviors, and  exaggerate the impact of situations on our own behaviors. You did it because you are a bad person; I did it because everyone else was doing it. You are late because you did not get up early enough to get here on time (you are delinquent); I am late because of unusually heavy traffic (I was unfortunately detained); It is just the way you are; I was a victim of circumstances.

Therefore, it should not be surprising that people see themselves differently than others see them. It is a normal impact of human contact. It is very difficult to see others as they see themselves, or to get, them to see us as we see ourselves. It is even more difficult to get others to see us as more nearly perfect than we really are, which is the way we usually want our colleagues and supervisors to see us.

One of the cold hard facts confronting people who hope to communicate effectively in organizations (or anywhere else for that matter), is that messages are interpreted through the receiver's impression of the source. Messages do not generally speak for themselves (even epitaphs on tombstones). As was indicated previously, meanings are in people, not messages. In order to interpret messages, we strive to understand what its source meant by it. Consider the simple phrase "nice job." What would you take this to mean if your supervisor had said that to you? If an incompetent coworker said it? If a coworker who cannot stand you said it? It is unlikely that the same meaning came through to you from these varied sources.

No message is interpreted by a receiver apart from its source. Almost 2,500 years ago, this point was made by Aristotle when writing about the "ethos" or image of the communicator. It is not just a modern phenomenon. The source/message relationship is so strong that if the receiver does not know who the source is, it is likely the receiver will create a source in his or her mind. (Mccroskey and Dunham, 1966). Political candidates have long understood this, and have used well-liked and respected people to introduce them at political gatherings. In that way, the "sponsorship effect" of these positively perceived people "rubs off" on the unknown, or little known, candidates.

If your supervisor thinks you are a slacker, whatever you may say or do, verbally or non-verbally, will be interpreted as a message coming from a slacker. If we want to communicate effectively with our supervisors and coworkers. Therefore, it is critical that we create positive perceptions of our supervisors, so that we do not generate distorted interpretations of her or his messages. There are a wide variety of person's perceptions which have been found to be important in organizational communication. Several of these will be outlined in the following articles.

To be continued...

*SOURCE: ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL 3RD ED. BY VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKEY AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY; PGS. 96-98*

END

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 21)

ORGANIZATIONAL ORIENTATIONS AND COMMUNICATION TRAITS (part C)

by 

Charles Lamson

Achievement orientation. Organizations are particularly thankful for the next personality orientation (continued from the last article). These people are the high achievers, sometimes overachievers. Money is not the main motivator behind the high achiever. These people work because they want to achieve certain goals for themselves. They are often over-committed, overextended and overworked. They will often take on more duties than they can handle, but they will work overtime to make sure things get done. They are the "workhorses" in most organizations.

You can spot them in the following ways: They seem frazzled at times, have more work than most, more responsibility than most, and love it. They will often let others know how much they do by complaining about being overworked. They thrive on sympathy and praise. They are likely to volunteer for extra duties a minute after they have complained about being overworked. They are the people who validate the old maxim "if you want something done fast, give it to a busy person."

High achievers have a tendency to blame themselves when things they are responsible for do not work. They tend to be harder on, and more critical of, themselves than others would be, and often get overwrought when others show a streak of laziness. These people also need some praise from their coworkers or supervisors for jobs well done. If you praise high achievers they will work and work hard. The biggest drawback to their personality type is that they might take on more work than they are capable of handling effectively. Hence, an astute supervisor should be happy to have a high achiever, but must be careful that the person does not insist on more work than he or she is capable of handling. It is easy for systems to abuse these people, because they are willing to do more than others. Hence, if you are a high achiever, be careful. 

High achievers are easy to communicate with. They will try to assist you with your problems and make your job easier. In fact, they will rarely expect you to do what they do not. However, they do expect you to work hard. The key to interacting with high achievers is the appropriate use of praise. These people need to know that you respect what they do. If you like their work, they like you.

Dogmatism.    People of the next personality type often are considered difficult. These are people in organizations who have a narrow view of issues, and expect others to see their point of view. These are the highly dogmatic persons. They are rigid in their beliefs, and do not tolerate viewpoints that disagree with theirs. They tend to be narrow in their thinking, and will either avoid those that do not think as they do, or will simply get rid of them if they can. Dogmatics see things as right or wrong, black or white - there are no gray areas or compromises. The

It is virtually useless to argue with a highly dogmatic peer, much less, one who is your supervisor. He or she will simply discount your arguments as wrong, frivolous, or just plain stupid, and develop similar views about you. Hence, communication with a highly dogmatic individual is not easy. You have to determine what his or her views are, fit your ideas into his or her viewpoints, and even let him or her think he or she generated the idea, and you might be successful in communicating with a dogmatic person

 If you cannot do this, and the dogmatic is your supervisor, you might have to leave the system. Think of what it would be like if your supervisor were a combination of a high authoritarian and a high dogmatic. Communication will be restricted to only views on issues with which he or she agrees. Even unemployment might look attractive in comparison.

