Personality & Communication: Affect on Supervision

PERSONALITY & COMMUNICATION: AFFECT ON SUPERVISION

Imagine that you are sitting in a room with three other people: a convicted serial killer, an eccentric scientist, and a four-year-old child. If you had to choose one, which one would you pick? Which qualities would you automatically associate with each individual? Which one do you think you most closely identify with? If this same situation were applied within a group of people sharing the same characteristics, the answers to each question would still vary. The reason for the difficulty in getting a clear answer is that there are so many differences among members of the human race. Human beings not only come in many shapes and sizes but also behave in very complex ways. Of the more than five billion people who presently inhabit our planet, no two are exactly alike.

Apart from the same bodily organs and systems, it is hard to imagine what "human nature" the three individuals identified above have in common. Such differences are often referred to as our personality traits. The meanings of personality, as described by several of the recognized theorists in the field, are as diverse as the differences in the human race. One philosopher has described personality in terms of self, or an organized, permanent, subjectively perceived entity which is at the very heart of all our experiences (Rogers, 1951). Another has proposed that life proceeds in terms of a series of psychosocial crises, with personality a function of their outcome. (Erikson, 1982). Yet another has viewed personality as a complex pattern in which person, behavior, and situation continually influence each other (Bandura, 1982).

These varied interpretations of personality seem to indicate that the meaning of personality in terms of a psychological perspective signify an essential aspect of an individual. Research has constantly shown that individual behavior and oral communication affects others and can influence the actions of others. Different people have different communications skills, as one individual might have a personality that lends itself to effective interpersonal communication with others and another may exhibit personality traits and characteristics that negate effective interpersonal communication. Researcher have used studies on personality traits to analyze the supervisor-employee relationship. Many different approaches have been taken to effectuate a successful supervisor-employee relationship through the study of personality and communication.

Managers have traditionally spent the majority of their time communicating in one form or another, such as the common employee meeting, memos, and reports. This fact lends support for the idea that an important part of their work is communication. This is especially true now that service workers outnumber production workers and research as well as production processes emphasize greater collaboration and teamwork among workers in different functional groups. As a result, communication practices and technologies have become more important in all organizations, and have become the most important in knowledge-intensive organizations and sectors. The study of organizational communication is not new, but it has only recently achieved some degree of recognition as a field of academic study. It has largely grown in response to the needs and concerns of business.

The first communication programs were typically located in speech departments, but most business schools now include organizational communication as a key element of study. The study of organizational communication recognizes that communication in organizations goes far beyond training managers to be effective speakers and to have good interpersonal communication skills. Interpersonal theory asserts that the client will "live" his or her maladaptive interpersonal style within the counseling session. This phenomenon is often referred to as the social microcosm (Yalom, 1985).

In interpersonal theory, the supervisor aids in the identification process by focusing on how the employee thinks, feels, and acts in response to the client. The employee also brings his or her problematic interpersonal behaviors into the counseling interaction. The supervisor then addresses the problematic behaviors by pointing out the continuity between the employee's behavior in sessions with clients and in the supervisory sessions. The interpersonal approach to supervision is explicitly designed to deal with transference-countertransference issues. Findings from a study of verbal interactions between supervisor and employee indicated that although supervisor support was the most frequent intervention, it did not lead to employee thinking and learning.

Furthermore, the results of the study found that no supervisor intervention could reliably predict cognitive responses from the employee. This suggests that interpersonal approaches to supervision might be best used with more advanced trainees. In another study conducted by Reising and Daniels, the data revealed that employees who were beginning supervision were more anxious, dependent, and technique oriented than were more advanced students. They also found that the beginning students were less ready for confrontation.

This study arrived at there are two equally important sides to interpersonal competence; that it is necessary to become skilled in the behavior required for effective face-to-face interactions, and that it is also essential to learn how to interpret the behavior of others so that one's own behavior can be adjusted. Proponents of this study acknowledge that all organizations, not just business organizations, have communication needs and challenges. The field of organizational communication is highly diverse. Organizational communication is struggling to develop and convey some sense of coherency across these many areas.

