Please review the assignment instructions and documents attached prior to the bid.

Find & Post (or post a link to) a concept of Managerial Communication (photo, short video, brief piece of writing, song, etc. — related to this week’s chapter(s). 

1. Analyze the object according to the requirements for the week.
2. Make a connection to the readings, videos or recordings for the week.

Excellent Posts: (20 points) The post is well-structured, logically sequenced sentences, written in formal language, while making meaningful connections between content and personal reflection, current events, etc. This post is free of grammatical/spelling errors. In addition, the student has responded to two classmates with thoughtful connection to course content. 

Chapter 7 Organizational
Orientations and Communication
Traits
Koehler, Anatol, and Applbaum (1981) suggest that the personality or culture
“of an organization, in many respects, is a composite of the varied behaviors
of the people within it” (p. 172). They are absolutely correct. The individual
organizational orientations, temperaments, and personalities in each unit
influence how people outside, as well as within, view the unit.

Not all people approach their work in organizations with the same
orientation. Some are “organization-friendly.” Others are not. Some are
organization-friendly only part of the time. Individuals’ orientations are a
major factor in their success or failure in the work environment. These
orientations are associated with both the individuals’ temperaments and their
communication traits. All of these are associated with workers’ job
satisfaction and motivation to work.

Organizational Orientations
Presthus (1962) advanced organizational orientation theory as an explanation
of substantial differences in the way employees in organizations approach
their jobs. Presthus believed that these orientations result in employees
having different orientations toward work itself, motivation toward work, job
satisfaction, and ways of dealing with coworkers, supervisors, and
subordinates. Presthus viewed his theory as being a theory of organizational
behavior. He viewed the behavior of people in organizations as being driven
by their traits, which he believed were learned through their experiences
while working in organizations.

Presthus identified three organizational orientations that are specifically

related to the way people approach their roles in organizations. These reflect
the variable orientations different types of people have toward work and the
place of work in their lives. These orientations are believed to be traits; that
is, people will tend to have these orientations regardless of the organization in
which they are employed, and the orientations are not expected to change
markedly as a person moves from one organization to another. People with
high scores on these orientations are known as “upward mobiles,”
“indifferents,” and “ambivalents.” All three of these types are found in
virtually all organizations. However, it is not common for a person to score
highly on more than one of these orientations. Some people do not score
highly on any of them.

Upward Mobiles
Perhaps the most dedicated and most easily recognizable organizational type
is the upward mobile. This is the typical “organizational man” or
“organizational woman.” These people are deeply devoted to the goals and
functioning of the organization. They have a strong identification with the
organization. They are self-motivated, believe in the organization’s rules and
procedures, and expect others also to. Their personal goals are in line with the
organization’s goals, and they strive toward high job satisfaction.

Upward mobiles do not like associating with people they consider to be
“losers,” people who are not on the same career path that they are. In fact,
they might be highly critical of personnel who are not as dedicated or devoted
as they are. They thrive on work, decision making, power, and organizational
rewards and are ready and willing to “go the extra mile” for the organization.
They will openly defend the organization and criticize those who are not
dedicated to it. They have high standards and expect others to have the same.

All organizations look to hire potential upward mobiles, and when they have
one, they are likely to groom her or him for bigger and better positions.
Organizations know they can depend on these persons to follow the rules,
enforce the rules if necessary, and give “110 percent” support to the
organization. These are the people organizations are likely to reward and
encourage. They represent the future of the organization.

If we work for or with an upward mobile, we will be expected to support the
organization and its policies. Communicating with an upward mobile is really
quite easy. You know where he or she stands and what is expected of you.
Praise her or him and the organization, and rewards will come to you and
your unit. However, if he or she thinks you are a “loser,” he or she will
encourage you to go elsewhere. This person might even say things like, “If
this is not the job for you, then try some other job,” or “In this organization,
we expect commitment. You don’t seem to care, so it is time you move on.”

If you want to influence an upward mobile, your suggestions should be
couched in terms of how what you want would be good for the organization
and, if possible, might help the upward mobile move up in the organization.
Such an approach indicates your loyalty to the organization and also your
loyalty to this person. One of the best ways to move up in many organizations
is to be “sponsored” by an upward mobile.

Indifferents
The next orientational type is as easily recognizable as the upward mobile.
This person is called the indifferent. These people make up a large portion of
the employees in most organizations.

Whereas the upward mobile lives to work, the indifferent works to live. The
indifferent is working because he or she has to. People have to make a living,
they have to buy groceries, they want to make a better life for their children.
Many people are motivated to work beyond their basic needs for survival.
However, indifferents work only to satisfy their own very basic needs or the
basic needs of their loved ones. This is not to say that they are evil or mean—
they are simply not interested in the job or the organization. They are only in
it for the paycheck.

These people will avoid participation in the daily organizational routines,
they rarely share in the rewards the system has to offer, they are not highly
satisfied with their jobs, and they rarely do any extra work without
compensation. They would “never” volunteer to do extra work if the only
reward were self-satisfaction. These people simply come to work, do their

job, and go home.

Much of their communication on the job is about their family or personal life.
When encouraged to communicate about organizational matters with
colleagues, they generally say nothing, change the topic, or suggest that
others should discuss those matters. They are not dedicated or upwardly
mobile in any aspect. Hence, if you work with one of these people or have
one for a supervisor, depend on yourself. These people will never do more
than what is absolutely necessary. Again, they are not evil; they are not a
threat to others. They may even be very nice people, but they are in the
organization to do their job and be left alone. Every organization needs these
people because they can be assigned to do menial, routine tasks that require
little thought, and that others would resent doing. They don’t resent these
tasks—after all, it is a job and a paycheck—and such tasks do not require a
personal commitment.

Getting along with indifferents in the organization usually is not difficult as
long as you do not push them to “give their all” for the organization or your
unit in it. They are indifferent to their work, but that does not mean they do
not care about anything. They can be very interested in things outside the
work environment. Talk with them about their family, what they plan to do
over the weekend, where good spots are for fishing, the local sports team,
where to go for a vacation—what most people refer to as “small talk.”
Serious talk about work is not the indifferent’s cup of tea.

Ambivalents
The final organizational type is perhaps the most difficult to work with
because they are unpredictable. Although many of the personality
orientations we discuss in this chapter are not necessarily likable, they at least
are predictable—this type is not. They are the ambivalents. Koehler et al.
(1981) describe the ambivalents as both “creative and anxious.” They go on
to state, “The upward mobiles like the status quo and the indifferents accept
it, the ambivalents want to change it” (p. 173).

The ambivalents are never truly comfortable in any organization. They may

take a position because it seems to be what they want, but within a few
months they have found a number of “problem areas” that need changing.
They cannot seem to accept organizations or the people within them for what
they are. These people can be supportive one day and destructive the next.
They are moody, which makes it difficult for people to work with or for
them. Chances are they will not stay in any one organization for more than a
few years. After a while, they feel they have done all they can do and must
change positions. Or they get “disgruntled” with the system and change jobs.

Although ambivalents often are quite intelligent and highly skilled verbally,
they reject the authority structure and will often try to turn others against the
organization and the supervisors within it. They will openly criticize the
system. Some of their criticism might be useful, but because of the way it is
said, others reject it. Most systems are happy when ambivalents leave. These
are the people for whom the going-away party is held the day after they
leave!

Communicating with ambivalents can be difficult since you seldom can
predict how they will react to ideas. About the only safe topic is criticism of
the organization. Gripe sessions get ambivalents’ blood churning. However,
entering such conversations can be dangerous. You may find yourself quoted
the next time the ambivalent decides to take on the organization or the
supervisor. The best advice is to stick to small talk with ambivalents.

