Human Resources/1.8 MANAGERIAL COMMUNICATION
3.a) Discuss the models for understanding interpersonal relationship.
b) List and describe the process variables associated with effective team performance.
Discuss the models for understanding interpersonal relationship.
A strong association between individuals with similar interests and mindsets is called as interpersonal relationship. No one on this earth can ever stay alone and it is really important for people to have trustworthy friends around.
Interpersonal Relationship Development
Every relationship needs time to grow. One needs time to come really close to someone and trust him/her. Miracles do not happen in a single day. One needs to be patient enough to understand the other person for the relationship to grow and reach to the next level.
Various models have been proposed in the field of interpersonal relationship development. All the models suggest how relationship grows between friends, partners, couples, colleagues and so on.
Let us go through the models one by one:
Knapp’s Relationship Escalation Model
According to Knapp’s relationship escalation model, every relationship goes through the following stages:
Every relationship begins with a stage where two individuals not knowing each other before meet and instantly get attracted towards each other. In this stage, both the participants try their level best to create an everlasting first impression on the other person. Individuals show their best side to mark the beginning of a relationship. In this stage physical appearance, grooming, manners, etiquette play an essential role as individuals do not know each other much.
In the second stage individuals try to know each other more. They share their likes and dislikes and also try to find out about the other person’s interests. This stage is characterized by extensive meetings and phone calls so that individuals get to check their compatibility level.
Case 1 - Individuals are not compatible with each other.
Result - Individuals do not take the relationship forward and decide to end it for a better future.
Case - 2 Individuals are compatible with each other
Result - Individuals decide to continue the relationship
In the third stage, individuals make regular efforts to strengthen their relationship. People make commitments and prepare themselves for a long term relationship.
The fourth stage begins when individuals in a relationship start doing things together. They are often seen together shopping, dining, going for movies and so on.
When individuals are really sure about their relationship, they decide to stay together for ever. Individuals enter the wedlock in the fifth stage.
What is important for relationship Development ?
Effective communication between partners - It is important for individuals to stay in touch on a regular basis.
Respect for each other
A relationship does not survive if any of the above is missing.
Knapp’s Relationship Termination Model
A relationship ends when individuals do not communicate with each other effectively. Misunderstandings and confusions arise leading to unnecessary conflicts.
Remember there is no place for ego and jealousy in relationships. One needs to be forgiving for the relationship to grow. The stagnating stage is often characterized by individuals avoiding each other and not interacting much.
Individuals are no longer interested in each other and physical intimacy also decreases. People decide to move on from the relationship and opt for mutual separation.
Duck’s Relationship Filtering Model
As the name suggests, Duck’s relationship filtering model consists of many filters, a relationship has to pass through.
It is convenient for individuals to start a relationship with someone who stays close by or works with him/her. Distance does matter in relationships. People staying far off often find it difficult to meet and eventually their relationship suffers. This explains why long distance relationships are not very successful.
What one thinks about the other person also affects relationship. Individuals might make wrong perception towards someone and not decide to continue the relationship.
How individuals look, speak and present themselves also affect the relationship. Individuals tend to get attracted towards someone who is charming and confident
Purpose of the Model
The Model is designed to enable researchers to describe, map and track a Person's changing perception of his or her interpersonal relationships.
The Model is concise in its essential terms, but comprehensive in its scope; it spans both synergistic (co-operative) and antagonistic (conflicted) relationships; and it encompasses degrees of relational synergy and antagonism ranging from the most transient and inconsequential, to the most salient and persistent.
Summary of the Model
The Model describes a Person's perception, or awareness, of his or her relationship with another in terms of the attributes of two Directional Components (‘Other to Self' and ‘Self to Other').
The Model describes each of these two Directional Components (Other-to-Self and Self-to-Other) in terms of the following attributes:
• Assistive Polarity (Assistive or Resistive);
• Level of Intentionality (Meta Telic, Telic or Hypo Telic); and
• Degree of Autonomy (Autonomous Agency or Proxy Agency).
