Chapter 1 Section 2 - Interpersonal Communication PDF

## Terminologie Initially, the theory of interpersonal communication was developed for the study of communication by telephone. Subsequently, it was adapted and used as a general model for verbal communication. However, most of the terminology used still refers to telecommunications: - **Message:*...

## Terminologie Initially, the theory of interpersonal communication was developed for the study of communication by telephone. Subsequently, it was adapted and used as a general model for verbal communication. However, most of the terminology used still refers to telecommunications: - **Message:** Information transmitted from one person to another using a means of verbal communication. This includes words, facts and numbers; as well as emotions, perceptions and prejudices. - **Sender:** The person who generates the message transmitted or sent to another person called the **receiver** or **listener**. The sender encodes the message by translating it into words, voice inflections, body positions, gestures, eye contact, and other tangible representations of what they are thinking and feeling. The receiver decodes the message to understand what is intended. - **Channel:** The medium used to send the message. In verbal communications, the channel is made up of the sender’s voice and attitudes. - **Noise:** Includes everything that interferes with communication. While this term may refer to actual noise or sound, it can also refer to more abstract interferences, like a misunderstanding, intense emotions, boredom, an uncomfortable seating position, or even the pressure of work, which creates stress and limits the time available for communication. ## Forms of Communication Three forms of communication are analyzed here. They are linear, interactive and transactional communication. ### Linear Communication Linear communication represents the simplest form of verbal communication (Figure 1.16). It is a one-way process, flowing from the sender to the receiver. This type of communication is often present in the practices of leadership (command and control) where the manager gives the orders and the workers execute the tasks without protest. Noise can distort the message during encoding, transmission, and decoding, so the message received is often quite different from the message sent. This form of communication is not the most efficient in a team environment. However, it is a quick way to communicate. It is also the best way to communicate when a response is not expected or desired, which is often the case in emergency situations. For example, if a coworker is in immediate danger, the only priorities are to alert the coworker and stop the operation in question. In such a situation, it is neither wise nor recommended to wait for feedback. ### Interactive Communication A more complex form of communication requires an exchange of information (clarifications, questions, answers) between the sender and the receiver. This exchange occurs through interactive communication, as shown in Figure 1.17. This form of communication consists of a series of encoded messages transmitted and decoded, to which responses are provided through encoded messages, transmitted and decoded back by the receiver. Although noise interferes with every step of the process, feedback offers much better chances to correct mistakes and misunderstandings. Therefore, most of the messages sent are more effective when feedback is encouraged, accepted and addressed. The original sender should also be diligent in providing feedback in response to the messages received. ### Transactional Communication The next step towards building efficient communication is using a transactional model where the communication process includes a transaction between two equal partners (Figure 1.18). This kind of communication is less common in business, and some people rarely achieve it. However, this model corresponds to an effective communication strategy: it highlights an objective that supervisors and managers should strive to achieve in the long term. In this model, communication is ongoing; it flows both ways on multiple channels. For example, one person speaks, while the other nods or gestures, simultaneously signaling their understanding or agreement. The result is a shared understanding between the two communicators, which cannot be achieved through any other process lacking mutual interaction. ## Shortcuts in Communication In most activities, people take shortcuts to save time and effort. Often, these shortcuts bypass important steps in the process. Communication processes are no different. People tend to jump to hasty conclusions and base their thoughts and messages on these conclusions. These shortcuts become equivalent to noise present in the communication process. The following shortcuts are used in communication. It would be useful to be aware of them and avoid them in all communication models: - **Selectivity:** Refers to the acceptance of one part of the information received, while ignoring the rest. The choice of what is used or rejected is made instantly and unconsciously, largely depending on our prejudices and expectations. This results in a hasty, or “perceptual” assessment of the other person, based only on a fraction of the available information. On the other hand, if a person manages to say what we want to hear or what we expect, we tend to accept everything they say without critical judgement. - **Assumed Similarity:** Suggests that we tend to see the other person as sharing our same goals, interests, skills, and prejudices. This is sometimes called the “like me” effect. If a person seems different from our expectations, we may tend to perceive them with suspicion or impatience. - **Stereotyping:** Is the process of associating a person’s