Dealing With Annoying Co-Workers

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 1/24

Chapter 3

Individual Factors in Organizational Communication

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 2/24

When all other means of communication fail, try words. —Anonymous

Learning Objectives What We Will Be Investigating:

Realize that encoding and decoding processes are unique to the individual. Appreciate how and why people misperceive messages. Understand the factors that help to create our self-image. Understand the difference between introversion and extroversion. Appreciate that beliefs, attitudes, and values differ among people and cultures. Recognize the importance of acculturation in organizational life. Understand the psychological traits of self-ef�icacy and empathy. Explain how perception operates and what selective perception involves. Understand the perceptual processes of habituation and closure.

Organizational communication begins with the individual. Indeed, the effectiveness of all levels of organizational communication— interpersonal, group, and multigroup—depends on our ability to communicate intrapersonally, to interpret messages reliably and develop appropriate and in�luential messages to share with others. It is at this basic individual, or intrapersonal, level of communication that we translate the messages we perceive into meanings about the world, in what is known as the decoding process, as discussed in Chapter 1. It

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 3/24

is also at this intrapersonal level of communication that we design the strategic messages we plan to share with others, translating meanings into messages in what is known as the encoding process.

However, each of us performs decoding and encoding processes uniquely. That is, we each engage in intrapersonal communication in our own unique way. For example, we all interpret messages based on our own personal background, experiences, and orientations to organizational situations. We also compose messages in our own personal ways. Sometimes these decoding and encoding processes are conducted reliably and effectively, but often we make errors in judgment that can lead to serious problems in organizational communication. These errors include misinterpretations about the messages of others, incorrect judgments about the in�luence of our own messages on others (miscommunications), and even unintended (and sometimes dangerous) in�luences of our messages on others. If we have trouble communicating at the intrapersonal level, we will invariably encounter problems coordinating activities with others when we engage in organizational communication. That is why it is imperative that we develop a clear understanding and mastery of intrapersonal communication as an essential foundation for becoming strategic organizational communicators.

In many ways the individual, or intrapersonal, level of communication is the most important level of organizational communication. Yet most people take intrapersonal communication for granted. We assume that we have competently interpreted messages, created reliable and valid meanings, and developed appropriate messages to share with others. If only this were true, communication would be so much more effective. Furthermore, intrapersonal communication processes occur primarily within our own heads as we interpret messages and create our own message strategies. Unfortunately, most communicators fail to utilize knowledge about intrapersonal communication processes to guide strategic organizational interactions. In this chapter, we will demystify the intrapersonal level of communication by exploring the key processes that organizational participants bring to organizational life and that in�luence organizational communication. This chapter should help guide your own intrapersonal communication processes to help you achieve individual and collective organizational goals.

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 4/24

3.1 Intrapersonal Communication and the Psychology of Self

There is a close relationship between intrapersonal communication and the ways we think about ourselves. Important individual psychological and personality factors such as the following are closely tied to the ways we communicate and make sense of our world:

our personal self-image, our levels of extroversion and introversion (how important social interaction is to us), our psychological set (our beliefs, values, and attitudes), our sense of personal control over situations (often referred to as our locus of control) and our belief that we can accomplish our goals (often referred to as our sense of self-ef�icacy), our level of empathy for others, and our orientation toward expressing different emotional states (like happiness or sadness).

Because it involves so many psychological and personal factors, intrapersonal communication is often referred to as the psychology of human communication. Let's take a look at each of these factors and see how they in�luence the ways in which we communicate in organizational life.

Self-Image

Our self-image involves beliefs about who we perceive we are, what we see as our personal and professional potential, and what we think our personal communication style should be. Self-image is a critical intrapersonal factor that strongly in�luences the behaviors and interpretations of organizational actors. For example, individuals who have relatively positive self-images are likely to see themselves as potentially successful and upwardly mobile organizational participants. This positive self-image will indelibly in�luence their professional goals, orientations, and the ways they interact with others. Individuals with a positive self-image are likely to be optimistic, con�ident, assertive, and willing to take risks. (These are some common traits of effective leaders.) Conversely, individuals with a more negative self- image are likely to have limited expectations for themselves concerning their organizational success and upward mobility. They may behave cautiously as organizational participants, not take major risks, and be reticent about expressing their ideas, opinions, and suggestions.

Self-image not only in�luences how we see ourselves but also shapes the ways we communicate with others and in�luences how others are likely to view us. In addition, our self-image in�luences how we interpret organizational situations. If, for example, a supervisor asks

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 5/24

How does the self-image Oprah Winfrey has of herself affect the way she communicates with others?

an employee why he did something a particular way, the employee with a more positive self- image might infer that the supervisor wants to learn from him, whereas someone with a negative self-image might decide that he's about to be criticized. In the next chapter, we will discuss how the interpersonal responses we receive from others (interpersonal feedback) help to con�irm, discon�irm, and change our perceptions and image of our self.

