Discussions and replies 2

9 - 4 1 5 - 0 3 0 R E V : J A N U A R Y 2 1 , 2 0 1 5

This module note was prepared by Professor Lakshmi Ramarajan to aid students in Leadership and Organizational Behavior Fall 2014. Copyright © 2014, 2015 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545- 7685, write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to www.hbsp.harvard.edu. This publication may not be digitized, photocopied, or otherwise reproduced, posted, or transmitted, without the permission of Harvard Business School.

M O D U L E N O T E

Building Effective Working Relationships

Introduction

Have you ever avoided a difficult conversation with a colleague? Have you ever walked out of a meeting and asked yourself “How many times do I have to repeat myself; why doesn’t (s) he just get it?” Have you ever left an encounter with your boss feeling completely demotivated: miserable about yourself and your career?

Poor interpersonal relationships are easy to recognize. Building healthy ones takes effort and care. As you become a leader and manager, building effective interpersonal relationships with peers, direct reports and supervisors becomes essential for getting things done well and on time, feeling personally fulfilled at work, developing those around you and making career progress. Conversely, a manager’s inability to effectively manage one-on-one relationships both inside and outside his/her organization often results in poor performance, low job satisfaction, poor morale and decreased opportunities for advancement for the manager and for those around him/her.

But all too often, managers treat working relationships as a by-product; side-effects that just happen as a result of getting tasks done. This note introduces a framework for deliberately building effective interpersonal relationships. First, we will define the necessary attributes of these relationships. Next, we will discuss common barriers to effectiveness. Lastly, we will provide tools to build and maintain these relationships.

Assess: How effective are my interpersonal relationships?

The first step towards acting deliberately in your relationships is to assess how effective they are. Effective interpersonal relationships at work have three important characteristics: mutuality, resilience and multiplexity. These are attributes that managers should strive for in all relationships, albeit in different ways for each relationship.

Mutuality Effective relationships are mutual: they are two-way streets. In effective relationships, people have mutual trust, built upon (1) clear, mutual expectations, (2) mutual learning and (3) regular, open communication. In non-mutual relationships, people feel they are being taken advantage of: they feel they give time, effort and resources without receiving enough in return. Mutuality does not mean the two people in a relationship are similar or equal. Nor does it mean that both people share everything. Rather, mutuality means that both parties are committed to working

This document is authorized for use only by Jasim Khan in Business Communications at Strayer University, 2019.

415-030 Module Note—Building Effective Working Relationships

2

together and therefore give resources to and receive resources from the relationship. Resources can be instrumental, such as time, expertise or influence, or psychological, such as feeling supported or energized by another’s presence.

Resilience Effective relationships are resilient; they survive and adapt in good times and bad. Negative experiences, such as failure, and negative emotions, such as guilt, jealousy or anger, are part of life, including organizational life. In effective relationships, people do not avoid or suppress these negative experiences. Rather, they can express both positive and negative emotions safely. When conflict and disagreement erupt, or when circumstances change and external challenges pressure the relationship, effective relationships survive and can be repaired to face future challenges together.

Multiplexity Effective work relationships serve multiple objectives and needs. There are at least two objectives in any work relationship: (1) work objectives - those that address the task requirements required for both parties to perform their work; and (2) relationship objectives - those that address the emotional and psychological needs of each party, such as feeling understood, valued and respected. In multiplex relationships people do not separate these two objectives. Rather, they share both instrumental resources, such as sharing expertise or access to funding, and psychological resources, such as conveying encouragement or seeking support, to meet these dual objectives.

Five common signals that you are in an ineffective relationship

Just as healthy work relationships share characteristics in common, so too do poor interpersonal relationships. These include:

 Mistrust. A lack of transparency and/or the deliberate withholding of information.

 Emotional Conflict. Frequent arguments that involve personal animosity and placing blame.

 Miscommunication. The perception of being constantly misunderstood; avoidance or silence.

 Mistreatment. The perception of being at someone’s mercy, experiencing unfair assignments or rewards, and feeling unable to protect or defend yourself from abuse.

 Stagnation. The feeling that you can’t grow, learn or try new things, and are stifled, bored or depleted of energy and enthusiasm for your work.

These symptoms often appear together and create great turmoil in your relationships at work, taking a high toll on both you and your organization. Because relationships are dynamic, it is important to assess the effectiveness of your relationships at work on a regular basis.

Once you have assessed your relationships, the next step is to diagnose the underlying causes of ineffectiveness so that you can eliminate or circumvent these problems. All too often, people attribute poor relationships to personality differences and miss opportunities to transform poor work relationships into effective ones. Below we turn to the barriers to interpersonal effectiveness.

Analyze: What are the barriers to interpersonal effectiveness?

There are two fundamental components of interpersonal relationships that are under our control: how we act towards others and how we see or read others’ actions. Both components are driven by a combination of forces: structural forces that arise from our context or environment; interpersonal forces

This document is authorized for use only by Jasim Khan in Business Communications at Strayer University, 2019.

Module Note—Building Effective Working Relationships 415-030

3

that arise during an interaction; and personal forces that arise from our own unique backgrounds and experiences. Each of these forces can present barriers both to how we act in relationships and how we see others and interpret their behavior.

Structural barriers to effective relationships in organizations

Structural barriers are created by the organizational context. Often, they are the conditions that exist before you even walk in the door of an organization: they are independent of who you are or what you bring into the organization. Three key structural barriers in organizations are: (1) formal power (2) formal systems and (3) differences in group membership.

