Assertiveness - Decision Making - Research Paper Example

ASSERTIVENESS – DECISION MAKING OTHER By Name Course Instructor Institution City/State Date Table of Contents ASSERTIVENESS – DECISION MAKING 1 Table of Contents 2 Assertiveness – Decision Making 2 1.0 Introduction 2 1.1 Purpose 2 1.2 Methodology 3 1.3 Limitations 4 1.4 Assumptions 4 1.5 Background 4 2.0 Findings 6 3.0 Discussion 7 4.0 Conclusion 10 5.0 Recommendations 11 6.0 References 12 Assertiveness – Decision Making 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose Assertiveness and decision-making skills are considered to be traits attractive to employers. Basically, good leadership is considered to be the ability to make effective decisions, which are favourable with employers and could enable the decision makers to be promoted. Having a healthy assertiveness level can help improve the relationships at workplace as well as reduce the long-term stress. Assertiveness normally results in positive relationships, effective decisions, as well as many other benefits to the company. Furthermore, assertiveness enables the decision makers to become reluctant when making tough decisions or handling demanding tasks. A number of employees steer clear of assertiveness since they are not ready to face the negative outcomes associated with stepping up. Normally, companies lose billions of dollars annually because of poor decisions made by bad managers. Therefore, having assertive managers can help protect the company from being brought down by bad managers. The objective of this paper is to determine the relationship between assertiveness and decision making. 1.2 Methodology This report utilised the structured approach to find the materials’ source for review. Literature review methodology was utilised as the main data and information source regarding the assertiveness in decision making. Various online databases such as Google Scholar were utilised to search for dissertations as well as peer-reviewed articles. Besides that, a key criterion was employed to select articles that would be included in the literature review. All documents were reviewed to establish whether they met the criteria for inclusion. The literature searches in the online databases were limited by the databases’ coverage; therefore, key words were utilised. Information was further searched in the Internet websites. The literature review involved critically examining the existing works on assertiveness and decision making. This methodology was selected because it facilitates deep and offers an effective means of assessing the existing knowledge on the researched topic. 1.3 Limitations This study has some limitations; for instance, most of the reviewed studies have generalised their findings. For that reason, it is challenging to replicate the finding on different organisational settings, which includes various positions in the organisation. Besides that, the majority of the reviewed studies have reserved a number of methodological as well as conceptual difficulties concerning the interpretations associated with cultural dimensions. There is only a few studies that have reviewed the effect of assertiveness in different cultures considering that assertiveness of decision makers in culture with high and low power distance are different. 1.4 Assumptions H1: The condition of high assertiveness negatively influences the decision makers’ social outcomes, but their instrumental outcomes are positively influenced. H2: The condition of moderate assertiveness will positively influence the decision makers’ instrumental outcomes and social outcomes. H3: The condition of low assertiveness negatively influences the decision makers’ instrumental outcomes but has no effect on their social outcomes. H4: Assertiveness is associated positively with the conflict management styles of compromising, integrating and dominating in conflict with decision makers. 1.5 Background Assertiveness can be defined as attitude which honours the choices made by decision maker and those of an individual taking part in communication. More importantly, assertiveness is not associated with being aggressive or coercing other employees into submission; instead, it is related to searching and exchanging views, creating a complete understanding regarding a situation, and facilitating a win–win situation through negotiation. Normally, assertiveness is considered as a point of balance between aggressive and passive behaviour. Gallup finding as cited by Beck and Harter (2014) established that great managers have a number of talents: They possess the assertiveness to steer results as well as the capability to overcome resistance as well as adversity. Assertive leaders are able to all their employees to take action and create a clear accountability culture. Recently, a survey conducted in Canada and United States of HR executives as cited by Lazenby (2015, p.2) established that almost 35% of leaders were ineffective and more than half of them did not have interpersonal skills. Clearly, ineffective leaders often make poor decisions that often lead to loss of millions of dollars yearly. Failed leadership normally result in high emotional and financial costs. Assertiveness, as an interpersonal trait plays a crucial role in the perceptions if leadership. Leaders considered to possess high assertiveness are inclined to accomplish short-term goals; however, they are often despised and are less likely to achieve long-term goals. Leaders perceived to have low assertiveness are liked by many, but they cannot achieve their goals and are often considered to be instrumentally ineffective. Assertiveness can be described as the tendency of a person to actively speak out for, pursue, and defend his/her values, interests, goals as well as preferences. In situations such as interpersonal conflict, assertiveness is associated with making concessions as well as offers, voicing views and opinions, and trying to intimidate or compel other people. 