Unlike professionals who are only responsible for their own work, managerial leaders are responsible for bringing together the work of a number of people and creating a cohesive work unit. Being effective as a managerial leader thus not only requires individuals to be aware of their own strengths and weaknesses in terms of the specific work performed in the unit, but also to be aware of their work style and how they interact with others. It also requires individuals to become more aware that although all members of a work group have something in common, each individual is also in some way unique. Managerial leaders must learn about each employee's abilities, understand how employees' work styles may differ, and consider how each person contributes to the work of the unit and the organization as a whole. Managerial leaders must also consider how employees differ in their feelings, needs, and concerns. People react differently to different situations, and it is important for managerial leaders to be able to perceive and understand these reactions.

As a manager, you need to understand both the commonalities and differences among employees as a first step to understanding how people relate to one another in various situations. By being aware, you can better understand your own reaction to people and their reactions to each other. In the past two decades, many companies have begun to focus on helping managers develop their emotional and social intelligence (Goleman, 1995, 1998; Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002; Seal, Boyatzis & Bailey, 2006), which involves both intrapersonal competence (how we manage ourselves) and interpersonal or social competence (how we handle relationships). Research in this area has shown that emotional and social intelligence plays a particularly crucial role at higher levels of the organization, where managers spend the vast majority of their day interacting with others.

We begin this section with a focus on understanding yourself, sometimes referred to as self-awareness. The importance of having a good understanding of yourself and what motivates or influences your behaviors should be obvious. If you do not understand yourself, it is nearly impossible to understand others. Yet people often find it difficult to learn about themselves. One reason that people find it difficult to learn about themselves is because their friends and colleagues fear being honest because they think such honesty will create conflict or embarrass the other person. Jerry Hirshberg, founder of Nissan Design International, Inc., notes that people "have mixed feelings about hearing the truth." He states, "It's like a chemical reaction: Your face goes red, your temperature rises, you want to strike back." He labels this reaction "defending and debating" and argues that people need to fight back the tendency to defend and debate by "listening and learning" (Muoio, 1998).

While it may be difficult to receive negative feedback, there is strong evidence that managers with higher levels of self-awareness are more likely to advance in their organizations than those with low self-awareness (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000). There are, of course, many different dimensions of yourself that you could learn about. For example, Peter Drucker (1999), one of world's foremost authorities on management and leadership, argues that in today's economy, people must be aware of their strengths, their values, and how they best perform. Robert Staub, cofounder and president of Staub-Peterson Leadership Consultants, asserts that "the golden rule of effective leadership [is]: Don't fly blind! Know where you stand with regard to the perceptions of others" (Staub, 1997, p. 170).

Goleman and colleagues' (2000; Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002) work on emotional and social intelligence identifies self-awareness and self-management as the two key dimensions of emotional intelligence. Within self-awareness, there are three subdimensions: emotional awareness, self-assessment, and self-confidence. Emotional awareness involves recognizing your emotions and how they affect you and others. Individuals who have emotional awareness know what they are feeling and why, and they also understand the connection between their feelings and their actions. Self-assessment involves knowing your strengths and limits and being open to feedback that can help you to develop. Individuals who develop this competence are able to learn from experience and value self-development and continuous learning. Self-confidence refers to an awareness of one's self-worth and capabilities. Individuals who possess self-confidence present themselves with a strong sense of self and are willing to stand up for what they believe in, even if their perspective is unpopular.

In addition to knowing about your emotions, your strengths and limits, and how others perceive you, it is important to know what motivates your behaviors—what influences how you will react in different situations. One major influence on your behavior is your personality. While no one always reacts in the same way under all circumstances, people do have a tendency to act and react to situations with some level of consistency. An individual's personality is generally described in terms of those relatively permanent psychological and behavioral attributes that distinguish that individual from others. The notion that personality is relatively permanent stems from the idea that personality is a trait that can change in adulthood but is mostly formed in childhood and adolescence. Thus, "individuals can be characterized in terms of relatively enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions . . . [that] show some degree of cross-situational consistency" (McCrae & Costa, 2008, p. 160). The concept of personality can thus be used to differentiate among individuals as well as to describe similarities among people with similar personality traits.