Formal power Formal power is the ability to dispense rewards and penalties, such as compensation, job assignments and career opportunities. When you have formal power, people are dependent upon you. When you don’t have formal power, those with formal power have a legitimate way to control outcomes that are important to you.

Managing down Let’s start with the perspective of a manager holding formal power. Formal power may inhibit that manager’s ability to build relationships with subordinates and manage down effectively. First, the experience of power causes people to be less sensitive to others’ input and perspective: they are less empathic and alert to others needs and views 41. Second, even when they are open and attuned to others, those in power may find it difficult to get honest opinions and elicit disagreement. This may not be the result of overt actions by the manager that instill fear in others, but simply self-censoring on the part of the subordinates because they worry about negative consequences19. Third, those with power may consciously or unconsciously desire to maintain their power. For instance, they may withhold valuable information from subordinates or resist asking for help in order to maintain their authority and control. However, in doing so, they deny themselves key tools – disclosure and information sharing – for creating trust and learning in relationships 47.

Managing up Now let’s take the perspective of a subordinate. The lack of formal power makes people vulnerable and acutely sensitive to the judgments and emotions of those with power 41. This can unwittingly result in poor interpersonal relationships. For instance, subordinates may simply accept supervisors’ ideas without evaluating them, rationalize supervisors’ poor behavior 36, or assume the worst in the face of ambiguous communication. The lack of formal power can also inhibit people from seeking the wisdom and direction of their superiors, even though advice, help and feedback are all crucial for completing tasks, learning from the job and advancing in one’s careers. Those with less power may allow impression management concerns to eclipse their need for timely input, and their willingness to update supervisors before a project is complete. They would rather risk forward progress than risk looking incompetent, but this tendency can actually jeopardize task completion and career advancement. When managing up, subordinates need to balance not asking for advice vs. asking too often 43. Similarly, inhibitions about providing regular updates can rob subordinates of opportunities to share progress and address problems.

Formal Systems Formal systems such as incentives, procedures and regulations pose another structural barrier to effective interpersonal relationships. For example, the selection system in an organization can emphasize absolute standards for promotion (e.g., everyone who meets certain criteria is promoted), or relative standards for promotion (e.g., people are ranked against one another and low performers are penalized). Both absolute and relative reward systems can create conflict, hostility, and in some circumstances even sabotage. Another commonly used incentive system that can have similar effects on interpersonal relationships is a “tournament” model, which is used in many professional service firms. In this model the professional rewards for “winning” the career

This document is authorized for use only by Jasim Khan in Business Communications at Strayer University, 2019.

415-030 Module Note—Building Effective Working Relationships

4

tournament, such as becoming an equity partner, are incredibly high. These rewards include not just wealth but also status and reputation benefits. In contrast, incentive systems that reward all people equally regardless of effort can also generate poor interpersonal relationships because people worry that others are taking advantage of their effort and goodwill. By withholding effort and aid due to skepticism of others’ motives, actual free-riding can result.

Organizations also have legal and procedural barriers to effective interpersonal relationships. For example, corporate practices, procedures and structures may result in several different professionals dealing with a single client, making it very difficult for an effective relationship to be formed between the client and any one of these individuals. Contention may arise between peers trying to serve that client no matter how compatible their personalities. Similarly, procedures without accountability or transparency, such as only hiring people through one’s network, may stand in the way of forming trusting relationships among coworkers.

When managers experience symptoms of ineffective relationships, it is important to look behind the individuals involved and ask how formal power and systems may be contributing to the problem. What differences in power, information, rules, incentive plans, or work pressures are leading to poor relationships?

Group differences People belong to many different groups, both in society (such as race, gender, religion, ethnicity, class, nationality), and in their organizations (such as different organizational units or professions). A persons’ group membership may be visible or invisible to others. Group differences impede effective relationships through status, similarity and stereotypes.

Own group status The status of the groups people belong to in an organization and in society can influence their interpersonal relationships. Some organizational groups have higher status (i.e., are valued more than others) for numerous reasons, such as being in the numerical majority or commanding resources. For instance, a member of a marketing department may come in conflict with a member of an R&D unit because in his organization, the CEO comes from a research background and the marketing person has to fight to be heard or respected even when the CEO is not present. The same applies to demographic groups. A study of relationships among women in law firms shows that in firms in which women were more represented at higher levels (e.g., at least 15% of partners were women), relationships among junior women were more supportive and less competitive than in firms in which senior women were not as well-represented 24. Members of dominant groups in an organization face similar challenges as those with formal power, such as being blind to those with lower status. Similarly, lower status group members may support or justify the status quo.

Similarity of group membership Similarity between you and the other person also matters. People have a tendency to optimize fitting in (feeling similar to others) and standing out (feeling unique and different from others)9. To do so they quickly sort others based on their group memberships into two categories: whether they are like us (our in-group) or not like us (our out-group)53. If people are similar to us, we like and trust them 42. If people as different from us, we engage in conflict 20. In organizations, visible markers of similarity and difference, such as language, uniforms, or location, can make in-group/out-group effects even more powerful.

A key challenge in today’s organizations is that people often belong to multiple groups simultaneously. For example, people may belong to cross-functional teams where they represent their functional units as well as their region. In addition, employees may identify with their particular racial, ethnic, national and other groups in the broader society (e.g., I am an Asian-Canadian man) as well as identify with their professional role, undergraduate school and prior work experience (e.g., “I

This document is authorized for use only by Jasim Khan in Business Communications at Strayer University, 2019.