Extroversion and Introversion

Our sense of self is determined partly by whether we see ourselves as introverts or extroverts. Introverts get their energy from being by themselves; on the other hand, extroverts "recharge" themselves by being around other people. Introverts need more space to work on their own because too many people wear them out; extroverts look forward to being in social situations because they �ind such situations to be energizing. People who are introverted can be less outgoing than people who are extroverted. Our levels of extroversion and introversion have a large impact on how we interact with others and participate in organizational life. For example, highly extroverted organizational participants are likely to be outgoing, sociable, and friendly, whereas more introverted individuals may be more quiet, reserved, and reluctant to initiate conversations.

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 6/24

However, don't be fooled into thinking that a high level of extroversion is always appropriate in organizational life or that a high level of introversion is necessarily negative. Strategic organizational communicators gauge the communication demands of different organizational situations and make choices about how extroverted or introverted they need to be. For example, there are certain organizational contexts in which a highly extroverted person may be perceived as being too loud, disruptive, or perhaps even rude and in which it is preferable to communicate quietly and act in a reserved manner. For example, if you are part of a work group in which the manager is angrily admonishing group members about serious performance problems related to handling job demands, it is probably wise to listen carefully and quietly to what the manager is saying rather than respond boisterously. Strategic organizational participants learn how to manage their levels of extroversion/introversion to match the demands of different organizational situations.

Intrapersonal communication style factors, such as introversion and extroversion, can be good indicators about how well suited different organizational participants will be for handling the communication demands of different organizational roles. For example, highly extroverted organizational participants are likely to be good at initiating conversations and encouraging others to open up. These individuals may be well suited for jobs that demand frequent and effective interactions with others, such as sales, counseling, or customer service positions. More introverted organizational participants may be better suited to more self-contained and solitary jobs, such as conducting individual laboratory research, performing word processing tasks, or handling accounting responsibilities. Levels of introversion and extroversion are important factors to take into account when selecting individuals for different jobs and tasks.

Strategic organizational communicators should also take into account other organizational participants' levels of extroversion and introversion when communicating with these individuals. For example, to elicit cooperation from relatively introverted individuals, it is often wise to respect their need to pull away from the group at times and work on their own while still trying to build social connections for them. On the other hand, an extrovert will enjoy longer conversations with more people; indeed, they may be disappointed if they don't or can't make such connections, and so their needs for social interaction must be taken into account.

So are you introverted or extroverted? There are probably times when you feel relatively outgoing and times when you feel relatively shy. However, most people develop general personal tendencies toward being more or less extroverted or introverted. These personality tendencies are often expressed through the roles they develop within speci�ic organizational contexts and the ways in which they communicate. Yet it is important to note that individuals who act introverted within professional organizations may be extroverted in social or family contexts. This is an important point to keep in mind because it suggests that personal communication tendencies need not be unchangeable patterns of communication behavior. These communication patterns can, and often do, change as our roles within organizational life change. It also suggests that with appropriate nurturing, we can help organizational participants develop more

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 7/24

How do our cultural af�iliations and cultural norms affect our beliefs, values, and attitudes?

con�idence as communicators and take on important leadership roles and responsibilities. We will examine this issue more fully when we discuss leadership development in Chapters 5 and 6.

Our Psychological Set: Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values

Our psychological set refers to our personal beliefs about the world, as well as the values and attitudes we hold toward different situations, individuals, and objects. Beliefs are positions we hold about what is true or false; they tend to be more cognitive. We have a large constellation of beliefs, with some being more central (strongly believed) than other beliefs. Attitudes are predispositions we have to respond either positively or negatively to people, objects, or situations; they tend to involve a more emotional response. Some of our attitudes are very strong and motivate powerful responses, whereas other attitudes are mild. Values are judgments we make about the importance to us of different people and situations. Our beliefs, attitudes, and values change over time as we encounter new information and grow as people, although our values are generally considered the "deepest" of the three and the most dif�icult to change.

These key elements of our psychological set are strongly in�luenced by our different cultural af�iliations. The cultural groups we identify with help us de�ine who we are and typically establish cultural norms that in�luence our beliefs, values, and attitudes. If you were asked to describe yourself, your answer would most likely identify your different cultural group af�iliations. For example, if you described yourself as a 30-year-old African American man from Chicago, working in retail management and �inishing your degree in business administration, with strong personal interests in personal computing, jazz, and Japanese anime �ilms, this brief description could provide some useful information about your cultural connections. Your gender, age, race, place of origin, job, education, and hobbies are all primary cultural factors in your life that not only de�ine who you are but also in�luence how you think and behave. Cultural in�luences are therefore critical factors to take into account when trying to understand an individual's beliefs, attitudes, and values. However, it is worth stressing that there is no magic, foolproof formula for accurately perceiving another person; it would be unwise to assume, for example,

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 8/24

that just because the African American man we just described likes jazz, that he hates opera, or that because he has a degree in business administration, he must be a Republican.

