Project Management Critical Thinking - Assignment Example

Communications & Critical Thinking Individual Post-Workshop Assignment Рrоjесt Маnаgеmеnt Сritiсаl Тhinking Submitted By: NAME: INSTITUTION: COURSE: INSTRUCTOR: DATE: © 2015 Task 1: Argumentative Essay INTRODUCTION If you are a team leader and want to become a ‘People Person’, Maxwell (2007) advises that you need to muster the art of effective leadership through effective relationships. True, the better part of our living is spent dealing with difficult people. May it be in the workplace or outside of it; we constantly need to persuade our colleagues to join hands in building ‘harmonious and winning teams’ free of conflicts (Friedley and Bruce, 2005). This art of persuasion is cleverly inculcated in effective leaders by Cialdini’s (2009) claim that “the power of social proof can be used to effectively reduce conflict in teams”. Following this, the present essay discusses the said claim by providing supportive evidence, followed by a counter-argument and then a sum-up conclusion. The second task presents an analysis of the essay argument. BACKGROUND It is evident that conflicts within teams have become the order of the day. Dealing with difficult people has become the highest cause of headache to many team leaders. This is most prevalent in the workplace, both in small and large multinational companies. In fact, majority of Chief Executives as well as smalltime team-leaders are grappling with the idea of minimising, if not completely eliminating conflicts from their teams. Various studies have endlessly made suggestions on how proactive team-leaders can effectively lead their teams without conflicts (Cloke and Joan, 2011 and Hovland, 2005). Among these suggestions, Cialdini’s work of 2009 on “Influence: Science and Practice” advises organisations and individuals on how to develop their persuasion skills. This advice particularly resides in the principle of the power of social proof and how it can be used to effectively reduce conflict in teams. The principle of the power of social proof as indicated by Cialdini (2009) holds that people’s actions are influenced by the behaviour of others. In this argument, it is noted that most people make their decisions based on what they observe other people doing. Because of this, the power of social proof becomes “informational social influence” where people imitate the actions of others (Cialdini, 2009). If they note that people they know are doing something, they tend to do the same thing mindless of whether it is right or not. Accordingly, Cialdini (2009) argues that the power of social proof is instrumental in stimulating a person’s compliance with a request on the basis of the number of other people who are complying with the same. The greater the number, the easier it is to convince more new ones. THESIS It is evident that the power of social proof can be used to effectively reduce conflict in teams. Evidence from extant literature has been used to prove or disapprove this claim. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE “Over ninety percent of the art of living is spent dealing with difficult people with divergent personality types”. Maxwell (2007) observes that there a myriad of different personality types within the human population. These diverse personality types are a constant cause of conflict in teams. For effective leaders to be able to reduce conflict in their teams, they first of all have to develop effective relationships in their teams. Maxwell further agrees that this is only achievable after the leaders get to know the people they lead very well. This is particularly so when the leaders understand the divergent personality types comprising their teams. According to Maxwell (2007), a group may contain different personality types namely: “the ‘Sherman Tank’; the ‘Space Cadet’; the ‘Volcano’; the ‘Thumb Sucker’; the ‘Wet Blanket’; the ‘Garbage Collector’; and the ‘User’. Each of these personality types presents difficult situations when dealing with them and effective leaders must therefore be diligent enough when handling them, lest they create room for recurrent conflicts (Friedley and Bruce, 2005). The power of social proof can therefore be used to effectively reduce conflict in these teams. Evidence #1: The “Thumb Sucker” personality In the observations made by Maxwell (2007), the “Thumb Suckers” are always sulking, self-dejected and are ever in need of compassion from other people. This is considered an attempt to control the actions of their companions. Moreover, it is noted that if things are not going their way, the “Thumb Sucker” personality types are capable of influencing their surroundings very obnoxiously. Their tactics of achieving this is by playing mute and sulky as observed by Maxwell (2007). To deal with the “Thumb Sucker” personality types, it is necessary to make them aware that sulking is intentional and an attempt to influence and rule over other individuals (Maxwell, 2007). For this reason, they should be taught that they are responsible for the atmosphere they create, especially if they are in a position of leadership. Since everyone in the world has problems, it should also be made clear to the Thumb Sucker personality types that they should not add this to others. To apply Cialdini’s (2009) claim of the power of social proof in effectively reducing conflict caused by the “Thumb Suckers” in their teams, Maxwell (2007) advises that it is helpful to expose them to people who have real problems. Perhaps it will cause them to see