Self esteem.    Many people in contemporary organizations have constant feelings of inadequacy. These feelings dominate their entire personalities. They have low self-esteem. These people are referred to as inadequates, because that is the way they see themselves. They worry that they cannot perform their work well. They fear that others will not like them. They worry that they might be promoted, because they know they could not succeed at a higher level. They are insecure about their marriage, their children, and life in general.

The first thing we should recognize is that a person who has low self-esteem can be right - that person may really be inadequate. But many people who have these perceptions are incorrect in the way they see themselves. Nevertheless, we must deal with these people every day in our organizational lives. Most of us have the common response of trying to tell these people they are more adequate than they think they are (even if they are not). That response will be met with rejection, as will praise for something the person does well.

These insecure people also tend to see attacks coming from all sides. Thus, to be on the safe side, we can simply accept an inadequate's claims of inadequacy, and move on to some other topic. Avoid praising their work, since they will not believe you anyway, and be  extremely careful to avoid anything that would sound like criticism. Anything of that type is likely to  prompt a highly defensive reaction (such as aggressive denial), or an emotional acceptance of blame. Either will be unpleasant. Fortunately, these people seldom are promoted to supervisory positions, since others recognize they are not likely to succeed in such positions. Consequently, most of the inadequacies we will encounter, will be peers are subordinates.

*SOURCE: ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL 3RD ED. BY VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKEY AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY; PGS. 90-92*

END

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 20)

PERSONALITY TYPES (part B)
by
Charles Lamson

Machiavellianism.   People with the next personality orientation (continued from the last article) can be useful to the organization, if they are working with and for the organization and not against it. These people are "Machiavellians." Niicoli Machiavelli wrote the book The Prince, in which he described what a prince would need to do to be an effective leader, and rise to greater control of a society . The book was long on tactics and short on morality. People who are highly manipulative have come to be known as "Machiavellians."

People high in Machiavellian tendencies are willing to manipulate others, enjoy manipulating others, and are good at it.Usually, they are good at it. Usually they get what they want, either for themselves, or for their organization. This is not to suggest that Machiavellians necessarily are evil, or that manipulation is wrong. Although, Machiavellians do not typically subscribe to traditional high moral principals, that does not mean they are immoral. They view their manipulative skills as amoral tools. Morals are simply not an issue. If people are manipulated into doing something against their best interests, others might be appalled, but the high Machiavellian would more likely be amused.

How do you know a high Machiavellan when you see one? Usually you do not, unless you go out of your way to look. It is rare that high Machiavellians are widely recognized in an organization. Machiavellians can be identified if you look for the following: They seem to get what they want without being pushy, they get people to do things for them that those people would not do for others, they rarely look as if they are manipulating, they generally are well liked by others in the organization, and they usually do well in the organizational environment.

Machiavellians typically do well in the "people professions." that is, they succeed when influencing people is necessary for success. Some typical occupations with a large proportion of high Machiavellians include education, law, religion, politics, fund raising, and many forms of sales. Most people that rise to the top, or near the top, in most organizations have high Machiavellian tendencies. High Machiavellians will manipulate to help themselves, or others. Hence, they can be very good friends - or dreadful enemies.

How should one communicate with Machiavellians? Very carefully. Remember, they get their way by being nice to others. They do not steal your money or power, They get you to give it to them. When communicating with a high Machiavellian, you need to be careful to have everything spelled out in detail. Do not consent to anything unless you are absolutely certain you know what you are doing, and it is in your best interests.There are plenty of easy targets for high Machiavellians to manipulate. If you can manage to delay, there usually is little reason for Machiavellians to manipulate. If you can manage to delay, there usually is little reason for Machiavellians to persist in trying to take advantage of you. If they are just doing it for fun, your delaying it takes the fun out of it. If they really are after some benefit, they quickly recognize their time would be better spent by going after another target.

While high Machiavellians provide a challenge to other people in the organization, low Machiavllians present a different picture. These are particularly easy to manipulate. Hence, they are unreliable colleagues and/or friends. Whoever has the last word, has these people on their side. This is a particularly serious problem if you have such a person for a supervisor. Who knows what others will convince this person to do that will not be in your best interests? The only advice the writers of this book can give you, and it is easier said than done, is to be sure you get the last opportunity to influence this person before they have to make a decision important to you. Low Machiavellians often are spineless wonders you find in middle-management positions, who in good faith promise you one thing and do the opposite - because someone else persuaded them to change their mind.