While there are many different approaches to understanding personality, two of these approaches stand out as being the most widely used in research and in organizational training and development seminars on individual differences in organizations. The first, the Five-Factor Model, is generally seen by psychologists as the most widely accepted taxonomy for studying personality (John, Naumann & Soto, 2008). The second, the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory, is based on the work of Carl Jung and is more popular in organizations for understanding differences in employee' work styles.

As the name would imply, the Five-Factor Model presents five factors, or basic tendencies, that researchers argue encompass most of what has been described as personality (McCrae & Costa, 2008). In the model, each factor is named for one of two ends of a continuum. Of course, most individuals do not fall at the ends of the con-tinua, although people are likely to have a tendency toward one end or the other. As you read the description of each of the traits, you might try to place yourself on each of the continua.

The first factor is referred to as neuroticism. Individuals who score high on this dimension tend to worry a lot and are often anxious, insecure, and emotional. Alternatively, those who score low tend to be calm, relaxed, and self-confident. The second factor, extraversion, has also been referred to as urgency and assertiveness. This factor assesses the degree to which individuals are sociable, talkative, and gregarious in their interactions with others versus reserved, quiet, and sometimes even withdrawn and aloof. The third factor, openness, also sometimes called intellectance, focuses on the degree to which an individual is proactive in seeking out new experiences. Individuals who score high on this measure tend to be curious, imaginative, creative, and nontradi-tional. Those who score low tend to be more conventional, concrete, and practical. Agreeableness, the fourth factor, focuses on the degree to which individuals are good-natured, trusting of others, and forgiving of others' mistakes, as opposed to cynical, suspicious of others, and antagonistic. Finally, conscientiousness is associated with individuals' degree of organization and persistence. Those who score high on this continuum tend to be more organized, responsible, and self-disciplined; those who score low tend to be more impulsive, careless, and perceived by others as undependable.

Interestingly, researchers have found inconsistent relationships between the five factors and various aspects of leadership. For example, some researchers found extraver-sion and agreeableness to be positively related, and neuroticism negatively related, to some aspects of leadership, particularly emergent leadership in a leaderless group, suggesting that when a group is formed with no explicit leader, the individual who is more extraverted, agreeable, and emotionally stable will likely emerge as the informal leader (Hogan, Curphy & Hogan, 1994). Other researchers have found conscientiousness to be the strongest predictor of leadership performance (Strang & Kuhnert, 2009). Regardless of which personality factors predict leadership performance, it is important for managerial leaders to be aware of their tendencies as they perform their work.

The Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI) is one of several personality assessment instruments based on Carl Jung's theory of psychological types. Jung noticed that people behaved in somewhat predictable patterns, which he labeled types. He noted that types could be described along three dimensions: introversion—extraversion, sensing-intuition, and thinking—feeling. Later, Katharine Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, added a fourth dimension: judging—perceiving (Keirsey, 1998). Their assessment instrument is widely used in organizational workshops to help people understand the different work styles of people in a work unit.

The first dimension, introversion—extraversion, is similar to the Five-Factor Model's extraversion factor. It focuses on the degree to which individuals tend to look inward or outward for ideas about decisions and actions. Individuals who are introverted tend to be reflective and value privacy. Individuals who are extraverted tend to like variety and action, and are energized by being with people. The second dimension, sensing—intuition, focuses on what we pay attention to when we gather data. Individuals who are sensing types tend to focus on facts and details; they absorb information in a concrete, literal fashion. Intuitive types, on the other hand, tend to try to see the big picture and focus more on abstract ideas.

While sensing—intuition focuses on how we gather data, thinking—feeling focuses on how we use information when making decisions. Thinking types tend to decide with their brains, whereas feeling types tend to decide with their hearts. Thinking types use analytical and objective approaches to decision-making. Feeling types tend to base decisions on more subjective criteria, taking into account individual differences. The final dimension, judging-perceiving, focuses on approaches to life and thinking styles. Judging types are task oriented and they tend to prefer closure on issues. They are good at planning and organizing. Perceptive types are more spontaneous and flexible, and they tend to be more comfortable with ambiguity.