characteristics with those of the group they belong to. This judgment is often incorrect in terms of the characteristics of the group and the implied association between the individual and the group. Extreme examples of stereotyping include discrimination based on race, religion, gender, political convictions, or physical appearance. Most often, people are grouped based on their profession, team, or company they work for, or any other artificial category. - **Halo Effect:** Refers to the tendency to judge an individual based on the characteristics we have observed. For example, a person who struggles with a task may be labeled as stupid or lazy, while someone who excels at the same task may be labeled as competent and capable. However, in any other circumstances, the reality is that both individuals likely have both strengths and weaknesses that should be considered. ## Types of Conflicts For the purposes of this chapter, **conflict** is defined as “a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected something they care about, or is about to do so.” Conflict is often seen as a destructive force to be avoided at all costs in an organization. There is no doubt that conflict between two individuals, groups, or organizations can utterly destroy any accomplishment achieved by the participants. However, conflict, which is also an unavoidable part of everyday work life, can have positive effects. Therefore, it is recommended to manage conflict effectively, rather than avoid it. Conflict can be **functional** if it results in an improvement or advantage, or **dysfunctional** if it is destructive. In general, unresolved functional conflicts escalate in severity, consequences, emotional impact, and importance, until they become dysfunctional. For example, a minor disagreement discussed during working hours, at a management meeting, is functional if resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. However, it becomes dysfunctional if it results in a strike. While the severity of a conflict can differentiate functional and dysfunctional conflict, it is not the only, or best, criterion to consider. It is highly important to address conflict early on to prevent escalation, regardless of whether the conflict is functional or dysfunctional from the outset, or its impact. ## Functional Conflict Functional conflict has the following characteristics and advantages: - Problems are easily resolved. - The quality of decision-making is improved because differing viewpoints have been considered. - Participants have the opportunity to become more creative in finding solutions. - The visibility of a problem is increased, so that participants and other individuals outside the organization can become interested and want to participate in finding a solution. - Through their participation, individuals or groups are more likely to accept the solution. - Negative attitudes and apathy towards group activities are overcome. - Tensions that exist or are developing between groups and individuals can be identified, acknowledged, and eliminated. - Changes in organizational structure, procedures, or standards are facilitated. Functional conflict is so important for the success of a business that no organization can survive without it. Studies on financial problems within large corporations have shown that, occasionally, the root cause is a lack of functional conflict. This occurs when executives and managers insist on “loyalty” and the need for employees to be “team players”, so much so that they become like “sheep” who do not consider or tolerate new ideas. Corporations experiencing major changes often hire consultants to help employees manage and adapt to the changes. One important part of their role is ensuring that they encourage a minimum amount of conflict. This practice ensures that participation in identifying problems and finding solutions is a continuous process, ultimately leading to a resolution of the problem through encouragement for employees to voice their concerns and ideas, and to question changes that affect them. In Japanese management practices, decision-making should include a review of every aspect of a solution, even if someone has to be designated as a “devil’s advocate” to stimulate conflict. ## Dysfunctional Conflict Dysfunctional conflict has the following characteristics: - Dissatisfaction between participants increases over time and eventually reduces performance. Such dissatisfaction can also lead to stress for individuals, damaging their physical and mental health, primarily due to being unhappy and angry. - Group effectiveness and efficiency gradually decline until the group is completely unproductive and must be dissolved. - The communication channels and their effectiveness are completely broken. There is an optimal level of conflict for the effectiveness of an organization. If there is too little conflict, the organization cannot adapt to change or acknowledge and solve problems. On the other hand, if conflict is too frequent, the organization is unable to achieve anything beyond resolving the conflict itself (Figure 1.19). ## Interpersonal Conflict Conflict between two individuals is called interpersonal conflict. This is sometimes an unavoidable consequence of differing cultural backgrounds, viewpoints, attitudes, values, and beliefs. As organizations increasingly embrace cultural diversity among their employees, conflict becomes inevitable. Other interpersonal conflicts are a direct result of organizational conditions or administrative decisions. Such conditions and measures include poor communication, organizational or process changes, and inadequate or ineffective supervision.. One symptom of interpersonal conflict is that the affected individual feels threatened, either by the conflict itself or by the circumstances that caused it. They