10. ASSERTIVE SUPERVISION. The terms nonassertive, aggressive, and assertive can be used both positively and negatively. Nonassertive often refers to both a polite, deferential style of interaction and a wishy- washy approach. The term aggressive refers to described a forceful, energetic, approach to the world and to describe someone who acts in ways that infringe upon others. Assertive is used in both positive and negative ways. For some, assertive is associated with clear, confident communication. For others, it represents a selfish, egocentric approach to life that undermines working together to common goals. A supervisor acting nonassertively does not say what he or she wants or feels, speaks indirectly or apologetically, says something about a problem to the wrong problem to the wrong person, waits too long to confront a problem, gives up too easily, and compromises without making his or her needs clear. He or she tends to use words, voice characteristics, and body language that appear pleading and wishy-washy and tend to be discounted or elicit argument from others. The supervisor acting aggressively tends to blame and make judgmental criticisms, attribute negative intentions to others, act with too much power and too quickly, and refuse to listen or negotiate and compromise. The words he or she chooses and his voice characteristics and body language tend to put others on the defensive and make them feel threatened or cornered. Finally, the assertive supervisor makes clear, direct, nonapologetic statements about his or her expectations and feelings, criticizes in a descriptive rather than a judgmental way, persists following through on issues even if he meets resistance, listens to others' views respectfully, and negotiates and compromises. He or she does all of these things using words, voice characteristics, and body language that will be taken seriously without humiliating others. Many stereotypes about assertiveness exist. Some of these images come from popular literature, some from observing or talking to people who have attended assertive training workshops,a and some from the assertive literature itself (Smith, 1975). To destroy stereotypical notions regarding assertiveness, consider the following conditions under which it is the most productive supervisory style. 1. Assertiveness is not a "do your own thing" philosophy. Although assertiveness techniques can be used to pursue personal instead of organizational goals, assertiveness here is used in the service of effectively carrying out the supervisor's obligations to the organization. In the assertiveness model being described, insisting on "doing your own thing" and ignoring organizational priorities and the rights and needs of others is aggressive and not assertive. 2. Asserting yourself doesn't guarantee you will always get what you want. Many people believe that assertiveness implies getting their own way regardless of others' needs and priorities. This often leads to unpleasant social interactions. It is also unrealistic. There are many personal and organizational constraints on everyone. Assertion often requires imaginatively looking for alternative ways to solve a problem when personal or organizational constraints make a particular change impossible. An assertive supervisor would look for ways to streamline time-consuming paperwork when a tight budget makes assertion to get more staff impractical, rather than helplessly saying, "Oh, isn't this awful? Someone should do something." Assertiveness does not require that a supervisor continue to "beat her head against a brick wall." Continuing to push for change when constraints are made clear can create a great deal of frustration and therefore damage the supervisor's effectiveness on issues where change is possible. 3. Assertiveness is not an invitation to be rude, obnoxious, and unpleasant. There is no incompatibility between assertiveness and courtesy. Assertiveness requires courteous, respectful treatment of others. It is the embodiment of the "Golden Rule." It implies that you should respect and value others and respect and value yourself. It is entirely possible to be powerful and firm and to be polite and respectful at the same time. Finally, assertiveness emphasizes a respectful firmness. 4. You don't have to be assertive all the time. It is unlikely that anyone can be assertive all of the time. People vary in their strengths and weaknesses in their ability to be assertive. Assertiveness does not pretend to create a rigid new set of rules for all behavior in all situations. Aggressive and nonassertive approaches may be the most effective responses in certain circumstances. Sometimes it may not be worth the risk to be assertive. Some employees, for instance, will respond to another style (Drury, 1984). In the context of Assertive Supervision, the following underlying assumptions are made regarding human nature and how people want and need to be treated. They dovetail nicely with principles presented earlier in the section on motivating employees. 1. People want to do a good job (McGregor, 1960). 2. People have a powerful need to save face (Maslow, 1954). 3. Failing to tell someone about a problem is not doing him a favor (Alberti & Emmons, 1975). 4. No one can force anyone else to change (Bower & Bower, 1975). 5. Assertiveness will not always work right away (Jubowski & Lange, 1978). Supervisory style is a powerful influence on building involved teamwork. Style consists of what action a supervisor takes and how quickly. Employees respond differently to nonassertive, aggressive, and assertive styles. Though all three styles are sometimes necessary, Drury (1984) maintained that an overall assertive approach is the best one for building teamwork within an organization. Changing behavior is difficult, and if a supervisor's style is not assertive but predominately, one of the other two, change can be painful. New assertive behaviors may feel awkward for a time. Change takes time, and the supervisor practicing assertiveness is encouraged to do so in simple situations first and not in complex ones. According to Drury (1984) nonassertive supervisors follow certain patterns of behavior. These affect their performance and the performance of their employees and co-workers. What are these characteristics? 