Because the underlying management models of the competing values framework reflect different assumptions about how decisions should be made, some organizational scholars have suggested that certain personality types may be more inclined toward some approaches to management than others. For example, individuals who score high on thinking are likely to prefer the rational approach to decision-making based on goals and objectives that is the hallmark of the rational goal quadrant. In contrast, individuals who score high on feeling are likely to be more comfortable with the human relations quadrant approach, which calls for more participative approaches. With respect to the data-gathering dimension, sensing types who want to see the facts and figures are likely to fit well in the internal process quadrant with its emphasis on measurement and control. Conversely, intuitive types who are more interested in the big picture may be more comfortable with the open systems approach, which argues for paying attention to what is going on outside the organization.

The four dimensions of the MBTI can be combined to create different combinations, such as extraverted—sensing—thinking—judging or introverted—sensing—feeling— judging. When you combine all four dimensions, there are 16 different personality types that can be identified. Workshops that focus on people's work styles tend to focus on the combinations because they can help people understand why people approach work tasks in different ways. You might think back to a situation where some people in the group jumped right into the task while others wanted to analyze the nature of the problem first. Puccio, Murdock, and Mance (2007) describe these differences as psychological diversity, which they define as "differences in how people organize and process information as an expression of their cognitive styles and personality traits" (p. 205). They argue that this type of diversity can have profound effects on the workplace and note that leaders who understand this type of diversity "are in a much better position to leverage their strengths and to find ways to compensate for their deficiencies" (Puccio et al., 2007, p. 205).

As noted above, research has shown that managers with higher levels of self-awareness are more likely to advance in their organizations. It is not, however, simply important to increase your self-awareness. Rather, effective managerial leaders use their self-awareness to identify areas of potential growth, that is, areas where they can become more effective. Seal, Boyatzis, and Bailey (2006) describe a process called "intentional change theory," whereby individuals can identify desirable, sustainable changes they would like to make by asking themselves a series of questions, starting with "Who do I want to be?" (p. 201). The answer to this question gives individuals a sense of their "ideal self." By then asking questions about how one's current strengths and weaknesses (real self) differ from one's ideal self, individuals can create an action plan, or what they label as one's "learning agenda."

In the Assessment exercise, you had the opportunity to use self-reflection, as well as feedback from a partner to help you learn about yourself (real self). Here we present a simple but helpful framework that can help you to develop a more realistic picture of your real self. The framework was developed by Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham (1955), who named it after themselves, calling it the Johari window. As shown in Figure M1.1, it has four quadrants. In the upper left is the Open area, which represents the aspects of who you are that are known both to yourself and to others with whom you interact. In the upper right is the Blind area. Here are the aspects of you that others see but you do not recognize. In the lower left is the Hidden quadrant, sometimes referred to as the façade. These are the things that you know but do not reveal to others. Finally, in the lower right is the Unknown quadrant. Here are those aspects of who you are that neither you nor others are yet aware of; they exist but have not been directly observed, and neither you nor those with whom you interact are aware of their impact on the relationship. When they are discovered, often through deep self-reflection, their impact becomes an important place for personal growth.

Figure M1.1. The Johari window.

The sizes of the four quadrants change over time. In a new relationship, the Open quadrant is small. As communication increases, it grows large and the Hidden quadrant begins to shrink. With growing trust, we feel less need to hide the things we value, feel, and know. It takes longer for the Blind quadrant to shrink in size because it requires openness to honest feedback. Not surprisingly, the Unknown quadrant tends to change most slowly of all because it requires people to be introspective and to explore things about themselves that are generally taken for granted. While it is can be a very large quadrant that greatly influences what we do, many people totally close off the possibility of learning about the Unknown quadrant.

As noted above, people sometimes use a great deal of energy in order to hide, deny, or avoid learning about themselves, particularly their inconsistencies and hypocrisies. When colleagues and employees sense that you are not open to feedback, they will avoid sharing important information with you. As a result, the Open quadrant begins to shrink, and the others begin to enlarge. When the Open quadrant increases in size, however, the others shrink. As a result, more energy, skills, and resources can be directed toward personal growth and development and the tasks around which the relationship is formed. This leads to more openness, trust, and learning, and positive outcomes begin to multiply. One way for you to show others that you are open to feedback is to systematically share information about yourself. Ben Dattner (2008) urges managers to provide their employees with a "Managerial User's Manual." He notes that the more you can tell your employees about what you value, what motivates you, and how you work, the more likely it is that you can create an open dialogue about how to work together. He also suggests that the manual should be an evolving document, and that managers should actively solicit input from colleagues and employees about the accuracy and usefulness of the manual. Table M1.1 provides some basic guidelines that can help you increase the size of your Open quadrant by asking for feedback.