may feel threatened by their physical or mental well-being, or by the security of their job, wages, or standing in the group. Protecting themselves becomes their first priority. Dysfunctional conflict reduces performance. Individuals dealing with conflict are distracted from their work, increasing the risk of both poor performance and injury. In the long term, interpersonal conflict leads to severe health problems due to stress, and can result in extended absence from work. ## Intergroup Conflict Conflict between workgroups, teams, or informal groups of friends within a company can also be highly disruptive. They often begin on an interpersonal level, but they easily extend to coworkers who witness the conflict and find themselves taking a side. In fact, a frequently used tactic to win a personal conflict is to involve as many people as possible. This practice is known as “socializing” conflict, and it is often associated with participants acting in the interest of the collective, rather than their self-interest. Those who want to maintain a position of power often prefer to keep conflict private, limiting the number of participants. A sense of injustice in how groups are treated by managers or in how resources are allocated becomes another source of intergroup conflict. The inherent competitiveness between different teams can quickly escalate into a dysfunctional conflict, as groups focus their efforts on destroying one another, rather than their own productivity. Just like in interpersonal conflict, groups try to socialize conflict, or make it private. It is vital for supervisors and managers to be aware of interpersonal or intergroup conflicts and intervene accordingly to prevent them from escalating or disrupting performance. Resolving interpersonal conflict may involve mediating between the respective parties in a private setting. Resolving intergroup conflicts should be more open and public, involving a frank discussion with the groups involved. In either case, identifying the core source of conflict and addressing it, rather than just the symptoms, is crucial. It is also important to respond early on in a conflict, as these situations are often contagious and escalate quickly. ## Consequences of Conflict Conflicts always produce a situation in which participants either win or lose, or at least feel they have won or lost. There are four possible consequences to conflict (Figure 1.20). - **Lose-Lose:** This outcome suggests that both participants end up in a worse situation than before the conflict. This outcome is not unusual, given the potentially destructive nature of conflict. This outcome often occurs when conflict management is poor. For example, two individuals with differing viewpoints who feel unable to work together may let the conflict escalate to the point where both perform poorly at work. This consequence benefits no one, and conflict management practices aim to avoid such outcomes whenever possible. - **Win-Lose:** This outcome, which is often the one we expect, produces a winner and a loser. This outcome is sometimes called a “zero-sum game” as it is based on the notion that no one can win unless someone else loses. However, there is always a “loser” in both cases, which makes this result neither desirable nor satisfactory. In the workplace, all individuals and groups are valuable resources put in place for the success of the organization. Ultimately, success is not guaranteed when employees or teams are distracted and dissatisfied due to conflict. - **Win-Win:** The fourth outcome, known as the win-win, is the ultimate goal for each participant in a conflict and for the supervisors and managers tasked with managing conflict within the organization. This outcome is beneficial for both sides; both parties feel good about the result. The extra effort and investment required to reach this outcome can lead to better performance and decision-making as it involves incorporating different ideas and needs. ## Strategies for Resolving Conflict One important lesson to learn is that people have a degree of control over their behavior and the strategies they use. Each strategy has both pros and cons, and one can deliberately choose one or the other to meet the specific demands of a given situation. In this way, a participant can guide the conflict toward the most advantageous and productive outcome, aiming for a win-win resolution. Likewise, a supervisor or manager can choose a strategy to achieve the same result. The strategy used by a participant in a conflict ultimately influences the final outcome. This means that, if you manage the conflict competently, it will be more favorable for you. However, it is necessary to consider the participant’s objective. The following circumstances should be considered: - A participant wants to win a conflict and is indifferent to the outcome for the other party. This is the traditional way to view conflict, similar to a sporting event. - A participant wants to win, but also wants the other party to lose. This intention is destructive, leading to further conflicts in the future, and should be discouraged. - A participant intends to lose the conflict. While unlikely, it can happen for several reasons. It could be that the participant is afraid of the consequences of winning. For example, they may be ostracized by their team for defeating a popular leader. They may also want to “choose their battles” meaning that they believe losing some conflicts is necessary to win others. - A participant is concerned about their well-being and performance, as well as that of the other party, and actively seeks a win-win resolution. This is, of course, the best approach and should be strongly encouraged among employees, supervisors, and managers. In the next two sections, we demonstrate the relationship between a participant’s