Communication, Decision Making, and Negotiation as Inherent Ability - Coursework Example

Personality Link Personality Link: Communication, Decision Making, and Negotiation as Inherent Ability YOU ORGANISATION Personality Link 2Abstract This project is designed to evaluate the statement that "Communication, decision making, and negotiation skills are so closely linked to the personality of the individuals that they cannot be learned." Theories of management and leadership are so broadly defined in existing subject literature, designed to aid a successful businessperson in strengthening leadership skills. Too often, however, failure to address the inherent characteristics of personality, and how it applies to a leadership position, are overlooked. This work will support the claim that leadership skill is linked to innate abilities within an individual and highlight effective tactics both at internally processing information and outwardly projecting intrinsic personality traits; negating the premise that success in leadership can be learned through instruction. Personality Link 3 Personality Link: Communication, Decision Making, and Negotiation as Inherent Ability Introduction There has recently been a resurgence of interest in the impact of personality in the workplace, including the behaviour of employees and organisational behaviour processes (Leung & Bozionelos, 2004). Effective communication, decision making, and negotiation skills have been heralded as success tools for an organisational leader, however, the idea that these abilities can be learned through instruction is somewhat naïve. Personality might best be defined as an individuals unique patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviours that endure over a period of time and across specific situations. These very much internal patterns of awareness help to shape an individuals perceptions regarding how to best handle conflicts, process information, and how to shape a decision to appropriately fit the situation. Successful leaders use their passion, values, and personal mission to create and maintain influence (Frisina & Steltzer, 2001). With this idea in mind, it is important to recognise that learned theories, without the internal propensity for personality-based judgments, are ineffective theories that lack the substance of intuition and personality-based understandings of the environment. Personality traits are literally encoded in the nervous system as structures that guide consistent behaviour across a wide variety of situations (Morris & Maisto, 2005). Recognising the psychological principal that personality is a genetic attribute allows for the assumption that communication, decision making, and negotiation practices are Personality Link 4 derived of inborn, natural talents that cannot be properly taught through any contemporary module. This really should not be surprising, because all executives are different, with different chromosomes, and they all stand out from the crowd in highly individual fashions (Lear, 1998). If personality attributes did not play a significant factor in the success of organisational thinking, then those individuals who were taught by purely theoretical leadership guidelines would all behave in similar fashion. Because each organisational leader is recognised for differing strengths, negating personality as a factor for business success and recognition is somewhat illogical. Contributions of Existing Literature People need audacious, visionary and spiritually grounded leaders to meet the competitive challenges of the new millennium (Winters, 1997). As a leader, you need to have some sense of what you want to achieve and what you ought to be (Dergen, 2001). All of these factors relate directly to sophisticated levels of self-knowledge, or the ability to understand personal strengths and shortcomings. Leaders must draw upon their strengths and skills to the fullest while minimizing their weaknesses (Bednarz, 2004). Few people could successfully argue that personal goals, values, and self-knowledge are not part of the personality framework and in specific regard to decision making, without these characteristics most organisational decisions would lack a solid purpose. For instance, a leader who maintains little self-knowledge in terms of his/her own personal desires, and cannot relate to the business environment in terms of goal-setting, might apply incorrect strategies based on theory alone, rather than based on a solid information processing system that aligns all factors towards a common goal. Personality Link 5 Inherent perceptual limitations in decision makers force them to resort to decision strategies that rest on incomplete and imperfect information and simplified models of reality (Tourigny et al, 2003). With personality limitations in mind, this same manager resorts to making "satisficing" decisions, falling short of rationality. What this suggests is that the difference between a manager with natural talents and another that maintains decision making based solely on theory is that the personality-driven leader can base decisions on a multitude of personal factors to make the most appropriate decision for the organisation. Intuition, a personality-based trait, allows a leader to scan the environment and predict certain outcomes when making decisions. This individual can encode and retrieve information more effectively and make more appropriate and accurate interpretations to solve problems more readily (Hodgkinson, 2003). A professional who believes that intuitive processes can be learned through extensive theoretical studies has gone astray from maintaining an understanding of human abilities. Some contemporary organisations, who recognise personality differences in potential leaders, have established psychometric exams; personality tests designed to facilitate organisations in making effective decisions (Corcoran, 2005). These tests often place an individual in a multitude of hypothetical situations in order to gauge the leaders response and solution to a proposed situation. By modern organisations merely recognising the validity of these testing scenarios, and implementing them, it supports the premise that personality factors are significantly important in decision making and is coming to be acknowledged over learned leadership literature. Personality Link 6 Decision-making has been defined as having five styles: Rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant, and spontaneous (Spicer & Sadler-Smith, 2005). Without a detailed explanation of all styles, just recognising their terminology relevance to personality is enough to satisfy the idea that all noteworthy leadership decisions are designed around inborn personality traits. Defining someone as spontaneous, for example, is indicating a personality characteristic for adaptive behaviours. Theory of effective leadership tactics cannot hope to instil spontaneity; this must be a natural talent. Without this inborn ability, coping and adapting to a rapidly changing organisational environment could not be satisfied. Managing in turbulent environments is so daunting that many executives stop trying to think systematically about their work and instead rely on intuition (Sull, 2005). Some managers lead by sheer personality or charisma and such managers are needed by organisations, especially when increasing changes occur (Westcott, 1999). In terms of effective decision making, especially in fluctuating environments, contributing literature suggests that inherent adaptive ability is more crucial to making effective assessments than anything offered by learned leadership theory. In terms of interpersonal communication skills, leaders must maintain an awareness of their own needs and be willing to articulate them to others (Smith & Sharma, 2002). They maintain a clarity of thinking, remain focused, and are able to communicate to a wide audience (Business Week, 1999). It might be argued that all of these factors involved in communication require a certain maturity of thought, indicating they are derived of personality characteristics, possibly including the physical construct of the brain and its capabilities at articulation. Existing studies in Personality Link 7 this area have indicated that both gender and personality might impact on information processing (So & Smith, 2003), indicating that thought clarity and focused behaviours are natural talents; as well as the ability to translate thought into verbal expression. An individual need only look at instructional leadership literature to witness communications skills as an effective leadership tool, however, attempting to instruct an individual to speak articulately (which may well go against physical capabilities) is a wasted effort if the ability does not exist naturally. Charismatic leadership, in terms of communications style, is important both for substance and for the intangible confidence it represents to people (Sonnenfeld, 2002). While many leadership traits are innate, such as charisma and personality (Messmer, 2006), managers who base communication on strategy through learned literature tend to take more risks and ignore the impact of poorly articulated discussions on subordinates. Charismatic individuals, with this personality trait as an inborn talent, tend to take a more rational, planned approach to the strategy-making process (McCarthy, 2003) and approach organisational staff with well-constructed ideas that are clearly communicated and well-received. An effective leader understands that constructive conflict, which features open and well-intentioned challenges, can quickly undermine team dynamics when it shifts to destructive conflict (Trent, 2004). Often, the leaders