The second two dimensions of emotional and social intelligence are social awareness and relationship management. Within the area of social awareness, the three subdimen-sions are empathy, organizational awareness, and service orientation. Empathy lies at the heart of understanding others. It involves "sensing others' emotions, understanding their perspective, and taking active interest in their concerns" (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002). Leaders who are able to show empathy are able to put themselves in the position of others and see the world as others see it. While employees may not always agree with managers' decisions, they are more likely to trust managers who demonstrate an understanding of their reactions to organizational decisions.

One difficult part of practicing empathy is that some people are uncomfortable with expressing negative emotions in the workplace. That is, they believe that it is unprofessional to express fear, sadness, or anger in the work setting. The fact is, however, that individuals do react emotionally to situations, and the better a leader is at reading people's emotions, the more effective the leader will be at helping to resolve difficult issues and maintaining a more cohesive work environment.

What then can managers do to demonstrate more empathy? What steps can they take to help employees feel that managers are truly interested in their ideas and opinions, even if the final decision is not the one the employee would make? First, it is important to begin practicing empathy before there is a difficult situation. That is, keep in mind that empathy is more than understanding people's emotions; it also involves understanding those individuals' perspectives and concerns. Here, it is helpful to recall the quadrants of the Johari window and to remember that others also have Blind, Hidden, and Unknown areas. Managers who appreciate that employees and colleagues also have these three covert areas and are likely be defensive about them, can begin by encouraging those individuals to move information from the Hidden quadrant to the Open quadrant. That is, in the same way that trust increases when you provide others with a user's manual to help them learn more about you, you might encourage your employees (and colleagues) to also develop a user's manual in which they tell you about what they value, what motivates them, and how they work best. Of course, managers need to be sensitive and respectful of others' need for privacy and to recognize that their first reaction may be defensiveness. If, however, managers provide a role model of sensitivity, openness, and willingness to learn, and ask others for feedback, it is more likely that employees with reciprocate with the same.

Second, it is important for managers to develop their ability to engage in empathic listening. Sparrow and Knight (2006) identify empathic listening as a type of listening that involves trying to understand the situation in the same way that the other person understands it and also trying to feel what she is really feeling. They indicate that there are five requirements for engaging in empathic listening: emptying oneself, paying attention, accepting the other person's reaction, avoiding judgment or comparison, and staying with the feeling. Table M1.2 summarizes these requirements for empathic listening.

Interpersonal communication is perhaps one of the most important and least understood competencies that a manager can have. Arguably, it is at the heart of all the competencies you will encounter in this textbook. Studies consistently show that managers spend the majority of their time engaging in various types of communication—face-to-face, telephone, e-mail, teleconferences, memos, and presentations; organizational researchers see communication as central to the study of both managerial and organizational effectiveness (Tourish & Hargie, 2004). Knowing when and how to share information requires a very complex understanding of people and situations (Zey, 1991).

Communication is the exchange of information, facts, ideas, and meanings. The communication process can be used to inform, coordinate, and motivate people. Unfortunately, being a good communicator is not easy. Nor is it easy to recognize your own problems in communication. In the Assessment exercise you just completed, for example, you may well have downplayed your own weaknesses in communicating and rated yourself more favorably than you rated the other person in the painful relationship.

If, however, you practiced applying the critical thinking tactic described in the Introduction, identifying the grounds and warrants that support your claim, your assessment is likely to be more accurate than if you simply responded based on your initial impression of your behavior. Although most people in organizations tend to think of themselves as excellent communicators, they consider communication a major organizational problem and generally see the other people in the organization as the source of the problem. It is very difficult to see and admit the problems in our own communication behavior.

Despite this difficulty, analyzing communication behavior is vital. Poor communication skills result in both interpersonal and organizational problems. When interpersonal problems arise, people begin to experience conflict, resist change, and avoid contact with others. Organizationally, poor communication often results in low morale and low productivity. Given that organizing requires that people communicate—to develop goals, channel energy, and identify and solve problems—learning to communicate effectively is key to improving work unit and organizational effectiveness.