Personality Types
In the previous section, we considered people’s orientations, which are
directly related to organizational life. In this section, we turn our attention to
the way people are generally—their basic personalities. Personality can be
defined as the sum of an individual’s characteristics that make her or him
unique. There are literally thousands of ways people differ from one another.
Each person is higher and/or lower than most other people around them on a
scale for any given characteristic. This is how we come to distinguish each
person from others we know well. Social scientists have identified some of
the individual differences that have a distinctive impact on people in
organizations as a function of their influence on communication behaviors.

We will consider several of these following.

Authoritarianism
This personality type has highly predictable patterns of behavior.
Authoritarians, if they are anything, are consistent. The authoritarian
personality type is structured and rule-oriented. Often authoritarians are stern,
unhumorous, conventional, suspicious, and at times hostile. Authoritarians
respect authority. They are obedient to those above them, and they expect
those below them to be obedient to their demands.

Authoritarians intensely dislike it when others do not show proper respect
and obedience to their authority. They may become vindictive when treated
in a disrespectful manner by those below them in the hierarchy. It might seem
that this is one type an organization surely could do without, but some
organizations want this type of person in certain jobs. They will get people to
“toe the line” and keep order and make sure things run smoothly.

Since they firmly believe power and status should be recognized and that
some people should have a lot of it, whereas others should obey those who
have it, authoritarians often become the favorites of supervisors, particularly
if the supervisor also is an authoritarian. As supervisors, high authoritarians
make their subordinates feel as if they should “salute” each time they pass
one another in the hallway. They usually manifest conservative attitudes,
rarely find things funny at work, want others to be submissive and show
deference to them, and become hostile when others ignore rules and policies.

In one organization with which we worked, there was such an authoritarian
individual who was not a supervisor. Many of her peers went out of their way
to torment her. They quickly learned that she truly had little control over
them since she was not well liked by her supervisor, so they would do things
that would “drive her up the wall.” If she commented on someone’s improper
dress, the next day that person would show up even more poorly dressed and
watch this person fuss and fume. If she suggested there was “too much fun in
the office,” then there would be more of it the next day, and it would be
directed at her. If she commented on the music people played in their offices,

they would play it more loudly and obnoxiously. Because high authoritarians
are so demanding of others and expect others to always obey their wishes,
they can become targets, particularly if they are not in a supervisory position.

If you work under a high authoritarian, you need to understand his or her
need for authority and obedience. If you choose not to conform, he or she is
likely to make your life miserable. If you cannot accept doing what you need
to do to be able to work with this type of person, you probably should leave
your position. In many ways, authoritarians are easy to work for because you
know what you need to do to stay out of trouble. But if you are not willing to
do what is necessary, leave.

Communicating with highly authoritarian people is easy. Agree with them.
“Yes” is the word they most enjoy hearing. “No” is not often acceptable.

It is quite acceptable for you to ask them for explanations concerning how to
do what they have instructed you to do. It is not acceptable for you to
question why that should be done. Challenging a highly authoritarian person
is like stamping on a dog’s tail. If you do it, you can expect to be bitten.

Although dealing with high authoritarians is not particularly difficult if you
are willing to do it, dealing with people who are unusually low in
authoritarianism may be even more difficult. These are people who have no
respect for authority. They do not respect the rules, and their behavior may be
seen as aberrant in the organization. Being seen as allied with such a person
does not make one popular. Communication with these people should be
handled very carefully and kept to a minimum, at least in the presence of
other organization members.

Machiavellianism
People with this personality orientation can be useful to the organization if
they are working with and for the organization, not against it. Niccolò
Machiavelli wrote the book The Prince, in which he described what a prince
would need to do to be an effective leader and rise to greater control of a
society. The book was long on tactics and short on morality. Since that time,

people who are highly manipulative have come to be known as
Machiavellians.

People high in Machiavellian tendencies are willing to manipulate others,
enjoy manipulating others, and are good at it. Usually they get what they
want, either for themselves or for their organization. This is not to suggest
that Machiavellians necessarily are evil or that manipulation is wrong.
Although Machiavellians do not typically subscribe to traditional high moral
principles, that does not mean they are immoral. They view their
manipulative skills as amoral tools. Morals simply are not an issue. If people
are manipulated into doing something against their best interests, others
might be appalled, but the high Machiavellian would more likely be amused.

How do you know a high Machiavellian when you see one? Usually, you
don’t unless you go out of your way to look. It is rare that high
Machiavellians are widely recognized in an organization. In fact, it is more
likely that people who are moderately high in Machiavellian tendencies will
be thought to be high, since their attempts at manipulation will be more
obvious. However, Machiavellians can be identified. Look for the following:
they seem to get what they want without being pushy, they get people to do
things for them that those people would not do for others, they rarely look as
if they are manipulating, they generally are well liked by others in the
organization, and they usually do well in the organizational environment.

Machiavellians typically do well in the “people professions.” That is, they
succeed when influencing people is necessary for success. Some typical
occupations with a large proportion of high Machiavellians include
education, law, religion, politics, fund-raising, and many forms of sales. Most
people that rise to the top, or near the top, in most organizations have high
Machiavellian tendencies. High Machiavellians will manipulate to help
themselves or others. Hence, they can be very good friends—or dreadful
enemies.

How should one communicate with high Machiavellians? Very carefully!
Remember, they get their way by being nice to others. They do not steal your
money or power; they get you to give it to them! When communicating with
a high Machiavellian, you need to be careful to have everything spelled out in
detail. Do not consent to anything unless you are absolutely certain you know

what you are doing and that it is in your best interests. Even then, you should
delay for as long as possible. There are plenty of easy targets for high
Machiavellians to manipulate. If you can manage to delay, there usually is
little reason for Machiavellians to persist in trying to take advantage of you.
If they are just doing it for fun, your delaying takes the fun out of it. If they
really are after some benefit, they quickly recognize their time would be
better spent by going after another target.

While high Machiavellians provide a challenge to other people in the
organization, low Machiavellians present a different picture. These people are
particularly easy to manipulate. Hence, they are unreliable colleagues and/or
friends. Whoever has the last word has these people on their side. This is a
particularly serious problem if you have such a person for a supervisor. Who
knows what others will convince this person to do that will not be in your
best interests? The only advice we can give you, and it is easier said than
done, is to be sure you get the last opportunity to influence this person before
they have to make a decision important to you. Low Machiavellians often are
the spineless wonders you find in middle-management positions who, in good
faith, promise you one thing and then do the opposite—because someone else
persuaded them to change their mind.

Achievement Orientation
Organizations are particularly thankful for this personality orientation. These
people are the high achievers, sometimes over-achievers. Money is not the
main motivator behind the high achiever. These people work because they
want to achieve certain goals for themselves. They are often overcommitted,
overextended, and overworked. They will often take on more duties than they
can handle, but they will work overtime to make sure things get done. They
are the “workhorses” in most organizations.

You can spot them: They seem frazzled at times, have more work than most,
more responsibility than most, and love it. They will often let others know
how much they do by complaining about being overworked. They thrive on
sympathy and praise. They are likely to volunteer for extra duties a minute
after they have complained about being overworked. They are the people

who validate the old maxim that “if you want something done fast, give it to
a busy person.”

High achievers have a tendency to blame themselves when things they are
responsible for do not work out. They tend to be harder on and more critical
of themselves than others would be, and often get overwrought when others
show a streak of laziness. These people also need some praise from their
coworkers or supervisors for jobs well done. If you praise high achievers,
they will work, and work, and work, and work. The biggest drawback to this
personality type is that they might take on more work than they are capable
of handling effectively. Hence, an astute supervisor should be happy to have
a high achiever, but must be careful that the person does not insist on more
work than he or she is capable of handling. It is easy for systems to abuse
these people because they are willing to do more than others. Hence, if you
are a high achiever, be careful.

