Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • CH 8 (Monipally)

    Uploaded by

    Rakesh Kumar
    6 views17 pages

    Original Title

    ch 8 (monipally)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views17 pages

    CH 8 (Monipally)

    Uploaded by

    Rakesh Kumar

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 17
    _ pay A\sserTIVE Communication T* dead body of 22-year-old Renuka Ranjan, a first year MBA student, was picked up from a sewage canal between Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar on October 24, 2010. The young woman had been missing since October 21. That evening she had called her brother to say that she was still in the library and would be late getting home. Soon after, her cellphone was switched off. There were no further calls from her. The post-mortem examination confirmed that the death was caused by drowning because water had entered the lungs. There were no signs of rape or injuries pointing to an assault. The police started investigating the case assuming that it was a suicide or an accidental death although thev did not rule out murder. Renuka Ranjan had been engaged to Sanjay Kumar, an engineering student and the son of a local builder and political leader. Both the families had been waiting for them to complete their studies, marry, and settle down. Both the families asserted that Renuka was not the kind that would commit suicide and that it was a clear case of murder by someone who knew her. A shallow sewage canal was hardly the place where a healthy young woman would get drowned. But no one could point a finger at anyone who would want to kill her. Sanjay’s father Chandra Kumar suspected that perhaps one of his many political enemies was the killer. In five days the police cracked the case building on certain Facebook messages. The woman had been murdered by her fiancé, Sanjay, with the help of his friend, Haresh Patel. They admitted ‘0 the police that on the evening of October 21, they met Renuka and persuaded her to lie to her brother that she was still in the library nearly an hour after she had left the college premises, They told her that they wanted to give her a surprise. All three got into Sanjay’s car and went for a long drive. During the drive they gave her a soft drink mixed with a sedative. Once she ‘Wes unconscious, Sanjay made several calls to her cellphone and then switched it off. Then they drove to Drive-In Cinema, parked the car there, and used a cushion to smother her. They drove Cut, and assuming that she was dead, dumped the body and the cellphone in a sewage canal. Next, Sanjay called Renuka’s brother and told him that she had not been picking up his repeated calls, and that now her cellphone was switched off. a p The nw ; ioe ™ eo yeas men thought that they had pulled off a smart murder. They had th Sie ening of October 21, they were watching a film at Drive-In Cinema eee edly to call her until she switched off her cellphone. They were the fir ry t onal * 114 Business Communication brother. More ore background information surfaced during the investigation. oe sia rich builder-politician, Sanjay had a flat, a car, and a lot of cash to s avishly on his friends. Haresh, his closest and long-term friend, was a eens 1 s iciary largesse. Renuka had been engaged toa doctor: was called off in 2008. Her father Adit working as chief engineer in Sanjay’s father Chandra Kumar's construction come Ranjan an (Trupti Desai), which ended in 2009 when a SNE Moy Sanjay had an affair with a classmate with her parents t0 Dubai, He was dejected. Chandra Kumar suggested to Aditya if Sanjay and Renuka married, it would be good for both of them. Aditya sak iin i it cid, ‘got engaged ata grand function. They used to mest ‘occasionally. There did not appear toy oben problem between them. Sanjay, however, got in touch with Trupti on Facebook and their relationship was She came to Ahmedabad during Navratri in October 2010. Sanjay managed 10 vadene of the nine evenings of that festival with her. Renuka didn’t know or suspect iigtigae = ed to marry Trupti, So he asked Haresh to persuade Renuka to break of & fond ou how Renuka would react, Haresh casually asked! her what shew ce off the engagement and married another girl. She said she ddathavt engagement. aa ded that getting rid of Renuka Sanjay want engagement. To do if Sanjay bro! heart to go through yet another Both Sanjay and Haresh conclu situation. (Reconst was the only way out ofthe sc medabad editions of DNA and The Times of Inis jorts in the Ahi ged in the interest ofp rructed from news rep 1, 2010. Names have been chan} during October 25-3 s tragedy is the failure of several charates: id ideas with some clarity to certain meake say that this is a purely pest hink so. Whether at home tt Jay enough clues ot to them: it wile! that accommod® yok ng at the core of thi tively, to disclose their feelings an circle of friends. Some of us may be tempted to on our work life. We would be wrong to tl + with people and have to disp! jgure out our ideas an sis our feedback helps them mould their ina way orkplace may Ni fers but it can certain fessional growll satisfaction, and hors of self-disclosure i h to manage our Pe nication is nothing los ework to analyse self This is an unnecessary death. Ly’ ‘communicate asse of their family and affair with little bearing work, we have to interac those we work with can fi always please them, but it our needs. Poor self-disclosure at the w' a toxic environment that hampers Pry We have to meet the challenge | lives well ‘Assertive commut ry after setting UP a fram‘ manage them. We d feelings. Thi response towards us jot lead to murd h, destroys job s f we wish but tactful s If-dist jisclosure: organisation. and professional We shall revisit Renuka’s stor 2. = Seen seer ut Assertive Communication 115 ye challenge of Self-Disclosure Tl We have seen in Chapter 2 that we cannot let others into our inner self to show them what we think The only option available to us isto display a few clues and hope that our eommunicatecs feel or Re thoughts and feelings reasonably accurately. We , f rane oral successful in displaying appropriate chu generally i diners there are occasions when the clues We display