26.10.2014 Views

„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

6. Mutuality: accepting another person as equal and demonstrating willingness to<br />

negotiate issues from a win-win stance.<br />

These values provide a foundation for assertiveness training that is similar to the<br />

values foundation underlying current trends in human relations, customer service, and<br />

communication-skills training; they are also consistent with recently published<br />

directions in HRD and organizational philosophy and culture (Deal & Kennedy, 1982;<br />

Naisbitt, 1982; Peters & Austin, 1985; Naisbitt & Aburdene, 1985).<br />

2. The Definition of “Assertiveness”<br />

Assertiveness is generally defined as the ability to express oneself honestly without<br />

denying the rights of others. This definition holds the notion of appropriateness in that<br />

there are limits to self-expression; those limits are the boundaries of others’ rights to be<br />

treated decently, without demands, coercion, or judgment. Therefore, one is not<br />

assertive without being conscious of the means by which one expresses oneself. Also,<br />

the definition does not carry the mandate that one must express oneself; one is not<br />

compelled to say one’s truth at every turn. Instead, one has the right to talk about the full<br />

range of thoughts and feelings if so desired, as long as that talk is not punitive to others.<br />

Some definitions include additional behaviors, such as being direct (Back & Back,<br />

1982), listening to others (Cawood, 1983), and expressing positive feelings (Alberti &<br />

Emmons, 1975). Other definitions include how to express oneself, such as by feeling a<br />

low degree of anxiety (Cawood, 1983), exercising assertive rights (Smith, 1975), and<br />

maintaining self-respect (Baer, 1976). Still others focus on acting in one’s own best<br />

interest as the rubric under which assertiveness falls, which may mean not expressing<br />

oneself honestly (Alberti, 1975). Finally, assertiveness is often defined by saying what it<br />

is not: aggressiveness, passivity, or passive-aggressiveness (see Figure 1). The concept<br />

of assertive rights mentioned in some definitions brings us to the third dimension.<br />

3. The Scope (Rights) of Assertiveness<br />

Assertive rights are derived from our basic democratic rights. As human beings, we are<br />

born with certain rights, allegedly supported by our democratic tradition. The assertive<br />

rights that follow are those generally delineated in the literature:<br />

1. To express thoughts and feelings. For example, an employee has the right to say<br />

to his or her supervisor, “I’m angry because I didn’t get any overtime this week.”<br />

2. To have thoughts, feelings, and rights respected. For example, the employee in<br />

the previous example has the right to expect the supervisor to respond, “I respect your<br />

right to your feelings in this matter.”<br />

3. To be listened to and taken seriously. For example, the same employee also has<br />

the right to expect the supervisor to respond, “I understand that you’re angry that there<br />

was no extra work; perhaps you can have overtime next week.”<br />

342 ❘❚<br />

The Pfeiffer Library Volume 6, 2nd Edition. Copyright ©1998 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!