The article, In Search of the Right Touch, centers on the role of assertiveness and how too much or too little affects others opinion of the person. To do well in an organization, Ames (2008) tells there needs to be a delicate balance with the amount of assertiveness shown. The successful worker knows how to show the proper amount of assertiveness without being either too weak or too aggressive.
In research, assertiveness forms an inverted U-shaped relationship with effectiveness. This means leaders who ranked both high and low in assertiveness also rated worse than those that stayed the middle course. It was those who balanced their assertiveness who were highest in effectiveness. This means either too much or too little assertiveness hinders a leaders performance as seen by others.
Assertiveness has a positive impact with instrumental outcomes, or outcomes depending on completing a task well, but a negative impact with social outcomes. While an assertive person may accomplish a great deal, his personal relationships with others will suffer. When the person is being considered by others, he suffers more by assertiveness than his increased output overcomes.
A very important skill is the ability to give the appropriate amount of assertiveness for the situation. For example, dealing with friendly coworkers takes considerably less assertiveness than negotiating a merger with a foreign company. The most respected leader is one who understands this and is able to adapt when needed.
Finally, a personal antidote that proves the theory discussed. I had a friend that had a boss who treated everyone hostilely. Rather than being seen as strong, he was universally hated by all. Therefore, workers used passive-aggressive techniques to undermine the boss work but not get caught. The boss saw the failing numbers and pushed harder and the workers continued to secretly fight back. That boss was fired and replaced by a fairer person. Production went up because the workers tried harder for the person they liked. In the end, super assertiveness didnt pay off.
In research, assertiveness forms an inverted U-shaped relationship with effectiveness. This means leaders who ranked both high and low in assertiveness also rated worse than those that stayed the middle course. It was those who balanced their assertiveness who were highest in effectiveness. This means either too much or too little assertiveness hinders a leaders performance as seen by others.
Assertiveness has a positive impact with instrumental outcomes, or outcomes depending on completing a task well, but a negative impact with social outcomes. While an assertive person may accomplish a great deal, his personal relationships with others will suffer. When the person is being considered by others, he suffers more by assertiveness than his increased output overcomes.
A very important skill is the ability to give the appropriate amount of assertiveness for the situation. For example, dealing with friendly coworkers takes considerably less assertiveness than negotiating a merger with a foreign company. The most respected leader is one who understands this and is able to adapt when needed.
Finally, a personal antidote that proves the theory discussed. I had a friend that had a boss who treated everyone hostilely. Rather than being seen as strong, he was universally hated by all. Therefore, workers used passive-aggressive techniques to undermine the boss work but not get caught. The boss saw the failing numbers and pushed harder and the workers continued to secretly fight back. That boss was fired and replaced by a fairer person. Production went up because the workers tried harder for the person they liked. In the end, super assertiveness didnt pay off.