1. No expression of expectations and feelings. Question: Do you find yourself holding back your views on issues, particularly when you sense that the other person might disagree or be upset by your views? 2. Views stated indirectly and apologetically. Question: In an effort to be tactful, do you disguise your opinions so well that others have to guess what you really mean? 3. Complaints often made to the wrong person. Question: Do you find that you often complain about situations to someone who can't do anything to change the situation? 4. Problems are not confronted soon enough. Question: Do you often put off raising issues you know you should confront? 5. No persistence. Question: Do you find that you often end up giving in when you start out being assertive? 6. Unclear negotiation and compromise. Question: Do you find yourself not stating what you want when you are negotiating or compromising? On the following page is a self-test to measure your understanding of the nonassertive supervisory style. NONASSERTIVE SUPERVISORY SELF-TEST Directions: Pick the nonassertive response in the following situations and specify what cues you used. 1. Cora has an employee who comes to her several times an hour for help on problems she could solve herself. a. Cora complains to her supervisor almost daily about the worker. b. Cora tells the employee she needs to attempt to solve problems herself before asking for help. 2. Don is convinced that the new reporting procedure is slowing productivity and has some data to prove it. a. He schedules a meeting with his supervisor to discuss the data and talk about possible ways to modify the procedure. b. He hopes management will see and correct the obvious problem. 3. Laura needs her manager's backing when she confronts an employee. a. She has a conversation with her supervisor about problem employees in general and the need for management support. b. She has a conversation with the supervisor in which she describes the situation with that employee and asks whether the supervisor will support her in reprimanding that employee. 4. Danielle has been taking on extra work from another unit. a. She will say something as soon as she begins to feel this is a problem. b. She lets the situation go until she is fuming about the unfair and unreasonable demands of the other departments and then has an angry confrontation. Answers to Self-Test 1. a is the nonassertive response because she complains to the wrong person. b is assertive because she makes her comments to the person involved. 2. b is the nonassertive response because he does not express his expectations and feelings but just waits for the situation to change. a is assertive because he takes an active role. 3. a is the nonassertive response because she is too direct in expressing what she wants. b is assertive because she expresses her feelings when the problem begins. 4. b is the nonassertive response because she waits too long to confront the problem. a is assertive because she expresses her feelings when the problem begins. Certain kinds of language present cues to reveal the nonassertive supervisory style. One way that a supervisor can learn to identify his or her style is to listen to the words used in interactions with employees. Minimizing words. Phrases and words like kind of, a little, sort of, maybe, and perhaps, inadvertently tell others that particular communications are not to be taken seriously. One way that someone appears nonassertive and dilutes his impact on others is by using minimizing words. People are less likely to pay attention to statements that are delivered in a minimized way (Eisen, 1984). Apologetic statements. Nonassertive responses are often preceded or followed by phrases that reduce their impact. Sentences like "I know that this will be a bother and you probably won't want to do it, but could you possibly help me with this project?" and "I'd really like some help with this project if you don't mind too much and can fit it into your schedule with no hassle" are examples of this (Smith, 1975). Statements made about people in general instead of to a specific person. Nonassertive supervisors will sometimes confront a problem with a particular employee by announcing in a meeting that "Some people around here have been taking too long a lunch hour lately." The guilty person is often insensitive to the statement being made. A motivated, cooperative employee might very well take the hint, examine his performance, and makes the necessary changes without any more specific intervention from the supervisor. The less motivated, less self-aware employee could easily fail to see the message relevant to him (Eisen, 1985). General instead of specific behavioral descriptions. Employees need to know exactly what they are doing to create a problem if they are to be able to change. One common nonassertive word choice is to use general, inclusive descriptions of problems rather than pinpointing specific performance problems. Comments like "Your performance could be better" or "Your performance is inadequate" or "You should work harder" might serve as effective introductions to a clearer, more specific description of the problem. If a supervisor tells an employee to "work harder," he may mean that he wants the employee to take shorter lunch hours, not to make personal phone calls, to increase the pace of his work, not to make so many trips to the water cooler, or any number of other specific behaviors (Eisen, 1985). Statements disguised as questions. Another common nonassertive word choice is to ask a question that is really a disguised request or statement of opinion. "You wouldn't want to use that procedure with this problem, would you?" or "Don't you think that Mr. Jones is being unfair?" are questions that permit the questioner to express a point of view without having to take responsibility for it. There are many people who respond to this type of rhetorical questioning by treating it as a pure question (Eisen, 1985). The impact of an interaction is determined not only by the words used, but also by the voice characteristics and by body language. Nonverbal cues are often far more important determinants of other's reaction than verbal cues (Henley, 1977). Becoming aware of nonverbal cues requires careful observation of self and others. Some of these are: 1. Pleading or questioning voice tone. 2. Lack of eye contact. 