2015年5月3日 星期日

Final Assignment: Conflict of Personality

Introduction

The 3 members in our team have different personalities. One is an executive (ESTJ), one is an entrepreneur (ESTP) and one is a defender (ISFJ). Because of the difference, we did things differently and oven had different opinions on how things should be done. Despite the different in personalities and working styles, our group still managed to work collaboratively by applying the technique we learnt from the class. To solve the problem, we took the following 5 steps:
  1. Identify personality of members,
  2. Identify the cause of conflict,
  3. Identify the appropriate style in managing the conflict,
  4. Identify obstacles and to overcome it (be more reflective and avoid climb up the ladder of inference), and lastly,
  5. Persuade members to make compromise by using the weapon of influence.

Our Conflict Causing by Personality Differences

Our first group meeting aimed to discuss how we should work on the first assignment. However, when we discuss how we should get started to work on the first assignment, our group members had different opinions. One (member A) believed that we should have a well-structured action plan, by dividing the whole working process into few different stages. Members were expected to follow the guidance and rules to get things done step by step. While another member (member B) thought we shouldn't spend so much time on planning but to concentrate on the actual work to be done. Our member C, on the other hand, believed that it’s more important to maintain the harmony within the team. 

To avoid turning into deeper conflict, we tried to be more reflective, engaging into an open conversation. We took assertive and collaborative approach in conflict resolution by encouraging an open dialogue between the parties. We asked each other on their reasoning of suggestions, question “why” and “what”. Member A explained that the action plan can guide the team to work step by step avoid missing deadlines. While member B believed that due to the time limitation, we should discuss what to be done and get start as soon as possible. By knowing each reasoning better, we had avoided climbing up the ladder of inference and avoid conflict caused by subjective interpretation. And we believed members’ different ways of doing things are highly related to their personalities, which consider being hard to change. So instead of using negotiation, we chose persuasion skills to solve the problem. To persuade members to make compromise, we had applied some principles in the Weapon of Influence suggested by Robert Cialdini (1993 & 2009). We used reciprocity, commitment, social proof, liking and scarcity to influence their choice.


Consequences of Personality Conflicts

The consequences of having personality conflict can be very serious. To identify some, it can bring a very stressful atmosphere to the team. Also, it can lower the team productivity, which synergy does no longer exist. For stress, high level of tension and anxiety within the team can cause both physical and mental strain to members. Stress has high impact on health. What’s more, people may also choose to leave the team when stress is unbearable. For lower productivity, constantly conflict within the team would have negative effect on the entire project. When the cooperation is disrupted, working progress will highly be affected. Serous conflict will also lead to low morale. (Royale Scuderi)


Our Conflict Resolution

As mentioned above, conflict can cause serious problem to the team, stress and low productivity. Our 1st step, is to identify member’s personality and our type of conflict, i.e. work style differences, we therefore acted immediately to solve the conflict. First, we select the appropriate style of managing the conflicts, i.e. open conversation. Then, we tried to solve the conflict. At individual level, we tried to be more reflective and avoid climbing up the ladder of inference. At group level, we used persuasion skills by applying some principles in the Weapon of Influence suggested by Robert Cialdini (1993) to overcome the obstacles.

Step 1: Identify Personality

There are many theories about how personality can be categorized. Some of the most famous one include the Jung’s theory/ Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, the Big Five personality traits and the 16 Personalities/Five Personality Aspects.

Jung’s theory/ Myers–Briggs Type Indicator:


According to the theory, there are four possible pairs of personality traits: Introversion (I) or Extraversion (E); Intuition (N) or Sensing (S); Thinking (T) or Feeling (F); Judging (J) or Perceiving (P). With the 4 opposition pairs, the theory classified 16 possible psychological types. The 1st pair, Introversion (I) or Extraversion (E), refers to the attitude of people. Introverts tend to be directed outwardly towards people and object, while extroverts tend to be directed inwardly towards ideas and concepts. The 2nd and 3rd pair, Intuition (N) or Sensing (S) and Thinking (T) or Feeling (F), refers to the perceiving and judging functions respectively. Perceiving functions refer to how people interpret new information, while judging functions refer to the how people make decision. For the last pair, Judging (J) or Perceiving (P), it reflects how a person regards complexity. The 16 personality types are typically referred to by an abbreviation of four letters (the initial letter of each pair), e.g. ESTJ (refers to extraversion (E), sensing (S), thinking (T) and judgment (J)) (Myers-Briggs, I., & Myers, P. B., 1995)