Cultural group members are acculturated (reinforced) through their interactions with other cultural group members to accept central (culturally approved) norms and expectations through an ongoing process of socialization. Through our interactions with other cultural group members we receive continuous interpersonal reinforcement for accepting key cultural beliefs, attitudes, and values. For example, other cultural group members may inform us or react to us negatively when we violate cultural norms, such as when we say something inappropriate or dress in ways that challenge cultural expectations. They might say things such as, "That is not the way we speak around here," or "It would be nice if you would dress appropriately when you come here," to reinforce cultural expectations. Most times, however, feedback about cultural norms is fairly subtle, with other group members letting you know nonverbally whether you are following them. For example, they might smile and nod at you when you act in accord with cultural norms or frown or shake their heads disapprovingly when you violate cultural norms. (Note that these are fairly common strategies used to reinforce appropriate workplace behaviors as well. If you want to be successful in your job, it is wise to learn the centrally accepted culturally based norms of appropriate workplace behavior and follow these rules carefully.)

Clearly, cultural norms in�luence the ways we perceive the world and the behaviors we engage in. Cultural norms also in�luence communication, and in ways that are far more complex than we might expect. We each typically belong to a number of cultural groups at any time, and these group memberships change over time. We often change our cultural af�iliations when we get new jobs or join different organizations. Each of our cultural af�iliations exerts a different level of in�luence on us depending on how important (or central) the cultural group is to us at that time. Some of our cultural group af�iliations are relatively permanent, such as our family memberships, our national origin, and our religious upbringing. However, even relatively permanent cultural af�iliations change in terms of priority over time. Life changes. We take new jobs, begin new relationships, move to different cities, with each of these changes in�luencing our cultural af�iliations.

Strategic organizational communicators play close attention to the key cultural factors that are likely to in�luence the ways other organizational participants interpret and react to different situations, using this information to guide their own communication to achieve individual and collective goals. They are aware of their own values, attitudes, and beliefs, but they also are mindful of the norms and rules within organizations, which may or may not be consistent with them.

Organizations in Action: Acculturation at the CIA

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 9/24

Most of us recognize the need for cultural adjustment if we travel to the other side of the planet. We expect that the language, the food, and the rules for behavior may well be different—sometimes shockingly different. In the same way, new members of organizations must become acculturated to the norms and rules of their workplace. Although this is a continuous process, it is experienced most intensely by the "newcomers." And in this acculturation process, the confusion and surprises can be no less than if you were to take a trip around the world.

The term anticipatory assimilation has been used to describe the ways in which employees may misunderstand the norms and rules in organizations before they even start their jobs. Stephen H. Konya and Rob Johnston, writing about working for the Central Intelligence Agency, quote one newcomer as saying, "I know it sounds silly, but I had this image of James Bond before I started working here. The truth is, I just sit in a cubicle, and I write reports." (2007) Konya and Johnston elaborate by saying that when it comes to the CIA, "a newcomer's initial impressions stem from the �ictional media portrayals, which tend to emphasize the supposed glamour of operational tasks and pay little attention to the reality of research-based analytic work."(2007) In a nutshell, movie portrayals of everyday CIA operations are basically nothing like the real thing, and as with any organization, the possible consequences of this misunderstanding involve confusion, disappointment, and dissatisfaction, resulting in higher turnover.

Once they join an organization, employees go from anticipatory socialization to "accommodation," where group members experience the workplace �irsthand. Within the CIA, Konya and Johnston contend, "A newcomer's experience is often contrary to initial expectations. Employees are discouraged from talking about the speci�ics of their work outside of the organization or with those who have not been ‘cleared.’ On an individual level, this experience translates into professional culture shock and social isolation." But because norms and rules are not static, this self-imposed isolation has changed a bit since 9/11. According to Konya and Johnston, "The Intelligence Community has become more open about its role in government, its day-to-day working environment, and its employees' functions and responsibilities." (2007) Still, norms of con�identiality are at the heart of much intelligence work, and so the changes are probably still somewhat confusing and unclear to everyone involved.

Although the CIA may offer a more intriguing example of the dynamics of acculturation, every job involves disconnects between its imagined and its real nature. The next time you run into a teacher, a doctor, a lawyer, or a cop, ask them how what we see on TV about their work squares with their day-to-day real-life experiences. You might be surprised.

Critical Thinking Questions:

1. What speci�ic norms and rules are in force at places where you have worked? 2. Of these norms and rules, which ones are actually written down somewhere, and which ones aren't?