END

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 19

PERSONALITY TYPES (part A)
by
Charles Lamson

In the previous article, we considered people's orientations, which are directly related to organizational life. In this article, we return our attention to the way people are generally - their basic personalities. Personality can be defined as the sum of an individual's characteristics that make her or him unique. There are literally thousands of ways people differ from one another. Each person is higher and/or lower than most other people around them on some of these characteristics. Social scientists have identified some of the individual differences which have a distinctive impact on people in organizations. We will consider several of these in this upcoming series of articles, starting with authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism.       This personality type has highly predictable patterns of behavior. Authoritarians, if they are anything, are consistent. The authoritarian personality type is very structured and rule-oriented. Often authoritarians are stern, unhumorous, conventional, suspicious and at times hostile. Authoritarians respect authority. They are obedient to those above them, and they expect those below them to be obedient to their demands.

Authoritarians intensely dislike it when others do not show proper respect and obedience to authority. They may become very vindictive when treated in a disrespectful manner by those below them in the hierarchy. It might seem this is one type an organization surely could do without, but some organizations want this type of person in certain jobs. They will get people to toe the line and keep order and make sure things run smoothly.

Since they firmly believe power and status should be recognized and that some people have a lot of it, whereas others should obey those who have the power and status, authoritarians often become the favorites of supervisors, particularly if the supervisor also is an authoritarian. As supervisors, high authoritarians make their subordinates feel as if they should salute each time they pass one another in the hallway. They usually manifest conservative attitudes, rarely find things funny at work, want others to be submissive and show deference to them, and become hostile when others ignore rules and policies.

In one organization with which the authors of this book worked, their was such an authoritarian individual who was not a supervisor. Many of her peers went out of their way to torment her. They quickly learned that she had little control over them, since she was not well liked by her supervisor. So they would do things that would drive her up the wall. If she felt someone was not dressed properly and commented on it , the next day the person would show up even less properly dressed. She would comment on the music people played in their offices, they would play it more loudly and obnoxiously. Because high authoritarians are so demanding of others and expect others to always obey their wises, they can become targets; particularly if they are not in a supervisory position.

If you work under a high authoritarian, you need to understand his or her need for authority and obedience. If you chose not to conform, he or she is likely to make your life miserable. If you cannot accept doing what you need to do to be able to work with this type of person, you probably should leave your position. In many ways, authoritarians are easy to work for because you know what you need to do to stay out of trouble. But if you are not willing to do what is necessary, leave.

Communicating with highly authoritarian people is easy. Agree with them. "Yes" is the word they most enjoy hearing. "No" is not often acceptable. It is acceptable for you to ask them for explanations concerning how to do what they have instructed you to do. It is not acceptable of you to question why that should be done. Challenging a highly authoritarian person is like stepping on a dog's tail. If you do it, you can expect to be bitten.

While dealing with high authoritarians is not particularly difficult if you are willing to do it, dealing with people who are unusually low in authoritarianism may be even more difficult. These are people who have no respect for authority. They do not respect the rules, and their behavior may be seen as aberrant in the organization. Being seen allied with such a person does not make one popular in an organization. Communication with these people should be handled very carefully and kept to a minimum, at least in the presence of other organization members.

To be continued...

*SOURCE: ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL 3RD ED. BY VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKEY AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY; PGS. 87-89*

END

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 18)

ORGANIZATIONAL ORIENTATIONS AND COMMUNICATION TRAITS (part B)

by

Charles Lamson

Indifferents.    The indifferent type is as easily recognizable as the upward mobile. These people make up a large portion of the employees in most organizations.

Whereas the upward mobile lives to work, the indifferent is working because he or she has to. People have to make a living, they have to buy groceries, they want to make a better life for their children. Many people are motivated to work beyond their basic needs for survival. However, indifferents work only to satisfy their very basic needs, or the basic needs of their loved ones. This is not to say that they are evil or mean - they are simply not interested in the job or the organization. They are only in it for the paycheck.

These people will avoid participation in the daily organizational routines, They rarely share in the rewards the system has to offer, They are not highly satisfied with their jobs, and they rarely do any extra work without compensation. They would never volunteer to do extra work if the only reward was self-satisfaction. These people simply come to work, do their job, and go home.

Much of their communication on the job is about their family or personal life. When encouraged to communicate about organizational matters with colleagues, they generally say nothing, change the topic, or suggest that others should discuss those matters. They are not dedicated or upwardly mobile in any aspect. Hence, if you work with one of these people or have one for a supervisor, depend on yourself. These people will never do more than what is absolutely necessary. Again, they are not evil, they are not a threat to others. They may even be very nice people. But they are in the organization to do their job and be left alone. Every organization needs these people because they can be assigned to do menial and routine tasks that require little thought, and others would resent doing. They do not resent those tasks. After all, it is a job and a paycheck - and such tasks do not require a personal commitment.