3. Hesitation. 4. Slumping downtrodden posture. 5. Words and nonverbal messages that don't match. Nonassertiveness does cause problems for the supervisor. Some of these problems are: 1. Physical tension. 2. An "unfinished" feeling. 3. Resentment. 4. Uncertainty. 5. Negative feelings. 6. Lack of respect. 7. Attack and manipulation. When is the nonassertive supervisory style the best? Here are some situations. 1. When the risks of assertiveness are too great. 2. When it is simply not worth the trouble to be assertive. 3. When it is not the appropriate time to be assertive. There are four major inhibitions to assertiveness. These are: 1. Guilt. 2. Fear and anxiety. 3. Doubt. 4. Nice-guy Image. Each of the four above inhibitions can seriously affect the supervisor's ability to be assertive. When these are present, it is difficult for the nonassertive supervisor to change his or her style even though it may be extremely necessary. The following behavior patterns, Drury (1985) wrote, characterize an aggressive supervisory style. All these patterns have in common the tendency to make people defensive. 1. Critical expression of expectations and feelings. Aggressive people express their expectations and feeling by attacking the other person. The most common effect of this kind of management style is to put the other person on the defensive. People tend to stop listening when they feel they are being attacked and thus don't hear the part of the message that may be constructive. Question: Are you critical of others when you express your expectations and feelings? 2. Blaming and judgmental criticisms. When there is a problem, the aggressive supervisor usually will attack the other person rather than describe the situation and discuss strategies for solving the problem. The emphasis is on discovering who is to blame for the problem instead of working together to solve the problem. The aggressive supervisor believes that making an employee accept blame for problems and see his or her problems and see her personality faults is often thought of as a way to motivate the person to change. Question: Do you find yourself that you often make assumptions about what particular employee actions mean? 3. "Muscle level" too high. Muscle level refers to the strength or leverage of someone's interactions with others. There are four levels of muscle (Butler, 1976). Muscle Level I is a polite request: "I'd like you to let us know when you can't come to a steering committee meeting." Muscle Level II is a request that is stronger in word choice, voice characteristics, and body language. "When you don't let us know that you're going to miss a meeting, we sometimes end up meeting without a quorum, which is useless. I need to know when you can't make a meeting." Muscle Level III is a statement of the consequences if the behavior doesn't change: "If you can't let us know when you'll miss a meeting we will have to ask you to resign from the committee." Muscle Level IV is the application of the consequences stated in Level III: "Since you have not been keeping us informed about your attendance, I will have to ask you to leave the committee." Question: Do you find that sometimes you use Muscle Level III responses without using Levels I and II first? If so, what happens? 4. Problems acted on too quickly. While the nonassertive person waits too long to act, the aggressive person often "shoots from the hip" - acts too quickly without finding out all of the facts. Aggressive people tend to draw very quick conclusions, when coupled with a tendency not to listen carefully to others, can lead to impulsive action. Aggressive action can interfere with systematic problem solving. Question: Do you find yourself acting on issues quickly without considering all aspects of the situation and potential solutions? 5. Unwillingness to listen. If others' ideas are basically seen as irrelevant or wrong, there is no particular reason to listen to them. The aggressive person is much more likely to interrupt someone to finish what he or she wants to say than to stop and listen to the other person. In a crisis, aggressive people are much more likely to say what they think about the problem over and over than to try to find out how someone else sees the problem. The disadvantage of this is that the aggressive person misses a great deal of useful information by not listening. Question: Do the people who work with you seem to feel free to talk to you about problems? 