are grossly inadequate, even misleading. nd we may never know that they have been inappropriate. So we need to analyse the way we display clues to share with others what we think and feel, Broadly, our self-disclosure appeats to fall anywhere between two extreme approaches to displaying clues to our meaning: crippled display and uninhibited display Crippled display results intmid, grossly inadequate communication while uninhibited display leads to aggressive, arrowant communication that may arouse animosity. les and making sense of those displayed by Crippled display This approach is built on fear, diffidence, and low selfesteem. Those who adopt this approach withhold from their communicate many essential clues to their true thoughts and feelings. Not because they want to, but because they are afraid of what they imagine to be the consequence Or because they do not believe in their own rights or strengths. They are overwhelmed by others? power and claims to power, some absolutely unfounded. They are worried about any dent to their image in the eyes of the communicatee if they let her know some of their thoughts and feelings, They consider it easier and safer to restrict the constellation of clues that they display and hide their true ideas from others. This, however, doesn't stop the communicatee from arriving at he - inferences, They are buffeted by questions like the following. What would she think of me if I said this? Would he stop liking me or trusting me if he got to know what I really think or feel? Would my boss become angry and withhold my promotion if I pointed out some of the glaring mistakes in her proposal? Would my colleague be hurt if I told him that I would like to work on another colleague's project rather than his? Would my subordinate hate me if refused his request although itis unreasonable? Would my boss turn nasty and make life hell for me if made it clear to him that I did not want a ride in his car? Giving such questions the most pessimistic answers possible, some sheepish communicators hold themselves back from disclosing their authentic thoughts and feelings. The pressure on them 's particularly intense in collectivist cultures where the individual is often sacrificed at the altar of the community's welfare. Even in individualist cultures, members of certain groups (women and unskilled or semiskilled workers, for example) may feel similar pressures more intensely than others, Apart from withholding essential clues, they also choose ambiguous clues that may be easily interpreted in multiple ways. Silence, for example, can, among other things, mean acceptance, jieetion, reluctant acceptance, reluctant rejection, protest, acquiescence, coyness, indifference, ‘nd ignorance. Some of those inferences will obviously be wrong because they can’t all be right. 116 Business Communication Unable to tell co-worker clearly thathis sexually colored comments and behaviour are nye, @ woman may start avoiding him, In the absence of other clues that reliably confirm yy." considers his actions as harassment, the co-worker may arrive at any one of those conclusion suits him and continue his behaviour. Diffident communicators hide behind such ambipy, believe that they can escape responsibility for any particular inference their Communicates. draw. _ Communicators, whose self-disclosure is crippled by such factors, often ‘beat about th unable to specify clearly what they want or how they feel. They hope that the communicate y, cut through their verbiage and infer a safe message. Again, they want the communicates tot responsibility. Diffident communicators don’t come to the point quickly. They believe thy have to give the entire background and justification before they come to the point they yay, ‘make. The communicatee, who may not have the time or inclination to listen to Such long sn, may cut them short before they have said what they wanted to, © ay Not Speaking up can Bring Planes Down Ina fascinating analysis of several airplane crashes Malcolm Gladwell (2008, pp. 177-223) says: “The iy of errors that cause plane crashes are invariably errors of teamwork and communication. One pilot nw, something important and somehow doesn't tell the other plot. One pilot does something wrong, ands ‘other pilot doesn’t catch the error” He points out hat the 1997 Korean Air crash, which he analyses in cegn, could have been avoided ifthe frst officer had communicated his concerns more confidently and asserive, tothe captain. He points finger at the extraordinary deference the junior partner shows the captain becass of Asian cultural expectations. He also talks about avoidable crashes caused by pilots facing emergency conditions; they do not make ther requests to air trafic controllers crisp and clear. In the 1990 Avianca (Colombian airliner) crash, for exams the aircraft ran out of fuel while approaching New York City’s Kennedy Airport to land. While ciring 29 minutes, the first officer was hoping that the air traffic controller he was communicating with would tle his hints about an emergency seriously and accommodate his requests accordingly. Although the plane was dangerously low on fuel, he didn’t insist on jumping the queue. Gladwell’s analysis was recalled when the cause of an Air India Express flight from Dubal that crashed nx Mangalore airport on May 22, 2010 was analysed by aviation experts. The first officer, an Indian, had ta communicated assertively with the expat captain. As we have noted in Chapter 6, hierarchies can bee) steep in India Source: Malcolm Gladwell 200 Such communicators live in constant fear. They don’t think they can control anyone orantse others control their actions and determine their reactions. They do not expect to be consult! consulted, they don’t expect to be taken seriously. Even if they have ideas that are differen and superior to those of others, they prefer to swim with the crowd. As a result of this pos Unassertive attitude, they constantly look for others” approval and support. They are unable! no to even unreasonable requests. This self-inflicted behavior inevitably leads to multiple com which they are unable to resolve in a way that satisfies themselves or anyone else. Faced witls*” conflicts and pressures from multiple