Module Note—Building Effective Working Relationships 415-030

5

am a marketing person, an NYU alum, and a former Facebook employee ”). These multiple group memberships may help people see themselves as both similar to and different from others in their workplace, and so help them build effective relationships with others. They may also create arbitrary divisions between people and provoke internal stress and tension, such that people feel pressured to fit in and assimilate with one group or another and choose sides 48.

Stereotypes based on Group Membership Lastly, group membership can act as a filter through which we see people. The same behavior when exhibited by members of different groups can be interpreted differently. Imagine a boss losing his or her temper. If the boss is a man, some people may describe the boss as passionate. If the boss is a woman, those same people may describe the boss as temperamental. Such judgments are made within milliseconds because of subconscious processes that draw on stereotypes of different groups 4, 16 Furthermore, there are rarely differences in the levels of implicit bias shown by members vs. non-members of stereotyped groups. For instance, both men and women show similar levels of implicit stereotyping regarding professional women 46. This is because both men’s and women’s subconscious beliefs about professional women are often strongly shaped from a very young age by societal structures, such as family practices, law, media, religion, etc. Even if we don’t consciously agree with those beliefs, years of strong shaping by our environment can lead us to act on them in subconscious ways 3. Stereotypes of many groups operate this way. Once implicit judgments are made, we have a psychological tendency to search for evidence that confirms our judgments45. Eventually our biases can become self-fulfilling prophecies.

Much as with the structural underpinnings of interpersonal tensions, the influences of group differences are often not apparent. When the symptoms of ineffective relationships arise, ask yourself how the group memberships of the parties involved may be contributing. What group differences exist? Are there status or power differences within the organization or in society that reinforce those group differences? Are you judging members of different groups differently in a systematic way? Although these are not easy questions, reminding yourself that everyone has blindspots can help.

Interpersonal barriers

Interpersonal barriers occur during an interaction. They are subtle and blatant signals that are sent or received during an interpersonal interaction that can impede one’s ability to build effective interpersonal relationships.

Non-verbal behavior Subtle signals include non-verbal behaviors and emotion. A large amount of time and energy in workplace relationships is focused on conveying content or information. However, much of the information that is important in interpersonal relationships regarding a person’s intentions, motivations, and even skill or expertise is conveyed through non- verbal behavior. Non-verbal signals that are not aligned with or are asynchronous with one’s thoughts and feelings can create distrust in interpersonal relationships 55. For example, subtle signals, such as rolling one’s eyes convey contempt, such that even if one conveys respect verbally, the relationship can be poisoned15. Research suggests that overly relying on what is stated in interpersonal relationships can be ineffective because a critical element of interpersonal relationships is the ability to read others’ emotions accurately 23. For instance, imagine someone writing an email explaining why she/he wanted to be at an important meeting. Being able to hear the emotions in the person’s voice could result in the difference between responding to their sense of injustice at being left out or their sense of excitement in wanting to contribute.

Emotional contagion Emotions can also affect interpersonal relationships through emotional contagion – or picking up others’ emotions 6. Emotional contagion is not always obvious, and people

This document is authorized for use only by Jasim Khan in Business Communications at Strayer University, 2019.

415-030 Module Note—Building Effective Working Relationships

6

underestimate its impact 7. Imagine entering an interaction with a colleague who is feeling extremely tense and sad because of an earlier doctor’s appointment, but neither you nor the colleague realize that root cause is why you are suddenly feeling less energetic. Soon you’re feeling tense and blue: you believe this is due to all the work you need to get done.

Norms More blatant signals that can be sent during an interaction that impede effective interpersonal relationships include misjudging or violating norms within the organization, or violating norms associated with one’s role or one’s relationship. For instance, the norms of reciprocity and fairness are fairly universal aspects of relationships. Typically, in a relationship, people feel obligated and motivated to reciprocate positive behavior 29. Imagine a manager who goes out on a limb to support a colleague: she may expect that this favor would be returned in some way in the future. When the colleague then refuses to support her in turn and violates the reciprocity norm, the manager feels betrayed or taken advantage of. The norm of fair treatment involves a sense of being treated with respect and dignity by others. When people fail to treat others in an interpersonally sensitive and respectful way, it not only violates moral standards, it drains motivation and commitment, and can even spark retaliation against the offending organization, as well as the manager 10.

When managers experience negative interactions it is important for them to look beyond what is being conveyed verbally and ask what interpersonal barriers may be at play. Do your words match your emotions? What is the other party’s emotional state? What are the norms in this context?

Personal barriers

Personal barriers are those that we bring to the table before the interaction. Similar to structural barriers, personal barriers are often hard to spot. And, similar to some interpersonal barriers, at times they operate below conscious awareness. Personal barriers are often formed through prior experience, including work experiences, and early childhood or family experiences, where we learn patterns of interacting with authority and caretaking figures. These prior experiences resemble scripts or routines that we unwittingly bring into new relationships. These scripts can then be triggered or activated in new situations. Four key scripts that influence how we act in workplace relationships include our personal relationship to authority, achievement, conflict and exclusion.