Getting along with indifferents in the organization usually is not difficult as long as you do not push them to give their all for the organization or your unit in it. They are indifferent to their work, but that does not mean they do not care about anything. They can be very interested in things outside the work environment. Talk with them about their family, what they plan to do over the weekend, where good spots are for fishing, the  local team in the sport that is in season, where to go for a vacation - what most people refer to as "small talk." Serious talk about work is not the indifferent's cup of tea.

Ambivalents.    the final organizational type is perhaps is the most difficult to work with, because they are unpredictable Although many of the personality orientations we have discussed so far are not necessarily likable, they are  at least predictable - this type is not. They are  the ambivilents. The ambivalent is both creative and anxious. The upward mobiles like the status quo, and the indifferents accept it, The ambivilents want to change it.

The ambivalents are never truly comfortable in any organization. They may take a position because it seems to be what they want, But within a few months, they have found a number of problem areas that need changing. They cannot seem to accept organizations, or the people within them, for what they are. These people can be supportive one day and attacking the next. They are moody, which makes it difficult for people to work with or for them, Chances are they will not stay in any one organization for more than a few years. After a while, they feel they have done all they can do and must change positions, or they get disgruntled with the system and change jobs.

Although ambivalents often are quite intelligent and highly skilled verbally, they reject the authority structure, and will often try to turn others against the organization and the supervisors within it. They will openly criticize the system. Some of their criticism might be useful, but because of the way it is said, others reject it. Most systems are happy when ambivalents go. These are the people for whom the go-away party is held the day after they leave.

Communicating with ambivalents can be difficult, since you seldom know how they will react to ideas. about the only safe topic is criticism of the organization. Gripe sessions get ambivalents' blood churning. However, entering such conversations can be dangerous. You may find yourself quoted the next time the ambivalent decides to take on the organization or the supervisor. The best advice is to stick with small talk with the ambivalents.

*SOURCE: ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL 3RD ED. BY VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKEY AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY; PGS. 86-87*

END

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 17)

ORGANIZATIONAL ORIENTATIONS AND COMMUNICATION TRAITS
by
Charles Lamson

Koehle, Anatol, and Applebaum (1981) suggest that the personality or culture of an organization in many respects is a composite of the varied behaviors of the people in it. They are absolutely correct The individual organizational orientations, temperaments, and personalities in each unit influence how people outside view the unit, as well as, how the people within the unit see it.

Not all people approach their work in organizations with the same orientation. Some are organization-friendly. Others are not. Some are organization-friendly only part of the time. Individuals' orientations are a major factor in their success, or failure, in the work environment. These orientations are a major factor in their success or failure in the work's environment. These orientations are associated with workers' job satisfaction and motivation to work.

ORGANIZATIONAL ORIENTATIONS

Presthus (1962) advanced organizational orientation theory as an explanation of substantial differences in the way employees in organizations approach their jobs. Prestheus believed that these orientations result in employees having different orientations toward work itself, motivation toward work, job satisfaction, and ways of dealing with coworkers, supervisors, and subordinates. Presthus viewed his theory as being a theory of organizational behavior. He viewed the behavior of people in organizations as being driven by their traits, which he believed were learned through their experiences while working in organizations.

Presthus identified three organizational orientations which are specifically related to the way people approach their roles in organizations. These reflect the variable orientations different types of people have toward work, and the place of work in their lives. These orientations are believed to be traits, that is people will tend to have these orientations, regardless of the organizations in which they are employed, and the orientations are not expected to change markedly as a person moves from one organization to another. People with high scores on these orientations are known as upward mobiles, indifferents, and ambivilents. All three of these types are found in virtually all organizations. However, it is not common for a person to score highly on more than one of these orientations. Some people do not score highly on any of them.

Upward mobiles.    Perhaps the most dedicated and most easily recognizable organizational type is the upward mobile. This is the typical "organizational man" or "organizational woman." These people are deeply devoted to the goals and functioning of the organization. They have a strong identification with with the organization. These people are self-motivated, believe in the organization's rules and procedures, and expect others to also. Their personal goals are in line with the organization's goals, and they strive toward high job satisfaction.

Upward mobiles do not like associating with people they consider to be "losers," people who are not are not on the same career path that they are. In fact, they might be highly critical of personnel who are not as dedicated or devoted as they are. They thrive on work, decision-making, power, and organizational rewards, and are ready and willing to go the "extra mile" for the organization. They will openly defend the organization and criticize those who are not dedicated to it. They have high standards and expect others to have the same.