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 10/24

Employee Involvement and Empowerment



3. What values are embedded in such norms and rules? What underlying message do they communicate?

Sources:

Konya, S. & Johnston, R. (2007, March 16). Organizational culture: Anticipatory socialization and intelligence analysts. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and- monographs/analytic-culture-in-the-u-s-intelligence-community/chapter_8_organizculture.htm (https://www.cia.gov/library/center- for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/analytic-culture-in-the-u-s-intelligence-

community/chapter_8_organizculture.htm)

Locus of Control and Self-Ef�icacy

Our locus of control refers to our sense of personal mastery over situations. Sometimes locus of control is referred to as self-ef�icacy—the con�idence we have that we can accomplish speci�ic tasks and achieve our goals. If you have a high locus of control, you are con�ident that you can be self-suf�icient in accomplishing your goals and getting things done. Having a high locus of control is an important trait in organizational life, particularly for leaders. Organization members who possess high levels of self-ef�icacy are likely to take on challenges, initiate calculated risks, and adopt new behaviors to achieve important organizational goals. Social psychologist Albert Bandura has

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 11/24

How might self-ef�icacy relate to the ways in which we communicate?

As many companies increasingly recognize the value of employee involvement, the number of programs designed to encourage this involvement has steadily grown. To think about: how might this increase an employee's locus of control and self-ef�icacy? How might this aid in employee retention?

suggested that self-ef�icacy can be nurtured by helping individuals visualize and vicariously experience personal and organizational goal attainment (Bandura, 1986). He explains that by seeing others who are like ourselves engage in successful behaviors, we gain con�idence that we can emulate

such successful behaviors ourselves. The implication for organizational life is that leaders would be wise to show organizational participants how other organizational participants have been successful to encourage adoption of effective organizing activities.

Empathy

Empathy, the ability to demonstrate to others that we understand them and the situations they are encountering, is an important psychological characteristic for effective social organizing. Individuals with high levels of empathy have the ability to identify personally with other organizational participants and let them know they are understood. Empathy encourages the development of cooperative interpersonal relationships where individuals want to work together and help one another. Empathy is also a communication characteristic that can be nurtured in organizational life. The norm of reciprocity, mentioned in previous chapters and which we will discuss in more depth in Chapter 4, suggests that when we treat others in certain ways, it encourages them to reciprocate and treat us in similar ways. By showing other organizational participants that you understand and care about them, you are likely to encourage them to try to understand and care about you too.

Emotional States

Although traditional high-control approaches to organizational management might suggest that there is no room for emotions in organizational settings, emotions are inevitable psychological factors that in�luence organizational participants and often perform important roles in communication and social organizing. For example, newer approaches to organizational leadership suggest that the most effective leaders are emotionally intuitive and expressive individuals who connect personally with and inspire coworkers. (We will discuss the emotional factors involved in leadership in more depth later in this book.)

As strategic organizational communicators, it is therefore important that we pay close attention to the emotional states of others to gauge their reactions to different situations and to enable us to choose the most effective communication strategies. Additionally, by expressing sincere emotions, organizational communicators can demonstrate their commitment to and the importance of key issues in organizational

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 12/24

What place do extreme emotions have in an organizational context?

life. For example, when presenting a new proposal to a decision-making board, strategic communicators can often increase their in�luence by making a passionate emotional appeal regarding the proposal's potential to address important issues and achieve relevant goals. Increases in the emotionality of organizational interactions often increase attention to the issues under examination, enhance levels of involvement, and encourage active participation in the interactions. Yet it is also important to be able to keep the expression of emotions balanced to maintain professionalism in organizational life.

Organizations in Action: Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace

Traditionally, organizational theorists have focused on the business of getting tasks completed ef�iciently, paying more attention to the head than to the heart. The psychology of self—in particular, exploring the inner world of human emotions on the job—is a relatively recent concern. But lately, people such as Daniel Goleman, in his book Emotional Intelligence, have explored this inner world of the human psyche that resides within us all and affects both how we see ourselves and how we deal with others.

For example, Goleman (2006) cites research that involved testing salespeople as to their level of optimism. One study found that new salespeople "who were by nature optimists sold 37 percent more insurance in their �irst two years on the job than did pessimists."

In the chapter of Emotional Intelligence titled "Managing with Heart," Goleman tells the story of Malburn McBroom, an emotionally temperamental pilot who in 1978 approached the Portland, Oregon, airport believing that there was a problem with the landing gear of the plane he was piloting. He decided to put the jetliner in a holding pattern while he kept �iddling with the controls. McBroom's copilots were concerned; the plane was about to run out of fuel, and they weren't sure the landing gear was really malfunctioning in

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 13/24

the �irst place. (It wasn't, by the way.) But, Goleman writes, the copilots were "so fearful of McBroom's wrath that they said nothing, even as disaster loomed. The plane crashed, killing ten people." The lesson? When people in positions of authority are emotionally unstable, everyone else will tend to walk on eggshells. In such situations, subordinates feel neither supported nor inspired.

Managers who lack empathy for their employees can be downright toxic to organizations. A 2011 study by CareerBuilder of some 5,600 workers found that 38 percent felt "harshly criticized," 24 percent said that they had been "yelled at in front of other co-workers," and 23 percent reported "belittling comments" made about their work during meetings. And according to the survey, the most common culprit was "the boss" (CareerBuilder.com, 2011). With the norm of reciprocity in mind, it's clear that such negative messages from management can lead only to negative responses from employees.