themselves are the cause of team-related shifts in lowered productivity simply due to applying incorrect theory to a situation that actually involves "people skills." Theorists agree that individual power in organisations is the ability to control others, to exercise discretion, and to get ones own way (McCarthy, 2003). In terms of the destructive team, application of leadership Personality Link 8 strategy to solve conflicts negates inborn interpersonal communications skills, possibly a leader is attempting to exert authority at an inappropriate time, thus causing a chaotic team. A leader who maintains an awareness of the environment (a personality trait) will recognise the team communications breakdowns and apply a charismatic solution. The managers goal is for an effective team group, and exemplifying discretionary management, in an attempt to solve destructive communications, is derived of personality. In summary, a natural leader can end a conflict immediately with charisma where a learned manager applies theory after theory, ending up with zero effectiveness. The concept of emotional intelligence, the ability to understand and regulate ones own emotional reaction and to feel empathy for others (Dent, 2002), is as much appropriate to inborn talents as any other concept. Emotions are a physical construct of human personality, and play a tremendous factor in how others interpret intent during communication. Regulating emotion, both positive and negative, means having trustworthy character and thoughtful, non-explosive communication. Character means having integrity and maturity (Covey, 2006) and emotional intelligence is an inherent, physical construct in human beings that cannot be taught with theory. Personality characteristics, such as emotional awareness/regulation for thoughtful communication, should be manifested in cognitive style (Breckenridge, 2000); meaning purposeful contemplation about the words impacts prior to emotional outburst. Again, this is a natural talent borne of ability. Negotiation, one of the more intense obligations of an organisational leader, consists of a wide variety of human skills; most of each derived of an adaptive personality. Sometimes playing the role of arbitrator in internal disputes is a Personality Link 9 psychological distinction between a successful and unsuccessful negotiator in open-mindedness and equity-oriented (Moxley, 2005) mentality. A natural leader who maintains these qualities will likely pay more attention to the dynamics of a situation and bargain more aggressively (Lewicki et al, 2003) based on high aspirations for success. A learned leader, versed in theory and without intuitive traits, will likely fail as a negotiator due to an inability to adapt readily to changing bargaining personalities. During a negotiation, theory indicates a need for integrity, or playing by the rules and following an ethical code that keeps the organisation and its management team true to their mission (Doody, 2000). However, true belief in an ethical/moral foundation and one derived of satisfying the situation using learned theory could mean the difference between a successful win-win outcome based on mutual trust. A successful negotiation involves a great deal of knowledge about human nature and how to speak articulately to achieve a desired result. A socially-lacking individual who applies theory over behaviour will likely lose the discussion whereas a leader with natural verbal talent will emerge victorious. Conclusion There are a range of leadership theories, each prescribing a theoretical lens through which we view and define leadership (Lewis et al, 2006). Leadership has been advocated as a solution to a particular personal, social, and organisational problem (Barker, 1997). An individual who maintains that an effective organisation can be run using application of theory alone might satisfy some organisational problems, but personality is what dictates the resolution of personal and social issues. An Personality Link 10 organisation, and its many human components, might be compared to a psychological machine that involves a charismatic approach and an inherent ability to size up a situation to determine the best course of action in which to satisfy it. Learned organisational leadership, as a credit, can most assuredly witness issues and take action to address the problem. However, it is natural talent that makes the difference between timely, appropriate corrective measures in comparison to a learned leader who struggles continuously looking for relevant theory to handle the issue. Humility, the ability to recognise a need for assistance in times of crisis, involves a maturity of thought and a capacity to think rationally. You dont see humility often, but when you do, it shines like a beacon for all to witness, cherish and emulate (Watson, 2005). With todays