directions they stay paralysed or run avvay. In the pe a NIE _—— i Pp er A Assertive Communicotion 117 hurt themselves and others ~ an outcome th they *Y Want to prevent by holding back their thoughts nj feelings from their communicates MWe see such timid oF crippled displays of clueg i many organisations. Many managers lie to many made a mistake. They lie because they are sied about the impact such honest admission will have on a image of the company casomer service. They believe that such les will protect thew joss of customers. They may getaway with lies fora while bas out te trth and make it public causing far severer damage tn crit ofits promises than admission ofa mistake would cy individual managers nor forthe organisations they reprevers Lying is common within organisations, and peers because they are afraid of the c or its ‘ompany’s reputation and prevent some customers are likely to find the company’s reputation and the fer have. It is good neither for those ‘0. Some managers lie to their bosses, subordinates, en uenees of telling the truth, The relief they get from i aken by the fear of being found out. And whe, they are fund out, their credibility will have been damaged ineparably Uninhibited display Communicators who adopt this approach display characterises that are exactly opposite to those ofthe erippled-display group. These unabashed on They take control not only of themselv. forcefully, ruling out any other options, th: s but also of others. They present their demands so they interact with people who want to avoi at they generally get what they want especially when confrontation at all costs. If they don't get what they want they are willing to fight for what they consider thers. It does not mater, the least what others think of them, their claims, and their tactics, They don’t mind hurting or denigrating others inthe pursuit of getting what they want. ‘They jump to conclusions about others’ motives without any hesitation even when they have sossly inadequate data to base their conclusions on, They can, for example, call a person lazy ‘when all they have observed is that he did not complete certain taske assigned to him by the deadline. They don’t feel the need to e tentative because they are always sure of their conclusions ferences, ranareatest obstacle to discovering the shape ofthe earth the continents, and the ocean was no igno- | ‘ance but theilision of knowledge. | Daniel J. Boorstin (1983) They may outshout others when they ‘tone that does not encourage dissent o speak. If itis the written medium they use, they adopt ‘etions and recommendations beca F even discussion. There is an air of finality about their se they believe that they have thought through everything and 118 Business Communication what they propose is the best. They are convinced of their superiority and intensely avare of, Fights, They don’t respect others or their rights especially those in conflict with their ov," don’t feel the need to listen carefully to others because they think they already know what oh. are going to say. They take absence of open defiance from peers or subordinates or friends as, of acceptance. They dismiss any opposition as foolish and misguided. Naturally, they don’ ha it necessary to examine the points raised by those who disagree with them. Timid and diffident communicatees follow their instructions without questioning. If they hy, reservations, the timid don’t reveal them. They bottle up any resentment they feel. While abseny of opposition may lead to quick decision-making, some of the decisions so taken can becing seriously flawed because the decision-makers fail to take into account certain aspects of jy problems they try to solve. If their communicatees also are bold and aggressive like them, a verbal shootout is inevitable place of the unquestioned compliance that they expect. Such encounters lead to avoidable los resources and to dysfunctional relationships. Changing Self-disclosure Styles The discussion so far may give the impression that an individual has a fixed approach to set disclosure that falls at a particular point between these two extremes. That is not so. An individuals style of self-disclosure moves between these two extremes depending on the context and the kind of communicatees she has to interact with. With some communicates we are comfortable revealing our real selves, We prove unambiguous clues for them to figure out our thoughts and feelings. With some others we ae uncomfortable revealing ourselves and so we clam up; yet we expect them to understand us correctly. Thus a manager may readily share with her colleague what she thinks of their common boss: an idiot whose planning is pathetic and whose targets are absurdly unrealistic. She may be eloquent in her criticism which she may bolster with facts and figures. She may talk abou how the boss should be managing certain things and why. During a departmental meeting wher these plans and targets are discussed, however, the same manager may not point out any faws o offer any suggestions because she’s afraid her ideas would attract unpleasant consequences. Int meanwhile, the boss assumes that the whole department is solidly behind him supporting his pass and working hard to achieve the targets he has set. Similarly, a manager may be arrogant and aggressive in his dealings with subordinates. le ‘may order them about without giving them any opportunity to express their views or choies He may criticise them in public when they don’t live up to his expectations. He may not show them any respect but treat them shabbily. He may be arbitrary in the way he assigns rewards ba punishments. A ferocious tiger in front of them, he may shrink to a kitten when he gets home: He may be afraid of his wife and may find himself tongue-tied when he tries to explain why heis 2 He may employ indirect strategies and hope that she gets his message ; A jailer may be dictatorial in his communication with the prisoners. He may refuse (0 ee even legitimate requests that they make. Abusing his power over them he may take blatantly - decisions regarding the work they have to do or allocation of resources. He may, howevet —_ ‘Assertive Communication 119 ss. He may efface himself and do whatever his &, : wi completely different man when he meets his bo Ne lue to his real fe rans him to. He does not give the boss any e ss W ms and ideas; he may merely ah ‘ewith whatever he has been ordered to do, fh ae we ean see that we don’t have a fixed self-disclosure style. We adopt different styles \ afing on Who We are Communicating With and w FAL gisclosure. nt \G\ Tactful SetfDisclosure: Being Assertive "ay While itis neither desirable nor feasible to have a fced style of self-disclosure irrespective of PN the context and purpose of communication, we have to aveid swings from one extreme to the oer just because the context or the communicate hae Changed. We should, instead, adopt a relatively stable and assertive communication style that incorporates ac strengths of the two approaches to self-disclosure and avoids their out personality, priorities, values, strengths, an; eas tact assertive self-disclosure, It is built on selZconfdenee ‘ig and respect for others. The degree of self-disclosure ‘ky consequences or ack of respect forthe communicate, required in the context for maxinrum impact, mj The comerstone of tactful self-disclosure or ass ‘ez commitment to everyone's right to express thems aaj, without stepping on their toes. When you stand style can be best described authenticity, respect for self, is determined not by the fear of negative but by informed judgement about what is ertive communication is a firm belief in and elves without disregarding others’ rights and 4p for your rights, you should expect some be Asserting your rights without trampling upon others’ right is the best Policy in the long term th _peonuse it establishes faimess and respect for one another It lads to-a beter ce for everyone. Standing up to a bully and. Tevealing one’s intentions clearly and firmly runs the risk of retaliation, ch Putquite often the surprising consequence is the bully’s admiration and grudging respect. Tn tactful self-disclosure, you decide how much of your self — your ideas, your feelings, your beliefs ~ you should reveal and in what fashion in a given conters of ‘communication, There are Seeasions when you don't have to present your views unless You are specifically asked to. Similarly, eae tetsions when you don’t have to pass judgement; all you are required todo may be to arnt cts without any distortion, You may come to your own conchusions based on those facts, but you may decide not to share ‘your conclusion with others either because you don't have enough Sience or because it isnot your job to provide it If passing judgement i your responsibility ~&5 in the case of deciding who among a few candidates should be hited, or who among several Tameers should be promoted or let go ~ you will strive for an objective judgement rather than “Nitto others. If required, you should be able to talk about why you took those decisions. EE wena awe 120 Business Communication The Boulder and the Sapling Having made up my mind to leave DCM rather than cower in front of my boss's sidekick, | was now siting eros: Brhespat Dev Pathak [respected and trusted by tala Shriram’ family which owned OCMI,a manna than three times my age and inthe ultimate position of power. After listening to my explanation al he ateg was, Have you ever seen a seed sprouting from under a big boulder?” "Yes, sit! "When the seed is under the huge rack, who has the upper hand, the greater power?” ‘The rock, sir? “Precisely. The relative balance of power is in favour of the rock. The rock can crush the sapling, The sapling, however, does not assert itself, does not fight the rock and keeps growing along its side. And one dy, same sapling has become a huge tree. At that time, where do you think the rock sits?” | kept quiet. ‘ttremains at the foot of the tree forever.’ ‘The message was clear. As a sapling, | was choosing to fight the rack. Pathak wanted me to circumvent it took back my resignation, walked to the errant man’s desk and gave him a hug, Source: Subroto Bagchi (2008, p84) There are times when you have to be tentative. There is nothing wrong in sounding tentative if that is the truth. Similarly, there may be contexts where it is best to sound a little tentative © involve the communicatee. If you sound tentative, it should be your decision. Tactful self-disclosure assumes that your views deserve to be listened to. Because you respst yourself, you have no difficulty engaging in a conversation with anyone ~ friends, colleagues superiors, experts, and strangers, for example. You are not overawed by anyone. You respet others, but don’t grovel before them irrespective of the power they wield. Even if you are tactful and assertive, you may not always get what you want — life never unfolds that way — but that will not stop you from revealing what you want. Perhaps you have discove through repeated experiences that you don't get what you want if you don’t let others know whi you want. Hiding it or couching it in vague and indirect expressions fearing rejection alm guarantees rejection because others are unlikely to go out of their way to figure out, in the absent of reasonable clues, what you really want. When you say you can’t go to a party b a splitting headache, all you want may be a litle bit of coaxing to indicate that your friends them; but they may take you literally and leave for the party after advisin ally yout? want you to jo! take a painkiller and go to sleep. s Choosing to accept or reject unreasonable requests is part of assertive communicalio® assess the likely consequences of both and decide what you want to do. If accepting he et en if the wen i means that you have to perform something illegal or unethical, you will want to say no © refusal leads to unpleasant consequences for yourself in the short term. Be : a itpav If however, accepting an unreasonable request with no illegal or unethical angle (0 PKs ir example, that yout bos way fora desirable trade-off, you may want to say yes. Imagine, for example, that YOU gy i t0 cancel your annual holiday (which you are all set to spend with your spo a Assertive Communication 121 reson and work because of an emergency. There is no ethical or legal angle to this request. You take decision ~ yes or no ~ based on various factors including any attractive