What's the solution? According to Goleman, emotional intelligence involves the type of self-ef�icacy that enables us to recognize and name our emotions and to �ind ways to manage any aggressive, angry, or self-destructive feelings. Empathy, he writes, "builds on self- awareness; the more open we are to our own emotions, the more skilled we will be in reading feelings"—including the feelings of others.

Critical Thinking Questions:

1. In what ways might emotional intelligence help you do your job more effectively? 2. Are there any situations where expressing anger on the job might be justi�ied? 3. If employees feel "bullied" by a coworker or manager, what steps should they take to deal with it?

Sources:

Civil aviation disasters, United 173. (n.d.). In Pilotfriend. Retrieved from http://www.pilotfriend.com/disasters/crash/united173.htm (http://www.pilotfriend.com/disasters/crash/united173.htm)

Goleman, D. (2006), Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.

CareerBuilder.com. One-in-four workers have felt bullied in the workplace, CareerBuilder study �inds. (2011, April 20). In CareerBuilder.com. Retrieved from http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx? id=pr632&sd=4%2F20%2F2011&ed=4%2F20%2F2099 (http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx? id=pr632&sd=4%2F20%2F2011&ed=4%2F20%2F2099)

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 14/24

Making Use of Psychological Factors

We have looked at a number of psychological factors that affect all members of an organization. Strategic organizational communicators carefully examine and take into account the psychological factors of those they interact with in organizational life and use this information to determine the most effective strategies for interacting with others. They also use this information to help them make reliable and valid interpretations of the motivations that guide the behaviors of other organizational participants. For example, being fully cognizant of other organizational participants' unique personalities and interpersonal communication styles can be a huge help to us to make sense of why they communicate the ways they do and to understand what motivates them, what their likely intentions are, and which message strategies are likely to be most in�luential with them. Understanding these powerful individual factors can be instrumental in helping us strategically determine the best ways to communicate with our coworkers, managers, and customers.

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 15/24

Selec�ve A�en�on Research

3.2 The Selective Perception Process

Perception is the intrapersonal communication process by which organizational participants make sense of everything they encounter in organizational life, creating their own unique versions of organizational reality. Perception is a very selective process, with individuals making critical decisions from moment to moment about which messages to attend to and how to interpret those messages. Since it is impossible to attend to everything, perception is by nature selective. That means that even though you may work somewhere for 40 hours a week, your supervisor may be able to perceive only a tiny fraction of what you say and do—and that reality ought to concern you! Their perception of you is inherently incomplete.

A number of common misconceptions exist about the perceptual process. Many people tacitly assume that there is an objective reality of organizational life upon which all organizational participants agree. They assume that perception is like a video camera recording everything that happens. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is tremendous variation in how different organizational participants perceive organizational situations. Indeed, there may be many different organizational realities based on the unique perceptual perspectives of participants. Need proof? Simply ask many members of the same organization about the chief executive; chances are you will get a wide variety of answers as to what this person is "really like." Because perception can be so subjective, communication becomes essential for sharing these different versions of organizational reality and for negotiating shared interpretations and understandings.

Perception is complex process. All of us have cognitive limitations (or limits on our information processing power) regarding the number of messages to which we can pay attention at any given moment. If you are ef�icient and good with details, you may be able to attend to as many as 10 messages at any point in time. Ten different simultaneous messages can provide us with a lot of information to process. However, there are likely hundreds, perhaps thousands of messages we can potentially attend to in any given situation. That is too many messages for us to handle without experiencing information overload—a point at which there is too much information for us to make sense of. To avoid the discomfort of information overload, we must decide from one moment to the next which are the most important messages for us to pay attention to.

Selecting the key messages to pay attention to at any given time is referred to as the process of selective attention (Kreps, 1986). Not only do we prioritize our messages from moment to moment in the selective attention process, we also decide how much of our limited attention to apply to making sense of each of the messages to which we are attending. (Consider, for instance, your daily email and

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 16/24

The link between attention and perception was demonstrated on a basketball court in which people were asked to count how many passes the players wearing white made. After about 40 seconds, a gorilla walked on the court, thumped its chest and walked off, clearly visible for �ive to nine seconds. Half the people did not notice the gorilla, and were shocked when they were told what they missed. Simply directing your gaze some place doesn't guarantee perception.

which messages are ignored, which are skimmed, and which are read carefully.) These active decisions that we make from one moment to another about which messages to attend to and how much attention to afford these messages are strongly in�luenced by our past experiences, our cultural orientations, and our unique psychological attributes.