All organizations look to hire potential upward mobiles, and when they have one they are likely to to groom her or him for bigger and better positions. Organizations know they can depend on these persons to follow the rules, enforce the rules if necessary, and give support to the organization. These are the people organizations are likely to reward and encourage. They represent the future of the organization.

If we work for, or with, an upward mobile, we will be expected to support the organization and its policies. Communicating with an upward mobile is really quite easy. You know where he or she stands, and what is expected of you. Praise him or her and the organization and rewards will come to you and your unit. However, if he or she thinks you are a "loser," he or she will encourage you to go elsewhere. This person might even say things like, "If this is not the job for you then try some other job," or "In this organization, we expect commitment. You don't seem to care, so it is time to move on."

If you want to influence an upward mobile, your suggestions should be couched in terms of how what you want would be good for the organization, and if possible, might help the upward mobile move up in the organization. Such an approach indicates your loyalty to the organization, and also your loyalty to this person. One of the best ways to move up in many organizations is to be sponsored by an upward mobile.

*SOURCE: ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL THIRD EDITION BY VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKEY AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY; PGS. 84-85*

END

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 16)

PERSONALITY, TEMPERAMENT AND COMMUNICATION TRAITS (part 2)
by
Charles Lamson

Versatility (McCroskey & Richmond, 1996) or Flexibility (Martin & Rubin, 1994).    The third element of sociocommunicative orientations and styles (continued from last post) has been studied under two different labels, versatility and flexibility, but represents essentially the same trait concept. Because all communication takes place in a given context, it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify communication behaviors that are appropriate and effective in all situations. The versatility/flexibility trait deals with one's ability to adapt, and one's ability to adapt one's communication behavior to the context, situation, and other person(s) involved in a communication event. Other terms that have been used to describe this kind of communicator include adaptable, rhetorically sensitive, and style-flexing. Communicators at the end of the continuum are described as rigid, dogmatic, uncompromising, and unyielding.

The key elements of versatility/flexibility are knowing when to be assertive and when not to be, when to be responsive and not to be, when to be both assertive and responsive, and when to be neither. People who can master these elements are more able to adapt appropriately to the communication of a wide variety of other people. People with little flexibility/versatility are not able to do this hence they will often be assertive or responsive when they should not be, and not be assertive or responsive when they need to be.

McCroskey and Richmond (1996) have argued that these three components of socio-communicative orientations and style are the underlying components of communication competence. They suggest that there is no set of communication skills that make up for a competent communicator. Rather, true communication competence is based on having a wide variety of communication styles available for use and the proper orientations for when to use which one.

Four basic styles have been advanced as the core styles. They are all based on levels of both assertiveness and responsiveness. No one style is best, each has its strengths and limitations. while almost everyone's basic style will be one of the following, amiable, analytical, driver or expressive, the key for communication effectiveness in today's organizations will be to learn howto employ one of the other styles when needed.

Amiable.    The amiables are considered relationship specialists and are high on responsiveness and low on assertiveness. The adjectives used to describe the amiables are as follows: conforming, unsure, pliable, dependent, awkward, supportive, willing, dependable, and agreeable. Merill and Reid (1981) suggest that amiables seem "to be most comfortable working in environments where they can provide services and be supportive and helpful in their relationships with others." We will often find these people in careers such as teaching, personnel management, social work, psychology, and other helping professions.

Analytical.    The analyticals are considered technical specialists, and are low on responsiveness, and low on assertiveness. The adjectives used to describe the analyticals are as follows: critical, indecisive, stuffy, picky, moralistic, industrious, persistent, serious, exacting, and orderly. Merrill and Reid (1981) suggest that professions such as science, engineering, construction work, accounting, and certain aspects of law often have a high proportion of this style. Some research suggests that analyticals are more likely to be apprehensive about communication, and as a result be more withdrawn and quiet. Thus analyticals may be less effective communicators than the other styles and more resistant to attempts to interact with them.

Driver.    The drivers are considered control specialists and are low on responsiveness and high on assertiveness. The adjectives used to describe drivers are as follows: pushy, severe, tough, dominating, harsh strong-willed, independent, practical, decisiveness and efficient. These people might be in careers such small-business owners, top management, production managers, administrative personnel, politics and other decision-making management positions. Because of their ability to take responsibility and direct others, top management often puts these individuals into positions of control.

Expressive.    The expressives are considered social specialists and are high on responsiveness and high on assertiveness. The adjectives used to describe the expressives are as follows: manipulative, excitable, undisciplined, reacting, ambitious, stimulating, enthusiastic, dramatic and friendly. People with expressive behavior are often found in sales, entertainment, advertising, art, music, and writing. These people know how to use their communication skills to gain recognition and attention, and they like being seen and noticed by others.

