MGMT 2018 assesment 1 Final copy PDF

Preview

Summary

assessment 1...

Description

For a team to have effective communication it is important to recognise how an individuals’ personality type and communication style can affect inputs, processes, and outcomes. Personality type is manifest as distinctive traits that a person consistently portrays, while communication style can be seen as the way in which a person interacts and exchanges information with others through the use of oral and visual mediums. For personality type I scored highest in emotional stability and conscientiousness with a score of 12, extraversion was my next highest with a score of 10 with openness to experience scoring 8 and agreeableness scoring the lowest at 7. Furthermore, it was identified that I was an expressive communicator.

Emotional stability is referred to as being an individual’s ability to manage psychological distress Costa & McCrae (1992). There are a multitude of benefits to being emotionally stable especially when referring to communication in a team environment. This is due to research showing that emotional stability can often be a beneficial trait when dealing with team conflict. This is demonstrated by Antonioni (1998) who found that emotionally stable people are more likely to have others involved when trying to resolve conflict within a team environment, while also being avoidant of conflict resolution styles that don’t benefit the team as a whole. This is due to emotionally stable people perceiving team conflict as a way to enhance team cohesion as well as an effective tool to aid in communication, rather than as an obstacle. Furthermore, Driskell et al (2006) has argued that due to emotionally stable people being somewhat devoid of aggression and anxiety, they are driven to manage conflict productively within a team. This has the benefit of allowing a team to effectively communicate through the use of team conflict, furthermore this allows the team as a whole to have an elevated emotional state which allows them to perform to a higher standard than teams that did not manage conflict productively. However, this research is based on team members emotional stability being high, therefore when a team has members that score low on emotional stability, other members must take up a moderating role when a crisis occurs in order to preserve team communication. This shows the importance of emotionally stable people being integrated into teams as they assume a moderating role when referring to team conflict and crisis management, while at the same time have little to no negative impacts on team communication processes.

Word count: 1410

However, it can be argued that extraversion can have the largest effect on a teams’ communication processes, this is due to highly extroverted people needing social affirmation as well as being expressive in the way that they communicate their feelings and thoughts. However, a team’s communication and overall performance are dependent on how the team is composed with regards to the amount of people scoring high in extroversion. Bradley et al (2013) has observed that teams that are composed mainly of highly extroverted people being susceptible to a breakdown of communication as members fight for dominance, furthermore this breakdown of communication will have a negative effect on a teams’ ability to resolve conflict in a productive manner. However, team communication as well as team conflict has been observed to be productive if team members personality traits are in more complementary roles. This can be seen in teams where other members scored lower on extraversion. Furthermore, Mohammed & Angell (2003) have noted that teams with more complementary personality traits, have a more effective overall oral communication. This is evident as people that score high in extroversion play a critical role in moderating communication between team members. This is due to highly extroverted members often being proactive in communicating information to team members effectively. While this may be a behaviour that is also consistent in the conscientious personality trait it is often associated more positively in extroversion.

When discussing the effects on team performance Bakker-Pieper & de Vries (2013) has documented that communication styles and personality traits can be seen as interlinked, with styles such as ‘expressive’ having a strong positive correlation with personality types like ‘extroversion’. This occurs as people that are expressive communicators often possess very similar traits and characteristics as extroverted people. These characteristics, for example dominance when talking with others, give expressive communicators the ability to steer conversations easily, as well as being able to constructively interact with other members of a team in an informal way. This has been shown to have a positive affect as the overall quality of interactions is higher than other communication styles such as verbal aggressiveness. This is especially beneficial when discussing a team communication as people that are hard to communicate with often shift the focus away from the content of the discussion making the interaction less productive. Furthermore, Bakker-Pieper & de Vries

Word count: 1410

(2013) has noted expressive communicators are often seen in leadership positions not only for the reasons mentioned above but also because they are perceived as easily approachable. This has been shown by Riggio & Reichard (2008) to have the added benefit of making fellow team members feel at ease so much so that they actively pursue conversations with expressive communicators which will have a positive effect on team processes. However, it has been noted by Fairhurst (2020) that expressive communicators often lack finesse, a consequence of often being blunt and straight to the point when interacting with others. This can cause problems in relation to other members that are not as expressive having their feelings hurt or in some cases seemingly disregarded.