Consider a situation in which you are making a sales presentation to a new client. At any given moment during your presentation, you are likely to pay attention to many different messages, such as your presentation notes, your presentation slides, your thoughts about what you want to say, and your client's verbal and nonverbal reactions to what you are saying. These are all critical messages that provide you with information for interpreting the situation you are in and making decisions that guide your strategic presentation behaviors. But you could also be thinking about the artwork displayed on the walls of the room, the sounds coming from outside the room, as well as a host of your own internal messages, such as how hungry you are, your appointments scheduled for later in the day, the phone calls you need to make, and more. So, while you are focusing on the key messages at any given moment in time with selective attention, you are also trying to block out the extraneous messages available to you that will not help you make sense of the situation. And perhaps to make matters worse, your audience is engaged in the same perceptual process—for example, they may be focusing on your tie, or what's going on out the window rather than attending to the content of your presentation.

This blocking out part of the selective perception process is referred to as habituation (Kreps, 1986). Effective organizational communicators make good decisions every moment about which are the most important messages to focus on (selective attention) and which less important competing messages to block out (habituation). Recognize, however, as situations change from moment to moment and new information becomes available, strategic communicators update these selective perception decisions to make sure they are attending to the best available messages and blocking out the most distracting and least important messages. This is not always easy to do.

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 17/24

A �inal aspect of the selective perception process involves reviewing the information we have gleaned from the key messages to which we are attending and to draw conclusions about what all these messages mean. Recognize, however, that we will never have access to all the relevant information available for any given situation, so we will have to reach conclusions based on the limited information we can gather. Inevitably, we end up drawing conclusions based on limited information by �illing in missing information with educated assumptions, our own individual sense of logic, and our past experiences. This process of making sense of the information to which we attend is referred to as closure (Kreps, 1986). Closure is a very creative process that enables us to reach a sense of understanding for complex and sometimes ambiguous situations. But keep in mind that although closure is inevitable, it can be in error because it is always based on less-than-complete information. Further, the ways that we reach closure (build a sense of understanding) are strongly in�luenced by our cultural af�iliations and psychological orientation. If, for example, you believe that women are by nature more emotional than men, and you come from a family where emotional outbursts were not tolerated, you will regard an angry comment by a woman differently than someone else might.

To summarize, there may be many differences in the selective perception decisions that individual organizational participants make based on their unique backgrounds, orientations, cultural af�iliations, and psychological/cognitive makeups. Each of us is likely to make different decisions even in the same situations about which key messages to attend to (selective attention), which messages are extraneous and should be blocked out (habituated), and how to make sense of the limited information we collect in any given moment (closure). That is why as organizational participants we are all likely to have our own unique interpretations about organizational situations. These perceptual differences are compounded further when we recognize that each of us updates the selective perception decisions (selective attention, habituation, and closure decisions) we make in different ways from one moment to the next.

To this point, it may seem as if no one in organizational life will ever agree on anything since they perceive the world in different and selective ways. However, the perceptions of organizational participants concerning the same situations are rarely completely different. There are typically many potential bases for shared understanding in organizational life, such as shared frames of reference, similar backgrounds, and shared cultural af�iliations. There are also likely to be shared selective perception decisions made between like-minded organizational participants about what are the key messages to attend to, what messages are not centrally important and can be blocked out, and about how to make sense of key messages. This is especially likely if we share similar cultural orientations.

So there is typically the opportunity for shared understandings and agreements in organizational life. However, there is still the potential for signi�icant differences in the ways in which individuals interpret organizational reality. These con�licting views are often exacerbated by differences in cultural background and organizational perspective. For example, the chief �inancial of�icer (CFO) of a corporation is likely to focus on different issues when making sense of someone spilling coffee in the company lobby than the janitor who views the

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 18/24

What unique perspectives do you bring to organizational life?

same situation. The CFO might be focusing on potential liability issues related to the coffee spill if someone is injured, whereas the janitor may be focusing on the cleanup issues. Their different organizational vantage points encourage them to perceive the situation in relation to their jobs and responsibilities.

The selective perception process is least consistent when organizational participants have vested interests, divergent goals, and different personal stakes in similar situations. For example, workers competing for the same job may perceive their own quali�ications for the job more favorably than the quali�ications of their competitors. This is similar to what can happen at the scene of a car accident, where different drivers may focus more on how the other driver's actions led to the accident rather than focusing on their own culpability. There is a tendency for organizational participants to favor their own perspectives in times of con�lict and negotiations. Later in the book we will discuss how vested interests can in�luence the selective perceptions of contested organizational situations and describe how strategic organizational communicators strive to promote shared

meanings and common ground to facilitate con�lict resolution.

Case Study: Negotiating a New Collective Bargaining Agreement for Professional Football: Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

The National Football League and the NFL Players Association were at an impasse in negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement, and that impasse was threatening the 2012 football season. The loss or delay of the 2012 football season would have had serious �inancial and employment consequences for both sides of this con�lict (both the owners and players would have stood to lose a lot of money). It would also have hurt the many business owners and employees of organizations that support the NFL (such as food and beverage service companies, hotels, transportation organizations, sports memorabilia and clothing retailers, and more). This impasse could also have hurt the many football fans who look forward to any new NFL season.