compensation for the inconvenience you ae put (0 oF any unusual learning you yet from the new assignment. What matters is that it is your decision based on your assessment; you are not following your boss's decision resentfully because you are afraid of the negative consequences of saying no ‘That you are comfortable disclo: 1gs and ideas does not necessarily make you an open book. There are occasions when the best course of action is holding back your real view and keeping others guessing, Premature revelation of your real view or action plan may hurt your business strategies. You may want to keep others guessing about your real view or the way you are going to act. Again, you decide what you want to conceal, what you want to reveal, and when In tatful disclosure you take charge of your communication instead of allowing others to dictate ‘what you should be doing, Tactful self-disclosure is built on both respect for self an your ideas and beliefs with others you will avoid offending ot unnecessarily blunt or utter criticisms in public when a private Ifyou are tactful, you will be aware of and make allowance: in your community. In Indian culture, for example, you ma organization if you keep criticizing the boss in public. The assertive person, says Robert Bolton (1986, p. 126), “ which enable her to maintain self-respect, pursue happiness defend her rights and personal space without abusing or dot assertiveness as \d respect for others. In sharing hers, if possible; you will not be conversation is more than enough s for the cultural values prevalent vy find it difficult to survive in an ‘utilises methods of communication and the satisfaction of her needs, and minating other people.” He describes “the way of being in the world which confirms one’s own individual worth and dignity while simultaneously confirming and maintaining the worth of others.” Deciding on the extent of self-disclosure is like maintaining your balance while riding a bicycle There is nothing fixed about it. You may have to tit a little to the left or to the right to make sure ‘hat you maintain your balance. You have to be constantly alert to make sure that you don’t fall off the bicycle. Renuka’s Murder ~ Revisited Let's find out what role was played by crippled self ‘he events leading to Renuka’s murder. Both Renuka and Sanjay Kumar had been hurt by the failure of their previous relationships. We don't know why Renuka’s previous engagement had been called off and who had taken the halative then. Whatever the cause, it is reasonable to assume that the break-up was not easy for ine ‘ake in her stride. Like any woman in her position, she would have made an emotional “Nestment in her fiancé after the engagement. closure or non-assertive communication in is né don’t know what conversation she had with her father when he brought her the news that 's boss Chandra Kumar had suggested marriage between her and Sanjay. She doesn’t appear to * objected to the proposal. We don’t know if this is because it came as a relief or because she 122 susiness Communication ’ did not want to disappoint her father, who might have been saddened by her plight. Perhaps father was keen on the new relationship because the boy’s father was rich and influential, Per her father did not welcome Kumar's proposal but could not say no to his employer. As we haves, clear information about this part of the story, we shall nat speculate on what happened, Al we cy say is that if either Renuka or her father had any reservation about the new relationship, nei, of them seems to have voiced it loudly enough to be heard. In the absence of any expression reservations by them, Chandra Kumar probably thought that he was doing them a favour while helping his son get over his grief. We don’t know whether Sanjay and Trupti had quarreled and broken up before she left for Dubai, as some newspaper reports suggest. The fact that he gotin touch with her through Facebook (presumably in the absence of her contact number in Dubai) seems to corroborate the newspaper reports. That he re-established the relationship and carried on a conversation with her via Facebock even after his engagement to Renuka prompts us to infer that he vas most probably not ready fr the engagement to Renuka. \ But there is no evidence of his having objected to the engagement. If he was trying to revive his relationship with Trupti, why did he not tell his father that he did not want to marry Renuka? He could have at least said that he didn’t want to rush into a new relationship. After all, he hada, finished college. Did he meekly go along because he was worried that his supply of cash would dry up if he did not toe his father’s line? It is almost certain that Sanjay did not give his father any clue to his real ideas and feelings towards his existing and proposed relationships. Chandra Kumar appears to have been somewhat dictatorial in his relationship with his son Being a successful builder and a political leader, he was probably too sure of himself. Perhaps he did not think it necessary to seek his son’s views on the alliance he had proposed. He askel Sanjay to get engaged to Renuka because he knew this was an excellent solution to a common problem faced by them. Here we seem to have a conversation between a father who is uninhibited in expressing his views and a son who is afraid to indicate his own. Sanjay seems to have adopted the same timid approach in his relationship with Renuka. Ifhe wanted to marry Trupti, why did he not tell Renuka that he was not in love with her any more 0" that he had never been in love with her), and wanted to get out of the relationship before they 2° into a loveless marriage? Why did he ask an intermediary (Haresh) to persuade Renuka to break off the engagement? Again, here is an instance of the inability or unwillingness of one party 0 gh adequate clues to the other fearing negative consequences. Sanjay did not have the self-assuran® to tel her the truth. Was he worried that he would hurt Renuka if he told her that he wanted cl off the engagement? Or, was he worried that ifhe broke off the engagement, he would have to fst his father’s anger (with adverse financial consequences)? If he couldn't muster enough coureee the first place