Relationship to Authority In workplace relationships, given the prevalence of formal power and authority, one of the most critical personal barriers we can learn about is our own relationship to authority 37. Bosses are often seen as authority figures, and the way we relate to people in positions of authority at work is not unlike the way we relate to authority figures in other areas of our lives; figures, such as parents, teachers, athletic coaches and musical instructors. This script is driven by how much we desire to be dependent upon authority figures. Some people have extreme desires to be independent of authority – they are counter-dependent. In organizations, we may recognize counter-dependent people as those who resist any suggestion that comes from someone in a position of formal authority. They do not even bother to evaluate whether the suggestion is good or bad for themselves or the organization. Extreme counter-dependence leads to seeing bosses as enemies or imbeciles, rejecting help or support from those in power, and over-reliance on oneself. At the other extreme is dependence. Dependent people fear doing anything that they perceive may result in the loss of support or attention from authority figures. In organizations, extremely dependent people will be constantly striving for the approval of their supervisors, will be compliant, and will not be able to engage with their supervisors as equals, even when the supervisors themselves may engage them in that manner.

This document is authorized for use only by Jasim Khan in Business Communications at Strayer University, 2019.

Module Note—Building Effective Working Relationships 415-030

7

Relationship to Achievement Our orientation towards achievement and success is another script that can be a barrier to effective work relationships. Some people have an orientation towards achievement in which success or failure is seen as a signal of one’s self-worth. Success or failure is determined in part through comparison with others and by external signals of value (such as high pay, reputation, firms that are competitive to enter, etc.) 17. On the one hand, this means that when a person with this script cares about their work, their constant self-criticism will push them to excel. On the other hand, criticism from others will be extremely painful because it raises the self-awareness that they may not be perfect. This awareness can quickly make high achievers defensive and cause them to seek to maintain their self-esteem by blaming others for their failures 12, 18.

Relationship to Conflict A third barrier that we bring to relationships is our relationship to conflict. Conflict is part of interpersonal relationships. To resolve conflict constructively people must be open, disclose their thoughts and opinions and be able to work together. Although in some cultural contexts avoiding conflict reflects a desire to be in harmony with others 40, in many other cases, people are prone to avoiding conflict because of the feared costs 51. In the workplace, conflict avoidant behaviors include ignoring the problem, changing the subject, distracting people, denying the problem exists, softening criticism or disagreement, and disengaging from the relationship. Ultimately, though, avoiding conflict takes a toll on the individual and the relationship, by hindering mutual learning and growth.

Relationship to Exclusion A fourth personal barrier is our psychological script for exclusion. All people have a need for affiliation with others and an equally strong desire to avoid rejection. However, some people enter relationships with a high degree of anxiety about whether they belong in the relationship or not. One response to these anxieties is extreme sensitivity to rejection. In such cases, people search anxiously for signals that tell them they are being excluded. When they inevitably find such evidence, they often overreact 21. In the workplace, these people may suddenly withdraw and hide away in their office or refuse to engage with colleagues because they feel hurt. Conversely, another response to these anxieties is a desire to be constantly connected to others. For these people, the fear of exclusion is so threatening to their self-worth they will go to extreme lengths to avoid it. For instance, they can become overly giving in relationships1. In work situations, anxiety about exclusion can lead to joining others for “fear of missing out” and gossiping with others to feel connected.

Ultimately, all of these scripts can undermine our best faith efforts to build effective work relationships unless we reflect and try to change ourselves. Managers who experience symptoms of ineffective relationships can ask: what personal needs or fears are being activated in this relationship? What is the purpose of my current behavior? Am I sabotaging myself?

Once you understand the different barriers that can influence your actions and how you perceive others (see Exhibit 1 for a summary), the third step in deliberately building effective relationships is developing the right set of tools and tactics to address them.

Act: What tools can I use to build effective relationships?

Below are some tools that operate at the structural, interpersonal and personal level to build effective relationships. However, these tools cannot be performed mindlessly. It takes commitment and practice to use them and use them well. In addition, these tools are not discrete solutions to a specific kind of barrier. Rather, you should approach them as a system. By practicing these tactics together over time and adapting them to the particular situations you’re in, they will become an integrated part of your behavioral repertoire.

This document is authorized for use only by Jasim Khan in Business Communications at Strayer University, 2019.

415-030 Module Note—Building Effective Working Relationships

8

Structural tools: Building a personal network.

It is common wisdom that people should “network” in organizations and in their careers – both in person and online. Networking can feel instrumental and inauthentic. Yet, for effective managers it is not. Building a network simply means building a web of interpersonal relationships to which they both give and take resources. Effective managers pay attention to two key elements of their personal network: (1) the diversity of people in their network and (2) the structure of their network.

Network Diversity Effective managers ensure that the people in their network have diverse characteristics and provide diverse resources. People with diverse networks gain unique knowledge and advance in their careers in comparison to those with fairly homogenous networks 34, 35. However, because our natural tendency is to affiliate with people who are like us, network diversity requires systematic attention. Imagine if all your friends at work are at your level; you may have fun but not gain important information. Imagine if all your friends are at a higher managerial level; in this case your peers might hinder you. Questions to ask include: Does your network have people with different levels of formal power? Does it have people from within and outside your organization, industry or region? Does it have people whose group memberships are different from one another and from you?

Network Structure Effective managers also pay attention to the structure of their network as a whole. Are the people with whom you have relationships also connected to one another? In a dense network, all the people in your network are connected to one another. In a sparse network, few of the people in your network are connected to one another. Both dense and sparse networks have advantages. Dense networks provide people with emotional support and trust, which can be useful when one is taking risks. Sparse networks provide people with novel information, which can be useful for learning about new jobs, creativity and innovationa 8, 30, 39. Effective managers cultivate networks that have both dense and sparse connections.

Personal networks are especially important when you lack the formal power necessary to accomplish key tasks or when key resources – e.g., finding advice or funding – are not immediately within reach. Building networks can also help increase your informal power in an organization, which can help you gain formal power. For example, as someone connected to two people who are not connected to one another, you may have access to information from one person that the other person may find valuable, and thus you can act as a broker or connector.