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 19/24

Several complex and intractable �inancial and organizational issues were up for negotiation in this impasse separating the owners and players. These issues included negotiations about how to split between the owners and players the annual almost $9-billion in game- related revenues generated by the NFL. As part of the negotiations, the owners proposed to take an additional $1 billion off the top of the total annual revenues (in addition to the $1 billion they currently take off the top) to cover their business-related expenses and investments. The NFL Players' Association (NFLPA) representatives seriously questioned the costs the owners said necessitated this change. The players' association representatives proposed a 50 percent split of the total revenues, but the owners rejected this proposal.

A related issue under negotiation was the players' association request for greater �inancial transparency from the owners. The players asked the owners to open their �inancial books to prove their increased business expenses, but the owners rejected this request and told the players' association representatives that all the �inancial information needed was already being provided. Some prominent players made incendiary public statements likening the NFL owners to slave masters who feel like they own the players.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell proposed expanding the regular season from 16 to 18 games and reducing the preseason from 4 to 2 games. This would increase annual television revenue and pro�its, the owners argued, for both parties (owners and players). The players were strongly against this expanded schedule suggestion, citing greater risks for player injuries with more real games to play, and their need for preseason games to prepare for the rigors of the already long 16-game NFL season. Individual players also called the owners' proposal to increase the length of the season hypocritical since the league had also been publicly promoting increased player safety. Players claimed that this proposal was indicative of the owners' lack of concern for the players' welfare. They claimed that the owners' real concern was for pro�it, at the expense of the players' health.

Finally, the owners wanted to impose a rookie wage scale that would limit the escalating salaries paid to new players. Both the owners and players acknowledged that entry salaries have expanded rapidly as the different teams vie for the services of new, promising players. The players' association responded that they were willing to negotiate on this rookie wage scale if the owners would accept a proposal that would guarantee that the savings on reducing rookie salaries would be spent on meeting the health and retirement needs of veterans and former players. The owners �latly rejected this potential area for compromise.

Both the owners and players were entrenched in their positions, and the outlook was not good for resolving this negotiation impasse. Both sides were preparing to go to court and engage in protracted litigation. The owners seemed to feel that since they were putting up the money to �inance the NFL, they should be able to reap any pro�its from their large �inancial investments and responsibilities. Conversely, the players seemed to feel that since they were actually using their athletic prowess to play the games, were putting their

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 20/24

lives and limbs on the line, and have limited longevity to their athletic careers, they should be bene�itting from the popularity of the game and its huge �inancial revenues.

Some media analysts referred to this impasse as millionaires (the players) arguing about money with billionaires (the owners), while the fans and many others (who are typically of more modest means) stood to suffer. There appear to be a number of underlying cultural issues that may have in�luenced this con�lict. The owners are a powerful group of wealthy business leaders who are used to making executive decisions and dictating terms to those who work for them. The owners are much more culturally homogenous than the players (primarily wealthy, older, and white). The players exhibit more cultural heterogeneity than the owners (with many representatives of minority groups among the players). While the players have begun to earn large salaries from the NFL (and related endeavors), many of them come from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds than the owners. These cultural differences seemed to polarize the two sides in this con�lict.

Both sides in this con�lict were solidly entrenched on a number of key negotiation issues, and there was very little trust between the owners and players. They both questioned the assertions and motives of the other group, and were becoming increasingly agitated and ruthless as the con�lict progressed. For example, Jeff Pash, the NFL's lead negotiator, threatened that the longer the work stoppage, the lower the owners' offers will become. "We are cognizant of what is happening on the revenue side. It's why I've said, and many others have said, this doesn't get easier with time. This doesn't get better with time. It gets more challenging."

In the end, the players and the owners were able to reach a collective bargaining agreement, and not surprisingly, both sides made some concessions. For example, the NFL season will remain at 16 games, which the owners were hoping to change, but the Players' Association must now be consulted before any player is suspended or �ined more than $50,000. Also, the �irst rookie chosen in the NFL draft is no longer guaranteed a $50 million contract, while on the other hand, NFL players are now subject to random testing for use of human growth hormones.

Critical Thinking Questions:

1. Why did the different parties in this con�lict likely perceive this situation differently? Imagine the different perspectives on this con�lict held by the owners, players, and fans. How did these different interpretations of organizational reality affect this con�lict?

2. How effective do you think the owners and players' group representatives were in understanding the unique and differing underlying perspectives on this con�lict? What level of empathy existed between the owners and players? How could these representatives have used greater understanding and empathy for one another to resolve the con�lict more quickly?

3. What roles did the unique cultural backgrounds of the participants play in this con�lict? How did the cultural differences between the owners and the players possibly in�luence their beliefs, attitudes, and values related to this situation?

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 21/24

4. How were the players (and their representatives) decoding the owners' contract negotiation proposals? Were these the meanings that the owners were intending to convey?

5. How were the owners (and their representatives) decoding the players' contract negotiation proposals? Were these the meanings that the players were intending to convey?