Whenever we attempt to communicate, the information exchanged may take a variety of forms, including ideas, facts, and feelings. Despite these many possible forms, the communication process may be seen in terms of a general model (Shannon & Weaver, 1948), which is shown in Figure M1.2. Although this model was developed over 60 years ago, it remains a useful tool for understanding how communication works and why it often fails.

The model begins with the communicator encoding a message. Here the person who is going to communicate encodes ideas into message, which is sent as a system of symbols, such as words or numbers. While you may not think of yourself as encoding your ideas when you plan to communicate, think about the differences between how you might convey an idea when speaking in class and how you might write that same idea in a paper, or the difference between a text message you might send to your friends to confirm when you are meeting and the e-mail you might send to your professor with the same message. The fact is, there are many things that influence how ideas are translated (encoded) into the message, including the urgency of the message, the experience and skills of the sender, the sender's perception of the receiver, and the sender's cultural expectations and experiences (Beamer & Varner, 2008). For example, in some cultures, a verbal agreement is enough to finalize a deal, while in other cultures a written contract is required. Moreover, each language has certain sayings and expressions that are unique to that language and sometimes difficult to convey to others from a different culture.

Figure M1.2. A basic model of communication. Source: Developed from C. Shannon and M. Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1948). Used with permission

Once the message is encoded, it must be transmitted through a medium (or channel) of some sort. A message, for example, might be written, oral, or even nonverbal. When choosing the appropriate medium, one consideration is the capacity of that medium to convey information, or what it often called the richness of that medium. Lengel and Daft (1988) developed a composite measure of richness based on how well the medium can deal with multiple pieces of information simultaneously, the degree to which the medium facilitates feedback, and the degree to which the medium allows for a personal focus. Based on this composite measure, face-to-face communication is considered the richest medium, whereas written communications, such as reports and general announcements, and formal numerical information, such as statistical reports and graphs, are considered the least rich. Lengel and Daft argue that one of the most important skills for a manager is to match the richness of the medium with the needs of the message, rather than merely using the richest medium available (see also Robert & Dennis, 2005). In recent years, newer technologies for mobile communications have been developed (e.g., Short Message Services for sending brief text messages and Multimedia Messaging Services for sending a variety of multimedia content such as photos and video) (Lee, Cheung, & Chen, 2007). As a result, managers have even more choices when selecting the most appropriate communication medium for their messages. For example, Paul F. Levy, the CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, a major hospital in Boston, uses Facebook, Twitter, and a blog to communicate with his employees (Miller, 2009).

Once the message is sent and received, it must be decoded, which means that the person who receives it must interpret the message. Like the encoding process, the decoding process is subject to influence by a wide range of factors. Finally, there is a feedback loop between the receiver and the communicator. The feedback can take three forms: informational, corrective, or reinforcing. Informational feedback is a nonevaluative response that simply provides additional facts to the sender. Corrective feedback involves a challenge to, or correction of, the original message. Reinforcing feedback is a clear acknowledgment of the message that was sent. It may be positive or negative.

The model also includes the element of noise, which is anything that can distort the message in the communication process. As indicated in Figure M1.2, noise can occur at any point in the process. During encoding, a sender may be unable to clearly articulate the ideas to be sent. In the message, a document may leave out a key word. The medium used may have limitations, as when a voicemail system allows only a limited time for recording and cuts off the message before it is complete. Even if no problems occur earlier in the process, during decoding, the receiver may make wrong assumptions about the motive behind the message.

Effective interpersonal communication comprises two elements. First, individuals must be able to express themselves. They need to be able to convey to others what they are feeling, what they are thinking, what they need from others, and so on. Second, individuals must be good listeners. They must be open to truly hearing the thoughts and ideas that other people are expressing (Samovar & Mills, 1998).