Merrill and Reid (1981) suggest that no one style is solely associated with success, However, if versatility is present, then success is likely, even between two potentially conflicting styles. Managers have known for years that they have to be able to deal with many types of interpersonal relationships. You need to be prepared to do the same.

*SOURCE: ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL THIRD EDITION BY VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKEY AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY; PGS. 80-82*

END

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 15)

SOCIOCOMMUNICATIVE ORIENTATIONS AND STYLES
by 
Charles Lamson

Individuals exhibit trait differences in their basic communication styles. While individual communication traits are related to specific kinds of communication behaviors, in this article, we will consider three traits, and how they interact to produce unique styles of communication behavior. Sociocommunicative orientations reference the way individuals see their own communication behavior in terms of these traits. Sociocommunicative styles reinforce the way individuals see their own communication behavior in terms of these traits. Sociocommunicative styles reference the way other people perceive those individuals' actual communication behavior.

Assertiveness (Richmond & Martin, 1998).    When people stand up for themselves and do not let others take advantage of them, without taking advantage of others themselves, they are acting assertively. To speak up for oneself, whether that be making a request or expressing a feeling. Assertive communicators also tend to initiate, maintain and terminate conversations in accordance with their own communication goals. Assertive communicators' nonverbal behavior is also is important.. They tend to talk faster and louder, use more gestures, make more eye contact, and lean forward more in interactions - they are more nonverbaly immediate. Do not confuse assertiveness with verbal aggressiveness. Assertive communicators defend themselves and their ideas, but they do not launch personal attacks on others. Verbally aggressive communicators do launch such attacks.

Assertiveness is most highly correlated (positively) with the extraversion temperament variable, but also, has a low negative correlation with neuroticism, and a low positive correlation with psychoticism. Assertive communicators seem to be non-neurotic extraverts who may be slightly psychotic.

Responsiveness (Richmond & Martin, 1998).    When people are other-oriented in their communication, they are being responsive. Responsive communicators are sensitive to needs, feelings, and communication of others. They are people whom others see as good listeners. Responsive communicators are more nonverbally immediate than most other communicators, and are seen by others as being friendly, compassionate, warm, sincere, and helpful. They are able to be empathetic with others. Hence, focusing on the relational aspect of communication. Do not confuse responsiveness with submissiveness. Submissive communicators yield their rights to others more often going against their best interests. While responsive communicators are sensitive to the needs of others, they also pay attention to their own needs and goals. The responsive communicator recognizes and considers the other person's needs and rights, but does this without sacrificing their own legitimate rights.

Responsiveness is correlated (positively) with the extraversion temperament variable. However, it has a stronger (negatively) correlation with psychoticism, and has no correlation with psychoticism, and has no correlation with neuroticism. Responsive communicators appear to be non-psychotic extraverts.

END

        

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 14)

Argumentativeness and Tolerance for Disagreement

by

Charles Lamson

Argumentativeness and tolerance for disagreement (Infante & Rancer, 1982).    Since these two communication traits are highly similar, we will focus here on the argumentativeness trait. An argument includes the statement of a position on an issue, and the support for that position, including reasons why alternative positions are incorrect. While some people perceive arguing to be involved with attacking other people and loud verbal exchanges, this is not the kind of communication behavior that we are considering here. The writers of this book that I am analyzing, Organizational Communication for Survival, see arguing as involving two or more people in an exchange of ideas, stating positions and providing support for those positions. If these exchanges begin to involve personal attacks rather than exchanges of positions and support, the communication has moved into the category of verbal aggression, which is discussed later in this article.

There is wide variance among people in terms of their ability to form and present strong arguments to support their views in contrast to those of others. There also is wide variance in their willingness to argue at all. The argumentative communication trait concerns both of these factors. People scoring higher in this trait generally are good at arguing and enjoy doing so. People scoring lower on this trait generally are not good at arguing and do not enjoy doing so. In the give and take of communication in organizations, being able to argue one's views is an important factor in a person's success or failure. High argumentatives are likely to have more influence in the organization. They also are more likely to misunderstand strong arguments against their ideas, if any are advanced, and perceive them as direct personal attacks, which they are not. This is likely to result in interpersonal conflict with others. Disagreement in organizations is critical to making good decisions, and finding better ways to do things. Hence, high argumentatives are likely to be much more valuable employees than those who are low in argumentativeness.

While argumentativeness is a communication trait, it also is associated with both higher extroversion and higher psychoticism, these relationships suggest that both of these traits are likely to be the result of the same brain systems.