High achievers are easy to communicate with. They will try to assist you with
your problems and make your job easier. In fact, they will rarely expect you
to do what they don’t. However, they do expect you to work hard. The key to
interacting with high achievers is the appropriate use of praise. These people
need to know that you respect what they do. If you like their work, they like
you.

Dogmatism
People of the highly dogmatic personality type often are considered
“difficult.” These are the people in organizations who have a narrow view of
issues and expect others to see their point of view. They are rigid in their
beliefs and do not tolerate viewpoints that disagree with theirs. They tend to
be narrow in their thinking and will either avoid those who do not think as
they do, or simply get rid of them if they can. Dogmatics see things as right
or wrong, black or white—there are no gray areas or compromises. The
classic example of a highly dogmatic person was Archie Bunker on the TV
show All in the Family. On the same show there was another highly dogmatic
person—Michael Stivic, Archie’s son-in-law. They were equally hardheaded
and dogmatic. They each had their opinions, and neither was willing to see or

even listen to the other’s viewpoint. Their confrontations were hilarious to
the millions of viewers who watched this show regularly, and still are funny
today, decades after they were originally shown, to a whole new generation
of viewers. While Archie Bunker and his son-in-law portrayed dogmatic
characters who had different political positions, Hugh Laurie as the star of the
TV show House portrays a dogmatic individual in an organizational context.
He is always right, or at least he thinks so. Everyone in his environment is
frustrated by his dogmatic belief that he knows best. As each show develops,
his colleagues continue to propose the nature and/or causes of the illness of
the week, and House tells them why they are wrong. In almost every show he
turns out to be right and saves someone’s life. He is the hero. Unfortunately,
we find dogmatics in our organizations to be much less entertaining and far
less likely to always be right.

It is virtually useless to argue with a highly dogmatic peer, much less one
who is your supervisor. He or she will simply discount your arguments as
wrong, frivolous, or just plain stupid—and develop similar views about you.
Hence, communication with highly dogmatic individuals is not easy. You
have to determine what their views are, fit your ideas into their viewpoints,
and even let them think they generated the idea, and only then might you be
successful in communicating with them.

If you cannot do this and the dogmatic is your supervisor, you might have to
leave the system. Think of what it would be like if your supervisor were a
combination of a high authoritarian and a high dogmatic. Communication
would be restricted to only views on issues with which he or she agrees. Even
unemployment might look attractive in comparison.

Self-Esteem
Many people in contemporary organizations have constant feelings of
inadequacy. These feelings dominate their entire personalities. They have low
self-esteem. We refer to these people as “inadequates” because that is the
way they see themselves. They worry that they cannot perform their work
well. They fear that others will not like them. They worry that they might be
promoted because they know they could not succeed at a higher level. They

are insecure about their marriage, their children, life in general.

The first thing we should recognize is that a person who has low self-esteem
can be right. That person may really be inadequate. But many people who
have these perceptions are incorrect in the way they see themselves.
Nevertheless, we must deal with these people every day in our organizational
lives. Most of us have the common response of trying to tell these people
they are more adequate than they think they are (even if they are not). That
response will be met with rejection, as will praise for something the person
does well.

As we noted in Chapter 5, these insecure people also tend to see attacks
coming from all sides. Thus, to be on the safe side, we can simply accept an
inadequate’s claims of inadequacy and move on to some other topic. Avoid
praising his or her work, since the inadequate will not believe you anyway,
and be extremely careful to avoid anything that would sound like criticism.
Anything of that type is likely to prompt a highly defensive reaction (such as
aggressive denial) or an emotional acceptance of blame. Either will be
unpleasant. Fortunately, these people seldom are promoted to supervisory
positions since others recognize they are not likely to succeed in such
positions. Consequently, most of the inadequates we will encounter will be
peers or subordinates.

Organizational Orientations and
Temperament
Although the early work with organizational orientations was based on the
assumption that these orientations are learned, this view has come into
question. More recent research (McCroskey, McCroskey, & Richmond,
2004) has determined that the three organizational orientations have
substantial associations with temperament. Higher levels of both ambivalence
and indifference are associated with both higher levels of neuroticism and
higher levels of psychoticism. In contrast, higher levels of extraversion are
associated with higher levels of upward mobile orientations. Because
temperament has been determined to have a strong genetic base, it may well

be that organizational orientations do too.

Organizational Orientations,
Temperament, and Communication
Traits
Research has determined that communication traits are substantially related
to both temperament and organizational orientations (McCroskey, Richmond,
Johnson, & Smith 2003; McCroskey, McCroskey, & Richmond, 2004).
Assertiveness has been found to be positively associated with extraversion
and upward mobility. Responsiveness has been found to be negatively
associated with psychoticism, ambivalence, and indifference. Nonverbal
immediacy has been found to be positively associated with extraversion, but
negatively associated with psychoticism, ambivalence, and indifference.
Clearly these three sets of orientations are highly interrelated.

Organizational Orientations,
Temperament, and Organizational
Outcomes
Two major outcomes for employees in organizations, as well as for the
organization itself, are employee job satisfaction and employee work
motivation. Research has indicated that both temperament and organizational
orientations are substantially associated with these outcomes (McCroskey,
McCroskey, & Richmond, 2004). Upward mobility and, to a lesser extent,
extraversion are positively associated with both job satisfaction and
motivation. Job satisfaction can also be affected by information overload
(Cho et al., 2011), lack of organizational support (Reinardy, 2009),
friendships at work (Raile et al., 2008), verbal aggressiveness of supervisors
(Madlock & Kennedy-Lightsey, 2010), aggressive humor (Avtgis & Taber,

2006), and ethical conflicts that are generated by unethical organizational
practices (Kang, 2010). Other factors that contribute to job satisfaction
included achieving success and recognition, using one’s skills, feeling
worthwhile, and being involved in the job (Gruneberg, 1979). Ambivalence,
indifference, neuroticism, and psychoticism are all negatively associated with
both job satisfaction and motivation. Clearly, both individually and
collectively, these employee traits are very important predictors of success in
organizations.

For many years, scholars believed that the kinds of trait orientations we
describe in this chapter were learned by individuals as a function of contact
with their parents, teachers, peers, siblings, and the general culture in which
they live. The two studies referenced provide some support for this belief.
The participants in the first study were upper-division college students
(average age 20), who had comparatively little experience in full-time
employment. The participants in the second study were older people with
many years of experience working in organizations. The mean scores on both
indifference and ambivalence were much higher for the younger group than
the older group. It seems likely that the older group modified their
indifference and ambivalence as a function of their work experience. It would
be difficult to explain how genetic factors would produce such a major
change.

Nevertheless, given the research findings discussed previously, it is clear that
there are genetic factors influencing the relationships among these groups of
trait orientations and their impact on organizational outcomes. Even if
learning is a meaningful influence in establishing organizational orientation
traits, they still are traits. That is, they remain generally consistent across
organizations and across time.

This, of course, does not mean that people are totally unable to change their
trait orientations. However, it does suggest that even if one really wants to
change, change may be difficult, and the amount of change that can be made
may be comparatively small. We need to keep this in mind so that we
recognize how unrealistic it is to expect our supervisors and colleagues to
change just because we want them to. Alternatively, we must learn to adapt
(as much as our own traits will let us) our communication to the way other

people really are rather than the way we wish they were. This is the only
realistic path to effective communication in organizations.

In conclusion, an organization is as good as its personnel. We have reviewed
a number of personality orientations that exist in all organizations. Some are
easier to work with than others. Of course, some people may exhibit
characteristics of two or more personalities. For example, a person could be
an upward mobile with high-achiever tendencies. What we must learn to do is
recognize the personalities we work with. Then we must communicate with
them in ways that will not go against their personality predispositions. If we
can do so, we are likely to be pleased with the outcomes of our
communication. If things do not work out right, we might wonder if our own
personality orientations got in the way. Could it be that your personality fits
into one or more of the types we have discussed in this chapter?