organisational focus so largely on team-building and interdependency amongst staff, the concept of humility is the difference between rationality and learned, theoretical behaviours. A modern organisation that looks toward learned individuals, alone, is closing itself off from a more contributing individual: The person with a strong, inborn tool to succeed known as personality. Personality Link 11 Bibliography Barker, Richard A. (Apr 1997). How can We Train Leaders if We Do Not Know What Leadership Is? Human Relations. New York: 50 (4), p.346. Bednarz, Timothy F. (Nov 2004). Where have leaders gone? Executive Excellence. Provo: 21 (11), p.5. Breckenridge, Mary Barrett. (2000). An exploration of the factors that influence leadership effectiveness in a corporate environment. Dissertation AAT9970479 Indiana University of Pennsylvania, p.1720. Business Week. (Nov 15 1999). In Search of Leadership: A Talk with Headhunters Turned Authors Citrin and Neff. New York: Iss. 3655, p.172. Corcoran, Catherine. (Aug 2005). Psychometric Testing: Can it Add Value to HR? Accountancy Ireland. Dublin: 37 (4), p.63. Covey, Stephen. (Mar 2006). The Strong Leader Habit. Training. Minneapolis: 43 (3), p.80. Dent, Stephen M. (Nov 2002). Partnering Intelligence. Executive Excellence. Provo: 19 (11), p.11. Dergen, David. (May 2001). Character of Leadership. Executive Excellence. Provo: 18 (5), p.6. Doody, Michael F. (Sep 2000). Broader Range of Skills Distinguishes Successful CFOs. Healthcare Financial Management. Weichester: 54 (9), p.53. Frisina, Michael E. & Steltzer, Theresa M. (Nov 2001). Lead outside your comfort Zone. Nursing Management. Chicago: 32 (11), p.23. Hodgkinson, Gerard P. (Mar 2003). The interface of cognitive and industrial, work and organizational psychology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Leicester: 76 (1), p.21. Lear, Robert W. (Jul/Aug 1998). Learning Leadership. Chief Executive. New York: Iss. 136, p. 16. Lewicki, Roy J., Saunders, David M., Minton, John W. & Barry, Bruce. (2003). Negotiation: Readings, Exercises and Cases. 4th ed. McGraw Hill Higher Education, p.337. Personality Link 12 Leung, Sing Lim & Bozionelos, Nikos. (2004). Five-Factor Model Traits and the Prototypical Image of the Effective Leader in the Confucian Culture. Employee Relations. Bradford: 26 (1/2), p.62. Lewis, Darlene, Medland, Jacqueline, Malone, Sarah & Murphy, Michael, et al. (Spring 2006). Appreciate Leadership: Defining Effective Leadership Methods. Organization Development Journal. Chesterland: 24 (1), p.98. McCarthy, Breda. (2003). Strategy is Personality-Driven, Strategy is Crisis-Driven: Insights from Entrepreneurial Firms. Management Decision. London: 41 (4), p.329. McCarthy, Breda. (2003). The impact of the entrepreneurs personality on the strategy- formation and planning process in SMEs. Irish Journal of Management. Dublin: 24 (1), p.154. .Messmer, Max. (Mar 2006). Seven Mistakes to Avoid as a Manager. Strategic Finance. Montvale: 87 (9), p.8. Morris, Charles G., & Maisto, Albert A. (2005). Psychology: An Introduction. 12th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, p.434 Moxley, Charles J., Jr. (Aug-Oct 2005). Ideal Arbitrator. Dispute Resolution Journal. New York: 60 (3), p.26. Smith, Peter A. & Sharma, Meenakshi. (2002). Developing Personal Responsibility and Leadership Traits in All Your Employees: Part 2—Optimally Shaping and Harmonizing Focus, Will and Capability. Management Decision. London: 40 (9), p.814. So, Stella & Smith, Malcolm. (2003). The Impact of Presentation Format and Individual Differences on the Communication of Information for Management Decision-Making. Managerial Auditing Journal. Bradford: 18 (1/2), p.59. Sonnenfeld, Jeffrey. (Nov 12 2002). Managers Journal: Three Cheers for Charisma. Wall Street Journal. New York, NY, p.B2. Spicer, David P. & Sadler-Smith, Eugene. (2005). An examination of the general Decision making style questionnaire in two UK samples. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Bradford: 20 (1/2), p.138. Sull, Donald. (Spring 2005). Steering Through Uncertainty. European Business Forum. London: Iss 21, p.26. Personality Link 13 Tourigny, Louise, Dougan, William L., Washbush, John & Clements, Christine. (2003) Explaining Executive Integrity: Governance, Charisma, Personality and Agency. Management Decision. London: 41 (10), p.1035. Trent, Robert J. (2004). Team Leadership at the 100-foot Level. Team Performance Management. Bradford: 10 (5/6), p.94. Watson, David R. (Jul/Aug 2005). Actions Speak Louder than Words – Have You Danced with Humility Lately? Debt 3. Chicago: 20 (4), p.58. Westcott, Maurice. (Jul/Aug 1999). Module 3—People and Organisations. The British Journal of Administrative Management. Orpington: Iss 32, p.2. Winters, Mary-Frances. (Jul 1997). Identifying and Supporting Potential Leaders. HR Focus. New York: 74 (7), p.13. Read More