All of the characteristics of the relationship as a whole can be derived from the attributes of the Directional Components; so these Components, and their attributes, are the primary descriptors of the relationship between the two parties; all other descriptors (such as ‘Synergy' or ‘Antagonism', as applied to the relationship as a whole; or ‘Friend', ‘Ally' or ‘Enemy', as applied to the Self or the Other) are secondary, in the sense that they are all derived from, and depend upon, the primary descriptors.
The Two Directional Components: Other to Self and Self to Other
The Other to Self component represents the Person's awareness of the Other's attitudes, intentions and actions towards himself or herself.
The Self to Other component represents the Person's awareness of his or her attitudes, intentions and actions towards the Other.
Attributes of the Directional Components
Assistive attitudes, intentions and actions are perceived as facilitating or supporting the recipient.
Resistive attitudes, intentions and actions are perceived as obstructing or undermining the recipient.
The Three Levels of Intentionality: Hypo Telic, Telic and Meta Telic
Intentionality or Purpose of Actions
Hypo Telic Scope of Assistance or Resistance
Specific to Purpose Generalised
Telic Meta Telic
The Model distinguishes between actions whose assistive or resistive effects are perceived as deliberate and intentional, and those which are not.
Where it is accidental or unintentional, assistance or resistance is described as Hypo Telic; for example, when the Other unknowingly obstructs the Self's attainment of an aspiration, without recognising that the Self has that aspiration; or without being aware of the impacts of his or her actions upon the Self's attainment of that aspiration.
Where it is deliberate or intentional, the assistance or resistance is described as Telic or Meta Telic; for example, when the Other recognises that the Self has an aspiration, and deliberately obstructs the Self's attainment of it.
The Model also distinguishes between assistance or resistance which is limited to a specific range of intentions, purposes, goals, desires or aspirations, and assistance or resistance which is not limited in its scope.
Where the assistance or resistance is intentional and deliberate (that is, not Hypo Telic), but its scope is perceived as being clearly limited to a specific context, it is described as Telic; for example, when it is perceived that another's assistance is confined to the support of specific activities, goals or aspirations.
Where the scope of the assistance or resistance is intentional and deliberate but generalised, and not confined to a specific context, it is described as Meta Telic; for example, when it is perceived that the Other's resistance to one's activities is deliberate and general in scope, rather than confined to the obstruction of specific activities, or the undermining of specific goals or aspirations.
The Hypo Telic Level
Hypo Telic Assistance occurs when the actions of a person are perceived as unintentionally or accidentally facilitating another's attainment of his or her Aspirations, or the solution of his or her Problems.
Hypo Telic Resistance occurs when the actions of a person are perceived as unintentionally or accidentally obstructing another's attainment of his or her Aspirations, or the solution of his or her Problems.
The Telic Level
Telic Assistance occurs when the actions of a person are perceived as intentionally and deliberately facilitating another's attainment of a specific set of Aspirations (but not all of them), or the solution of a specific set of Problems (but not all of them).
Telic Resistance occurs when the actions of a person are perceived as intentionally and deliberately obstructing another's attainment of a specific set of Aspirations (but not all of them), or the solution of a specific set of Problems (but not all of them).
The Meta Telic Level
Meta Telic Assistance occurs when the actions of a Person are perceived as generally, intentionally and deliberately facilitating and supporting another Person's attainment of his or her Aspirations, or the solution of his or her Problems. The assistance is general, and pervades beyond the scope of a specific set of Aspirations and Problems. The Assistance operates regardless of the nature of the recipient's declared intentions, and is in that sense ‘unconditional'.
Meta Telic Resistance occurs when the actions of a Person are perceived as generally, intentionally and deliberately obstructing and undermining another Person's attainment of his or her Aspirations, or the solution of his or her Problems. The resistance is general, and pervades beyond the scope of a specific set of Aspirations and Problems. The Resistance operates regardless of the nature of the recipient's declared intentions, and is in that sense ‘unconditional'.
The Two Degrees of Autonomy: Autonomous Agency and Proxy Agency
The two degrees of Autonomy (Autonomous Agency and Proxy Agency) come into play mainly at the Telic Level.