Communication is an extremely important method by which a supervisor's personality, social identity, status and power are portrayed. In some supervisor interactions with an employee, the relationship may be mostly interpersonal, and not in others. A key factor for supervisors to remember is that the more a person identifies with his or her in-group, the more he or she will feel distinct from out-group members. In this way communication is more often function of the relative status or power of the interactants than of their personality. Research indicates that employee's perceptions of their supervisors' trustworthiness are based on features such as the supervisor's appreciation of the employee's worth as manifested on a day-to-day basis. A trusted supervisor has also been compared to one who takes a mentoring approach.

Supervisors are most likely to be trusted if they are seen to take a caring, mentoring approach with their employee staff, while still being regarded as competent and respected. On the other hand, managers perceived as untrustworthy are seen as self-serving, failing to give recognition, and quick to blame and criticize. This gives them the image as incompetent. A review of the literature suggests that a good supervisor manages the relationship and power differences positively simultaneously.

In past years, communication in small organizations was largely informal. As organizations increased in size, formal top-down communication became the main concern of organizational managers. In present times, organizational communication has become far more complex and varied but more important to overall organizational functioning and success. Recent emphasis has increasingly turned to understanding how new communication technologies can assist in bringing about new and more effective organizational forms and processes. There are two prominent views of organizational communication; the view that organizational communication is one aspect of an organization, and the view that organizational communication is an underlying basis of the organization itself.

An example of organizational communication viewed as an aspect is the sending and receiving of messages by means of symbols and that it is a key element of organizational climate. An example of organizational communication as the underlying basis of the organization is the idea that the behavior of individuals in organizations is best understood from a communication point-of-view. Changes confronting organizations and the associated changes in organizational forms have made organizational communication increasingly important to the overall function of the organization.

Another theory applicable to the supervisor-employee relationship is known as "Social Identity," defined as an individual's knowledge that he or she belongs to certain social or status groups, together with some emotional and value significance of the group membership. When one's social identity is salient, so too are out-group dynamics. (Gallois & Giles, 1998). Some researchers contend that, in some interactions, the relationship is mostly interpersonal and the interactants perceive each other as individuals, while, in other situations, people interact primarily in terms of group-based identities or stereotypes. (Gallois & Giles, 1998). Others have argued that communication is more often a function of the relative status or power of the interactants than of their personality. (Hogg & Abrams, 1988). Both of these studies reach the conclusion that most communication in supervisor-employee relationships are seen as a function of the interactants' status or role.

It has also been posited that interactants' communication goals or motivations include seeking approval of the other person or signaling in-group or out-group membership. In-group status may be a pre-requisite for employees to receive mentoring from their supervisors'. Additional research indicates that in-group members receive more attention and support from their supervisor than out-group members, while out-group members experience a more formal relationship with their supervisor (Jones, Gallois, Callan & Baker, 1999). As a result, one can conclude that an understanding of how communication influences in-group/out-group perceptions is extremely important to understanding trust in mentoring relationships.

Some researchers have distinguished between interpersonal communication organizational and inter-organizational communication, and higher order communication. Although interpersonal and group level communications reside at a lower level than organizational communication, they are major forms of communication in organizations and are prominently addressed in the organizational communication literature. Recently, as organizations became more communication-based, greater attention was directed at improving the interpersonal communication skills of all organizational members. Historically, informal communication was primarily seen as a potential block to effective organizational performance. This is no longer the case is modern times, as on-going, dynamic, and informal communication has become more important to ensuring the effective conduct of work

It is also widely accepted that top managers should communicate directly with immediate supervisors and that immediate supervisors should communicate with their direct reports. In regard to issues of importance, top managers should then follow-up by communicating with employees directly. The Communication Accommodation Theory supports this rationale. In terms of supervisor-employee communication, one researcher argues the difficulty of trusting someone who they feel has a distinct advantage over them (McCune, 1998). Recent studies have found that 43% of employees believe their supervisors cheat and lie to them, and 68% of employees do not trust their supervisors (Davis & Landa, 1999). The Communication Accommodation Theory proposes that interactants draw upon a wide range of communication strategies including approximation, interpersonal control, discourse management and relational strategies to achieve approval of the other person.