themselves in a different light and to have a more grateful heart and positive attitude. A good example of this by Maxwell (2007) will suffice here. “A church custodian and a perfectionist at it once exhibited thumb-sucking attitude, constantly feeling sorry for his self because his work was not appreciated. The sanctuary in the church was always spotless and the grounds were beautiful. Unfortunately, his orderliness became overly important to him, forgetting the core business of the church. It upset him when the children and the adults walked across his polished floors, dropped papers on the lawn, and spilled water from the sinks. He focused his attention on himself and his clean church and lost sight of the big and more important picture, ‘of the people coming to church to learn about Jesus and being converted’. To help him reestablish his priorities, the church custodian was taken to the cancer ward at the local hospital. It was pointed out to him that these people were so sick that they would probably never be well enough to come to church, and many of them would probably die without knowing Jesus. This little exercise paid-off well because the following week, there was a marked change in his attitude. He began to quit feeling sorry for himself and became grateful that he had a part in sharing Jesus”. By observing terminally sick people in the hospital ‘socially influenced’ the church custodian to change his attitude and reduce instances of conflict in teams. However, Hovland (2005) warns that being lenient and considerate of sulky individuals may have wide-reaching repercussions. This is majorly because if the said characters have a chance to with the ‘public sympathy’, they feel overly victorious. The best method of attack is to praise them for their positive ideas and actions and ignore them when they are sucking their thumbs (Hovland, 2005). In fact, studies show that “Thumb Suckers” are subject to their mood swings; and they are negative only part of the time (Cloke and Joan, 2011) COUNTERARGUMENT Based on Maxwell’s (2007) observations about becoming a ‘People Person’ through effective relationships, it is argued that Cialdini’s (2009) claim that the power of social proof can be used to effectively reduce conflict in teams is not overly true. It is refuted that since the said personality types are different in nature, each of them should therefore be handled differently and specifically as illustrated below. Refutation #1: The “Sherman Tank” personality The “Sherman Tank” personality on the one hand brings to mind a person who runs over everything and anything that is in the way. These people have an inclination to ‘trample over’ their colleagues, probably driven by their strong feeling of “I’m holier than thou”. They intimidate through sheer force and power; their behaviour is aggressive and even hostile. Because of the Sherman Tanks’ insensitivity, people tend to battle with them. It is difficult to sit down and reason or rationalize with ‘Tanks’. As illustrated by Maxwell (2007), the best to deal with the “Sherman Tank” personalities in order to reduce conflict in teams is by first considering their influence as well as the issue at stake. When crucial issues arise, it is important to stand up and be direct because they cannot understand tactfulness. Unfortunately, these people cause a lot of pain because they feel little pain themselves, and as such they can afford to be unreasonable. Additionally, due to their power to intimidate, they can pull together many allies. Refutation #2: The “Space Cadet” personality The “Space Cadet” personality types on the other hand consist of a type of people who live in their own worlds, walking to the beat of a different drummer. They usually do not respond to normal motivation techniques and are overly frustrating when working with them. When dealing with this personality type, Hovland (2005) notes that it is advisable to: Avoid evaluating your leadership by their response because you’ll get an off-the-wall answer from them. They are simply not good sounding boards. Never place a Space Cadet in a “team ministry” position because when you need a group of individuals to pull together to accomplish a goal, the Space Cadet will not be pulling in the same direction with other people. Never place them in position of leadership because they won’t be able to determine the ‘heartbeat’ of others. However, don’t dismiss the ‘Space Cadet’ completely because they still have a uniqueness to themselves that if developed can be very fruitful. Many of them are extremely brilliant and creative; they have much to over if put in the right spot. They work best when alone, so find an area in which they’re interested and give them space to dream and create. Refutation #3: The “Volcano” personality The “Volcano” personality type is considered to be a very volatile and erratic kind of an individual who has erected an impermeable wall around themselves. This personality type causes tension and people around them cannot relax. Handling the “Volcanoes” when they blow up, calmness is the key (Maxwell, 2007). Take the victim far away from the others in a very composed manner. Once alone with them, let them vent-off steam. Allow them to blow as hard and as long as is possible and necessary; let them get it all out, without interrupting at all. Minimize any exaggerations and remove any hearsay that has mingled in so you can deal only with the facts and not the emotions. After they completely cool off, provide a soft, clear answer concerning the situation at