Even if these two conditions are met, problems can occur because of characteristics of the situation. For example, the physical setting may be too hot, cold, noisy, or it may have other distracting features. In other cases, the situation might be inappropriate for the medium chosen. For example, in the movie, Up in the Air (Reitman, 2009), an organization discovered that firing people using a video meeting via computer was not as appropriate as meeting with people face-to-face. In contrast, some information should not be conveyed solely through face-to-face interactions. For example, most performance evaluations should be supplemented with a written document that includes an assessment of the prior period's performance, as well as expectations for the coming performance period. Also, oral presentations that include statistical analyses should be supplemented with charts and graphs. Similarly, formal messages may be inappropriate in settings that are highly informal, and informal messages may be inappropriate in a setting that is highly formal.

Here we list some barriers that reduce the effectiveness of interpersonal communication.

When combined with the fact that individuals are often reluctant to engage in conflict, organizational norms that stifle communication can be extremely powerful barriers. As discussed in Competency 1 of this module, people have defenses that prevent them from receiving messages they fear. All people have some amount of insecurity, and there are certain things they simply do not want to know. Because people in organizations know this, they develop defensive routines (Argyris & Schön, 1996) in which they avoid saying things that might make the other person or themselves uncomfortable. Defensive routines are particularly likely to occur when discussing issues that relate to values, assumptions, and self-image.

Chris Argyris of the Harvard Business School refers to the thoughts and feelings that are relevant to a conversation but are not explicitly stated as "left-hand column issues" because of an exercise he uses to discover what they are (Senge, Roberts, Ross, Smith & Kleiner, 1994). Left-hand column issues include both the things people are thinking but not saying and the things they think the other person is thinking but not saying. You can think of left-hand column issues as things that are "left out" of the conversation. Argyris contends that organizations develop left-hand column issues that keep important issues from surfacing and being discussed. Instead of surfacing these issues, people work around them, avoid them, make things up, and say things they don't mean or believe. Often they go through these pretenses to avoid offending people or having to deal with a difficult situation. But when the list of "undiscussables" becomes larger than the list of "discussables," the organization begins to suffer. Trust erodes, and lots of covering up and avoidance make it difficult for people to improve their performance because they have no idea where they stand with one another. Important information is lost or kept concealed.

How does the left-hand-column exercise work? Imagine a conversation you have had or might have with a person at work. The person might be your boss, a coworker, or someone who reports to you. You could probably write down this conversation fairly easily, but before doing so, draw a vertical line down the middle of the paper. Now, in the right-hand column, write down the actual words spoken by you and the other person. In the left-hand column, write down the thoughts, feelings, questions, and concerns that you have but that you would not express out loud. Here's an example of such a conversation:

Clearly, these two people are not saying what they are thinking or feeling, but those feelings are influencing the "deep structure" of their behavior. The conversation on the surface is not as powerful as the silent conversation taking place beneath the surface, in the left-hand column. At the end of the right-hand column conversation that actually took place, both Terry and Troy feel somewhat dissatisfied, but neither one feels comfortable talking about the reason for their dissatisfaction.

People need to be trained to surface left-hand-column issues in ways that are positive and nonpunishing. They need to develop the skills to express their concerns in a way that helps the other person want to hear what they have to say. In the next competency, we will focus on mentoring and developing employees. In order to be able to perform this competency effectively, managers need to be open and honest with their employees. Effective managers also role-model these behaviors for their employees so that they can learn to be more effective at surfacing left-hand column issues.

Of course, it is important to recognize that not all left-hand column issues should be communicated. In the conversation above, for example, it would most likely be helpful for Terry to explicitly state that he considered Michelle LaFleur but did not think that her qualifications fit the position. This might lead to a response from Troy that identified something that Troy had overlooked about Michelle. In contrast, it would not be helpful for Terry to say that he thought Michelle's only qualification was that she was a friend of Troy's, even if that was indeed how Terry felt.

Given the number and intensity of these barriers to effective communication, what should you know to help yourself to communicate effectively? First, you need to develop a few basic skills to express yourself more effectively. Table M1.3 gives seven basic rules for sharing your ideas with others. Most important, always keep in mind the old adage "Think before you speak." An effective speaker who communicates the wrong information can create far more problems than an ineffective speaker who struggles to convey the correct information.