Research indicates that an effective communication is to communicate orally, then follow up in writing, or "downward communication." A consistent finding is that employee satisfaction with downward communication seems to be at a consistent level. Prior research has found low levels of satisfaction with strategies commonly used to enhance "upward communication," such as employee surveys, suggestion programs, employee grievance programs, and team meetings. Some of the reasons for this lack of satisfaction may be that these strategies often do not involve two-way communication, and are more than likely draw defensiveness on the part of managers. Other reasons why upward communication is low may be that employees are afraid to speak their minds, and that employees feel their ideas or concerns are changed as they are transmitted to the appropriate personnel. Time is another factor, in which managers can give the impression that they don't have the time to listen to employees.

Lateral communication involves communication among persons not in any hierarchical organization to one another. Lateral communication across managers has not been subject to much empirical research. It has been assumed that lateral communication at the worker level is less problematic. With the rise of the importance of teams, more attention is now being directed at the communication between team members. There is also a dramatic emphasis on communication across distributed workers and geographically separated work groups doing similar kinds of work in an attempt to promote learning and the sharing of expertise, best practices, and lessons learned.

Approximation strategies refer to interactants adjusting their communication style to sound more like the other individuals. This is accomplished through elements such as vocabulary, jargon, accent and non-verbal behaviors.

Employees usually utilize approximation in order to signal affinity with or the approval of the supervisor. Supervisors have recently moved away from approximation in order to signal interpersonal or social distance or disapproval. This is because supervisors and employees are most likely to be attracted to people who are similar to themselves, in terms of personal characteristics or group memberships. This is because individuals are more likely to trust in-group members than out-group members.

Interpersonal control strategies refer to the supervisor's communication strategy of positioning him- or herself in a particular role or power position (Jones, Gallois, Callan & Baker, 1999). A supervisor may communicate their superior status in the relationship, or reduce perceived power differences by referring to their employees their "fellow team members." To overcome boundaries caused by the superior relationship, managers may refer to themselves in terms of a nurturing, mentoring role. Usually a supervisors' use of a domineering or coercive communication style works the opposite way in establishing trust. On the other hand, the supervisor utilizing in-group communication skills reflects communication behaviors that reduce perceptions of power differences, and emphasizes interpersonal similarities. This positions the supervisor more as an individual, rather than simply as a member of a higher-status out-group.

Discourse management strategies are manifested in a more discourse-oriented, but equally powerful form. Research shows that higher-status individuals are more likely to display behaviors such as interrupting, dominating the conversation, controlling the choice of topic and the use of directives, and are less likely to use an informal tone or self-disclosure. (Jones, Gallois, Callan & Baker, 1999). At the discourse level, the out-group perceptions are indicative of supervisors' lack of willingness to listen or communicate, the use of directives and negatively perceived control of conversation patterns. These discourse behaviors are clearly indicative of power and role distance, which directly and indirectly reduces employees trust.

Another element that a successful supervisor must implement in his or her daily routine is active listening. Active listening is a method used that indicates that the speaker is taken seriously and that the listener cares. Self-disclosure is a powerful form of communication in terms of breaking through the out-group barrier and personalizing oneself. Finally, relational strategies focus on communication behaviors that indicate support, empathy, inclusion, and valuing ones' employees.

It is posited that three theoretical perspectives guide the study of communication: the technical, the contextual, and the negotiated perspectives.