6. Refusal to negotiate and compromise. The aggressive person wants what he or she wants when he or she wants it. Since aggressive people ar generally convinced that they are right and that their priorities are most important, they simply are not interested in negotiation and compromise. They often view other peoples' needs or organizational priorities as attempts to question their authority or sabotage their work. Question: Do you find yourself insisting that everything be done your way (pp. 52-54)? The kinds of words used by a supervisor are often a reflection of the aggressive style. Loaded words like lazy, incompetent, stupid, unmotivated, and worthless are judgmental in themselves and often provoke a negative reaction. A "you" statement is you followed by a loaded word. Even you followed by a description of the same behavior tends to provoke more defensiveness than a description of the same behavior done without a verbal fingerpointing "you" statement. Another way to put a person on the defensive is to tell him that he "never" does his work on time or the he is "always" late. It is rarely true that a person never does what he is supposed to do. When a supervisor uses "always" or "never" statements, employees will tend to defensively point out the exceptions. Another aggressive approach is to ask a question that really expresses a judgement. The nonassertive person asks a question and hides his feelings. The aggressive person asks a question, but makes his real feelings obvious through word choice, voice tone, and body language. Assertively phrased sentences can sound quite aggressive if delivered in an aggressive, overbearing tone of voice. Since most people are not aware of their own tone of voice, recognizing this subtle sign of aggressiveness may be difficult. A loud voice volume is one indicator of an aggressive supervisor. Although speaking in a tone of voice that clearly projects is necessary for an assertive style, shouting almost always appears aggressive. Since the aggressive person is not really interested in listening to other people's points of view, she often does not give them an opportunity to finish what they are saying. While the nonassertive person avoids eye contact, the aggressive person may stare at someone without really making eye contact. Staring at someone can certainly be more powerful than not making eye contact at all. This can be intimidating and minimize access to information about the other person's actions. A supervisor can communicate aggressiveness by standing over someone with his or her hands on hips, pointing a finger at someone, or moving so close to someone that personal space is invaded. Drury (1984) contended that one of the reasons it can be very difficult to alter an aggressive interaction style is that aggressive behavior doesn't create as many painful internal signals that can motivate the supervisor to change. Nonassertiveness is generally accompanied by a great deal of internal tension or a strong sense that somehow something more should be said or done. This is not true of the aggressive person. The aggressive supervisor's most common emotion is anger, or its less controlled form - rage. The real cue for what aggressive supervision is is what it does to others. One way to know if someone is being aggressive is to notice when the other people respond as if they are being attacked. Drury (1984) listed a number of defensive signals that can mean someone feels he is being attacked: 1. Physical withdrawal. 2. Monosyllabic answers or less verbal interaction. 3. Increase in explanations, excuses, or justification. 4. Nonverbal agitation such as fidgeting, breaking eye contact. 5. Anger or frustration, which may emerge as sullenness. 6. Avoidance of contact altogether (p. 62). There are some situations in which the aggressive supervisory style may be very useful. Using it may be a very effective way to get a person's attention and impress on him or her that the issue being confronted is an important one. Aggressiveness can be used to communicate to a distracted or inattentive employee that the supervisor means business--that he has reached a limit. Becoming aggressive can also be a way to clear the air when a great deal of tension has built up in a relationship. there are times when most people need to just "blow off steam" (Bach & Goldberg, 1974). Some people will escalate conflict in an interaction until they provoke an aggressive response. They see assertiveness as a sign of weakness. With this kind of person, an aggressive approach may be necessary in order for him to recognize that a limit has been set. There are other kinds of power confrontations in which aggressive responses may be necessary in order to intimidate the opponent and thereby enhance personal power and are described in considerable detail in other books (Korda, 1975; Ringer, 1977). There are many aggressive people who are successful in organizations. They are generally aggressive only when it is not likely to get them in trouble. Aggressiveness is not recommended to supervisors though, because it is a high-risk strategy and the long-term effects on working relationships can be detrimental. As with the other two, the assertive style is characterized by certain behavior patterns. Drury (1984) maintained that the assertive supervisor can be easily recognized by these effective patterns. 1. Clear, direct, nonapologetic expression of expectations and feelings. An assertive supervisor usually states in the first few minutes of an interaction exactly what he or she wants. Statements are specific and are directly addressed to the person for whom they are meant. His or her statements are not buried by apologetic or indirect introductions or followed by rambling comments that blunt their impact. The direct, assertive supervisor takes responsibility for taking care of him or herself in the world. Others do not have to try to take care of him, nor is he dependent on the willingness and ability of others to guess what is needed. Question: Do you let others know where you stand on issues? 2. Descriptive instead of judgmental criticisms. Assertive criticism describes behavior that is creating problems without attacking the person involved. The purpose of assertive criticism is to solve the problem, not to punish the other person for his or her behavior. The language used is not "loaded" and the process involves mutually exploring what is preventing things from working and generating concrete plans for improvement. Question: Do you give your employees feedback when their performance isn't up to standard? 