Term Paper on "Personality and Communication Affect on Supervision"

Quoted Instructions for "Personality and Communication Affect on Supervision" Assignment:

I have included below the basic format with the beginning outline. The body of the paper that is included is direct quotes from a paper that uses the included references. Therefore, do not use the included body of the paper but rewrite.

Paper is 20 pages. You can email the completed paper to caroljlpc@yahoo.com with a copy to armstrongc@transitionsokc.com

Please use Microsoft Word. I will then complete the outline and format for submission.

All references cited must be in the bib and all references in the bib must be cited. Thanks

Personality And Communication: The Affect On Supervision

by

Carol J. Armstrong

Capella University

Sept, 2004

Abstract

Communication is the outward expression of one’s personality. Supervisor-supervisee personality traits expressed through communication forms the perceptions of trust and power. The communication accommodation theory and social identity theory is examined in the contest of the supervisor-supervisee relationship from an in-group/out-group perspective. It is clear that certain communication characteristics can result in greater trust in supervisor-supervisee relationships.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction 4

II. Interpersonal Approach 5

III. Communication 6

IV. Trustworthiness 7

V. Social Identity Theory 7

VI. Group Status 8

VII. Communication Accommodation Theory 9

A. Approximation 9

B. Interpersonal Control Strategies 9

C. Discourse Management Strategies 10

D. Relational Strategies 11

IV. Conclusion 12

Personality And Communication: The Affect On Supervision

Of all the problems that have faced human beings since the dawn of recorded history, perhaps the most puzzling has been the riddle of our own nature. Many avenues have been explored, utilizing a variety of concepts, yet a satisfactory answer still eludes us. One important reason for the difficulty in getting a clear answer is that there are so many differences among us. Human beings not only come in many shapes and sizes but also behave in exceedingly complex ways. Of the more than five billion people who presently inhabit our planet, no two are exactly alike. The vast differences among us have made it difficult, if not impossible, to identify what we share in common as members of the human race. Consider, for example, the serial killer, the dedicated scientist, the drug addict, the corrupt politician, the nun and the chief executive officer. Except for the same bodily organs and systems, it is hard to imagine what “human nature” these persons have in common. And when we expand our horizons to include people of other cultures, we find even greater diversity in values, aspirations, and life-styles. These diversities are often described 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 among us. Carl Rogers described personality in terms of self, an organized, permanent, subjectively perceived entity which is at the very heart of all our experiences (Rogers, 1951). Erik Erikson, posited that life proceeds in terms of a series of psychosocial crises, with personality a function of their outcome (Erikson, 1982). Albert Bandura viewed personality as a complex pattern in which person, behavior, and situation continually influence each other (Bandura, 1982). These divergent conceptions clearly indicate that the meaning of personality in terms of a psychological perspective extend far beyond the original “superficial social image” concept. It signifies something much more essential and enduring about a person.

Individual behavior in face-to-face communication effects others and influences what others think and do. That individual behavior is proscribed largely by the complex sum of traits, characteristics, capabilities, beliefs, and tendencies that we refer to as personality. One individual might have a personality that lends itself to effective interpersonal communication with others; one individual might exhibit personality traits and characteristics that impede effective interpersonal communication.

Bandura’s (1982) definition adequately describes the circumstances of a supervisor – supervisee relationship: two persons, two distinct behaviors and one common situation. This brings the question to mind: how do we address the common supervisor-supervisee counseling situation and satisfy the needs of two distinct persons who have two distinct behavior responses? To explore this question, this paper looks at the issues of personality through communication, developing trust in the supervisor-supervisee relationship.

Interpersonal Approach

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). The supervisor aids in the identification process by focusing on how the supervisee thinks, feels, and acts in response to the client. The supervisee also brings his or her problematic interpersonal behaviors into the counseling interaction. The supervisor can address these by pointing out the continuity between the supervisee’s behavior in sessions with clients and in the supervisory sessions. An interpersonal approach to supervision is explicitly designed to deal with transference-countertransference issues.

Rickards (1984) examined verbal interactions between supervisor and supervisee as measured by the Blumberg Interaction Analysis System (1970) using response style or response mode to describe supervisor and supervisee behaviors. Response modes refer to the “how” or action involved in a response. Response style has typically referred to the amount of control or affiliation that characterizes a response. The findings from this study indicated that although supervisor support was the most frequent intervention, it did not lead to supervisee thinking and learning. No supervisor intervention could reliably predict cognitive responses from the supervisee. This suggests that interpersonal approaches to supervision might be best used with more advanced trainees. Reising and Daniels (1983) found that supervisees who were beginning supervision were more anxious, dependent, and technique ***** than were more advanced students. They also found that the beginning students were less ready for confrontation.