They enable a distinction to be made between instances of Assistance or Resistance which are perceived to arise from the personal choices and preferences of Self or Other, and those which arise because either or both are acting as proxy agents for Third Parties (that is, either following the instructions of another person or group, or complying with the rules and procedures of an Institution). In the ensuing discussion, we shall call this Third Party the ‘Instructor'; and we shall call the Person who is the object of the Proxy Agent's actions the ‘Target'.
At the Telic Level, a Proxy Agent is perceived as carrying out an instruction to assist or resist the Target, but only within certain contexts, which are perceived as corresponding to the Instructor's purposes.
At the Meta Telic Level, a Proxy Agent is perceived as carrying out an instruction to assist or resist the Target regardless of context. The Instructor's purpose is to assist or resist the Target unconditionally, via the actions of the Proxy Agent.
The two degrees of Autonomy are not directly relevant at the Hypo Telic level, because the effects of Other upon Self (or vice versa) at this level are perceived as being accidental and unintentional, so the Proxy Agent is not being instructed to assist or resist the Target. However, it is entirely possible that an Agent offering Hypo Telic assistance or resistance is perceived as having been deliberately made accessible to, or placed in the path of, the Target by a Third Party. In this case, the assisting or resisting Agent is perceived as a mere obstacle or instrument to the Target, rather than as a Proxy Agent.
Perceived State of the Relationship as a Whole by the Self:
The perceived state of an interpersonal relationship as a whole thus depends upon the Self's perception of the states of the two Directional Components:
Other to Self Self to Other
Assistive Resistive Assistive Resistive
Level Meta Telic AA PA AA PA AA PA AA PA
Telic AA PA AA PA AA PA AA PA
Note 1: AA = Autonomous Agent; PA = Proxy Agent
Note 2: ‘Neutrality' is indicated by the absence of any entries in either the ‘Other to Self' or the ‘Self to Other' columns, or both of them.
In this Model, there are very many possible ‘states' for a relationship, because of:
• Assistive/Resistive Incongruity: Within a particular Directional Component (Self to Other, or Other to Self), there may be entries in both the Assistive and Resistive columns, at the same Level (specifically, the Telic Level) or at different Levels (in the latter case, the highest level would tend to dominate the perceived state of the relationship as ‘assistive' or ‘resistive'). For example, the Other to Self component might be perceived as both assistive at the Telic level (that is, the Other intends to support certain Aspirations/Goals of the Self) and, at the same time, resistive at the Hypo Telic level (the Other unintentionally obstructs certain Aspirations/Goals of the Self, through incompetence etc).
• Reciprocal Asymmetry: The entries for the two Directional Components may be mismatched in terms of their Poles (assistive/resistive) or in terms of their Levels (Hypo Telic, Telic or Meta Telic). For example, the Self to Other component might be perceived as assistive at the Meta Telic level (the Self provides general/unconditional support for the Other) while the Other to Self component may be perceived as Assistive only at the Telic level (the Other provides support for the Self only within the scope of particular contexts).
• Discrepancies between Degrees of Autonomy at the Telic Level: the entries for Self and Other may be perceived as being matched in terms of Pole and Level, but the Degrees of Autonomy exercised by Self and Other may be perceived as being mismatched. One party is perceived as acting autonomously for himself/herself, whereas the other party is perceived as acting as a proxy agent for a Third Party.
Derived Attributes of the Relationship as a Whole
An interpersonal relationship might be described as Synergistic when both of the Directional Components (Other to Self and Self to Other) are perceived as Assistive.
An interpersonal relationship might be described as Antagonistic when either of the Directional Components (Other to Self or Self to Other) is perceived as Resistive.
Synergy and Antagonism are thus derivative attributes of the combined states of the Directional Components.
Derived Descriptions of the Self and the Other
The Other may be described as a ‘Friend', ‘Ally', ‘Opponent', ‘Enemy' (etc.) of the Self, depending upon the overall state of the relationship, and of its Directional Components.
• an ‘Enemy' could be defined as someone who is resistive at the Meta Telic level;
• an ‘Ally' could be defined as someone who is assistive at the Telic level;
• an ‘Opponent' could be defined as someone who is resistive at the Telic level.