Big Five Personality Traits:

The five factors include openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Openness to experience reflects the degree of curiosity or the extent to which a person is imaginative. Conscientiousness reflects a person’s tendency to be self-disciplined. Extraversion reflects the tendency to be energetic and sociable. Agreeableness reflects the tendency to show compassion and helpfulness. And Neuroticism reflects the degree of emotional sensitivity. (Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., Schmeck, R. R., & Avdic, A., 2011) 


16 Personalities / Five Personality Aspects:

Developed by NERIS Analytics Limited, the theory is combined by using the acronym format introduced by Myers-Briggs and traits of the Big Five Personality Traits. The five personality aspects included Mind, Energy, Nature, Tactics and Identity, each with a two-sided continuum. Mind refers to how a person interacts with others, Introvert or Extravert. Energy determines how a person sees the world and process information, iNtuitive or obServant. Nature determines how a person makes decision and copes with emotions, Thinking or Feeling. Tactics reflects how one’s approach to work, plan and make decision, Judging or Prospecting. Identity reflects a person confidence in own abilities and decisions, Assertive or Turbulent. Each personality is coded with two layers: roles and strategies. The Role layer determines our goals, interests and preferred activities, while Strategy layer shows our preferred ways of doing things and achieving goals. (NERIS Analytics Limited)


For instance, the personality type of our members is classified as: 
  • Member A: an Executive [ESTJ-A/T] refers to Extravert-obServant-Thinking-Judging. A person who is an excellent administrators, unsurpassed at managing things or people. 
  • Member B: an Entrepreneur [ESTP-A/T] refers to Extravert-obServant-Thinking-Prospecting. A person who is smart, energetic and very perceptive people, also truly enjoy living on the edge. 
  • Member C: a Defender [ISFJ-A/T] refers to Introvert-obServant-Feeling-Judging. A person who is a very dedicated and acted as a warm protector.


Step 2: Identify the Type of Personality Conflicts

Personality conflicts can be classified into 4 different types: Work style differences, Background differences, Attitude differences and Competitive vs Cooperative differences. Work style differences refer to people working in different ways. Background differences refer to people view situations with different perspectives which are caused by their different in gender, ethnicity, social economic status, political views and religious backgrounds. Attitude differences refer to conflict caused by the different attitude of peoples. A negative attitude interferes with effective communication. A negative person looking for flaws while a positive people focus on finding solutions. Competitive vs Cooperative differences refer to the attitude of people in achieving goal, either being competitive or seek to cooperate. (Royale Scuderi) 

Our group conflict regarding how to get started with the group assignment is classified as causing by the Work style differences. Member A, as an executive type of person, prefers to work methodically down the checklist from step to step, following an action plan. While Member B, as an entrepreneur type of person, prefers to work on things that are most appealing or things that considered to be more important.


Step 3: Use of Style of Managing Conflicts vs Personality


According to the Studies published on International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, it is found that personality does affect how people handle conflict. Individual with Extraversion personality trait preferred to handle conflict by compromising, and certainty not avoiding. While people who are more open to experiences tends toward using compromising. Supporting by Rick Nauert PhD (2009), there are 4 different types of managing conflict styles: Avoidant, Validating, Volatile and Hostile. Different personality have tendency to use different approach to handle conflict. Avoidant styles refer to people trying to minimize conflict ASAP. Validating styles refer to people willing to speak and listen, and remaining claim. Volatile styles refer to people willing to get everything in the open. People using this style are usually more energetic type of person. And Hostile styles are people trying to defect others down. The studies found that the key to handle conflict successfully is to having a validating style. 

Based on our observation of how our members trying to manage the conflict and comparing with their personality, I would considered Member A (an executor) was using the Validating approach while member B (an entrepreneur) was using the Volatile approach. Member A remained claim and patient in expressing own point of view, at the same time, listening carefully to what member B said. And member B encouraged all parties to speak and comment. Therefore, having a validating style in the conflict resolution was the key for our first step to solve the conflict, which members were willing to engage in a healthy and open conversation regarding the issue. Then, we go to the next step, encouraging being more reflective in the conversation.