intentions and their chosen conflict strategy. The strategy and the intention are both key factors in determining the outcome, but they are also correlated. ## Conflict Resolution Strategies Initially, people approach conflict from one of two perspectives, each associated with a specific behavioral pattern: - **Assertive:** These individuals are primarily concerned with their personal goals and needs. This leads to assertive behavior. - **Cooperative:** These individuals are primarily concerned with other people and their relationship. This leads to cooperative behavior. Most individuals are neither exclusively assertive nor cooperative. They have complex personalities, with tendencies towards both behaviors, though one may be more dominant. The combination of a degree of assertiveness and cooperation defines an individual’s strategy for resolving a conflict. It also plays a significant role in determining the outcome of the conflict. It is possible to graphically illustrate the mix of assertiveness and cooperation (Figure 1.21). Conflict resolution strategies can be categorized into five distinct approaches, though several combinations are possible. It’s important to remember that there is no single best strategy. The most appropriate strategy should be chosen based on the particular situation, taking into account the personalities of the participants and those of the supervisor or manager. ### Avoidance Avoidance is both non-assertive and non-cooperative. It involves withdrawing from the conflict without taking any steps to resolve it: essentially running away. This strategy is useful when: - The matter in dispute is unimportant and not worth the time or energy required to resolve. - The conflict is emotionally charged, and it is necessary to allow people to calm down and get some perspective before addressing it calmly and effectively. - The conflict may resolve itself if left alone. For example, if the cause is purely based on a temporary mood or frustration. Avoidance creates the risk that the conflict will not be addressed, leaving the problem unresolved. This inaction allows the conflict to fester and the participants may begin to believe that the supervisor is ineffective or incapable of resolving the issue. ### Accommodation Accommodation, smoothing over, or appeasement is non-assertive and cooperative. It involves putting another person’s needs before your own, essentially giving in to their demands. This strategy is useful when: - The consequences of the conflict are minor for one party, but more significant for the other. - Maintaining a positive relationship with the other person is more important to the first party than resolving the current issue at hand. Accommodation may not produce a lasting solution to the conflict. Supervisors who use this strategy frequently can appear weak and ineffective. ### Competition Competition, power, and dominance are assertive and uncooperative. A supervisor who uses their authority to force a decision, without considering the other party’s wishes or potential impact on their relationship, engages in competitive behavior. This strategy is useful when: - A quick and decisive solution is absolutely necessary, such as in the event of urgent situations within the company or when there is imminent danger of an accident. - A decision must be made, even if it is unpopular. If competitive behavior is frequently used to address conflict, it becomes ineffective. The tactic creates resentment and bitterness, undermining the other side’s willingness to cooperate. ### Collaboration Collaboration, confrontation, or problem-solving is both assertive and cooperative. This behavior occurs when a conflict is addressed through honest and open communication, with the intention of both maintaining a positive relationship and resolving the problem. This strategy is useful when: - All participants are willing to agree on a win-win resolution and are prepared to invest the time and effort. - Time is not a critical factor, as collaboration can be a long process. - The issue at hand is serious and requires the best possible solutions. Mutual respect and trust are essential for a successful collaboration strategy. Such an approach generally leads to a win-win outcome. ### Compromise Compromise, or negotiation, is partly assertive and partly cooperative. It is useful when: - Participants do not have the power to force a solution, nor the desire to value their relationship above the resolution of the conflict. - The problem is complex, and a temporary solution is necessary. - The amount of time available to find a solution is limited. Negotiation of a collective agreement between a union and an organization is a classic example of a compromise strategy for resolving conflict. Compromise always comes with the risk that neither side will completely satisfy the outcome. Compromise shares qualities with all the other strategies, and is essentially a “middle ground” strategy. Each conflict resolution strategy is directly linked to a particular conflict outcome (Figure 1.22). ## Assertive and Cooperative Behaviors Assertive and cooperative behaviors are both key to successful conflict resolution. Many supervisors and managers find it relatively easy to choose a cooperative approach, but they struggle with assertiveness. Avoidance and compromise strategies can succeed, but they have drawbacks if the supervisor uses them consistently. Accumulated frustration, with the conflict remaining unresolved, can lead to anger and escalation; both of which are unproductive. ## Assertive Behavior To feel comfortable with assertiveness, it is necessary to practice it. Here are several characteristics of assertive leaders: - They openly and honestly express their emotions and perceptions, doing so tactfully and with concern for the other person (cooperation), but without compromising their need to be heard. - They ask clearly and reasonably of others to do things. They agree to requests that appear reasonable, but refuse them if they seem unreasonable. - They have confidence in themselves. They are neither aggressive nor domineering and do not use humiliation, brutality, threats, or intimidation to get things done. You can demonstrate these characteristics in five steps, as illustrated in the assertive approach to conflict resolution (Figure 1.23). Notably, these steps allow one to pinpoint the problem and its consequences, research a solution to the issue, and begin the implementation of that solution. ## Grievance Procedure Conflict management occasionally involves formal procedures. This occurs when the usual channels of communication fail or struggle to produce a satisfactory resolution. A formal grievance procedure is a series of steps carried out in a specific order, with maximum time limits for each. In Canada, this is a legal, structured, and regulated process under the applicable labour relations legislation of the province, territory, or federal government. The grievance procedure is an important part of legislation because it is often the only way for union members to resolve unfair or illegal practices, or to seek compensation if they are treated unfairly. Canadian labour legislation stipulates in every collective agreement that the grievance procedure should be described, subject to the minimum provisions laid out in the Canada Labour Code and the Quebec Labour Code. In areas where a union is certified, it represents all employees covered by the certification. Therefore, with few exceptions, grievances belong to the union, which is the only party to handle them. This comes from the fact that unions are primarily the guardians of collective rights, not individual ones. In 2010, about 31.5% of the Canadian workforce is unionized. In Quebec, this figure stands at 39.3%, one of the highest unionization rates in the world. In Quebec, non-unionized workers are protected by the Quebec Labour Standards Act. In other words, all Canadian workers have some degree of protection through legislation or procedure. For our purposes, however, we will only focus on the grievance procedure in a unionized workplace. Legally, a grievance is a disagreement between an employee or union and an employer, concerning the interpretation, implementation, or administration of a collective agreement or relevant legislation. It can also refer to a complaint filed by the employee or the union when the employer has violated a specific clause in the collective agreement or legislation. The written grievance must clearly state the rule of the collective agreement or law that has been violated. The simplest grievance procedure has four steps. It defines the specific actions to take, the order of steps, and the maximum time allowed for each. These four steps represent the minimum required. ## Informal Complaint The employee who has a grievance can discuss the matter informally and verbally with their immediate supervisor. An additional related step may include discussing the issue with a union representative or a shop steward. ## Formal Grievance Typically, the union presents the grievance in writing to the supervisor, using the prescribed form. This form includes a description of the complaint, relevant clauses from the collective agreement, and a description of the corrective action to take or compensation sought, or both. Additional steps may involve re-submitting the grievance to higher levels of management. ## Internal Dispute Resolution Other parties may intervene in the process during an attempt to reach a final settlement. This procedure often involves a grievance committee comprised of representatives of the union and management. It may or may not involve another party, such as a mediator or conciliator, to facilitate the discussions. ## Grievance Arbitration Grievance arbitration is a formal procedure that mimics the procedure used in a court of law. It comes with a set of rules and procedures. In Canada, a grievance arbitration board is typically composed of three members. In Quebec, a single arbitrator is appointed by both parties. Their decision is final, non-appealable, and binding. Arbitration is highly costly, which causes a large number of grievances to be abandoned or settled before reaching this stage. Each step must be completed before moving to the next. Either party can resolve the grievance at any step by accepting the other party's solution. If a party is dissatisfied, they can abandon the process at any time. If no agreement is reached, the person who filed the grievance has the right to proceed to the next phase. The supervisor or manager to whom the grievance is presented has a responsibility to respond within a reasonable time. If no response is received within the agreed-upon timeframe, the grievance is considered to have been rejected (meaning that its merit is disputed). Usually, verbal complaints receive verbal responses; however, written responses are required for grievances filed in writing. Companies often employ tactics to delay or stall the grievance process over minor details, trying to prevent meaningful discussion. For example, a supervisor might intentionally delay their response, omit a response, or reject the grievance due to a minor error on the form. Such tactics undermine the procedure and weaken the credibility of managers while damaging employee morale. ## Advantages and Disadvantages of a Grievance A grievance procedure is useful because it offers the following advantages: - It protects the rights of each individual, ensuring that they receive fair treatment. - It highlights issues with company policies, collective agreements, practices, and the competency of supervisors