to tell his father that he didn’t want the engagement, how could he say that he waned to break it off so soon after the grand function and associated publicity? If, however, she broke °) the engagement, he would be safe because his father would not be able to find fault with hi. appears that he wanted to hide behind her to avoid confronting his father. ake or « —aen ‘Attertve Communication 123 ee The Zen Master and the General OTe outing the el wars in feudal apn, The amy general was surprised when he heard stout ; rd about the old man’s beha : templet see for himsol, the ld man rested hime eoteny ee gee Caos, aviusness and savshnes everywhere the generaluas fore sword, “dont you realise you are standing before aman uf could run: hhe went to the any other visitor. Accustomed to obse- 001” he shouted as he reached for his You through without blinking an evel” “and do you realise,” the master re lied calmly, “that you In without linking an eye?” ‘ovate standing before aman who can be run through The general was humbled by such extraordinary show of courage, ‘Adapted from “The General andthe Zen master” (n.d) Haresh too, seems to be unable t talk to people who might be hurt b didn’t he tell her, after a suitable introduction, that Sanjay w marry another gir! he was in love with? I looks as though therefore found it difficult to give her adequate clues to S: Probably hoped that his casual question would give her en: for her to infer Haresh's message. This shows that the fear of consequences, assertive communication, figure anted to break off the engagement and he was scared of the consequences and anjay’s state of mind and intention. He }ough clues, but it was far from adequate which stops people from attempting honest and can happen at any level. The source of fear need not be an authority Why did Renuka lie to her brother that she was still in the college library neal an our afer she had left the premises? Of course Sanjay had asked her to. But why didn't she resist’ Wy didn’t she ask for an explanation? She could have told her brother tat she was with Sanjay an that she would be late getting home, After all, Sanjay was her fiancé, and there was zag ‘Unusual about their spending an hour or so together. If Sanjay wanted to give her a i w y Should she tell her brother that she was stil in te library? oe she ev along with Sanjay’s strang i ign aid of displeasing him’ Tequest without questioning it because she was afraid ‘ Why did Haresh agree to help Sanjay kill Renuka? She was a friend, who be ae bas harm. It is one thing to help a friend break an engagement, and quite eee Ne a Murder someone. Did Haresh desist from raising objections because he fea . Privileges if he went against Sanjay’s wish? ae What we find in a story of Renuka’s death is that the main players ar mie toes i s because they don’t want to face any unpleas their ideas and feelings to their communicates ee MY Saati tid aie aE Consequences. Asa result, problems, instead of disapp , ¥ 124 Business Communication solve. Sanjay and Haresh had tied themselves in so many knots that Renuka’s elimination, the only way out. Apparently, neither Chandra Kumar nor Aditya Ranjan suspected that there was any prob, between Renuka and Sanjay. Neither parent had received any objection from them to the marti . Proposal. If they had received any feeble or indirect objection, they dealt with it in such. aggressive way that the boy and the gil held back their reservations and took part in the gray, engagement ceremony. Renuka didn't know that Sanjay wanted to break off his engagement with her and marry Tuy, instead. Sanjay didn’t know how Renuka would react if he decided to call off the engageren (All he had was an answer she gave Haresh in response to a hypothetical question asked in a casy manner) Thus the problem reached a stage where Sanjay and Haresh concluded that eliminating Renuka was the only way out. Its ironic that in their attempt to prevent hurt from open and hone, communication, everyone was dragged into unimaginable pain and one precious life was low Renuka’s murder is an extreme case. Not all nonassertive behaviour ends in such tragedies, Buy all nonassertive behaviour leads to unnecessary and lingering pain. It inevitably leads to erosion self-esteem. In a sense, it is a slow death. Seema Developing Tactful Self-Disclosure Itis important for us o develop the ability to disclose our feelings and ideas in a controlled, tact way in the multiple contexts and relationships that we find ourselves in. While some of usar aggressive atleast in certain contexts, most of us hold ourselves back from disclosing our thought and feelings in an open and comfortable way in many contexts. We have to work towards tact and assertive self-disclosure if we want to be effective communicators. We shall now turn to ways of achieving it There are excellent resources, especially books, which give detailed and step-by-step guidelines for those who want to become more assertive in their personal and work relationships, Thos resources will be useful for those who want to learn to take control of their self-disclosure in a systematic way. Here we shall deal briefly with a few general steps we can take in that direction The first step is improving our self-esteem because it is low self-esteem that is atthe roc of crippled, warped self-disclosure, Of course itis easy to say this, but very hard to achieve it if we start with a low level of self-esteem. Low self-esteem grows in us when we focts on our weaknesses and constantly compare them with others? strengths, which are often Sxaggcrated. It is like looking at our face in the bathroom mirror and comparing what we see there with the glamorous faces on television without taking into account the contribution of professional make-up, lighting, and camera techniques. Well-intentioned parents and teachers constantly compare us with peers who are better than us. They ignore our strengths and focus on our weaknesses because they want to motivate us to strive for perfection However, with unfair comparisons in multiple areas of life, we gradually conclude that we are worth nothing, and our ideas count for nothing, So we hesitate to disclose them. Mem ha = oe vinena poverty-stricken are