Of all the skills associated with good communication, perhaps the most important is listening. The Stoic philosopher Epictetus, in The Golden Sayings, reportedly said, "Nature hath given men one tongue but two ears that we may hear from others twice as much as we speak." This is a good thought to keep in mind, but we should remember that listening is more than hearing what others have to say. Listening requires that we truly focus and try to understand what the other person is saying. Harris (2006) suggests that we should think of listening as having two dimensions: concentration and collaboration. Concentration involves focusing and attending to what the person is saying. Collaboration involves responding and providing feedback, letting the other person know that we are actively engaged in the conversation. When we define listening in terms of both of these dimensions, it becomes clearer that listening is a skill that we must develop, rather than one that we acquire as a by-product of how we hear.

Reflective listening is a tool that is based on empathy (recall Table M1.2), which helps us to experience the thoughts and feelings of the other person. In using empathy and reflective listening, instead of directing and controlling the thoughts of the other person, you become a helper who tries to facilitate her expression. Instead of assuming responsibility for another's problem, you help that person explore it on her own. Your job is not to talk but to keep the other person talking. You do not evaluate, judge, or advise; you simply reflect on what you hear. In fewer words, you descriptively, not eval-uatively, restate the essence of the person's last thought or feeling. If the person's statement is factually inaccurate, you do not immediately point out the inaccuracy. Instead of interrupting, you keep the person's flow of expression moving. You can go back later to correct factual errors.

The reflective listener uses open-ended questions, such as "Can you tell me more?" or "How did you feel when that happened?" Evaluative questions and factual, yes-or-no questions are avoided. Sometimes, it is simply helpful to mirror what the other person has said, but to turn it into a question that indicates that you want to hear more about that idea. The key is to keep the conceptual and emotional flow of expression. Instead of telling, the reflective listener helps the other person to discover. Here is an example of reflective listening to help illustrate how it works.

Kathie is the manager of the Training and Development Office in a large public agency. The office has 13 professional employees whose primary job is to conduct training for the agency and 2 secretaries. Allen is a relatively new employee who has been asked to develop new training on "Dealing with Crisis Situations." Kathie is having her first formal meeting with Allen since he was hired two months ago.

To the first-time reader, reflective listening sounds very strange. Experience shows, however, that it can have major payoffs. Trust and concern grow with an ever-deepening understanding of interpersonal issues. More effective and lasting problem solving takes place, and people have a greater sense that their ideas are being listened to by others. In short, communication is greatly improved.

Reflective listening is not, however, a panacea. It is time-consuming to really listen. It requires confidence in one's interpersonal skills and the courage to possibly hear things about oneself that are less than complimentary. There is also a danger that the sender will get into personal areas of life with which the listener is not comfortable and for which a professional counselor would be more appropriate. It is, nevertheless, a vital tool that is seldom understood or employed.

Depending on your work setting, new employees may be expected to have a great deal of prior education or experience in the work performed in your organization, or they may be expected to learn much of their work on the job. Even within many work settings, some types of jobs may require individuals to have more knowledge and skills as they begin their work than others. For example, within a bank, most bank tellers do not know much about banking when they are hired, but are expected to have basic skills in communication and mathematics and to have a problem-solving orientation. On the other hand, when an individual is hired as a loan officer, he would likely be expected to be familiar with basic economic and accounting principles, understand marketing strategy and tactics, and also have good communication skills. Regardless of the knowledge and skills employees are expected to have when they are hired, your role as a managerial leader is to mentor and develop employees.

In a literal sense, mentor means a trusted counselor or guide—a coach. The term derives from a character in The Odyssey, the Greek epic poem written by Homer (Bell, 1996). In the poem, Odysseus asks a family friend, Mentor, to serve as a tutor and coach to his son, Telemachus, while he is off at war. In this section, we explore how managerial leaders can be more effective in mentoring and developing employees. We begin by examining formal organizational systems of performance evaluation and examine ways in which these can be structured to provide benefits to the employee, the manager, and the organization. We then look at mentoring and performance coaching as more informal processes that can be used to develop employees in an ongoing fashion. We conclude by looking at delegation as a means of developing employees' competencies and abilities by providing them with opportunities to take on more responsibility. While the primary focus here is on mentoring and developing employees, you should keep in mind that there are many other situations where you can apply the knowledge and skills presented here. For example, if you are a member of a club or community organization, you may have opportunities to mentor and develop others. Even outside of formal organizational settings, you may serve as a mentor to friends and family members.

