Communicating at Work Different Personality

Communicating at Work

Different personality types, in combination with the typical stresses of a workplace, make effective communication an essential skill to develop. Yu (2010, p. 21) noted that there is a movement on the part of teachers in business communication to make greater use of industry resources to prepare students for the real world. Written and oral communications skills are part of the job search process and daily life in the workplace when an individual is hired. Yu (p. 27) pointed out that downsizing, reduced hierarchies, and increased use of teams and group accountability make peer-to-peer communications more important than ever.

John Holland's theory of vocational personalities and work environment has been a dominant one in career psychology for many years (Arnold, 2004, p. 95). According to Holland, there are six personality types; people and occupations can be categorized using combinations of these types (Toomey, Levinson & Palmer, 2009, p. 82). When individuals can accurately assess personality types with respect to Holland's categories (realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, or conventional), they may be able to increase their effectiveness with interpersonal communications and work relationships. As Lai and Burchell (2008) reported, this can be particularly challenging for individuals who work from "officeless firms," where employees are telecommuters and communications may be relegated to e-mails and other non-verbal means.

The first workplace scenario in which communication skills matter is the job interview process. Moynihan, Roehling, LePine and Boswell (2003) found, not surprisingly, that applicants who appeared confident and communicated well were more likely to turn job interviews into job offers. Confidence is often communicated non-verbally and within the first few seconds of interpersonal contact. The old adage, "You never get a second chance to make a first impression," has been shown to be accurate. Hlemstra (1999) teaches business students a simple handshake exercise so they can begin to prepare to make the impression they want to make. From there, students analyze facial expressions as well as how people sit, stand, gesture and position themselves with others. Students also discuss speech, not in terms of content but rate of delivery, pitch, tone and pacing. The exercises provide opportunities for students to learn to discern meaning behind these non-verbal cues of others and enable them to gain valuable feedback so they can adjust their own non-verbal communication accordingly. Individuals can learn how to project a confident image, which will serve them well during the interview process and after being hired.

Yu (2010) noted the increased use of teams in the workplace, an arena where effective communications are extremely important. Managers and team leaders can help facilitate good working relationships among team members by evaluating personality types before assigning work groups, whenever possible, to minimize potential conflicts. This might not always be possible, however, when skill sets must be the first criterion by which team members are assigned. Sometimes a team leader may have no choice but to have certain individuals work together. In such cases, team building activities may help develop the cohesiveness essential for successful collaboration. Businessballs.com is one source of free team building activities that managers and team leaders may find useful. Activities are based on those developed fifty years ago by Donald Kirkpatrick, a leading authority in the field of training and development (Chapman, 2009).

As Chapman (2009) pointed out, Kirkpatrick's model provides a good reference point for the efficacy of team building activities. Team members should enjoy the activity and learn something from it that they can apply to the workplace. The ultimate goal is to improve workplace outcomes. Without these four elements, team building activities do not have much point and can actually be detrimental to team morale if they are perceived as too simple, too difficult, or a waste of individuals' time and efforts.

In a real-life workplace, department manager Parker Allison had several experiences with team building activities that were not particularly successful. Her supervisor had learned about the activities in a workshop on team building and was eager to put them to use. One activity had team members using Legos to build a variety of simple prototypes that were supposed to provide solutions to problems the supervisor described. At first, employees enjoyed the diversion that the Legos provided but very quickly became frustrated with the activity. They felt that playing with Legos was silly and a waste of time. The exercise was designed to inspire creativity and encourage people to work together to find solutions to problems. Unfortunately, the problems presented had little relation to the work that employees in Parker's department were asked to do in real life. The supervisor made the mistake of failing to communicate a connection between the game activity and the real workplace. This failure undermined her authority because employees perceived her as out of touch. They complained that she did not understand their work and the problems they were regularly called upon to solve. Instead of facilitating team building, the activity actually undermined it. The team became divided into two groups, those who grumbled about the activity and participated minimally, if at all, and those who admitted the exercise was a silly waste of time yet were willing to go through the motions for the sake of the team. The supervisor could have researched team building activities that would have been perceived as more relevant to Parker's team, thus enhancing their interpersonal skills and their abilities to work more effectively as a collaborative.