Political acumen regarding organizational networks Last, effective managers also pay attention to others’ networks. Many people can identify the powerful people in an organization, but politically skilled people can also identify whom those powerful people are connected to. Do you know if all the powerful people in the organization act cooperatively or in coalitions? Who is likely to get important information first? Paying attention to the political landscape of your organization is critical to your ability to alter it 38. For instance, imagine trying to influence a colleague. If you knew who else the colleague was connected to, and if you were also connected to those people, you could exert more influence.

Interpersonal tools: Building influence

How can you influence others when you don’t know what to say in an encounter but you know that whatever you say next really matters? Or when your stomach clenches in anticipation of a

a Research is only just emerging about the benefits and drawbacks of virtual networks56. In online social networks, dense connections may be important for a sense of support and connection. Imagine your college alumni network on Facebook. However, it is not clear whether sparse connections in online networks offer the same benefits, such as finding jobs and sharing novel information, which we see in real world networks.

This document is authorized for use only by Jasim Khan in Business Communications at Strayer University, 2019.

Module Note—Building Effective Working Relationships 415-030

9

difficult conversation? Building influence is necessary for people without formal power, because they often need to find ways to communicate effectively upward and laterally. It is also important for those with formal power as they need to elicit the commitment of direct reports, rather than just their compliance. Interpersonal tools include ways to increase our skillful behaviors and interactions both in the moment and before and after an interaction.

Personal power One common way to influence people is through your personal power, which includes your personal characteristics such as charisma and expertise. Recent research also suggests that engaging in “power poses” (physical postures that take up space much as those in powerful positions tend to do) alters one’s physiology and leads one to feel psychologically more powerful14. However, although personal power, such as charisma, may attract people to you, it may not be sufficient for forming mutual relationships with others. Power of all kinds has to be layered and combined with other tactics that help one reach out and connect with others.

Connecting with others One influence tactic that helps you reach out and connect with people is paying attention to the emotions and non-verbal signals you are sending. For instance, when in positions of greater power, it is important to remember that your perspective is limited and consciously take others’ perspective 28. Step into their shoes and ask yourself: what would I do if I were this person? How would I feel? When you hold formal power you can also actively seek subordinates’ input and make every effort in your response and body language to signal that unpopular or dissenting views are not penalized. Relying on physical cues such as speech, gestures, and dress in ways that maximize both authority and connection can be influential. Reciprocity and creating shared experiences are other important influence tactics that help one connect with others.

Procedural tools Procedural tools are often overlooked but can be powerful. Procedural tools are a set of decisions about how an interaction will unfold. For instance, starting meetings by setting interaction norms can influence conflict and trust. Creating decision rules before an interaction begins can make it easier for people to engage in disagreement and discussion (see Exhibit 2). Importantly, when using procedural tools remember that fairness in any process is important. When people get poor outcomes, if they feel the process was fair, they are much more likely to accept the poor outcome and feel better about it 11.

Communication that resonates One common error in the workplace is to try to communicate solely through reason, logic or analysis. This is because many people assume that “rational” arguments are more professional than “emotional” ones and therefore more influential. However, using emotion can make communication extremely influential 27. Connecting the message to the goals and values of the audience can also help. These three elements, logos (reason), pathos (emotion) and ethos (values), are Aristotle’s building blocks of rhetoric 5. In an organization, appealing to the organization’s mission or values and invoking stories convey emotion can help make one’s point effectively 31, 33. In the digital age, matching our message to the medium is important, for instance, email communications – however efficient they may be -- are not rich in conveying emotion 13.

Advocacy and Inquiry How can one be influential during an interaction, in particular, one that is likely to turn sour or difficult (or already has)? One tool is to engage in both advocacy (stating one’s own experience), and inquiry (asking about another’s perspective or experience) 50, 54. As important, starting with inquiry and listening- even if we just know we’re right and want to convey an idea – can set the interaction up for success and build influence 49. To listen well, one should suspend both judgment and evaluation and approach the other party with empathy, taking their perspective. If one only advocates one’s point of view, one does not learn what the other party may have to offer. This creates tension and lost opportunities. If one only inquires about the other party’s point of view, one cannot advocate for one’s own interests. This creates dependence and resentment (see Exhibit 3).

This document is authorized for use only by Jasim Khan in Business Communications at Strayer University, 2019.

415-030 Module Note—Building Effective Working Relationships

10

Intention vs. Impact Have you ever been in the middle of a sensitive conversation and suddenly thought, “Wait! But I didn’t mean that?!” Another important tool to recall in the middle of an interaction when conflict and disagreement are erupting is to recognize the distinction between intent and impact. In such situations, what you intended to do was not negative, but what you did was experienced as negative by the other party. Although you may want to focus on your intentions, the other party will focus on your impact (and vice-versa) 2. If you find yourself focusing on intent, be sure not only to clarify your intentions, but also to take the other party’s perspective and focus on impact. Conversely, if you find yourself focusing on impact, ask yourself if you can give others the benefit of the doubt regarding their intentions.

Pause then Re-Connect Pausing is an underutilized tool during negative interactions. In situations of conflict, our tendency as humans is to engage in “fight” or “flight.” When conflict erupts, pausing can stop this response. Pausing is not withdrawing or punishing people with silence; it is giving yourself and the other party some space. Pausing, and even distracting yourself, helps both parties hit the emotional reset button before re-connecting 32.