Step 4: Be Reflective and Avoid Climb up the Ladder of Inference

Ladder of inference is how people get all the way to the top of the ladder and act in accordance with their assumptions and beliefs. The bottom of the ladder is the information that is clearly observable. The 2nd rung from the ladder is where people select only the data that interested to them. The 3nd rung of the ladder is where people begin to make assumptions. And 4th rung is where people start to make conclusion based on the assumptions. And 5th rung is people develop beliefs based on the assumptions. And lastly, they take actions that seem right because they are based on what they believed in. (MindTools) 

It’s possible for members to climb up the ladder and has bias towards other members. Member A may think that member B refused to follow the working plan was because of his laziness, and due to his laziness, it’s possible for B to miss the deadlines or even under perform. While member B, on the other hand, may think that member A was a control freak, liked to control how others act and think, and he would hinder the creativity of the team. 

To avoid members to climb up the ladder, we encouraged members to be more reflective. We took assertive and collaborative approach in conflict resolution by encouraging an open dialogue between the parties. We asked each other on their reasoning of suggestions, question “why” and “what”. We used the approach “Refection, Advocacy and Inquiry” as suggested by Rick Ross to avoid climb up the ladder (please visit our assignment 2 in group blog for details: http://2015-6209-mustteam2015.blogspot.hk/2015/04/a-complaint-letter-kathy-complained-her_10.html). In particular, we asked “Why do you think we need/don’t need a plan?”, “What is the consequences if we follow/don’t follow the plan?”, “What is your expectations?” etc. By knowing each reasoning better, we had avoided climbing up the ladder of inference and avoid conflict caused by subjective interpretation. Members understood that all members were really engaged in the project, and they shared the common goal. However, it was just the way of working styles (due to different personality) that caused the conflict.


Step 5: Persuasion

Persuasion is another term for influence. It is an attempt to change/influence the beliefs, attitudes, intentions, motivations or behaviors of a person or/and a group. (Gass, R. H., & Seiter, J. S., 2013). Basically, there are two types of persuasion: Systematic persuasion and Heuristic persuasion. Systematic persuasion is the process to influence people with reasons and logic. While Heuristic persuasion influence people appealing to habit or emotion. There are many theories about persuasion. (Schacter, Daniel L., Daniel T. Gilbert, and Daniel M. Wegner, 2011). To name a few, there are Cognitive Dissonance Theory and Elaboration Likelihood Model. 


Cognitive Dissonance Theory (CDT):

Proposed by Leon Festinger (1957), the cognitive dissonance theory stated that when people experience inconsistency, they tend to “become psychologically uncomfortable and they are then motivated to attempt to reduce this dissonance, as well as actively avoiding situations and information which are likely to increase it.” To reduce the dissonance, people will try to 1) change behavior or cognition; 2) justify behavior or cognition by changing the conflicting cognition; 3) justify behavior or cognition by adding new cognition; and 4) ignore or deny any information that conflict with existing beliefs. 


Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM):

According to Richard E. Petty and John Cacioppo (1986 & 2012), “The ELM proposes two major routes to persuasion: the central route and the peripheral route. Under the central route, persuasion will likely result from a person's careful and thoughtful consideration of the true merits of the information presented in support of an advocacy. Under the peripheral route, persuasion results from a person's association with positive or negative cues in the stimulus or making a simple inference about the merits of the advocated position.” When people have the motivation and ability to interpret the message, central route is used focusing on the need for cognition. While if people had little interest and/or lesser ability to interpret the message, peripheral route is used focusing on impression and emotion.


Weapon of Influence:
Applying CDT, to persuade member A & B to compromise, we plan to add new information to influence their behavior and cognition. And since members had the motivation as well as the ability to think about the message and its topic, we should use Central Route to influence their behaviors (“persuasion will likely result from a person's careful and thoughtful consideration of the true merits of the information presented in support of an advocacy”), i.e. by influencing individual factor focusing on the need for cognition, reasoning, perception, awareness. 

In terms of what techniques to be used to persuade member A & B to make compromise, we took the Weapon of Influence suggested by Robert B. Cialdini (1993 & 2009) into consideration. The theory suggested that we could apply the 6 key principles to influence people. The 6 principles are Reciprocity, Commitment and Consistency, Social Proof, Authority, Liking and Scarcity. Reciprocity refers to the tendency of people to return favor. Commitment and Consistency refers to people’s tendency to honor others’ commitment and consistent self-image. Social Proof refers to people’s tendency to do things that they see others are doing. Authority refers to people’s tendency to obey authority figures. Liking refers to how people easily be persuaded by whom they like. And Scarcity refers to how demand could be generated by limiting the supply.