The technical view of communication is associated with information theory; the important question in information theory is "how can an information source get a message to a destination with a minimum of distortions and errors?" In applying this mechanistic approach to interpersonal communication, the question is the same, although the mechanistic system is altered to some extent and the analysis is less technical and mathematical. The technical view of communication persists as a common basis for discussions about organizational communication. This view introduced into this communication system both human and interpersonal feedback elements. Since that time, an array of human filters that are influenced by the person' horizon of experience., such as motive, affect, attention, knowledge, attitudes, values, and beliefs, have been specified.

The contextual approach to communication focuses on content, or the accurate exchange of information and on the larger context of communication. It focuses on nonverbal cues as well as verbal content. It looks at the relational context between the sender and receiver within the larger social, organizational and cultural context. It sees words as symbols interpreted in context to create meaning and one's sense of both self and society. Discourse analysis is an extension and elaboration of the contextual perspective. Rather than looking at a particular interpersonal exchange, discourse analysis looks at an overall body of communication. This includes formal and informal, oral and written communication of all types. The goal of the analysis is to relate discourse patterns to patterns of social relations. Through discourse about itself, the organization enacts shapes, defines, and marks the boundaries of itself. In this sense, discourse is both interpersonal and collective, both inter-subjective and contextual. I

Implicit in the definition of supervision is an ongoing relationship between supervisor and employee. This includes the employee's acquisition of professional role identity and the supervisor's evaluation of the employee's performance. Although the goal of helping the employee develop into an effective counselor may appear simple, it can be an anxiety-provoking experience. Supervision-induced anxiety causes employees to respond in a variety of ways, with some of the responses becoming defensive. These defensive behaviors, which serve the purpose of reducing anxiety, are referred to as "resistance."

Employee resistance, while disruptive and annoying, is very common. An important implication for the supervisor to keep in mind that resistance is not synonymous with "negative behavior." Instead, resistance occurs because of the dynamics of the supervision process and, in fact, can be an appropriate response to supervision. In other instances, resistance is a response to anxiety whereby it becomes the supervisor's role to deal with anxiety so that the need for resistance will be reduced or perhaps eliminated.

Employee resistance, consisting of verbal and nonverbal behaviors, is the employee's overt response to changes in the supervision process. Some researchers have concluded that the primary goal of resistant behavior is self-protection in which the employee guards against perceived threats. A common threat is fear of inadequacy, or a concern of not "measuring up" to the supervisor's standards. Other employee resistance occurs because supervision is required. Employees may not accept the legitimacy of supervision because they perceive their skills to be equal, if not superior, to their supervisor's. Employee resistance may be a reaction to loss of control and can evolve into a power struggle between supervisor and employee. Employee's may fear and be threatened by change, and respond with defensive behaviors. The fact that supervision has an evaluative component can provoke anxiety because a negative evaluation by a supervisor may result in dismissal or the failure to receive necessary recommendations.

Employee resistance also may result from the supervisor failing to integrate multicultural information into the supervision sessions. Regardless of form, resistant behaviors are coping mechanisms intended to reduce anxiety. This resistance often takes the form of four roles played by employees who either consciously or unconsciously attempt to manipulate and exert control over the supervision process. Although all employees do not convert to such roles, many do.

Manipulating demand levels involves roles in which the employee attempts to manipulate the level of demands placed on themselves. Often the employee uses flattery to inhibit the supervisor's evaluative focus. Redefining the relationship occurs when the employee attempts to make the relationship more ambiguous.

Reducing power disparity occurs when the employee focuses on his or her knowledge. In this role, the employee tries to prove the supervisor is not so smart. If successful, the employee can mitigate some of the supervisor's power. In controlling the situation, the employee prepares questions to direct supervision away from their performance. Other means for controlling supervision include requesting undue prescriptions for dealing with clients, seeking reassurance by reporting how poorly work is progressing, asking others for help to erode supervisor authority, or selectively sharing information to obtain a positive evaluation. A more hostile and angry form of control involves blaming the supervisor for failure.