Personal tools: Building self-awareness

Structural and interpersonal tools require others’ involvement, but there are also tools you can use on your own to improve your interpersonal effectiveness.

Proving vs. Learning Mindset One way to control our actions in relationships is to approach them with the right mindset. Relationships often suffer because one or both parties have a proving mindset. In a proving mindset, you enter interactions as though they are tacit competitions, in which the aim is to demonstrate you are right and the other person is wrong. Proving mindsets result in constant assessment of, and jockeying for, position and status relative to the other person. An alternative is a learning mindset, in which you enter a work relationship knowing you have a valid and important piece of the puzzle, but it is incomplete, and others are contributing to solving the puzzle and to your learning. Learning mindsets result in sharing knowledge, being open and admitting one’s errors 22, 52.

Reading Others' Behavior One way to control our perceptions in relationships is to be alert to how our judgments can go awry. Two universal elements of reading people’s behavior that we should monitor are our judgments of others' warmth (e.g., how friendly is this person?) and competence (e.g, how capable is this person?) 26. If we hear ourselves describing people along these dimensions, and especially if we hear ourselves suggesting that someone is warm but not competent (e.g., a “lovable fool”) or capable but not friendly (e.g., a “competent jerk”), we should use that as a signal to halt and make sure our judgments are not misguided.

Structured Reflection Structured reflection helps create awareness of the barriers and our own scripts or blindspots by slowing down subconscious processes. When failure, anger and self- criticism are present, conscious reflection on being mindful -- compassionately observing and accepting one’s emotions without suppressing them or letting them take over 44, and thankful – consciously reflecting on things one is grateful for -- can improve interpersonal effectiveness 25.

Conclusion

Relationships are at the center of professional life. By learning to assess the effectiveness of your relationships, identify the barriers and use the tools to overcome them, you can deliberately build effective relationships that create impact and satisfaction for yourself and for those around you.

This document is authorized for use only by Jasim Khan in Business Communications at Strayer University, 2019.

Module Note—Building Effective Working Relationships 415-030

11

Exhibit 1 The Effects of Barriers on our Actions and Perceptions

Effect on One’s Actions Effect on One’s Perceptions of Others

Structural barriers

 Formal power – manager’s perspective

Inhibits disclosure; influences status-maintaining behaviors

Blinds one to others’ emotions and perspectives

 Formal power – subordinate’s perspective

Emphasizes impression management concerns and self-censoring

One becomes highly to others’ needs, especially those in power

 Formal systems Enhances competition or cooperation

Others are competitive or free- riding

Intergroup barriers

 Personal group membership in dominant (subordinate) group

Eases (increases) restrictions on one’s actions

Blinds (sensitizes) one to others’ perspectives, especially those with (without) power

 Similarity (vs. difference) of group membership

Increases open and trusting action (vs. conflict and distrust)

 Group membership of other party

Judgments based on stereotypes of his/her group

Interpersonal barriers

 Non-verbal signals and emotions

Alters one’s through contagion

Helps interpret others’ motives and meaning

 Reciprocity and fairness norms

Influences conformity to the norm

Helps interpret others’ motives and meaning

Personal barriers

 Relationship to Authority

Extreme resistance (or extreme obedience)

Authority figures are enemies (vs. always right)

 Relationship to Achievement

Feedback is threatening; constant comparisons to determine self-worth

Other people are evaluators and critics of my performance

 Relationship to Conflict

Avoiding conflict; emotional distancing

Other people are feared

 Relationship to Exclusion

Extreme ambivalence or accommodation

Other people are exclusionary

Source: Casewriter.

This document is authorized for use only by Jasim Khan in Business Communications at Strayer University, 2019.

415-030 Module Note—Building Effective Working Relationships

12

Exhibit 2 Procedural Tools

Consider the following procedures to influence the level of trust, conflict and disagreement in a relationship before an interaction begins:

 Setting Interaction Norms: How should people treat one another in this setting? (e.g., Are there norms regarding confidentiality? Maintaining professional boundaries? )

 Clarifying goals: What are your own and the other party's goals? Responsibilities? (e.g., Is the goal to influence others to make a decision? gather information? generate a solution? What is the shared purpose?)

 Timing, sequencing and frequency: When and how often should one involve others in a task or decision? (e.g., Who should be involved? Who speaks first? What processes signal the opening and closing?)

 Formality: How formal or informal are the interactions (e.g., Should this be done quickly in the hallway or in an official meeting? Should there be contractual agreements or agreements based on trust?)

 Decision and information rules: How open or closed is the structure for information sharing (e.g., Is there public or private voting? face-to-face or over email? Majority or consensus? Opt- in or opt-out? Anonymous feedback or open dialogue?)

 Clarifying communication: How can you ensure clear communication? (e.g., Are you recapping what was said and confirming understanding? Is there a recorder?)

Source: Casewriter.

This document is authorized for use only by Jasim Khan in Business Communications at Strayer University, 2019.

Module Note—Building Effective Working Relationships 415-030

13

Exhibit 3 Guidelines for Balancing Inquiry & Advocacy

When advocating your view:

 Make your own reasoning explicit: Say how you arrived at your view and the “data” upon which it is based.

 Encourage others to explore your view: “Do you see any gaps in my reasoning?”

 Encourage others to provide different views: “Do you have either different data or different conclusions or both?”

 Actively inquire into others’ views that differ from your own: “What are your views?” “How did you arrive at your view?” “Are you taking into account different data from what I have considered?”

When inquiring into others’ views:

 If you are making assumptions about others’ views, state your assumptions clearly and acknowledge that they are assumptions.