To apply the techniques, we used the followings:

1. Reciprocity: Member C tried to use this strategy to convince member B to follow the deadlines as planned by member A. Member B & member C were actually group-mates in last semester. Although member B was a very effective and creative person but his grammar was not really good, so member C had helped him to proofread and amended all the grammar mistakes. As a result, the group projects done by member B and C had received a very good grade. Member B appreciated member C’s effort and help, so during this conflict resolution process, when member C tried to ask if member B can follow the deadline of each steps suggested by member A, member B couldn't resist to agree on it. 



2. Commitment: We believed that member A & B didn't accept other ways of doing things were because of the lack of trust. It’s the first time they worked together so they were not sure how much the other could accomplish. So for every point made during the meeting, we summarized what we have discussed and promised to do. And member C agreed to act as the coordinator, reminding each member’s role, task and deadline. 



3. Social Proof: In order to minimize the time member A working on planning, member B & C told A that some of other groups had almost completed the assignment, creating the urgency for A to be more task/outcome-oriented. 

4. Authority: We didn't use this strategy. We believed in this case, using authority would create tension within the team. 

5. Liking: Instead of increasing the liking between A & B, our strategy tends to increase the liking between A & C and B & C. 

6. Scarcity: The strategy we used was the same as “Social Proof”. We tried to limit the available time to complete the assignment.


Conclusion

What we've learnt from this personality conflict resolution process is the importance to identify the personality of each member and root cause of the conflict. By knowing and understand well, you can then choose the appropriate resolution style that suit members’ personality. During the process, it’s important to encourage people being more reflective and avoid climbing up the ladder. And you also have to identify what you can do and cannot do (via central route to change behavior or via peripheral route to change attitude). And lastly, use the persuasion skills in accordance with the suitable to persuade people to make compromise. 

In terms of how we have applied the above steps, we did:
1. Identify personality of members: A as Executive, B as Entrepreneur and C as Defender 

2. Identify the cause of conflict: Working style differences 

3. Identify the appropriate style in managing the conflict: Validating- Volatile approach, allowing an healthy open dialogue 

4. Identify obstacles and to overcome it (be more reflective and avoid climb up the ladder of inference): Reflection, Advocacy and Inquiry of Why and What 

5. Persuade members to make compromise by using the weapon of influence: Reciprocity, Commitment and Consistency, Social Proof, Liking and Scarcity


Reference

  • Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York, Morrow.
  • Cialdini, R. B., & James, L. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (Vol. 4). Boston, MA: Pearson education.
  • Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. California: Stanford University Press.
  • Gass, R. H., & Seiter, J. S. (2010). Persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Ishfaq Ahmed, Muhammad Musarrat Nawaz, Muhammad Zeeshan Shaukat and Ahmad Usman (Oct, 2010). Personality Does Affect Conflict Handling Style: Study of Future Managers. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol.1, No. 3, 268-270. Retrieved from http://www.ijtef.org/papers/48-F474.pdf
  • Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., Schmeck, R. R., & Avdic, A. (2011). The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(4), 472-477.
  • MindsTools (n.d.). The Ladder of Inference: Avoiding "Jumping to Conclusions". Mind Tools: Toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC_91.htm
  • Myers-Briggs, I., & Myers, P. B. (1995). Gifts differing: Understanding personality type. Davies-Black Publishing.
  • Nauert PhD, R. (2009). Managing Conflict When Personalities Clash. Psych Central. Retrieved on April 30, 2015, from http://psychcentral.com/news/2009/12/10/managing-conflict-when-personalities-clash/10111.html
  • NERIS Analytics Limited. (n.d.). Our Theory. 16Personalities. Retrieved from http://www.16personalities.com/articles/our-theory
  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in experimental social psychology, 19, 123-205.
  • Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2012). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Royale Scuderi (n.d.). How to Handle Personality Conflicts At Work. Lifehack: Communication. Retrieved from http://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/how-to-handle-personality-conflicts-at-work.html
  • Schacter, Daniel L., Daniel T. Gilbert, and Daniel M. Wegner. (2011). "The Accuracy Motive: right is better than wrong-Persuasion." Psychology. New York: Worth, Incorporated.


張貼者： 於 沒有留言:
訂閱： 文章 (Atom)