Study Guide
1. List and explain the three organizational orientations.

2. List and explain the five types of personality that are related to
organizational communication.

3. Explain the relationships between organizational orientations and
temperament.

4. Explain the relationships of organizational orientations and temperament
with the communication traits of assertiveness, responsiveness, and
nonverbal immediacy.

5. Explain the relationships of organizational orientation and temperament
with organizational outcomes.

6. List the possible causes of organizational orientations and
communication traits.

7. Explain what workers should do to deal with the traits of their
supervisors and subordinates.

References and Recommended
Readings

1. Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford R. (1950).
The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper and Row.

2. Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization. New York: Harper
and Row.

3. Avtgis, T. A., & Taber, K. R. (2006). “I laughed so hard my side hurts,
or is that an ulcer?” The influence of work humor on job stress, job
satisfaction, and burnout among print media employees. Communication
Research Reports, 23, 13–18.

4. Cho, J. Ramgolam, D. I., Schaefer, K. M., & Sandlin, A. N. (2011). The
rate and delay in overload: An investigation of communication overload
and channel synchronicity on identification and job satisfaction. Journal
of Applied Communication Research, 39, 38–54.

5. Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York:
Academic Press.

6. Ghiselli, E. (1963). The concept of role and theoretical basis for
understanding organizations. Bologna: University of Bologna Press.

7. Gruneberg, M. M. (1979). Understanding job satisfaction. New York:
Macmillan.

8. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure
of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 72–80.

9. Kang, J. (2010). Ethical conflict and job satisfaction of public relations
practitioners. Public Relations Review, 36, 152–156.

10. Koehler, J. W., Anatol, K. W. E., & Applbaum, R. L. (1981).
Organizational communication: Behavioral perspectives (2nd ed.). New

York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

11. Madlock, P. E., & Kennedy-Lightsey, C. (2010). The effects of
supervisors’ verbal aggressiveness and mentoring on their subordinates.
Journal of Business Communication, 47, 42–62.

12. McClelland, J. (1961). The achieving society. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.

13. McCroskey, J. C., & Daly, J. A. (1987). Personality and interpersonal
communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

14. McCroskey, J. C., Daly, J. A., Martin, M. M., & Beatty, M. J. (1998).
Communication and personality: Trait perspectives. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.

15. McCroskey, L. L., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (April, 2004).
Applying organizational orientations theory to employees in profit and
nonprofit organizations. Paper presented at the annual convention of the
Eastern Communication Association, Boston, MA.

16. McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Johnson, A. D., & Smith, H. T.
(May, 2003). Organizational orientations theory and measurement:
Development of measures and preliminary investigations. Paper
presented at the annual convention of the International Communication
Association, San Diego, CA.

17. Presthus, R. (1962). The organizational society. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.

18. Raile, A. N. W., Kim, R. K., Choi, J., Serota, K. B., Park, H. S., & Lee,
D. W. (2008). Connections at work: How friendship networks relate to
job satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 25, 168–178.

19. Reinardy, S. (2009). Beyond satisfaction: Journalists doubt career
intentions as organizational support diminishes and job satisfaction
declines. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17, 126–139.

20. Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1990). Reliability and separation
of factors on the assertiveness–responsiveness measure. Psychological
Reports, 67, 449–450.

21. Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic
Books.

Chapter 6 Personality,
Temperament, and Communication
Traits
No two people are exactly alike. There are literally thousands of ways people
differ from each other, including such obvious characteristics as height,
weight, sex, eye color, nose size, skin color, hand size, hair color, vocal
quality, bone structure, and facial features. Most of us are well aware that
these individual features are a function of the genetic heritage of each
individual. Barring cosmetic surgery and/or severe dietary restrictions, there
is little one can do about such features. Of course, not all individual
differences are so obvious at first sight.

Each person has a unique personality. An individual’s personality includes a
collection of traits, which are characteristic of that individual. It is these
characteristics that distinguish one person from another. Among these
characteristic traits are predispositions and tendencies toward
communication, which collectively permit us to see how one person is unique
from another.

Personality and Temperament
Over the past eight decades, personality psychologists have identified more
than 2,000 different personality traits. This massive research effort has made
us very aware of how complex human personalities are. It has also made it
obvious that we cannot realistically expect to understand all of these
personality traits and how they impact individuals with whom we are in
contact on a daily basis.

This research has led investigators to study the association of each of these
traits with other traits and attempts to identify which are most important. This

effort has resulted in the identification of what has been called “super traits”
or “temperament” variables. These super traits have been found to be
associated with many personality variables and have made it possible to
understand how groups of personality traits impact human behavior,
including communication behavior. The most prominent classification of
super traits was advanced by Hans Eysenck (1990). Eysenck labeled his three
temperament variables as extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism.
Eysenck and his colleagues also reported research that indicates that these
temperament variables are genetically based. Other psychobiologists (people
who study psychology from a biological perspective) have suggested that
there are five temperament variables. Like Eysenck, Costa and McCrae
(1992) also labeled their first two variables extraversion and neuroticism. The
remaining three variables (a breakdown of psychoticism) were labeled
openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

Temperament/Personality and
Communication
The association of temperament and personality with communication has
been specifically noted by psychobiologists. As Eysenck (1986) put it,
temperament represents the “ways in which individuals can interact” (p. 14).
As Bates (1989), another leading psychobiologist, put it, “there is general
agreement [among psychobiologists] that temperament is manifest largely in
the context of social interaction” (p. 4). Social interaction, of course, is what
we call “communication.”

Communication scholars have long expressed the view that communication
and personality are related. Most have suggested that people communicate
the way they do because of their personality. Some, however, have argued
that if we change people’s communication behavior (generally, through
public speaking classes), this will produce changes in their personality as
well. Neither view has been established through experimental research,
although substantial correlations between personality variables and
communication variables have been reported. These correlations confirm the
relationship between these variables but do not establish whether personality

causes communication, communication causes personality, or some latent
variable causes both.

Most communication research until recently had been based on the
assumption that personality and communication traits are learned. However,
this research has provided no substantial support for learning as the cause for
communication traits. Although it appears that some communication
behaviors clearly are learned, such as the language(s) that children speak and
the nonverbal communication behaviors that are unique to particular cultures,
communication traits of children (and adults) are often very different than
those manifested by their parents, whether the children are raised by their
birth parents or adopted.

Recent research reported by communibiologists (people who study
communication from a biological perspective) indicates that genetic
heritability is the most likely causal factor in communication traits, as it is the
primary causal factor in temperament and personality (Beatty & McCroskey,
2001) In short, neither personality nor communication traits cause each other;
they are both caused by latent variables. These variables are genetically based
brain systems. These systems produce communication traits, as well as
temperaments, which are manifested in communication behaviors.

The importance of this research for communication in organizations should
not be underestimated. While organizations develop their own cultures (as we
discuss in a later chapter), certain types of communication will be rewarded
or punished within that organizational culture. Many people in organizations
will not communicate precisely in the way others in the organization
(supervisors, subordinates) would prefer. If we recognize that much of our
(and our coworkers’) communication is genetically based, we will better
understand why training, or even threatening, does not produce
communication conformance. One can change things that are learned, but
changing things that are genetic is much more difficult, and often not
possible.

Communication Traits

Research on many communication traits has been reported. Most of these
traits have some impact on communication in the organizational context. We
have chosen to discuss the 10 traits that we believe might have the most
significant impact in this context. In this section, seven traits are discussed:
willingness to communicate, shyness, communication apprehension, self-
perceived communication competence, compulsive communication,
argumentativeness/tolerance for disagreement, and verbal aggression. The
remaining three traits (assertiveness, responsiveness, and
versatility/flexibility) will be discussed in the following section. That section
will focus on styles of communication and the communication traits that
constitute those styles.