6. From a selective perception perspective, how do you think the players and owners differed on the key messages they were attending to, the available messages they were blocking out, and the ways they were making senses of the messages they attended to in this negotiation process? How does the selective perception process help to explain what was for many months an impasse between owners and players?

7. What is the level of self-ef�icacy exhibited in this con�lict by the owners and players? How could they have been encouraged to resolve their differences so that the negotiations moved forward more quickly?

8. What were the unique vested interests of the players and owners in this con�lict? How did these vested interests in�luence the negotiation strategies being used by each group?

9. How could the emotional nature of this con�lict have been used to promote accommodation and compromise? 10. What communication strategies do you suggest for the owners and players to use to improve this situation in the future?

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 22/24

Summary

This chapter investigates the internal, intrapersonal processes that are a part of communication. These internal factors include our self- image; our beliefs, attitudes, and values; our sense of personal control over situations; our level of empathy for others; how we experience our emotions; and whether we see ourselves as more extroverted or introverted. All of these factors have a bearing on how we communicate—that is, how we behave and how others are likely to perceive us. Moreover, our beliefs, values, and attitudes are tested and in�luenced by our cultural af�iliations and cultural norms. In that sense, individuals and organizations must negotiate shared understandings to enable organizational acculturation to occur. Additionally, perception itself creates interesting challenges for organizational communicators. Because perception is inherently selective and incomplete, errors in perception are always possible and must be seriously considered in the daily activities of organizational life. Overall, the key idea in this chapter is that our "internal" communication has real implications for how we engage with the external world.

Discussion Questions

1. According to this chapter, "each of us performs decoding and encoding processes uniquely. That is, we each engage in intrapersonal communication in our own unique way." In what ways do you think your "internal monologue" is distinctive or unique?

2. Can you think of a situation where your own self-image had a connection to your communication behavior? How and why? 3. Do you see yourself as more of an extrovert, or more of an introvert? How do you know, and what impact does this tendency have on your social relationships?

4. What personal values do you embrace that was connected to how you communicate? Are some organizations a better �it for your values than others?

5. Some who write about "empathy" prefer the term "feeling understood," with the idea that empathy should not be considered in terms of what the "sender" claims to be doing, but instead, how the "receiver" feels and experiences the transaction. Why might this be an important distinction?

6. To what extent is it important for organizations to develop shared cultural understandings, and to what extent should we both tolerate and respect cultural differences?

7. Albert Bandura contends that by seeing others who are like ourselves engage in successful behaviors, we gain con�idence that we can emulate such successful behaviors ourselves. Have you ever had such a "role-modeling" episode in your organizational experience? If so, what happened? If not, what do you think that means?

8. What role can or should emotions play in the workplace? What separates an "acceptable" role for emotions from an "unacceptable" one?

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 23/24

9. Since we can't perceive everything, and perception is a selective process, what potential problems does this create in interpersonal communication?

10. If intrapersonal communication is by its very nature internal and unseen, how can we learn to understand what's going on in the hearts and minds of people who we work with?

Key Terms

Acculturated Process by which cultural group members are reinforced though their interactions with other cultural group members to accept central (culturally approved) norms and expectations through an ongoing process of socialization.

Attitudes Our predispositions to respond either positively or negatively to people, objects, or situations; they tend to involve a more emotional response.

Beliefs Positions we hold about what is true or false; they tend to be more cognitive.

Closure The process of making sense of the information to which we attend.

Cultural af�iliations Cultural groups that we identify with and help us de�ine who we are. Key to our psychological set.

Cultural norms Cultural standards that in�luence our beliefs, values and attitudes.

Empathy The ability to demonstrate to others that we understand them and the situations they are encountering, is an important psychological characteristic for effective social organizing.

Extroverts People who "recharge" themselves by being around other people. Extroverts look forward to being in social situations because they �ind such situations to be energizing.

Habituation Blocking out part of the selective perception process.

Introverts People who get their energy from being by themselves. Introverts need more space to work on their own because too many people wear them out. People who are introverted can be less outgoing than people who are extroverted.

Locus of control Our sense of personal mastery over situations.

11/25/2017 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCOM425.11.2?sections=ch03,sec3.1,sec3.2,ch03summary&content=content&clientToken=e76a6d5b-1153-906d-ac70-f53ca60081cf&np=sec1.6 24/24

Misinterpretations Incorrect judgments about the in�luence of our own messages on others.

Perception The intrapersonal communication process by which organizational participants make sense of everything they encounter in organizational life, creating their own unique versions of organizational reality.

Psychological set Our personal beliefs about the world, as well as the values and attitudes we hold toward different situations, individuals, and objects.

Selective attention Selecting the key messages to pay attention to at any given time.

Self-ef�icacy The con�idence we have that we can accomplish speci�ic tasks and achieve our goals.

Self-image Beliefs about who we perceive we are, what we see as our personal and professional potential, and what we think our personal communication style should be.

Values Judgments we make about the importance to us of different people and situations.