In the future, Parker might suggest another type of activity, even one conducted off-site. DuFrene, Sharbrough, Clipson and McCall (1999), along with many others, have reported success with off-site, outdoor activities. Such team-building exercises can be an effective way of building relationships among colleagues, even -- and perhaps especially -- those who do not work together regularly in the same physical space. "Outdoor programs provide a framework for organizations to improve teamwork, problem solving, risk-taking, self-esteem, and interpersonal communication" (DuFrene, Sharbrough, et al.). The researchers further noted that outdoor-based programs typically have high rates of participation by employees at all levels within management structure and they promote group awareness and trust. The disadvantage of an outdoor program, such as those described by DuFrene, Sharbrough, et al. is that they do take time away from the workplace, time which some organizations may feel they can ill-afford. It is suggested that organizations do their research when planning team building activities. Parker's experience with an ineffective on-site activity, when contrasted with an effective activity conducted off-site, may suggest that any time spent on an effective activity, no matter the venue, is ultimately time well spent. Managers who understand their employees' work styles as well as the work actually being done are in a good position to develop team building strategies that will be of benefit to the organization.

Team building activities can be important to fostering a spirit of collaboration and ensuring that the various personalities find ways to work well together. Teams are, obviously, important. They cannot function, however, without strong leadership. Li and Butler (2004) stated that goal rationales were an important part of increasing goal commitment. Parker's experience with the Lego exercise is a good example of this. Leadership was not able to articulate a valid purpose for creating the Lego prototypes. The activity was perceived as a game by the employees, one which they felt was insulting to their intelligence and a waste of valuable work time. In the case of this activity, the supervisor probably would not have been able to formulate a solid goal rationale. That, in itself, can be a key to estimating the efficacy of any potential activity. A good leader needs to be able to communicate ideas, but the ideas must be carefully and thoughtfully considered first.

Li and Butler (2004) also found that goal commitment increased when goals were assigned rather set as part of a team effort. The finding is interesting because one may intuitively assume that employees would view themselves as greater stakeholders in the outcome if they were part of the goal setting process. The research showed that team members must be given some direction from leadership to be most effective. In this way, they are not put in the position of having to guess about the desired outcome. It is the challenge of a good manager or employee supervisor to communicate the organization's goals in a way that is clear, direct and at the same time respectful of individuals' skills and abilities. Employees must be given guidance in the form of well-articulated goals; at the same time, they should be allowed some autonomy in the way the goal is met. It can be a delicate balance to negotiate.

Another delicate balance is the management of a problem employee. Communication can be potentially difficult with a person who is not receptive to input from others. It can be especially problematic in situations where there are self-managed teams, a scenario that Cook and Goff (2002) note is becoming increasingly prevalent in the workplace.

Langfred (2007) cites the flexibility and adaptability of self-managing teams as a reason behind their success. However, as has been stated, teams are not put together solely on the basis of interpersonal compatibility but for the optimal configuration of skill sets. It happens that individuals do not get along; a manager can help alleviate tensions with good communications skills. In the case of self-managed teams, however, the role of peacemaker or taskmaster is much less clearly defined. Individuals may or may not take it upon themselves to deal with a problem employee. Some individuals may choose to ignore the problem to the best of their ability, in some cases doing more work or working outside their scope of expertise in order to compensate. Other individuals may become confrontational, causing tension on the team and making its work efforts less effective. Langfred (2007) noted that teams may "unintentionally restructure themselves inefficiently in response to conflict." His longitudinal study examined the effects of task conflict, where self-managed team members had differing views and opinions on goal-setting, goal attainment and different work process issues. The study provides further support for the work of Li and Butler (2004), who showed that goals were better realized when defined and assigned from outside the team. The popularity of self-managed teams can make that a less viable option, leaving teams to try to work it out on their own.