Willingness to Communicate
(McCroskey & Richmond, 1987).
The most basic communication trait is willingness to communicate. The
willingness to communicate trait is an individual’s predisposition to initiate
communication with others. Although most people will respond at least
briefly if someone else tries to initiate interaction with them, there is wide
variance in the willingness of individuals to initiate communication with
other people. Some people are generally willing to communicate with just
about anyone, while others will rarely communicate unless someone else
initiates communication with them. Most of us fall in between these
extremes.

Being willing to communicate is generally considered to be a very positive
characteristic in U.S. culture, as it is in many European, Arabic, and African
cultures. However, this is not the case in other cultures, particularly some
Asian cultures. Modern U.S. organizations generally view people who are
willing to communicate more positively than those who are less willing. In
many cases, decisions on hiring, retention, and promotion are heavily
influenced by this trait. People who are willing to communicate are seen as
better employees because they involve themselves more in tasks involving
interpersonal and team interactions.

Employees’ capabilities in the work environment are often only witnessed
through their communication with others. Hence, employees less willing to
communicate are often seen as less qualified, less motivated, and less
cooperative than their more communicative colleagues. Research has
indicated that employees who lack willingness to communicate are often less
satisfied with their jobs, less motivated in those jobs, and less likely to choose
to stay with their organization. Modern organizations virtually demand
communication from their employees. Most individuals in positions above
the entry level are required to serve as a manager of those in lower-level
positions. Management is a communication profession, so to be an effective
manager, one must be willing to communicate. Surveys given to managers
indicate that over 90 percent of their time at work involves meetings and
interactions with subordinates and supervisors.

Shyness (McCroskey & Richmond,
1982)
Shyness is the tendency to be timid, reserved, and most specifically, to talk
less. Although willingness to communicate is a trait orientation toward
communication, shyness refers to the actual behavior of not communicating.
Shyness in young children, particularly little girls, is often seen as “cute” in
U.S. culture, but is usually seen in a much more negative light in older
children and adults. Particularly in the context of new acquaintances and
people we don’t know well, shyness is often perceived as a negative reaction
to us personally. Others see our shy behavior in a similar light. Hence, in
important communication contexts in organizations, such as employment
interviews, transitory team meetings, interactions with subordinates, and
dealings with clients, shy people are often perceived in a negative way.

However, once people get to know each other well, as is often the case of
roommates or supervisors/subordinates, shyness has a much less negative
impact (Cole & McCroskey, 2003). In these situations, it appears that
receivers do not take the source’s shy behavior personally because they have
seen this behavior in the source’s communication with others and are
therefore more tolerant of this trait behavior. Unfortunately, in many

positions in organizations, people primarily have contact with people they
either do not know at all or do not know well. Shyness is then seen as
rejection and tends to generate negative responses.

Communication Apprehension
(McCroskey & Richmond, 1979)
Communication apprehension is an individual’s level of fear or anxiety
associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person
or persons. This communication trait has been the subject of more research
than any other. Writings concerning the fear or anxiety associated with
communication date back to the ancient Greeks. Some of the earliest
quantitative research on communication apprehension was on speech fright or
public speaking anxiety. Anxiety about public speaking has been reported by
as many as 70 percent of people in the United States in numerous national
surveys. Until the 1970s, however, few people realized that many were just as
apprehensive, or even more apprehensive, about communication in dyadic or
group contexts as in public speaking. It is now estimated that between 15 and
20 percent of the U.S. population has high communication apprehension in
communication contexts. More people suffer from the disability produced by
communication apprehension than any other disability.

We refer to this communication trait as a disability because of its
overwhelmingly negative influence on an individual’s communication
behavior and success across communication contexts, including the context
of organizational communication. The three most common effects of
communication apprehension are communication avoidance (avoiding
situations where communication might be expected), communication
withdrawal (escaping communication by either psychological or physical
means), and communication disruption (communicating in a less competent
or noncompetent manner). All generate negative reactions on the part of
others and/or fail to accomplish outcomes that can be accomplished by less
apprehensive individuals. When communication is required to succeed, high
communication apprehensive individuals are most likely to fail.

Communication apprehension is negatively related to willingness to
communicate and positively related to shyness. Hence, all of the negative
outcomes expected from low willingness to communicate and high shyness
can be expected from communication apprehension. Unfortunately, these
effects may be even more negative. For example, research has found that
people who are perceived as high communication apprehensives are seen in
very negative ways, even by people who know them well (unlike shyness).
Research relating to organizational communication indicates all of the
negative outcomes relating to low willingness to communicate and high
shyness are present for high communication apprehensives. Research has
been successful in identifying several methods to help people lower their
communication apprehension levels. However, the improvement is marginal,
only 7–10 percent in most studies. Research indicates that the use of
antidepressant drugs may prove to be effective, even though most high
communication apprehensives may not suffer from depression.

Self-Perceived Communication
Competence (McCroskey &
McCroskey, 1988)
An individual’s report of her/his own competence in communication across a
variety of contexts is described as self-perceived communication competence.
It is important to understand that this is a measure of self-perception, not a
measure of actual communication competence. One may wonder why we
should be concerned with such a perception. The reason is simple. Many
decisions about communicating, including whether or not to do so, depend on
individuals’ self-perception of their competence, and may or may not be
impacted by their actual competence. Many incompetent communicators
think they are competent, and many competent communicators, as a function
of their low self-esteem, think they are not. As with any walk of life, we are
more likely to attempt what we think we are good at, and less likely to
attempt what we think we are bad at.

Self-reports of communication competence are substantially associated with

self-esteem and communication apprehension. In general, people with low
self-esteem see themselves as having little potential to do well or to be
adequate in comparison with others around them. People with low self-
esteem tend to see themselves as less competent communicators, as do people
with high communication apprehension. These traits, of course, are
associated with reduced willingness to communicate and increased shyness.
This is not to suggest these traits cause one another. Rather, these
relationships suggest that they are all influenced by the same genetically-
based brain systems.

All of these communication traits are associated with the same temperament
variables and self-esteem. Extraversion is positively associated with self-
esteem, the willingness to communicate, and self-perceived communication
competence, but negatively associated with shyness and communication
apprehension. Neuroticism is positively associated with shyness and
communication apprehension, but negatively associated with self-esteem, the
willingness to communicate, and self-perceived communication competence.

Compulsive Communication
(McCroskey & Richmond, 1996)
Some people (about 5 percent of the population) are driven to communicate.
They look at any contact with other humans as an opportunity for
communication. This is more than just a high level of willingness to
communicate, it is an overwhelming desire to communicate. These
compulsive communicators are often referred to as “talkaholics.” Their need
for communication is as strong as an alcoholic’s need for alcohol or a
workaholic’s need for work. As would be expected, this communication trait
is associated with extraversion. However, it is not associated with
neuroticism. Hence, this is not a neurotic need, it is just a strong desire to
communicate.

Answer this question: “Do you know anyone who talks too much?” If you
answered “Yes,” you are among the vast majority of people to whom we
have posed the question. So, compulsive communicators, talkaholics, are the

people who talk too much? Oddly, no. When we contacted people who were
identified by others as people “who talk too much,” we actually found that
fewer of these people (about 2 percent) were scored on the “talkaholic scale”
as compulsive communicators in the general population. This indicates that
our description of “talks too much” actually references what people are
saying or the way they are saying it, rather than the amount they talk. It
represents a “quantitative” description of a “qualitative” problem. The people
we give this label to are either saying things we don’t want to hear or
communicating so badly that we just wish they would stop. It is the quality of
their talk that gives us such a bad impression of them. Most of the people
who we say talk too much actually talk no more than the average person.
Talkaholics, on the other hand, generally are interesting people who have lots
of friends and acquaintances who like to talk with them. Research over the
past seven decades has indicated that people who talk more are more
positively evaluated on a wide variety of characteristics than people who talk
less. These characteristics include leadership ability, competence, liking,
honesty, caring for others, task attractiveness, and social attractiveness. Being
a compulsive communicator, at least in the general U.S. culture, appears to be
a good rather than bad thing. This is confirmed to some extent by research
that we did that involved interviews with people identified as talkaholics.
These interviews indicated that every individual identified recognized that
they were a compulsive communicator, thought that being so was a good
thing, and had no interest in signing up for a program to help them be less
compulsive in their communication behavior. In contrast, in our work with
high-communication apprehensives, two-thirds of them immediately
volunteered to participate in a program designed to help them reduce their
apprehension.