footed secondary schoo gil barged into the ave the Child office in Swaziland | vgnded that her education be funded, the director was taken aback, Impressed by her pluckheofered agp He fund a family in Flan to pay for her education tlhe graduated sn g99, while she was working asa manager ina hotel chain she won a scholarship to stu agricultural eco- Bradford University. She took an AIDS test to meet a condition of the scholarship. She tested posi- | ‘Assertive Communication 125 iphiwe Hlophe | nomics at romne unexpected result shattered her dreams; her husband left her, and her scholarship was withdrawn sing to give up, she became one ofthe frst women to publicly declare her positive HIV status. She decid- hers lke her and founded Swaziland for Positive Living (SWAPOL) an NGO that seeks to improve ditions of HIV positive people in rural areas through counselling and education. She also became Positive Women, a UK based charity founded by Kathryn Llewellyn and Stephen Brown. fu edtohelp ot the living con the President of ‘Adapted from “Siphiwe Hlophe,” (n.d.) ‘To get out of the morass of low self-esteem we must make an analysis of our strengths. At times itis useful to take someone’s help to get an idea of what we are good at, and what we can be particularly proud of. This is because we may be unaware of some of our strengths which friends tnd colleagues admire. Some parents in our neighbourhood may be pointing out our strengths to their children and asking them to be more like us! We don’t have to be Kareena Kapoor or Akshay Kumar to be a successful actor. And we don’t need to be Saina Nehwal or Virat Kohli to be a successful sportsperson. In certain respects we may be superior to these celebrities with an enormous fan following. Dazzled by their achievements wwe often fail to see their weaknesses; we tend to give them undue credit or respect. We need to discard that mindset and feel proud of what we are and what we have. ‘Another step that we should take to improve our self-esteem is to reduce and ulti climinate certain behaviours that reinforce low self-esteem. Do we look people in the eye when we talk to them? Or do we look down or away when we talk to superiors and strangers? Do we adopt a diffident posture when sitting down or standing up to talk to others? Is our conversation fall of apologies even when we'te not responsible for any untoward developments that may have caused inconvenience to others? When something we are responsible for goes wrong, do we shift responsibility to someone else? Do we display the courage to own it? we can, our own experiences in which we concealed e worried about the consequences. How did things tur ately Itis useful to analyse, as objectively as ur real views and feelings because we wert out? Did our timid approach to self-disclosure make life bett Did all the worrying lead to anything positive? Weren't there i to be absolutely baseless? An objective analysis of our own experien self-disclosure should help us gain confidence. self-righteousness, and an exaggerated sense of infalliblity, nesses. We need to recall instances, either ideas have come from very unlikely instances where the fears turned out -s of crippled and tactful Ifour problem is with arrogance, Weneed to make an analysis of our strengths and weal fom our own fives or from those of others, where great i 126 Business Communication sources. We need to become aware of others’ rights and the consequences of i also useful to take the help of others to find out if the people we manage are t waiting for an opportunity to sabotage what we do If we are in the habit of jumping to conclusions about others" m tactlessly, we will do well to try out Robert Bolton's (1986) three-pa igMoring the 7h ruly with y. tives and bluting the, rt assertion message jp non-judgemenial description of the behavior to be changed; * a disclosure of the asserter’s feelings; and * a clarification of the concrete and tangible effect of the other person’s behavior gq asserter, th Here is an example from Bolton's book, People Skills. Two children were fre snacks but not cleaning up the kitchen counter quently makin behaviour changed. Instead of calling them dirty, once they were done. The mother wana inconsiderate pigs, she gave them th 6 Plioiy assertion message: When you don't clean the counterafter making snacks [fictual.noy sudgemens dsscrption of behavior} I feel very annoyed [expression of felings] because it male, more wn for me (description of effects). There is no accusation, | no jumping to conclusions, but a rmpt the children to change their behaviour Sround that avoids the extremes of difdence an have to work towards it. There are situation whee even those who generally manage tactful self-disclosure well encounter difficulty and siay towards crippled display. Having to deliver bad news and negative feedback are the commons among them. So we shall look at them briefly. a Statement of facts and feelings that should pro ea As tactful self-disclosure takes the middle arrogance in communicating with others, we Delivering Bad News, Negative Feedback Bad news is, by definition, news that your communicatees do not welcome They will not, fx Gxample, want to hear from you (or fom anyone, for that matter) that they will not be promt. that they have been sacked, or that the delivery of certain critical components thatyou had roel will be delayed beyond the agreed deadline. Similarly, they don’t want negative feedback about example, at their inability to finish projects on time, or ineptness in awarding contracts. Bul 0 cannot perform your role as a manager or team leader without giving some form of bad ness and negative feedback to people you w with others your thoughts and feelin feeling: their work or behaviour pointing, fe ork with. In other words, you will be required to she 8s that they do not welcome. If you hide those thoughts a S fearing unpleasant consequences. whatever problem you are trying to avoid tends bigger, more complex, and more intractable, The only way Out is to learn to deliver bad news wl ‘We have seen that timid communicators, overwhelmed by inferiority feelings and seid balk at revealing their harmless, noncontroversial thoughts and feelings. But even cxf! Communicators