Like the attributes and descriptions of the relationship as a whole, these descriptions are derivative of the combined states of the Directional Components.
Some Research Questions Generated by the Model:
• To what extent do the states of the two Directional Components of a relationship tend to be symmetrical?
• To what extent do the changes in the two Directional Components tend to be synchronised (even when they are not symmetrical)?
• Under what circumstances do transitions between the three Levels occur, and what experiences tend to trigger these transitions?
• To what extent are transitions to and from the Telic Level conditioned by perceptions of the degree of Autonomy exercised by Self and Other?
• To what extent do individuals have a commitment to certain states (for example, maintaining a belief that all of the resistance that they encounter from Others is Hypo Telic (‘they didn't mean to make life difficult for me'); or, conversely, that all of the resistance that they encounter is Meta Telic (‘they've all got it in for me').
3) List and describe the process variables associated with effective team performance.
Team Effectiveness and Process variables
The final category to team effectiveness is process variables. These include member commitment to a common purpose, establishment of specific team goals, team efficacy, managed level of conflict and minimizing social loafing.
Why are processes important to team effectiveness? One way to answer this question is to return to the topic of social loafing. We found that 1+1+1 doesn’t necessarily add up to three. In team tasks for which each member’s contribution is not clearly visible, there is tendency for individuals to decrease their effort Social loafing, in other words, illustrates a process loss as a result of using teams. But team processes should positive results. That is, teams should create outputs greater than the sum of their inputs. The development of creative alternatives by a diverse group can be one such instance. The points below illustrate how group processes can have an impact on a group’s actual effectiveness.
Potential group effectiveness + Process gains – Process losses = Actual group effectiveness
Social loafing for instance represents negative synergy. The whole is less that the sum of its parts. On the other hand, research teams are often used in research laboratories because they can draw on the diverse skills of various individuals to produce more meaningful research as a team than could be generated by all of the researchers working independently. That is, they produce positive synergy. Their process gains exceed their process losses.
Common Purpose: Effective teams have a common and meaningful purpose that provides direction, momentum and commitment for members. This purpose is a vision. It’s broader than specific goals.
Members of successful teams put a tremendous amount of time and effort into discussing, shaping and agreeing on a purpose that belongs to them both collectively and individually. This common purpose, when accepted by the team, becomes the equivalent of what celestial navigation is to a ship captain – it provides direction under any and all conditions.
Specific Goals: Successful teams have their common purpose into specific,, measurable, and realistic performance goals. Just as we demonstrated in how goals lead individuals to higher performance, goals also energize teams. These specific goals facilitate clear communication. They also help teams maintain their focus on getting results.
Also, consistent with the research on individual goals, team goals should be challenging. Difficult goals have seen found to raise team performance on those criteria for which they’re set. So, for instance, goals for quantity tend to raise quantity, goals for speeds tend to raise speeds, goals for accuracy raise accuracy, and so on.
Effective teams have confidence it themselves. They believe they can succeed. We call team efficacy. Success breeds success. Teams that have been successful raise their beliefs about future success, which, in turn motivates them to work harder. What, if anything, can management do to increase team efficacy? Two possible options are helping the team to achieve small successes and providing skill training. Small successes build team confidence. As a team develops an increasingly strongest record, it also increases the collective belief that future efforts will lead to success. In addition, managers should consider providing training to improve members’ technical and interpersonal skills. The greater are the abilities of team members, the greater the likelihood that the team will develop confidence and the capability to deliver on that confidence.
Conflict levels: Conflict on a team isn’t necessarily bad. Teams that are completely void of conflict are likely to become apathetic and stagnant. So conflict can actually improve team effectiveness. But not all types of conflict. Relationship conflicts – those based on interpersonal incompatibilities, tension, and animosity towards others are almost always dysfunctional.
Social Loafing: Individuals can hide a side group. They can engage in social loafing and cost on the group’s effort because their individuals contributions can’t be identified. Effective teams undermine this tendency by holding themselves accountable at both the individual and team level. Successful teams make members individually and jointly accountable for the team’s purpose, goals, and approach. Therefore members must be clear on what they are individually responsible for and what they are responsible for.