Argumentativeness and Tolerance
for Disagreement (Infante &
Rancer, 1982)
Since these two communication traits are highly similar, and tolerance for

disagreement is discussed in detail in a later chapter, we will focus here on
the argumentativeness trait. An argument includes the statement of a position
on an issue and the support for that position, including reasons why
alternative positions are incorrect. While some people perceive arguing to be
involved with attacking other people and loud verbal exchanges, this is not
the kind of communication behavior that we consider here. We see arguing as
involving two or more people in an exchange of ideas stating positions and
providing support for those positions. If these exchanges begin to involve
personal attacks, rather than exchanges of positions and support, the
communication has moved into the category of verbal aggression, which is
discussed later in this chapter.

There is wide variance among people in terms of their ability to form and
present strong arguments to support their views in contrast to those of others.
There also is wide variance in their willingness to argue at all. The
argumentative communication trait concerns both of these factors. People
scoring higher on this trait generally are good at arguing and enjoy doing so.
People scoring lower on this trait generally are not good at arguing and do
not enjoy doing so. In the give-and-take of communication in organizations,
being able to argue one’s views is an important factor in a person’s success or
failure. High argumentatives are likely to have more influence in the
organization and generally experience less interpersonal conflict in their
communication. Low argumentatives, however, are less likely even to
introduce their ideas in the organization, much less exhibit skill in supporting
them. They also are more likely to misunderstand strong arguments against
their ideas, if any are advanced, and perceive them as direct personal attacks
(which they are not). This, of course, is highly likely to result in interpersonal
conflict with others. Disagreement in organizations is critical to making good
decisions and finding better ways to do things. Hence, high argumentatives
are likely to be much more valuable employees than those who are low in
argumentativeness and prone to initiating verbal aggression toward their
colleagues.

Although argumentativeness is a communication trait, it also is associated
with two temperament variables. Higher argumentativeness is associated with
both higher extraversion and higher psychoticism. Tolerance for
disagreement also is associated with higher extraversion and higher

psychoticism. These relationships suggest that both of these traits are likely
to be the result of the same brain systems.

Verbal Aggression (Infante &
Wigley, 1986)
Although argumentativeness and tolerance for disagreement are positive
communication traits in organizations, verbal aggressiveness is usually
considered to be a negative communication trait. Verbally aggressive
communication behavior involves attacking the self-confidence, character,
and/or intelligence of another person in addition to, or instead of, their
position on an issue. It takes on the character of “You are a bad person”
rather than “Your position is a bad idea.” This, of course, personalizes
disagreement and is very likely to lead to interpersonal conflict.

People who are low in argumentativeness are more likely to resort to this type
of communication because they are less capable of defending their own
positions in arguments with others. When their ideas are attacked, they take it
as a personal attack and respond with a personal attack on the other
communicator. This, of course, is likely to lead to serious conflict between
the people involved.

Verbal aggressiveness is associated with the psychoticism temperament
variable, but it is not associated with either extraversion or neuroticism.
Hence, this type of behavior seems to be the product of only the brain system
associated with psychoticism. People higher in psychoticism and verbal
aggressiveness traits are likely to use verbal aggression as a strategic weapon
against colleagues in the workplace. They may become verbal “bullies” to
gain control over others. While this can be a serious problem involving any
two people in an organization, it may have its most negative impact when it
involves supervisors who are verbally aggressive. Those under such
supervisors may perceive that they have no way to deal with such individuals
and develop negative attitudes, not only toward that supervisor, but also
toward the organization. It is also likely that people working under such
supervisors will be lower in their job satisfaction and motivation to work.

Sociocommunicative Orientations
and Styles
Individuals exhibit trait differences in their basic communication styles, and
individual communication traits are related to specific kinds of
communication behaviors. In this section, we consider several traits and how
they interact to produce unique styles of communication behavior.
Sociocommunicative orientations reference the way individuals see their own
communication behavior in terms of these traits. Sociocommunicative styles
reference the way other people perceive those individuals’ actual
communication behavior.

Assertiveness (Richmond & Martin,
1998)
When people stand up for themselves and do not let others take advantage of
them, without taking advantage of others themselves, they are acting
assertively. It is also acting assertively to speak up for one’s self, whether that
be making a request or expressing a feeling. Assertive communicators also
tend to initiate, maintain, and terminate conversations in accordance with
their own communication goals. Assertive communicators’ nonverbal
behavior also is important. They tend to talk faster and louder, use more
gestures, make more eye contact, and lean forward more in interactions—
they are more nonverbally immediate. Do not confuse assertiveness with
verbal aggressiveness. Assertive communicators defend themselves and their
ideas, but they do not launch personal attacks on others. Verbally aggressive
communicators do launch such attacks.

Assertiveness is most highly correlated (positively) with the extraversion
temperament variable, but also has a low negative correlation with
neuroticism, and a low positive correlation with psychoticism. Assertive
communicators seem to be nonneurotic extraverts who may be slightly

psychotic.

Responsiveness (Richmond &
Martin, 1998)
When people are other-oriented in their communication, they are being
responsive. Responsive communicators are sensitive to needs, feelings, and
communication of others. They are people whom others see as good listeners.
Responsive communicators are more nonverbally immediate than most other
communicators and are seen by others as being friendly, compassionate,
warm, sincere, and helpful. They are able to be empathic with others, thus
focusing on the relational aspect of communication. Do not confuse
responsiveness with submissiveness. Submissive communicators yield their
rights to others, more often going against their own best interests. While
responsive communicators are sensitive to the needs of others, they also pay
attention to their own needs and goals. Responsive communicators recognize
and consider the other person’s needs and rights, but do this without
sacrificing their own legitimate rights.

Responsiveness is correlated (positively) with the extraversion temperament
variable. However, it has a stronger (negatively) correlation with
psychoticism and has no correlation with neuroticism. Responsive
communicators appear to be non-psychotic extraverts.

Versatility or Flexibility
The third element of sociocommunicative orientations and styles has been
studied under two different labels, versatility and flexibility, but represents
essentially the same trait concept. Because all communication takes place in a
given context, it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify communication
behaviors that are appropriate and effective in all situations. The
versatility/flexibility trait deals with one’s ability to adapt one’s
communication behavior to the context, situation, and other person(s)

involved in a communication event. Other terms that have been used to
describe this kind of communicator include adaptable, rhetorically sensitive,
and style-flexing. Communicators at the other end of the continuum are
described as rigid, dogmatic, uncompromising, and unyielding.

The key elements of versatility/flexibility are knowing when to be assertive
and when not to be, when to be responsive and when not to be, when to be
both assertive and responsive, and when to be neither. People who can master
these elements are able to adapt appropriately to the communication of a wide
variety of other people. People with little versatility/flexibility are not able to
do this, thus they will often be assertive or responsive when they should not
be and not be assertive or responsive when they do need to be.

McCroskey and Richmond (1996) have argued that these three components
of sociocommunicative orientations and style are the underlying components
of communication competence. They suggest that there is no set of
communication skills that make for a competent communicator. Rather, true
communication competence is based on having a wide variety of
communication styles available for use and the proper orientations for when
to use which one.