Due to expressive communicators often being blunt in their interactions with others, it is important that they try mitigating the negative effects that this may have on team communication, this can be achieved through the use of framing. Framing is described by (Fairhurst 2020) as the ability to manage the meaning of situations through communication. Framing often serves as a communicative medium which assists other members of a team in interpretation of speech content while also allowing members to shape their relationships with one another Fairhurst (2005). Furthermore, when discussing a team environment framing can be used not only as a way to communicate between members of a team but can also be used by leaders as a way to help control the context of situations and events, this overall allows for teams to understand the situation surrounding them in a cohesive manner. Although it has been noted by Fairhurst (2020) that expressive communicators may find it difficult to develop a sensitivity to the framing concept one possible way that framing could be used in a team environment by an expressive communicator is through the use of humour. It has been observed by Holmes (1998) that when humour is used in a team environment that it has multiple benefits on the teams’ social functions, firstly it serves as a way to communicate politeness to other team members. Being able to communicate politeness is especially important for people that are expressive communicators as it can have a dampening effect on sometimes blunt statements which may cause offence to other team members. Secondly, humour has been observed by Lynch (2002) as a way to reduce stress and tension between a teams’ members. An example of this can be seen when members are in negotiation, as humour serves as a face-saving behaviour which helps Word count: 1410

mediate the interaction. Similarly, it has been noted by Holmes (1998), that when equals are working on an issue together that humour can be used as a way to help manage suggestions without coming across as too critical. Beyond this, Holmes (1998) has noted that humour often has a multifunctional purpose beyond politeness and mediation, such as allowing team power constructs to be formed as humour is used in order to establish hierarchy within a team aswell as contributing to social cohesion.

It is apparent that personality traits and communication styles are important factors to consider when discussing team communication inputs, processes, and outcomes. This is due to peoples differing traits and style each working interdependently with one another. Therefore, leaders and team members must recognise the positive and negative effects that come with their own specific traits and style in order to better regulate their communication with other team members. This in combination with management communication strategies such as framing will allow the team as a whole to perform better due to a stronger team cohesion aswell as the elevated emotional state of the teams’ members.

Appendix Word count: 1410

Bibliography 

Antonioni, D 1998, ‘RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY FACTORS AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES’ The International Journal of Conflict Management, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 336–355, doi: 10.1108/eb022814.

Word count: 1410



Bakker-Pieper, A & de Vries, RE 2013, ‘The Incremental Validity of Communication Styles Over Personality Traits for Leader Outcomes’ Human Performance, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–19, doi: 10.1080/08959285.2012.736900.



BRADLEY, BH, KLOTZ, AC, POSTLETHWAITE, BE, & BROWN, KG 2013, ‘Ready to Rumble: How Team Personality Composition and Task Conflict Interact to Improve Performance’ Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 385–392, doi: 10.1037/a0029845.



Costa, PT & McCrae, RR 1992, ‘Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory’ Psychological Assessment, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 5–13, doi: 10.1037//1040-3590.4.1.5.



Driskell, JE, Goodwin, GF, Salas, E, & O’Shea, PG 2006, ‘What Makes a Good Team Player? Personality and Team Effectiveness’ Group Dynamics , vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 249– 271, doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.10.4.249.



Fairhurst, GT 2005, ‘Reframing The Art of Framing: Problems and Prospects for Leadership’ Leadership (London, England), vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 165–185, doi: 10.1177/1742715005051857



Fairhurst, G. T. (2020). The Leadership Framing Website. Retrieved from: http://www.leadershipframing.com/



Holmes, J., 1998, July. No joking matter! The functions of humour in the workplace. In Proceedings of the Australian Linguistics Society Conference (pp. 1-17). Brisbane University of Queensland.



Lynch, OH 2002, ‘Humorous Communication: Finding a Place for Humor in Communication Research’ Communication Theory, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 423–445, doi: 10.1093/ct/12.4.423.



Mohammed, S & Angell, LC 2003, ‘Personality Heterogeneity in Teams: Which Differences Make a Difference for Team Performance?’ Small Group Research, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 651–677, doi: 10.1177/1046496403257228.



Riggio, RE & Reichard, RJ 2008, ‘The emotional and social intelligences of effective leadership: An emotional and social skill approach’ Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 169–185, doi: 10.1108/02683940810850808.

Word count: 1410

Word count: 1410...