3. Persistence. The assertive supervisor will continue to follow through on an issue until it is resolved. He or she looks for other ways to solve a problem when one way is blocked. The Alcoholics Anonymous prayer offers a reasonable motto for assertiveness in business as well: God, grant me the courage to change the things that I can change, the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference (A.A. International, 1954). The assertive supervisor takes the stance which involves courage to change what can be changed through persistent, effective action and the serenity to gracefully accept what cannot be changed? Question: Are there times when you do not follow through persistently? 4. Willingness to listen. An important characteristic of an assertive supervisory style of interaction is to listen to others. In a meeting, the assertive person may disagree with others, but he or she always makes them feel that they have been listened to by him or her. The result of listening effectively is that the supervisor communicates respect for the other persons. The assertive style often takes a little longer initially because it generates a dialogue with the employee. Problems are more likely to be solved because the assertive supervisor finds the source of the problem rather than settling on a quick or arbitrary solution. It is important not only to be able to listen to what others say, but also to be able to communicate to them what is heard. Active listening is a must if the supervisor is to be assertive. Question: Can you think of someone in your organization who seems especially good at listening to others? 5. Negotiation and compromise. The assertive supervisor is concerned with finding a way that both people in an interaction can win. He or she persists in meeting needs and priorities, but not at the expense of the organization or the people. Judgment, sensitivity, and awareness of self and others are the only guides for effectively balancing personal needs and views with those of other people. The assertive style does not maintain that compromise is always possible. It only says that when possible, compromise and negotiation are likely to lead to more productive teamwork. Question: Under what circumstances are you willing to negotiate and compromise and how do you make that decision (pp. 79-81)? Assertive word choices are neither apologetic, angry, nor judgmental, but are neutral and focused on solving problems. Assertive statements command serious attention without arousing defensiveness. They get right to the point. It is not necessary to wade through a lot of language to figure out what the assertive person wants. The assertive supervisor directs his or her remarks to a specific person and describes specific behaviors. He or she avoids the communication error of bypassing by being precise. The more general the supervisor is when describing behavior, the more danger there is that the other person will misunderstand what she wants. The assertive supervisor would most likely say such things like "How can we resolve this?" or "Let's work on shortening turnaround time for these new programs." It is essential that the supervisor provide a sense that the supervisor and the employee are working together on a specific problem. Demands tend to appear much more aggressive than requests. In times of emergency, a demand might be more appropriate, in most cases, employees will be more cooperative when they are asked to do something rather than ordered to do something. Avoiding demands except in emergencies not only elicits more cooperation, it also ensures that when a direction is actually given it is taken seriously. Giving directions in every instance dilutes their effectiveness. Some of the assertive style's voice characteristics and body language are: 1. Even, powerful voice tone. 2. Eye contact. 3. Erect, relaxed posture. 4. Words and nonverbal messages match (Drury, 1984, 88). What are the effects of the assertive style of supervision on the individual? The assertive supervisor possesses a sense of things having a "finished" feeling. There is a sense of relief that accompanies assertive action. He or she does not feel like a victim of circumstances. Employees are more likely to cooperate with an assertive rather than a nonassertive or aggressive supervisor ensuring more teamwork. The assertive style promotes trust because the supervisor is clear about where he or she stands and is willing to listen, negotiate, and compromise. This clear, firm, and fair stand creates a personal commitment within employees to the achievement of organizational priorities and goals. The basic motto of the assertive person is "I want to find a way for both of us to win. I don't want to ignore my priorities to pay attention to yours" (Drury, 1981, p.92). The most basic support for an assertive approach is to possess a positive self- image, or in Haney's (1986) terminology, and ERSI. The assertive supervisor trusts others. Even though he or she knows some employees will not be motivated to do a good job, he or she tends to assume good intentions (McGregor's Y Theory, 1957) of employees and looks for obstacles to productive work. A feeling of entitlement supports assertiveness, meaning that the supervisor has the right to expect certain kinds of behaviors from his or her employees. The assertive supervisor exhibits objectivity in whatever he or she does. Minor irritations are not made into major catastrophes. He or she bases supervisory behavior on the facts in the situation and not on assumptions about what a particular behavior means. An assertive supervisory style is necessary if the supervisor hopes to be effective in motivating employees to perform up to their potential in his or her service. This discussion could continue, but for the purposes of this paper, the information provided thus far adequately describes the three styles and how they are interrelated. Each supervisor will eventually choose his or her preference, but given the characteristics of the first two, it is obvious that developing an assertive style will benefit any supervisor in creating an effective team environment which produces the greatest good for the organization, the employees and the supervisor.