Verbal Aggression (Infante & Wigley 1986).    Although argumentativeness and tolerance for disagreement are positive communication traits in organizations, verbal aggressiveness usually is considered to be a negative communication trait. Verbally aggressive communication behavior involves attacking the self-confidence, character, and/or intelligence of another person, in addition to to, or instead of, their position on an issue. It takes on the character of "you are a bad person," rather than "your position is a bad idea." This, of course, is very likely to lead to interpersonal conflict.

People who are low in argumentativeness are more likely to resort to this type of communication, because they are less capable of defending their own positions in arguments with others. When their ideas are attacked, they take it as a personal attack, and respond with a personal attack on the other communicator. 

Verbal aggressiveness is associated with the psychoticism temperament variable, but is not associated with either extraversion, or neuroticism. Hence, this type of behavior seems to be the product of only the brain system associated with psychoticism. People higher in psychoticism, and verbal aggressiveness traits, are likely to use verbal aggression as a strategic weapon against colleagues in the workplace. They may become verbal bullies to gain control over others. While this can be a serious problem involving any two people in an organization, it may have its most negative impact when it involves supervisors who are verbally aggressive. Those under such supervisors, may perceive that they have no way to deal with such individuals, and develop negative attitudes, not only toward that supervisor, but also toward the organization. It is also likely that people working under such supervisors will be lower in their job satisfaction and motivation to work.

END

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 13)

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION (part B)

STATUS

by

Charles Lamson

Status can be a deterrent to effective interpersonal communication, between managers and employees. Status is defined as one's position in a group or. organization. Status differential is the distance between one person's status and another person's status. Significant, status differential might exist between a supervisor and a subordinate. The higher one's status in an organization, the less likely he or she is to have effective interpersonal relationships with people a few steps removed. The people who have higher status, generally receive more communication from others. For example, the president of a college receives more communication than the typical professor, secretary, or student. The president gets messages from external sources, as well as internal sources, and the messages come from all directions. The typical employee gets messages from one or two major sources, They often have to limit their interpersonal contacts to those who have a direct impact on them, or those who are of equal or higher status. Many high status persons delegate their communication responsibilities to other persons, such as secretaries, junior employees, and assistants. This does not mean that higher status persons forget or neglect their employees; it simply means there is less time to spend with them, and others have to handle some of the communication.

Communication between higher status and lower status persons tend to be limited, and the higher status person has control over the communication. In addition, most subordinates with any common sense, know they should communicate with a higher status person only when necessary, and should always try to make the communication positive. After all, no subordinate wants a supervisor to think negative things about him or her. In conclusion, status can be a barrier, but not always a permanent barrier.

COMMUNICATION OVERLOAD

Barbara Jones is hard at work. The phone rings, and it is the public relations office, asking if she has time to see a client. She says, "I suppose. Send him up." She glances at the pile of morning mail that is still in its box, and the number of phone messages her secretary had given her from the previous day. She remembers she needs to contact the daycare center about her child, who had a slight fever when she dropped her off that morning. She quickly realizes there will be no lunch break for the day, and will probably have to take work home, or come in early for several days.

This is a somewhat typical start for the day for many employees across the country. Whether we like it or not, the majority of us have to deal with communication overload on a regular basis. Communication overload is when there is more communication (or information) coming into a unit, or system, than the system can cope with or handle effectively. It seems many of us (supervisors and and subordinates alike) are prone to communication overload. It can greatly interfere with communication, and make our communication with others less effective.

Overload occurs when there is too much communication coming from too many directions, when we are being bombarded with communication. This is one of the primary reasons many managers have learned to limit their interpersonal contacts to those people who are necessary for them to function. An individual can only handle so much communication effectively. When individuals become overloaded, they do not function well. The problem is similar to overload of electronic communications systems. For instance, phone lines can effectively handle only a certain number of calls on special holidays (for example, Christmas). The phone lines often are bombarded with so many calls, they get more than they can handle, and the system ceases to function appropriately. People are the same way, when overload becomes too great and unmanageable. Both managers and employees have devised several ways for coping with management, or handling overload. Some of these ways are not effective, but they help control the situation. In the next article, we will discuss ways people try to handle overload. To be continued...

*SOURCE: ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL THIRD EDITION*

END

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL: AN ANALYSIS (part 12)

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION
by
Charles Lamson

If you talk with employees in almost any organization, they will tell you there re barriers to ffective communication. several barriers to effective interpersonal working relationships occur in all organizations. we have chosen to discuss what we think are some of the primary communication barriers encountered in both profit and nonprofit organizations these include the climate of the organization statues within the organization, problems of communication overload, and defensiveness.