 State the “data” upon which your assumptions are based.

 Don’t bother asking questions if you’re not genuinely interested in the others’ responses (e.g., if you are only trying to be polite or show others up).

When you arrive at an impasse (others no longer appear open to inquiry into their own views):

 Ask what data or logic might change their views.

 Ask if there is any way you might jointly design an experiment (or some other inquiry) that might provide new information.

When you or others are hesitant to express your views or to experiment with alternative ideas:

 Encourage them (or yourself) to think out loud about what might be making it difficult: “What is it about our situation, or about me that is making open exchange so difficult?”

 If there is a mutual desire to do so, jointly brainstorm ideas about overcoming any barriers.

Source: Hill, Linda. ‘Building Effective one-on-one Work Relationships’, HBS No. 497-028. Adapted from: Senge, Peter. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday Currency: New York (1990). Excerpt(s) from THE FIFTH DISCIPLINE FIELDBOOK: STRATEGIES AND TOOLS FOR BUILDING A LEARNING ORGANIZATION by Peter M. Senge, copyright © 1994 by Peter M. Senge, Charlotte Roberts, Richard B. Ross, Bryan J. Smith,and Art Kleiner. Used by permission of Doubleday, an imprint of the Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, a division of Random House LLC. All rights reserved.

This document is authorized for use only by Jasim Khan in Business Communications at Strayer University, 2019.

415-030 Module Note—Building Effective Working Relationships

14

References

1 Emily T Amanatullah, Michael W Morris, and Jared R Curhan, 'Negotiators Who Give Too Much: Unmitigated Communion, Relational Anxieties, and Economic Costs in Distributive and Integrative Bargaining', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (2008), 723.

2 Daniel L Ames, and Susan T Fiske, 'Intentional Harms Are Worse, Even When They’re Not', Psychological Science (2013), 0956797613480507.

3 Mahzarin R Banaji, and Anthony G Greenwald, Blind Spot: Hidden Biases of Good PeopleRandom House LLC, 2013).

4 Mahzarin R. Banaji, Curtis Hardin, and Alexander J. Rothman, 'Implicit Stereotyping in Person Judgment', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (1993), 272-81.

5 Jonathan Barnes, The Cambridge Companion to AristotleCambridge University Press, 1995).

6 Sigal G Barsade, 'The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and Its Influence on Group Behavior', Administrative Science Quarterly, 47 (2002), 644-75.

7 Sigal G Barsade, Lakshmi Ramarajan, and Drew Westen, 'Implicit Affect in Organizations', Research in Organizational Behavior, 29 (2009), 135-62.

8 Daniel J Brass, 'Power in Organizations: A Social Network Perspective', Research in politics and society, 4 (1992), 295-323.

9 M.B. Brewer, 'The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time', Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 (1991), 475-82.

10 Joel Brockner, 'Why It’s So Hard to Be Fair', Harvard Business Review, 84 (2006), 122-29.

11 Joel Brockner, and Batia M. Wiesenfeld, 'An Integrative Framework for Explaining Reactions to Decisions: Interactive Effects of Outcomes and Procedures', Psychological Bulletin, 120 (1996), 189-208.

12 Brad J Bushman, and Roy F Baumeister, 'Threatened Egotism, Narcissism, Self-Esteem, and Direct and Displaced Aggression: Does Self-Love or Self-Hate Lead to Violence?', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (1998), 219.

13 Kristin Byron, 'Carrying Too Heavy a Load? The Communication and Miscommunication of Emotion by Email', Academy of Management Review, 33 (2008), 309.

14 Dana R Carney, Amy JC Cuddy, and Andy J Yap, 'Power Posing Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk Tolerance', Psychological Science, 21 (2010), 1363-68.

15 Laura L Carstensen, John M Gottman, and Robert W Levenson, 'Emotional Behavior in Long-Term Marriage', Psychology and aging, 10 (1995), 140.

16 Dolly Chugh, 'Societal and Managerial Implications of Implicit Social Cognition: Why Milliseconds Matter', Social Justice Research, 17 (2004), 203-22.

17 Thomas DeLong, Flying without a Net: Turn Fear of Change into Fuel for SuccessHarvard Business Press, 2011).

18 Thomas J DeLong, and Sara DeLong, 'The Paradox of Excellence', Harvard Business Review, 89 (2011), 119-23.

19 James R Detert, and Amy C Edmondson, 'Implicit Voice Theories: Taken-for-Granted Rules of Self-Censorship at Work', Academy of Management Journal, 54 (2011), 461-88.

20 M Diehl, 'Social Identity and Minimal Groups: The Effects of Interpersonal and Intergroup Attitudinal Similarity on Intergroup Discrimination', British Journal of Social Psychology, 27 (1988), 289-300.

21 Geraldine Downey, and Scott I Feldman, 'Implications of Rejection Sensitivity for Intimate Relationships', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (1996), 1327.

22 Carol Dweck, Mindset: The New Psychology of SuccessRandom House LLC, 2006).

23 Hillary Anger Elfenbein, Maw Der Foo, Judith White, Hwee Hoon Tan, and Voon Chuan Aik, 'Reading Your Counterpart: The Benefit of Emotion Recognition Accuracy for Effectiveness in Negotiation', Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31 (2007), 205- 23.

24 Robin J. Ely, 'The Effects of Organizational Demographics and Social Identity on Relationships among Professional Women', Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 (1994), 203-38.

