Reflection Paper 2 - Essay Example

Social Styles and Communication The essay aims to address the following objectives to learn about the differences in the four primary communication or social styles, (2) to identify your own communication style or preference, and (3) to learn on how to deal with and communicate with the chosen communication style. Social Styles and Communication Introduction Communication is a complex process and involves transfer of information from the sender to the receiver. The key tool in understanding a person’s personality and behavior lies on the process of observation and social interaction.

Social psychologists David W. Merill and Roger H. Reid defined social styles as the ability to help others understand things (Thompson, 2002, p. 21). During an interview, social styles are applied to communication so that both persons helped each other understand what they are saying and conflicts can be prevented. There are four social styles identified by Merill and Reid, namely: direct (driver), spirited (expressive), considerate (amiable), and systematic (analytical) social styles. Each of the four styles is unique from each other depending on the level of assertiveness and responsiveness.

Assertiveness is the degree in which a person influences other people either by directly telling them what they think or asking other people’s thoughts before they tell their own thoughts. Meanwhile, responsiveness is the manner by which a person responds to other peoples comment either through used of factual words or conveyance of emotional words or gestures (Thompson, 2002, p. 23). Direct (Driver) social style has high assertiveness and controls emotions. People of this style by are decisive, has formal speech, direct eye contact, maintain physical distance, coercive and poor listener.

The spirited (expressive) type displays emotions and has high level of assertiveness. They express opinions readily, have lots of voice inflections and close physical space, enthusiastic, and don’t listen to details. The considerate (amiable) has low level of assertiveness and displays emotions. They tend to listen and act gently but do not offer opinions. Lastly, the systematic (analytical) type has controlled emotion and low level of assertiveness. Analytical persons focus on precise and specific details and avoid emotions and touching.

Understanding Systematic Social Style Upon reflection of my behavioral actions, I had identified myself as a systematic (analytical) type of person. I highly valued logic, ideas, and systematic inquiry in every endeavor. I tend to avoid emotional connections with people as well as expressing ideas emotionally. Rather, I made my decisions based on facts, observations, and reasoning. Before deliberating a project, I make sure to weigh the alternatives and stabilize the situation. I usually focus on books and theories rather than opinionated suggestions.

Suggested Strategies When Dealing with the Systematic (Analytical) People When planning a physical contact with systematic people, be sure to send a personal letter with specific and detailed information before meeting them. Establish competency based on knowledge and technical skills by being on time, by offering evidence and facts, and by deliberately answering their questions (Siguaw & Bojanic, 2004, p. 39). There are times when systematic will show you weak areas for improvement. If systematic think that you didn’t match the competition, do not argue and try to make assertions you cannot prove; instead, admit it.

Be alert for objections based on skepticism and suggest contingency plans. In dealing with systematic, proving them that you have the desire to give the best offer counts a lot. Since systematic (analytical) type valued facts, researches, figures, and evidences, suggest a trial test for the proposal and submit studies illustrating scientific conduct and applications (Siguaw & Bojanic, 2004, p. 38). As an individual possessing the systematic style, I am aware that the style accords strength in problem solving and in decision making process by using a rational approach.

On the other hand, weakness is eminent in terms of considering interpersonal relationships with others and in making negotiations. To improve my social style, therefore, I should integrate positive aspects of the systematic style, with other social styles (spirited, direct and considerate) by balancing the characteristics to assist in a more holistic relationship with others. References Siguaw, J.A. & Bojanic, D.C. (2004). Approach by Adapting Social Style. Hospitality Sales: Selling Smarter (p. 29-54) New York: Delmar Learning.

Thompson, C.B. (2002). How Can I connect with the Person I’m Interviewing. Interviewing Techniques for Managers (p. 17-43) New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.