2.0 Findings With the view to the abovementioned assumptions, H1 was supported; that is to say, the condition of high assertiveness was considerably lower as compared to that of moderate assertiveness. For instrumental outcomes, H1 was supported since the rating of the condition of high assertiveness was higher as compared to that of low assertiveness. Still, high assertiveness was rated below the condition did of moderate assertiveness. With the view to Lazenby (2015), it was observed that there would be a considerable cost to the decision makers’ social outcomes when they move from being moderately assertive to become highly assertive. Furthermore, there is no instrumental benefit for a decision maker moving from being moderately assertive to become highly assertive. Lazenby (2015) study findings also support the second assumption (H2) that the condition of moderate assertiveness will positively influence the decision makers’ instrumental outcomes and social outcomes. He observed that the condition of moderate assertiveness was considerably higher as compared to both the high as well as low assertiveness conditions with regard to effectiveness of the decisions made by leaders. Regarding instrumental outcomes, Lazenby (2015) observed there was insignificant difference between high and moderate assertiveness condition; therefore, there will be no instrumental benefit for a decision maker moving from high to moderate assertiveness. As hypothesised in H3, the condition of low assertiveness was to a larger extent lower as compared to the moderate as well as high assertiveness conditions for leadership effectiveness and instrumental outcomes. Findings from Ergeneli et al. (2011, p.86) support the fourth assumption (H4) that assertiveness is associated positively with the conflict management styles of compromising, integrating and dominating in conflict with decision makers. Such finding concur with the assertion that negotiators who are assertive are inclined to achieve their set goals; therefore, getting an enormous share in situations deemed to be in conflict. Besides that, it was established that showing higher assertiveness levels is related positively to the utilisation of effective strategies for conflict resolution peers. According to Ergeneli et al. (2011, p.86) the relationships between assertiveness as well as integrating, obliging and compromising when managing conflicting situations between decision makers is not significant. It was found out that there is a considerable relationship between assertiveness as well as with decision-making power of the managers. Managers can generate rich contact environment and successful interaction by means of non-verbal and verbal physical environment through increased self-esteem, confidence, self-satisfaction as well as positive self-gratification. More importantly, when managers improve their skills and knowledge, they can easily resist individuals that could induce incompetency to them using powerful words. Individuals lacking control over their lives cannot decline the irrational demands made by other people and hardly handle life issues. As established by Jazaei and Mohammadi (2016, p.72), an open-door policy shows deficiencies; therefore, it is imperative to train managers to acknowledge their shortcoming and look for solutions that could enable them make accurate decisions. 3.0 Discussion According to Masters (2005, p.1), corporations spend a lot of money every year to upgrade their employees’ customer service, sales as well as technical skills. The majority of these companies do not understand that assertiveness training have positive influence on profitability, productivity and customer satisfaction. Therefore, providing assertiveness training can help companies show their workers how to handle problems associated with decision making through negotiation as well as cooperation. Masters (2005, p.1) observed numerous benefits associated with assertiveness; for instance, all problems normally have a win-win solution. Basically, assertive leader inquires from other parties or persons regarding what they want before negotiating quickly a solution that all and sundry could live with. Given that most of the problems in assertive workplace are solved very fast, tensions such as frustration and resentment which often lead to poor decisions are minimised. Employees through assertiveness training are transformed to become problem-solvers instead of sufferers of a system deemed uncontrollable. Whereas victims often feel like they are paralysed, assertive individuals are always empowered to search for suitable solutions to the problem. Clearly, assertive behaviour lessens mental as well as physical stress at the place of work since people start feeling less influencers, and not victims. In assertive workplace, employees start acting and stop procrastinating. Furthermore, communication in an assertive workplace is more concise and clearer; therefore, misunderstandings are reduced tremendously. In this type of work environment, employees speak their minds and voice their opinions. They become less frightened that their views, opinions or ideas would be ignored, ridiculed or shunned. Persons in assertive workplace focus on what they can control, instead of things that are beyond their control. It is easier for an employee to control how he/she responds to a particular situation; however, he/she cannot control how other employees respond. Assertive decision makers are more confident and have communication skills that enable them to pursue what they want. As indicated by Ames (2009, p.130), some assertiveness appears crucial to organisational and interpersonal effectiveness. Still, high assertiveness as observed by Lazenby (2015) could be a bad thing. Scores of failed leaders as well as managers appear to come together at the end of low assertiveness condition. Clearly, under-assertive leaders are liked by many employees, but they often fail to make right decision or deliver on task objectives. On the other hand, over-assertive managers are deemed to be very bitter; thus, putting their relationships with others at risk. Evidently, getting the ‘right’ assertiveness seems very challenging to the majority of leaders. In their study, Ergeneli et al. (2011, p.88) established that high assertiveness exhibited high problem orientation, better formulation and definition skills; thus, it makes managers to see themselves as being capable to effectively respond to issues. Ergeneli et al. (2011, p.88) suggest that companies should find ways of improving the assertiveness effects on conflict management styles. They argued that there was a positive relationship between effective problem solving and assertiveness; therefore, increasing assertiveness is personally as well as organisationally functional. As decisions makers in companies, managers should understand how assertiveness is a crucial tool for resolving conflicts successfully. In so doing, they can design organisational interventions accordingly. As mentioned by Friedley (1982, p.13), increased assertiveness results in increased self-confidence as well as self-esteem particularly amongst the women. Besides that, interpersonal communication style according to the majority of advocates of assertive communication in the workplace is beneficial, especially when the workers achieve their complete legal, social, and economic rights. Friedley (1982, p.13) posit that the communication style effects differ with the communicator’s sex. Still, assertive act is normally considered valuable when the communicator is male instead of a female. The majority of Finnish as well as Swedish leaders as cited by Lämsä (2010, p.147) consider assertiveness as well as rapid decision-making as more advantageous. In this case, assertiveness is considered as the practice of behaviours that allow these leaders to stand for themselves without fearing. A number of studies such as Singhal and Nagao (1993) consider assertiveness as a social competence measure or an indication of competence in interpersonal communication. Basically, communication competence can be described as the decision makers’ ability to select communication behaviours so as to accomplish their interpersonal goals successfully. For instance, in the United States assertive behaviours are considered to be more attractive and competent as compared to unassertive behaviours while assertiveness is deemed to be a key attribute of a competent communicator (Singhal & Nagao, 1993, p.6). Given that assertiveness perceptions are often impacted by factors like individual’s gender, assertion level, situational context as well as culture, Singhal and Nagao (1993, p.6) posit that communication competence could be viewed in a different way in other cultural contexts. Given that assertive leaders normally value employees feelings, beliefs, and events above those of other people or groups, Singhal and Nagao (1993, p.6) maintain that assertiveness is considered to focus more on interpersonal-oriented behaviour of the employees (individualistic and not collectivistic). Furthermore, Assertiveness is deemed as the violation of role of sex for women since they are evaluated less positively for similar assertive behaviours as compared to the men. According to Enriquez-De-La-O (2015, p.13), assertive decisions that are made by individuals occupying the high positions are important for developing sustainable competitive advantage. This assertiveness is often provided by good experience; therefore, an effective leader should make decisions which have positive as well as significant effect on the whole organisation, its results and performance typifies the assertive behaviour. 4.0 Conclusion In conclusion, this report has outlined the relationship between assertiveness and decision making. As mentioned in the report, because managers normally participate in formulation of strategy, the process of formulation relies mainly on the assertive decisions made. Therefore, making right and good is a very challenging process, especially in the modern-day business world where there is large volume of information and where people are forced to make decisions devoid of complete information. Assertiveness as emphasised in the report taking into account own rights desires, wants, wishes, and needs as well as those of others. Furthermore, assertiveness is related with motivating others people to become honest and open regarding their opinions, desires, views, and feelings. In an assertive workplace, the managers pay attention to the employees’ opinions and responding appropriately, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with those views. Assertiveness enables employees to maintain self-control, admit to their mistakes and express regret, and conduct themselves as equal to others. 5.0 Recommendations In order for a company to become an assertive workplace, where right and good decisions are made, the managers should allow employees to ask what they want and make them believe that they have the right to inquire and give views. Companies should understand that acting assertively can lead to development of self worth as well as self-control. In view of this, the right approach should be chosen considering that assertiveness is concerned with making the right decisions and choices that enable decision makers to meet the needs of a specific situation or develop solution for a problem. Besides that, managers should practice using a winning language so as to project a positive image. In addition, the managers should create a positive impression that would enable employees understand the seriousness of a situation. Clearly understanding the nonverbal communication signals may enable managers to build rapport and respond to situations and problems more effectively. 6.0 References Ames, D., 2009. Pushing up to a point: Assertiveness and effectiveness in leadership and interpersonal dynamics. Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 29, pp.111–33. Beck, R. & Harter, J., 2014. Why Good Managers Are So Rare. [Online] Available at: https://hbr.org/2014/03/why-good-managers-are-so-rare [Accessed 7 January 2017]. Enriquez-De-La-O, J.F., 2015. Individual decision-making by top executives as a valuable resource for strategic management. Budapest Management Review, vol. 46, no. 11, pp.2-14. Ergeneli, A., Karapınar, P.B. & Camgöz, S.M., 2011. THE EFFECT OF ASSERTIVENESS ON CONFLICT HANDLING STYLES. Ana Sayfa , vol. 29, no. 2, pp.69-93. Friedley, S.A., 1982. Assertiveness: To Be or Not To Be. In Annual Meeting of the Eastern Communication Association. Hartford, CT, 1982. Jazaei, M. & Mohammadi, A., 2016. INVESTIGATING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ASSERTIVENESS AND DECISION-MAKING POWER OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION MANAGERS, ZANJAN CITY, IRAN. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, vol. 6, no. 3, pp.66-73. Lämsä, T., 2010. Leadership Styles and Decision-making in Finnish and Swedish Organizations. Review of International Comparative Management, vol. 11, no. 1, pp.139-49. Lazenby, C.-L., 2015. Assertiveness and leadership perceptions : the role of gender and leader-member exchange. Thesis. Lethbridge: University of Lethbridge. Masters, H.P., 2005. The Benefits of Being Assertive. A Quarterly Newsletter, vol. 8, no. 2, pp.1-2. Singhal, A. & Nagao, M., 1993. Assertiveness as communication competence a comparison of the communication styles of American and Japanese students. Asian Journal of Communication, vol. 3, no. 1, pp.1-18. Read More