CLIMATE CONTROL

The organizational climate established can determine the amout and type of communication between supervisors and subordinates following we discuss hree types of climate and their impact.

     Ralph works in an organization primarily concerned with production - the task - and the managers show little concern for the employees most of the communication is top down with the messages directed toward how to do the job more efficiently. if an employee attempts to send a message up the system it usually is stopped by the first the first level manager the system is not concerned about the employees the attitude is that if people quit there will be people in line to replace them. management might sponsor an employee get together occasionally as a token to appeased the most disgruntled employees who want attention. there is never any change except that initiated by management.

This climate is generally known as the dehumanizing climate employees generally go to work each day with little enthusiasm do their jobs and go home. in this climate there is little communication between supervisor and subordinate in fact, the management the organization does not encourage or sometimes even allow communication between subordinates as evil so they throw roaedblocks in the way to prevent that type of communication they keep employees seperated at work assign them tasks that keep them apart and try to prevent employees from socializing the dhumanizing climate leads toi distrust, distortions, dislike and lower production levels the the employees do not perform at their highest levels because they are unhappy with the communication situation both management and employees distrust and dislike each other and are suspicious of the others when change is needed. this is not a desirable climate in which to work

     Mary goes to work each morning with an optimistic outlook, and anticipates socializing with her friends on the job. the managers in her organization have a lot of concern for the employees. Managers place employee satisfaction very high on their list of priorities. They give awards to loyal employees and sponsor many social activities. Although they hope the work gets done, they feel that people are our most important product. There are many meetings designed to let everyone have a say. Changes are rarely undertaken, unless everyone agrees on what should be done.

This is the Happiness for Lunch Bunch climate. This climate is primarily concerned with employee welfare and peer communication, and spends little time worrying about change or communication between supervisor and subordinate. The chief concern here is the employee's well being. Often in this climate, you find little time being spent on task, and enormous amounts of time being spent on ways to to improve the employees' environment.

"Sounds great, doesn't it?" one might ask, "What's wrong with this?" Nothing, except it is usually done to the exclusion of the task. The attitude is that the job will get done, and so what if the job is a little late, or not quite up to specifications. In this type of climate, there often are committees for everything, so all employees can have input. In fact, you will often find a committee on committees, which is to oversee all the other committees, and identify any new ones that are needed. In this type of organization, little work is being performed. Most of the communication is through committees. No one is really sure of what he or she should be doing, and everyone is concerned with happiness. This is not an ideal climate for communication. Either the communication tends to be narrow and distorted, and often people stifle their real feelings for fear of hurting someone else. Although, both of these extreme organizational climates can exist in either profit-making or non-profit organizations. The Dehumanizing climate tends to represent the excess most often identified with profit-making corporations. The Happiness for Lunch Bunch more often is representative of nonprofit groups.

It is clear that neither the Dehumanizing, nor the Happiness for Lunch Bunch climate, is desirable. The optimal climate is one that has a concern for both the task and the employee, one that encourages communication up, down, and across the organization, concerning both task and employee issues. This climate, we call the Open climate. This is a climate in which both supervisors and administration are needed, when the situation calls for them.

In the open climate. personnel are encouraged to do their jobs, but with assistance from a supervisor. Personnel are encouraged to talk to each other, and their supervisor, and take problems to their immediate supervisor. Personnel are encouraged to talk to each other, and their supervisor, and take problems to their immediate supervisor. This climate is not without its drawbacks. But, it is certainly better than the other two in this climate. The employees, as well as management, are expected to do their jobs well and be open to new ideas and change. This climate is one in which people feel they can express an opinion, be straightforward, and not feel they will be criticized for being honest. This type of climate encourages personal achievement and personal growth - the other two do not. This is a supportive and non-threatening climate, in which people feel comfortable, and generally enjoy their work. In addition, people are expected to be involved, and do more than just put in time or socialize. Hence, this climate may not be for some people. Those who just want to do their job and be left alone might be happier in the Dehumanizing climate - at least they know nothing is expected of them.

In conclusion, the open climate fosters communication between supervisors and subordinates, as well as among peers. It encourages change. The Dehumanizing climate does none of these. Management  just wants output. The Happiest for Lunch Bunch climate does none of these. To determine which climate is present in your organization, look to where the concern is, and what type of communication is encouraged. You will recognize that the Dehumanizing, and Happy for Lunch Bunch climates, represent two ends of a continuum, with the Open climate occupying a section in the middle of that continuum. Sometimes, the climate in an organization shifts around between the middle, and one of the ends of the continuum. But, seldom does it move from one to another, unless there is a dramatic change in the personnel at the top of the organization.

*SOURCE: ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL 3RD EDITION BY VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKEY AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY; PGS. 60-62)

END