There are two equally important sides to interpersonal competence. It is necessary to become skilled in the behavior required for effective face-to-face interactions. It is also essential to learn how to interpret the behavior of others so that our own behavior can be adjusted accordingly. To acquire or enhance interpersonal competence, we must continually observe others and interpret their actions and arrange our behavior to suit the objectives of any particular interaction.

Communication

A supervisor’s communication style contains social markers that convey information about the supervisor, such as personality, social identity, status and power. In some supervisor-supervisee interactions, the relationship is mostly interpersonal and the interactants perceive each other as individuals. While, in other situations, supervisor-supervisee interact primarily in terms of group-based identities or stereotypes. The more a person identifies with his or her in-group, the more he or she will feel distinct from out-group members. Communication is more often a function of the relative status or power of the interactants than of their personality. Thus, most communication in supervisor-supervisee relationships is seen as a function of the interactants’ status, role or trustworthiness.

Trustworthiness

Supervisees’ perceptions of their supervisors’ trustworthiness are based on features such as the supervisor’s appreciation of the employee’s worth, as manifest in praise, compliments, etc. A trusted supervisor is also seen as one who could be relied on to care for the employee’s personal and professional welfare: that is, as one who takes a mentoring approach. Openness in communication is seen as highly important, as gate-keeping of information, or keeping supervisees in ignorance, creates uncertainty, fear and distrust. Essentially, supervisors are most likely to be trusted if they are seen to take a caring, mentoring approach with their supervisees, while still being regarded as competent and deserving of their authority. By contrast, managers perceived as untrustworthy are seen as self-serving, failing to give recognition, stifling the supervisee’s potential, quick to blame and criticize, and perceived as incompetent. It can be concluded that a trusted supervisor not only manages the task responsibilities of his or her role, but manages the relationship and power differences positively at the same time.

Social Identity Theory

Social identity was defined by Tajfel (1974) 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. The more a person identifies with his or her in-group (supervisor), the more he or she will feel distinct from out-group members (supervisees). When one’s social identity is salient, so too are out-group dynamics.

Gallois and Giles (1998) 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 (formal supervisee-supervisor relationships). Hogg & Adams (1988) argue that communication is more often a function of the relative status or power of the interactants than of their personality. Thus, most communication in supervisor-supervisee relationships is seen as a function of the interactants’ status or role.

A pattern of positive interactions with an out-group member may lead to “breaking through” the inter-group barrier and, thereby, to an increase in trust. This would mean a lower likelihood of the supervisor being perceived and related to as a member of a status out-group by their supervisee, and vice versa. Again, this has implications for trust, as we are more likely to identify with and trust in-group members than out-group members (Morand, 1996).

Group Status

Interactants’ communication goals or motivations include seeking approval of the other person or signaling in-group or out-group membership (affiliation or social distance or power). In-group status may be a pre-requisite for supervisees to receive mentoring from their supervisors’. Research (Jones, Gallois, Callan & Baker, 1999) 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. In mentoring style supervisor-supervisee relationships, in- group and out-group dynamics are salient due to the inconsistent combination of the colleague nature of the mentoring relationship and the inherent power differences in it. Thus, an understanding of how communication influences in-group/out-group perceptions is important to understanding trust in mentoring relationships.

Communication Accommodation Theory

In terms of supervisor-supervisee communication, McCune (1998) argues, it is difficult to trust someone who has a distinct advantage over you. Recent studies have found that 43 per cent of supervisees believe their supervisors cheat and lie to them, and 68 per cent of supervisees do not trust their supervisors (Davis & Landa, 1999). How supervisors and supervisees relate to each other have implications for trust and mistrust. 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.

Approximation.

Approximation strategies refer to interactants adjusting their communication style to sound more like (convergence) or less like (divergence) the other person such as vocabulary, jargon, accent and non-verbal behaviors. Supervisees utilize approximation in order to signal affinity with, or seek the approval of the supervisor. Supervisors have been found to move away from approximation in order to signal interpersonal or social distance or disapproval. Supervisors and supervisees are likely to be attracted to people who are similar to themselves, in terms of personal characteristics or group memberships. Individuals are more likely to trust in-group members than out-group members (Morand, 1996).

Interpersonal Control Strategies.