Four basic styles have been advanced as the core styles. They are all based on
levels of both assertiveness and responsiveness. No one style is best; each has
its strengths and its limitations. Although almost everyone’s basic style will
be one of the following—amiable, analytical, driver, or expressive—the key
for communication effectiveness in today’s organizations will be to learn
how to employ one of the other styles when needed.

Amiable
The amiables are considered relationship specialists and are high on
responsiveness and low on assertiveness. The adjectives used to describe the
amiables are as follows: conforming, unsure, pliable, dependent, awkward,
supportive, respectful, willing, dependable, and agreeable. Merrill and Reid
(1981) suggest that amiables seem “to be most comfortable working in
environments where they can provide services and be supportive and helpful

in their relationships with others” (p. 149). We will often find these people in
“careers such as teaching, personnel management, social work, psychology,
and other helping professions” (p. 149).

Although amiables are likely to be found in professions such as teaching, that
is not to say that all, or even most, people in a given profession will be of a
single social style. For example, the special education or kindergarten teacher
is likely to be an amiable. The college professor heavily involved in
laboratory research is more likely to be an analytical. The teacher who
becomes principal and has to be “in charge” of running things may be a
driver. The drama teacher or cheerleading coach might be an expressive. You
can find the various social styles in all walks of life, but some professions are
likely to attract higher numbers of certain social styles than others.

Analytical
The analyticals are considered technical specialists and are low on
responsiveness and low on assertiveness. The adjectives used to describe the
analyticals are as follows: critical, indecisive, stuffy, picky, moralistic,
industrious, persistent, serious, exacting, and orderly. Merrill and Reid (1981)
suggest that professions such as science, engineering, construction work,
accounting, and certain aspects of law often have a high proportion of this
style. Again, there could be other styles in these professions. Some research
suggests that analyticals are more likely to be apprehensive about
communication and, as a result, be more withdrawn and quiet. Thus,
analyticals may be less effective communicators than the other styles and
more resistant to attempts to interact with them.

Driver
The drivers are considered control specialists and are low on responsiveness
and high on assertiveness. The adjectives used to describe the drivers are as
follows: pushy, severe, tough, dominating, harsh, strong-willed, independent,
practical, decisive, and efficient. These people might be in careers such as

small-business owners, top management, production managers,
administrative personnel, politics, and other decision-making management
positions. “Because of their ability to take responsibility and direct others, top
management often puts these individuals into positions of control” (pp. 149–
150). Again, there can be drivers in many other professions. The ones listed
are only indicators of where drivers are most likely to be found.

Expressive
The expressives are considered social specialists; they are high on
responsiveness and assertiveness. The adjectives used to describe the
expressives are as follows: manipulative, excitable, undisciplined, reacting,
ambitious, stimulating, enthusiastic, dramatic, and friendly. “Persons with
expressive behavior are often found in sales, entertainment, advertising, art,
music, and writing” (p. 150). These people know how to use their
communication skills to “gain recognition and attention,” and they like being
seen and noticed by others. As suggested earlier, you can find expressives in
other fields.

Which style is best? None. There is no best style. They are all different, and
they all have positive and negative characteristics. In addition, you can be
dominant in one style and have the tendencies of another style. For example,
one might be an expressive with some driver tendencies or an analytical with
some amiable tendencies. The key is that you need to recognize with whom
you are working and adjust your style to be compatible or particularly if you
want communication to be successful. Salespersons have known for years
that they have to be versatile in order to succeed.

The key to much of this success is being versatile, regardless of your style.
“Versatility is the dimension of behavior that indicates the extent to which
others see us as adaptable, resourceful, and competent; it is behavior that
earns their social endorsement of us because it accommodates their
preferences” (p. 44). We need to know when to be assertive, when to be
responsive, when to push, when to back off, when to listen to others, and
when not to listen. As employees, we have to understand that working with
people who have different styles is going to be required of us, and to be

successful, we need to see possible conflict areas and adapt. For example, an
amiable individual might perceive the driving style as too pushy, impersonal,
and dominating. The analytical might see the expressive as too talkative and
outgoing.

Merrill and Reid (1981) suggest that no one style is solely associated with
success, but if versatility is present, then success is likely even between two
potentially conflicting styles. Managers have known for years that they have
to be able to deal with many different types of interpersonal relationships.
You need to be prepared to do the same.

Negative Personality Traits
The nature of organizations is such that work productivity can be easily
hindered by those who choose to do so. Some individuals, for personal
reasons, may seek to inhibit group productivity while also engaging in
behaviors that result in an unpleasant work environment. Below are
descriptions of some of those personalities.

The Saboteur
Often work groups find themselves with an unmotivated member, someone
whose lack of enthusiasm interferes with the ability of the group to achieve
its goal. Such group members become saboteurs, participants who ultimately
may undermine the group and its goals. Saboteurs can develop within a group
whenever there is a significant difference between group goals and individual
goals. Frequently the sabotage is unintentional on the part of the saboteur in
that he or she does not deliberately interfere with group goals. Still, a failure
on the saboteurs’ part to complete assigned tasks can effectively disrupt
group achievements. Even the suspicion of sabotage can undermine group
efforts (Thompson & Pearce, 1992). If sabotage is suspected, group members
tend to lose sight of the group goal, and all communication becomes focused
on the potential sabotage. The group is unlikely to return to productive work
until the matter has been resolved, often by either a direct or indirect

ostracizing of the suspected saboteur.

In such cases, the ostracized member will frequently realized what has
happened. Further, he or she can frequently explain why, although from an
individualized viewpoint. A typical explanation from the ostracized member
is, “They probably didn’t think I was contributing enough, because my work
schedule kept me from attending a lot of the meetings.” That statement
recognizes the reason for the ostracizing (lack of contribution) and the
behavioral pattern that spurred the ostracizing (skipping meetings), but
provides a benign motive for the behavior (schedule conflicts). Other group
members are likely to view this explanation with skepticism. Even if the
explanation is correct, many of the other members will assume they have
made sacrifices in their schedule to accommodate group activities, and they
will expect other members to do the same.

Another form of sabotage, backstabbing, is sabotage that is directed at
specific group member instead of toward the group as a whole.
Dilenschneider (1997) noted that the best way to counter backstabbing is to
have other allies within the group who will tell you what is going on and help
you stand up against the saboteur. Once the behavior has been verified, the
saboteur should be calmly faced on a one-on-one level to make sure he or she
understands the facts at issue and then be given a chance to cease the activity.
Sometimes, calmly alerting the person that you are aware of his or her
activity will be sufficient to stop it.

Other Personality Influences
Some people are more susceptible to anger than others. The two most
dominant personality traits with high susceptibility are (1) the volatile
personality and (2) the thin-skinned personality.

Volatility
The volatile personality tends to have five subcomponents or characteristics:

(1) aggressiveness, (2) a strong moral code, (3) a hair trigger, (4) an inner
misery, and (5) a sense of inferiority. Each of these can be viewed as a
required element of the volatile personality. If any single one of these is
missing, the individual is unlikely to be considered volatile. Any anger
episodes that the person might have would likely fall within normal ranges.
But, put all five together and you have a potentially lethal mix of personality
elements (Powell et al., 2009).

Aggressiveness is the first component. Despite its negative connotations,
aggression is not an inherently negative personality trait. Aggression is a
highly valued trait in a number of fields, including the business world and
sports. But aggressive tendencies can lead to volatile explosions if mixed
with the other four elements.

Second on the list is the presence of a strong moral code. This factor surprises
some people, because of the image of volatile personalities as people whose
tirades can result in death or injury to others. From their perspective, though,
such extreme actions are justified by a sense of injustice that has been
incurred by them. They typically view themselves as the victims, justifying
their explosive behavior on the basis that the person they attacked “made
them do it.”