hand. Finally, hold these people responsible for whatever they do that can be attributable to any disorientation in the team. Refutation #4: The “Wet Blanket” personality Just like the Thumb Sucker, the “Wet Blanket” on the other hand is constantly down and negative. He is the classic impossibility thinker who sees a problem in every solution. He is afflicted with the dreaded disease of excusitis – finding the problems and making excuses (Friedley and Bruce, 2005). The most difficult thing about working with a person like this is that they usually take no responsibility for their negative attitude and behaviour. It’s either “the other Guy’s fault” or it’s “just the way I am” – a way of blaming God as stated by Endy (2011). Again, don’t reinforce the Wet Blanket’s behaviour by providing a platform from which to make excuses. Kindly but firmly, point out that you have confidence in this position but their present attitude is hindering progress (Hovland, 2005). They need to choose whether or not they are going to risk being positive and responsible. Refutation #5: The “Garbage Collector” personality The “Garbage Collector” personality is locked even deeper into the mire of negativity than the Thumb Sucker and the Wet Blanket. The Garbage Collectors have surrendered the leadership of their lives to negative emotions and they remain nursing their scarred egos (Endy, 2011). Briefly and concisely, they stink into the abyss! Even if life itself is full of trash, picking it up and throwing it around other people is unacceptable. The same applies to the Garbage Collector’s behaviour. Dealing with the “Garbage Collectors” needs straight confrontation front the team leader by reminding them of the way they represent other people. In the views of Cloke and Joan (2011), don’t entertain the statement: “there are many others who feel this way also”. Demand to be given names because the statement by itself stinks. That single requirement takes a lot of the “stink” out of their garbage because it usually boils down to just one or two individuals who have an affinity for garbage too. This argument completely refutes Cialdini’s (2009) claim that the power of social proof can be used to effectively reduce conflict in teams and puts into perspective other mechanisms of doing the same. Refutation #6: The “User” personality type The “User” is the person who manipulates others for his or her own personal gain according to study findings by Cloke and Joan (2011); Endy (2011); and Friedley and Bruce (2005). “Users” are usually very sly themselves and would want to have nothing to do that might cause them being held responsible; while at the same time would expect a lot from their colleagues. In fact, their self-dejection and the sorry façade they put on is intended to win sympathy from others and thus be helped. Dealing with these individuals requires one to first of all set predetermined limits on how far one should go to help them. Otherwise, they will push ones guilt button and will definitely weaken them. Moreover, as a leader you should require responsibility from the “User”. Even if you feel disposed to help them, make sure they are responsible for some part of the job. Otherwise you will wind up carrying the load while they go on their merry ways – more than likely looking for another gullible soul (Friedley and Bruce, 2005). Lastly, avoid being obliged to the “Users” and don’t even regret it. Most of the time, a simple firm ‘NO’ is the best medicine. SUM UP CONCLUSION Cialdini’s (2009) claim that “the power of social proof can be used to effectively reduce conflict in teams” cannot be overly relied upon. It should be noted that the claim is only applicable in marketing of goods and services where an individual’s decision to comply with a request is influenced by social information, but not in managing teams. Cloke and Joan (2011) confirm that teams are composed of individuals with divergent personality types and should therefore be handled differently and specifically to reduce conflicts in the teams. Similarly, Endy, C. (2011) contends that no one personality type is dealt with like the other. Form what is observed throughout this essay, I personally disagree with Cialdini’s (2009) claim that “the power of social proof can be used to effectively reduce conflict in teams”. Given this therefore, it is in order to refute Cialdini’s claim and state that he is incorrect in this instance. Task 2: Analysis of Essay Argument Because B) Teams are made of several individuals. And because C) All individuals have divergent personality types. Therefore D) Conflicts in teams cannot be reduced by the power of social proof. And because A) Cialdini (2009) claims that the power of social proof can be used to effectively reduce conflict in teams. Therefore E) Cialdini (2009) is incorrect. BIBLIOGRAPHY Cialdini, R. B. (2009) Influence: Science and Practice, 5th Edition. Pearson Education, Inc. Cloke, Kenneth and Joan, Goldsmith. (2011) Resolving Conflicts at Work: Ten Strategies for Everyone on the Job, 3rd Edition, Jossey-Bass. Endy, C. (2011) How to Write an Argumentative Essay. California State University, Los Angeles Friedley, Sheryl A and Bruce, Manchester B. (2005) Building Team Cohesion: Becoming “We” Instead of “Me”. George Mason University. Hovland, I. (2005) Successful Communication: A Toolkit for Researchers and Civil Society Organisations, Overseas Development Institute. Maxwell, J. C. (2007) Be a People Person: Effective Leadership through Effective Relationships. David C. Cook; Hardcover, 192 pages Read More