or managers. - It allows for issues to be clarified and addressed, preventing them from becoming persistent problems. - It provides a process for addressing problems, even if the best possible solutions are elusive. However, here are some disadvantages to consider: - The formal nature of the procedure does not always encourage joint efforts to address the problem. Often, one party presents the grievances, while the other party is obligated to respond or dismiss them. - A grievance often addresses the symptoms of a problem or a perceived injustice, without truly addressing the underlying problem. - Grievance procedures inevitably present a win-lose, or lose-lose, outcome even though the goal is a win-win. - The very nature of a grievance represents an escalation of conflict and involves many people, increasing the chance that unrelated issues are brought up or that past ill will leads to a hostile environment. - The grievance process can be expensive, especially if it involves legal fees and professionals. - Grievances can take a long time to resolve. Discussions that could be resolved quickly in informal meetings, committees, or through the use of mediators, can last days, weeks, or even months when they follow a formal grievance procedure. - The win-lose nature of a grievance can cause frustration and anger among employees. This, in turn, can negatively impact the relationship between the union and the company, or between employees and supervisors, long into the future. It’s important to note that none of these disadvantages are universal. These issues can be avoided if both parties are willing to work together for the betterment of the entire group. A growing trend in workplace relations is to jointly solve problems and address disputes. Companies also carefully track the occurrence of grievances relative to their workforce. This information serves as a measure of the company’s success in fostering positive workplace relationships. The grievance rate represents the number of written complaints received annually per 100 employees. However, the way this data is used is controversial. One approach suggests that every grievance represents a breakdown in communication and an avoidable cost. Consequently, the goal is to have as few grievances as possible. Another perspective argues that using the grievance procedure is beneficial because it ensures that problems are identified and addressed. The third perspective suggests that there is usually an optimal (relatively low) number of grievances. If this number is exceeded, it indicates that more serious underlying problems need to be addressed. Conversely, when this optimal number is low, it suggests that employees are hesitant to voice their concerns, either because they fear reprisal, or because they don’t believe that their grievances will be taken seriously.. Underlying this perspective is the assumption that no workplace can ever become perfect for everyone. Therefore, despite the best efforts of management, some grievances will always occur. ## Resolving Patronal-Union Conflict By their nature, traditional relationships between unions and employers revolve around confrontations or indifference (seeking win-lose outcomes). The conflicts that result tend to be dysfunctional. A more recent approach attempts to correct this situation, advocating for a more cooperative approach with the goal of achieving win-win resolutions that benefit everyone. Unions have often taken the lead in implementing this cooperative approach when workplace environments have become hostile and unproductive. These early efforts at cooperation often first surfaced during negotiations for new collective agreements. This process is known as interest-based bargaining, principled negotiation, or integrative bargaining. The following principles are often employed: - Each party openly and honestly lays out their concerns, and both work together to address them in a satisfactory manner. - A joint committee or group, comprised of members from both sides, can be formed; they then work together to find a win-win solution. - A mediator or conciliator can be hired to manage the process. - Upon reaching an agreement, the two parties should work together on a joint committee to explain both the process and the outcome to employees and supervisors. This process takes time and money, compared to traditional bargaining. However, it offers some advantages: - The outcome is usually a collective agreement that better meets the needs of both the company and the union. - The result is a significantly improved relationship between the two sides. - It is easier to gain support and mobilize everyone for an agreement reached in this manner. - It encourages more creative and innovative solutions to complex problems. - It helps avoid a number of grievances, which are much more expensive in terms of time and money. In many cases, interest-based bargaining has been successful enough to extend to routine meetings between management and union leadership. These meetings address day-to-day issues, with the goal of achieving quick resolution without resorting to a grievance process. These meetings can be held weekly or monthly. This collaborative approach can avoid the need for a formal grievance procedure to address most issues. These meetings are called joint labour-management committees or parity committees. An alternative option for resolving conflict cooperatively is to form peer committees to act as a substitute for grievance arbitration. These committees are comprised of employees and managers who are not directly involved in the issue. The committee members conduct their investigations according to flexible guidelines and their decisions are binding. This method reduces costs and time. In Quebec, this process is not widely used. ==End of OCR for page 17==