Closely associated with the strong moral code is the presence of a hair
trigger. It doesn’t take much to make them angry. A strong moral code makes
it easier for them to experience that sense of injustice, because even a minor
infraction has the potential of being viewed as unjust.

Adding to the mix of volatility is often some form of inner misery. Its nature
may vary, but people with volatile personalities typically had abusive
childhoods, came from homes with substance abuse problems, or experienced
some form of traumatic experience at a younger age Such negative
experiences as a child perhaps contributes to the final component—a sense of
inferiority. Everybody feels inadequate at some time or another, but volatile
personalities typically feel this way almost constantly. The presence of a
triggering event not only threatens them on an issue level, but is perceived as
a direct threat on their battered ego. They respond, trying to shield their sense
of inferiority with anger.

Thin-Skinned Personalities
“Thin-skinned” refers to a difficulty accepting criticism. These people share
many of the personality traits of the volatile personality, particularly the sense
of inferiority, but their lack of aggressiveness distinguishes them from the
above group. Rather than lashing out in response to others, they withdraw
with hurt feelings. Generally, thin-skinned people have three characteristics
in common. They (1) take themselves too seriously, (2) avoid accepting
responsibility, and (3) have no sense of humor. The second element is a
barrier to their handling of anger. Dealing with anger requires that a person
take responsibility for his or her own behavior, instead of saying everybody
else is over reacting.

Both of the angry personalities tend to go through a similar sequence in
developing anger, one that also tends to describe the anger reactions of most
people. First, there is a trigger, a situation or statement made by another
person. That is followed quickly by a thought (“What did I do to deserve
that”), an evaluation (“That’s unfair”), and a feeling of hurt or betrayal.
Sometimes there is a fantasy about retaliation. Overtly, the volatile
personality responds with an explosive reaction—shouting, hitting, or
breaking objects. The thin-skinned typically adopts other negative behaviors
such as pouting or sulking.

Anger is also an emotion felt by the alienated individual. Alienation is the
degree to which an individual believes that his or her behavior can determine
the outcomes the person seeks (Price, 1972, p. 42). Individuals experience
alienation whenever they cannot provide themselves with desired rewards or
are unable to avoid negative sanctions. Such a condition is dependent upon at
least four characteristics, three identified by Stokols (1975) and the fourth
discussed byS eeman (1959). A state of psychological alienation (1)
originates in a social relationship, (2) results from disillusionment with the
quality of the relationship, (3) is maintained by spatial or psychological
proximity, and (4) is based upon the perceived powerlessness of the
individual to restore the situation to its previous positive state.

The first distinctive characteristic of alienation is that it “develops in the

context of an ongoing relationship between an individual and another person
or group of people” (Stokols, 1975, p. 27). That element makes long-term
groups a prime source of alienated behavior in that the group itself places an
individual into a social environment. The second characteristic of alienation
is that it involves a process of disillusionment, i.e., “an unexpected
deterioration in the quality of outcomes provided by the individual to the
other.” In most instances, disillusionment implies the existence of a social
relationship which was, at a previous time, satisfactory to the individual and
provided them with positive rewards.

The third characteristic of alienation is proximity. Alienation “persists to the
extent that the individual and the other(s) remain spatially or psychologically
proximal” (Stokols, 1975, p. 27). This proximity serves to constantly remind
the individual of their disillusionment. Finally, the fourth distinctive
characteristic of alienation is powerlessness, or “the expectancy or probability
held by the individual that his own behavior cannot determine the occurrence
of the outcomes or reinforcements he seeks.” It relates to the perceived
capability of an individual to affect his own environment. Powerlessness is
important to alienation because it is the key element contributing to
frustration. Thus, even though disillusionment creates dissatisfaction,
alienation is not experienced until the individual perceives themselves as
being unable to correct the situation or to restore the former relationship. If an
individual has the power to restore the relationship to its former positive
position, the dissatisfaction will be removed and alienation eliminated. If not,
frustration will continue and alienation maintained. Anger will be the
ultimate outcome.

Alienation can generally be relieved or avoided entirely by ensuring that all
group members do not experience a feeling of powerlessness. As long as that
element is missing, frustration levels should not be high enough to engender
alienation. Again, successful enhancement of the group task will be
dependent upon satisfaction of the members’ individual goals.

Further, despite the frequency of such anger responses, most people can learn
self restraint if they approach their anger as a problem to be solved. As
psychologist Redford Williams (1999) noted, people can be trained to behave
differently even if their personality cannot be changed. The general

guidelines for self restraint are to evaluate each type of anger in terms of
importance, justification, and intention: Is this situation important to you? Is
anger justified in this situation? And is the other person “out to get you”?
These simple guidelines result in dramatic results. Even if you don’t use this
particular approach, though, self-restraint is expected in modern society.
Without it, conflict escalates too far and everyone suffers.

Study Guide
1. Define and distinguish between “personality” and “temperament.”

2. Explain how temperament is related to communication behavior.

3. Explain what causes temperament and communication traits.

4. Define and distinguish between WTC and shyness.

5. Define and distinguish between CA and SPCC.

6. Explain the talkaholic construct.

7. Define and distinguish between argumentativeness and verbal
aggressiveness.

8. Distinguish between SCO and SCS.

9. List the components of SCO/SCS.

10. List the four basic SCO/SCS styles and indicate how they differ from
one another.

References and Recommended
Readings

1. Bates, J. E. (1989). Concepts and measures of temperament. In G. A.
Kohnstamm, J. E. Bates, & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.). Temperament in
childhood. New York: Wiley, 3–26.

2. Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The biology of
communication: A communibiological perspective. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.

3. Cole, J. G., & McCroskey, J. C. (2003). The association of perceived
communication apprehension, shyness, and verbal aggression with
perceptions of source credibility and affect in organizational and
interpersonal contexts. Communication Quarterly, 51, 101–110.

4. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R: Revised personality
inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

5. Dilenschneider, R. L. (1997). The critical 14 years of your professional
life. New York: Birch Lane Press.

6. Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Can personality study ever be scientific? Journal
of Social Behavior and Personality, 1, 3–20.

7. Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Biological dimensions of personality. In L. A.
Pervin (Ed.). Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New
York: Guilford, 244–276.

8. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure
of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80.

9. Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggression: An
interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–
69.

10. Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1994). Development of a
communication flexibility scale. Southern Communication Journal, 59,
171–178.

11. McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (1988). Self-report as an

approach to measuring communication competence. Communication
Research Reports, 5, 108–113.

12. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1979). The impact of
communication apprehension of individuals in organizations.
Communication Quarterly, 27, 55–61.

13. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1982). Communication
apprehension and shyness: Conceptual and operational distinctions.
Central States Speech Journal, 33, 458–468.

14. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to
communicate. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.). Personality and
interpersonal communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 129–156.

15. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1996). Fundamentals of human
communication: An interpersonal perspective. Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland Press.

16. Merrill, D. W., & Reid, R. H. (1981). Personal styles and effective
performance. Radnor, PA: Chilton Book.

17. Powell, L., Vickers, J., Amsbary, J., & Hickson, M. (2009). Surviving
group meetings: Practical tools for working in groups. Boca Raton, FL:
Brown Walker Press.

18. Richmond, V. P., & Martin, M. M. (1998). Sociocommunicative style
and sociocommunicative orientation. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M.
M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.). Communication and personality: Trait
perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 133–148.

19. Stokols, D. (1975). Toward a psychology of alienation. Psychological
Review, 82, 26–44.

20. Thompson, G., & Pearce, P. F. (1992, May). The team-trust game.
Training & Development, 46, 42–43.

21. Williams, R. (1999). Anger kills: Seventeen strategies for controlling the

hostility that can harm your health. New York: Harper Collins.