Researchers have defined five types of resistance. Submission, a common form of resistance, occurs when the employee behaves as though the supervisor has all the answers. Turning the tables is a diversionary tactic used by the employee to direct the focus away from his or her skills. Helplessness is a dependency game in which the employee absorbs all information provided by the supervisor. Another self-protection tactic occurs where the employee blames external problems for their ineffectiveness. Although resistance is a common occurrence in supervision, counteracting resistance is not simple.

Two major factors influence methods used for counteracting resistance. First, the relationship is critical. A positive supervisory relationship grounded by trust, respect, rapport, and empathy is essential for counteracting resistance. The second factor in counteracting resistance is the way the supervisory relationship is viewed. Supervisors viewing the relationship as the focal point in supervision usually advocate full exploration of conflicts. In contrast, supervisors viewing therapeutic work as the primary supervisory focus advocate a more limited exploration of conflicts.

A way for supervisor's to deal with resistance is to openly discuss the conflict. The focus should be on identifying the source of anxiety and locating an appropriate coping strategy for dealing with the conflict. Interpretation, the most direct confrontation, includes describing and interpreting the employee's resistance. Although less confrontative, feedback is also a form of direct confrontation. Clarification uses restatement to aid the employee in understanding their own behavior. Generalizing resistance to other settings takes the focus away from the supervisory relationship and helps the employee recognize their negative behaviors. Ignoring resistance is recommended only if the behavior can be eliminated without confrontation. Role-playing and alter ego role playing, although more threatening, may be helpful in identifying the cause of resistant behavior.

Research also suggests that if confrontation is deemed inappropriate, positive reframing may be introduced to reduce resistance. Positive reframing includes empowering the employee, increasing the employee's self-esteem, and modeling effective methods of coping with thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

Regardless of purpose, resistance in supervision is a common experience and will be encountered irrespective of the supervisor's skill level. The supervisor who believes that they can proceed through the supervision process without encountering resistance is setting an unrealistic expectation. An effective supervisor who is knowledgeable about the dynamics behind employee resistance can redirect the resistance to create a therapeutic supervision climate. In essence, the ability of the supervisor to take resistance and turn it into a supervisory advantage may be the hallmark for determining success or failure in supervision.

A supervisor-employee environment is just like any other situation where many people must work together in order to achieve similar goals. There will always be natural leaders among the group along with natural followers. Some will be extroverted and firm in their convictions while others may be more introverted and easily swayed to the majority opinion on an issue. Every employee, from management to labor, brings with them personality traits that are unique to that individual. Some characteristics are most welcome, such as leadership ability or diplomacy in discussions. Other personality traits, however, can adversely affect the delicate interpersonal dynamics of the office environment. Dealing with these difficult personalities can be a challenge, but there are methods in which disruptive personality types can be expertly handled.

The chronic complaining employee is usually the co-worker that has worked for the company a few years longer than he or she might have expected. At one time, they may have been a model employee, but now prefer to be the voice of doom for the office. If bad news is circulating, the chronic complainer will hear it first and enjoy breaking it to fellow employees. The chief effect of the complainer is a general lowering of morale and a reluctance to initiate constructive dialogue with the supervisors and higher management. The best way to handle a chronic complainer is to keep their views in perspective, and acknowledge that their opinions do not have to reflect those of the entire office. Whatever events triggered their obvious dissatisfaction are their own issues, and should not affect the goals and relationships of other employees with management.

The office gossip personality type lives for the controversies and disagreements that may arise in such close quarters. Although rarely a part of the official loop, the office gossip will routinely position themselves to accidentally overhear privileged communications or intercept confidential memos and phone calls. The chief effect of the office gossip is misinformation and the loss of trust among peers. Some co-workers may establish a covert relationship with the office gossip, hoping to obtain information that will be useful to them. This is usually an unhealthy alliance, and once identified, an effort to avoid discussing anything remotely confidential near them should be made. If an office gossip approaches with a new rumor, other employees must firmly inform them that they are not interested in what they have to offer. Gossips tend to seek out only those who are eager to hear the latest.