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 explicitly and implicitly communicate their superior status in the relationship. Conversely, supervisors may reduce perceived power differences by referring to their supervisees as their ‘fellow team members’, or by referring to themselves in terms of a nurturing, mentoring role. The interpersonal control themes are highly salient in supervisees’ descriptions of negative interactions with their supervisors. Combined with coercive power, dominance highlights the negatively perceived, power-marked inter-group dynamics in many supervisor-supervisee interactions. A supervisors’ use of a domineering or coercive communication style is antithetical to supervisor-supervisee trust. By contrast, the supervisor utilizing in-group communication skills reflects communication behaviors that reduce perceptions of power differences, emphasize interpersonal similarities and position the supervisor more as an individual, rather than simply as a member of a higher-status out-group. Individualizing a supervisor, breaks down supervisees’ stereotypes of their supervisor, decreases perceptions of power and maximized perceptions of trust.

Discourse Management Strategies.

Discourse management strategies are manifested in a more discourse-*****, but equally powerful form. For instance, a long tradition of power and communication research has shown that higher-status individuals are more likely than their lower-status counterparts 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. Conversely, powerless communication is characterized by a high incidence of indirectness, disqualifications, hedges, hesitations and tag questions (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 reduce supervisees’ trust in their supervisors. By contrast, in-group perceptions are indicative of two-way communication, openness and pleasant interactions. Supervisors are described by this group more in terms of individual characteristics and personality rather than as stereotypical members of a higher-status out-group. Active listening is a communication skill that has long been known to indicate 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. Small talk, while not as revealing as self-disclosure, can also facilitate in-group perceptions. Over time, such positive discourse supervision would lead to an increase in perceptions of in-group membership and trust.

Relational Strategies.

Relational strategies focus on communication behaviors that indicate support, empathy, inclusion, valuing the supervisee and fact issues. Positive face is manifest in behaviors that allow the supervisee to save face, such as a supervisor not reprimanding a supervisee for making a mistake, or at least providing negative feedback privately and in a tactful manner. Conversely, face threat or attack is manifest in supervisors challenging or embarrassing the supervisee (Morand, 1996).

Face threat is a salient issue in negative interactions. Face threat is defined by Morand (1996) as communication that is perceived as diminishing the value or worth of the recipient, and includes issues of criticism, blame and embarrassment. Face threat induces the feelings of being imposed upon or criticized. Handled poorly, negative feedback (especially in public) is not soon forgotten by supervisees, and can be a major source of face threat and distrust. Fisher (1989) found that advanced students in training prefer an egalitarian relationship with their supervisor, whereas beginning students in training prefer a relationship that is more authoritarian.

Conclusion

Interpersonal communication skills are used when we are behaving in a manner intended to achieve certain results or objectives in fact-to-face encounters. A few supervisors exhibit exceptional interpersonal communication skills, while a great many others demonstrate weak or negative or virtually nonexistent interpersonal communication skills.

The research discussed indicate the importance of supervisors’ awareness and use of in-group communication behaviors for building and maintaining a bond of trust with their supervisees. A supervisor may maintain appropriate role, authority and status without necessarily resorting to negative power strategies, such as domineering or coercive communication. The importance of providing appropriate feedback to employees while allowing them to maintain face is also crucial to positive supervisee perceptions, and therefore supervisee trust. It is also important for supervisees to be able to relate to their supervisors not only as a member of a higher-status out-group, but also as an individual and a fellow human being.

References

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Blumberg, A. (1970). A system for analyzing supervisor-teacher interaction. In A. Simon & G. Boyer (Eds.), Mirrors for behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 29-45). Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.

Davis, T. & Landa, M. (1999). The trust deficit. Management Accounting, 71(10), 12-16.

Erikson, E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed. New York: Norton.

Fisher, B. L. (1989). Differences between supervision of beginning and advanced therapists: Hogan’s hypnothesis empirically revisited. The Clinical Supervisor, 7, 57-74.

Gallois, C. & Giles, H. (1988). Accommodating mutual influence in intergroup encounters. In C.A. Bennett & M. T. Palmer (Eds.), Progress in Communication Sciences, (Vol. 14, pp. 135-162). Stanford, CA: Ablex.

Hogg, M.A. & Abrams, D.A. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.

Jones, E., Gallois, C., Callan, V.C., & Barker, M. (1999). Strategies of accommodation: Development of a coding system for conversational interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 81(2), 123-152.

McCune, J. (1998). That elusive thing called trust. Management Review, 87(7), 10-14.

Morand, D. (1996). Dominance, deference, and egalitarianism in organizational interaction: A socio-linguistic analysis of power and politeness. Organization Science, 7(5), 544-556.

Reising, G. N., & Daniels, M. H. (1983). A study of Hogan’s model of counselor development and supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 235-244.

Rickards, L. D. (1984). Verbal interaction and supervisor perception in counselor supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 262-265.

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: its current practice, implications, and theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Yalom, I.R. (1985). Theory and practice of group psychotherapy (3rd. ed.). New York: Basic Books.