generally fumble when they have to deliver bad news or give negative fda Some put it off hoping that the problem will disappear on its own; some ask others to doit ont behalf. Some hide behind confidential reports, OO Assertive Communication 127 one ofthis befits an effective manager. You have to master bad news delivery. his obvious that the communicates will not welcome bad news however well you present it ney welcome bad news or find i attractive, i's not bad news anymore.) Your objective would eto help them accept the news with equanimity rather than witha sense of injury. People will do so when they perceive it as fair, as the best possible in the circumstances. Here behavioural psychologist John Stacey Adams’ Equity Theory and its elaboration by other scholars (for a detailed discussion, please see Adams, 1965; Greenberg, 1990: and Blodgett & Hill, 1997) can help us plan our communication in a way that itis perceived and accepted as fair. There are three forms of justice or faimess: distributive, procedural, and interactional () Distributive justice covers your beliefs and expectations about outcomes. For certain inputs you expect certain outcomes. Ifthe outcomes are according to the expectations. there is a sense of equity, of faimess. If, for example, the minimum fare fixed by your local authority for a taxi ride in your city is INR 50, and a driver asks you to pay that amount for avery short ride, you feel itis fair If, however, the driver asks you to pay INR 60, there is a mismatch between your expectations and his demand. You may refuse to pay, or pay under protest; in either case, it is clear that you don’t accept the outcome. In another city, if taxi driver asks you to pay INR 60 for the same distance, you will perceive it as fair if that is the minimum fixed by the local authority there. What is considered fair, therefore, is relative Consider another situation. Although the standard fare is INR 50, you may willingly pay INR 60 or even 100 if you want the taxi at an unfriendly hour such as 2 am or during very heavy rains that make driving extremely difficult. In a sense, the change in circumstances also changes your expectations about the appropriate fare. While you don’t welcome the idea of paying more than INR 50, the new equilibrium that has been created lends a sense of fairness. “The formula for delivering bad news is easy, even if the execution is usually painful Here's the formula: Tell it first. Tell it straight. Tell tall” Lee lacocca (i) Procedural justice covers the relationship between outcomes and the processes or Procedures for arriving at them. You may be a busy person and your time may be highly valuable. You go into a barber’s saloon where two people are waiting to be served. They don’t scem to be busy or their time doesn’t appear to be very valuable. But you wait until those two people have been attended to because you are third in the queue for the barber's, service. You accept it with a shrug although you don’t welcome it. If the barber serves you before he serves the other two, they would find it unfair, and object. That they have plenty of time on their hands is irrelevant, If, however, there is a notice which clearly states that customers can jump the queue if they pay twice the standard charges, and you pay that Premium, the other two customers will accept the delay in being served 1, an 128 Business Communication Again, the barber has followed an established procedure, and therefore the two CUStor who are affected by this accept it. This is similar to your stopping to let an ambulances VIP convoy pass although you are in a hurry to reach your destination. You accept ‘hag have priority over other traffic. Gif) Interactional justice covers interpersonal behavior. Warm interpersonal behavior can ja people accept unfaimess of both the distributive and procedural types. Even if thee gt provision for paying a premium and jumping the queue atthe barber's saloon, you my, able o persuade the two customers to let you go first by gently asking them whether ye could have your hair eut ahead of them because you have an interview to attend tomoy, morning and your train leaves for that city in two hours. Although they have a right i served before you, they take into account your polite request and let you jump the queue iE however, your behavior is rude and you insist on being served first, they may not allow tg all. The key to effective delivery of bad news and negative feedback, then, is to Plan you, communication in such a way that you give the communicatee a sense of fairness. It wil dilute or even eliminate rejection, which is what you fear when you have to communicy bad news. Ideally it should be distributive justice that you build on. It cannot be achiens by slick presentation of your ideas. You need to shape your communicatees' expectations y Sharing with them relevant and authentic information. Ifyou hold back from your employes the information that a major client has not renewed their contract, you will not be able tg them to accept the pay cut that you propose. However, managing others’ expectations is not always possible. Following proveduts transparently will then help you make up for any shortfall in distributive justice. Wam, caring interpersonal behavior can help you deal with shortfalls in both distributive and procedural justice. You can find an excellent illustration of bad news delivery in William # Peace’s (1991) Harvard Business Review article, “The hard work of be ng a soft manager” His reasoning and respectful behavior help them accept their job losses without geting angry with him or denouncing him. Just as you give others feedback that is unpleasant, others may eriticise your ations orghe You unpleasant feedback. How should you respond? We find broadly three ways in whic people react to criticism: (a) They give excuses, They shift the tesponsibility to someone else. If they did not do something well, it is because someone else let them down They consider themselves vietims, and complain. They are full of self-pity. (b) They reject the criticism and try to attack the critic. They become defensive and abusive. They cannot understand how anyone could criticise them. They put a"

    You might also like