25 Robert A Emmons, and Michael E McCullough, 'Counting Blessings Versus Burdens: An Experimental Investigation of Gratitude and Subjective Well-Being in Daily Life', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (2003), 377.

26 Susan T Fiske, Amy JC Cuddy, and Peter Glick, 'Universal Dimensions of Social Cognition: Warmth and Competence', Trends in cognitive sciences, 11 (2007), 77-83.

This document is authorized for use only by Jasim Khan in Business Communications at Strayer University, 2019.

Module Note—Building Effective Working Relationships 415-030

15

27 Shaul Fox, and Yair Amichai-Hamburger, 'The Power of Emotional Appeals in Promoting Organizational Change Programs', The Academy of Management Executive, 15 (2001), 84-94.

28 Adam D. Galinsky, Joe C. Magee, Diana Rus, Naomi B. Rothman, and Andrew R. Todd, 'Acceleration with Steering: The Synergistic Benefits of Combining Power and Perspective-Taking', Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5 (2014), 627-35.

29 Alvin W Gouldner, 'The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement', American Sociological Review (1960), 161-78.

30 Mark S. Granovetter, 'The Strength of Weak Ties', American Journal of Sociology, 78 (1973), 1360-80.

31 Boris Groysberg, and Michael Slind, 'Leadership Is a Conversation', Harvard Business Review, 90 (2012), 76-84.

32 Fieke Harinck, and Carsten KW De Dreu, 'Take a Break! Or Not? The Impact of Mindsets During Breaks on Negotiation Processes and Outcomes', Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44 (2008), 397-404.

33 Chip Heath, and Dan Heath, Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others DieRandom House LLC, 2007).

34 Herminia Ibarra, 'Homophily and Differential Returns: Sex-Differences in Network Structure and Access in an Advertising Firm', Administrative Science Quarterly, 37 (1992), 422-47.

35 Ibarra, H., 'Race, Opportunity, and Diversity of Social Circles in Managerial Networks', The Academy of Management Journal, 38 (1995), 673-703.

36 John T Jost, Mahzarin R Banaji, and Brian A Nosek, 'A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo', Political Psychology, 25 (2004), 881-919.

37 William A Kahn, and Kathy E Kram, 'Authority at Work: Internal Models and Their Organizational Consequences', Academy of Management Review, 19 (1994), 17-50.

38 David Krackhardt, 'Assessing the Political Landscape: Structure, Cognition, and Power in Organizations', Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1990), 342-69.

39 Krackhardt, D., 'The Strength of Strong Ties: The Importance of Philos in Organizations', Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action, 216 (1992), 239.

40 Kwok Leung, 'Some Determinants of Conflict Avoidance', Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19 (1988), 125-36.

41 Joe C. Magee, and Adam D. Galinsky, 'Social Hierarchy: The Self‐Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status', The Academy of Management Annals, 2 (2008), 351-98.

42 Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M Cook, 'Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks', Annual Review of Sociology (2001), 415-44.

43 Arie Nadler, Shmuel Ellis, and Iris Bar, 'To Seek or Not to Seek: The Relationship between Help Seeking and Job Performance Evaluations as Moderated by Task‐Relevant Expertise', Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33 (2003), 91-109.

44 Kristin Neff, 'Self-Compassion: An Alternative Conceptualization of a Healthy Attitude toward Oneself', Self and Identity, 2 (2003), 85-101.

45 Raymond S. Nickerson, 'Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises', Review of General Psychology, 2 (1998), 175-220.

46 Brian A Nosek, Mahzarin Banaji, and Anthony G Greenwald, 'Harvesting Implicit Group Attitudes and Beliefs from a Demonstration Web Site', Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6 (2002), 101.

47 Katherine W. Phillips, Nancy P. Rothbard, and Tracy L. Dumas, 'To Disclose or Not to Disclose? Status Distance and Self- Disclosure in Diverse Environments', Academy of Management Review, 34 (2009), 710-32.

48 L. Ramarajan, 'Past, Present and Future Research on Multiple Identities: Toward an Intrapersonal Network Approach.', Academy of Management Annals, 8 (2014), 1-71.

49 Edgar H Schein, Humble Inquiry: The Gentle Art of Asking Instead of TellingBerrett-Koehler Publishers, 2013).

50 David M Schweiger, William R Sandberg, and James W Ragan, 'Group Approaches for Improving Strategic Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Dialectical Inquiry, Devil's Advocacy, and Consensus', Academy of Management Journal, 29 (1986), 51-71.

51 Jeffry A Simpson, W Steven Rholes, and Dede Phillips, 'Conflict in Close Relationships: An Attachment Perspective', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (1996), 899.

52 Diana McLain Smith, Elephant in the Room: How Relationships Make or Break the Success of Leaders and Organizations. Vol. 7John Wiley & Sons, 2011).

53 H. Tajfel, and J.C. Turner, 'The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior.', in Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. by S. Worchel and W.G. Austin (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1987), pp. 7-24.

This document is authorized for use only by Jasim Khan in Business Communications at Strayer University, 2019.

415-030 Module Note—Building Effective Working Relationships

16

54 Teri C Tompkins, 'Using Advocacy and Inquiry to Improve the Thinking Process of Future Managers', Journal of Management Education, 25 (2001), 553-71.

55 Carl O Word, Mark P Zanna, and Joel Cooper, 'The Nonverbal Mediation of Self-Fulfilling Prophecies in Interracial Interaction', Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10 (1974), 109-20.

56 Nicole B Ellison, Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe, 'The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites', Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 12 (2007), 1143-68.

This document is authorized for use only by Jasim Khan in Business Communications at Strayer University, 2019.