In the Assessment exercise at the beginning of this competency, you chose between two options in eight pairs of assumptions about performance evaluation. In each pair of statements, answer a reflects traditional control values that provide the basis for most organizational performance evaluation processes. Evaluation processes that are based on these control values, however, are generally disliked by both managers and employees because they are generally associated with negative criticism (Jackman & Strober, 2003). Indeed, as you might expect based on your own experiences of being graded in school, performance evaluation is one of the most uniformly disliked processes in organizational America, as demonstrated by a survey of human resources professionals conducted in 1997 by Aon Consulting and the Society for Human Resources Management, which found that only 5 percent of the respondents were very satisfied with their organization's performance-management systems (Imperato, 1998). Since employees are not eager to hear criticism and managers fear negative reactions from employees, even to what managers see as constructive criticism, most individuals look on performance evaluation as a management process with little benefit to the organization, the manager, or the employee (Jacobs, 2009).

On the other hand, within the eight pairs, answer b reflects values rooted in involvement, communication, and trust. When performance evaluations are conducted within this perspective, they are not one-time, stand-alone meetings. Rather, from this perspective, performance evaluation is seen as part of an ongoing, multistage process that mixes the a and b views of the world by emphasizing both control and collaboration, and allows for regular feedback between the manager and employee.

Individual performance evaluations are a key component of an organization's comprehensive performance management system, a topic we return to in Module 3, where we will address how effective performance management systems translate the organizational vision into unit and individual goals. At the individual level, Grote (2002) presents a model of a strategy-based performance management system that includes four stages. The first stage, performance planning, begins a year before the actual performance review, and involves a meeting between the manager and the employee to discuss performance expectations for the next 12 months. Both the manager and the employee contribute actively to this discussion, which focuses on "the key responsibilities of the person's job and the goals and projects the person will work on" as well as "the behaviors and competencies the organization expects of its members" (p. 1). The discussion may also focus on specific development activities, such as attending a training workshop or webinar.

In the second stage, performance execution, the employee carries out his tasks and responsibilities, and the manager provides coaching and feedback on a regular basis. As you will see in the next section, coaching is generally seen as less formal than performance evaluation, but provides the foundation for that meeting. Grote suggests that the manager and employee should meet together midway through the year, and maybe more often, to discuss progress toward meeting goals developed at the performance planning meeting.

The third stage, performance assessment, involves gathering information on how well the employee has performed, and should begin a few weeks before the performance review meeting. The performance assessment should focus on how successful the employee was in reaching her goals, as well as how well the employee performed with respect to expected behaviors and competencies. Here, the manager may involve others in the organization who interact with the employee on a regular basis.

The final stage is the performance review meeting. At this meeting, the manager provides formal feedback on the employee's performance and suggests areas for development. During this session, you should be sure that your own objective is clear. Know what you want to accomplish. Get into an appropriate frame of mind (Krieff, 1996). Ask yourself how you really feel about the person and, most importantly, how you can really help the person. Few managers enter the process in such a frame of mind. Begin by making sure that the employee is also in an appropriate frame of mind. Remember that the performance evaluation will be most effective if the employee is ready to hear your feedback (Silberman, 2000).

Focus first on positive behaviors. If you have not already asked the employee to write a self-evaluation, ask him to list the things that he has done well; contribute to the list as much as possible. When you turn to areas that might need improvement, again ask the person to begin; in a supportive way, continue together until you agree on a list. At this point, you can use the skills discussed in the previous two competencies related to understanding self and others and communicating honestly and effectively and ask how you as a manager are contributing to this person's problems. For example, you might suggest going through the list and asking what you could do differently. As the person responds, use reflective listening to explore the person's claim in an honest way. Make commitments to change your behavior where possible. In doing so, you are modeling the behavior you would like the employee to practice and develop. After doing this, you might again go through the list and ask the employee what changes he might make.

Next, you should discuss the person's career development plan and what progress has been made with respect to the plan. If there is no such plan, one of the assignments should be to write a plan; you may need to help the person here. At the conclusion of the session, summarize what each of you might do differently during the next few months. After this, do an overall review, checking the employee's understanding of each action step. Do a final summary, and set a time for the next performance planning meeting.

While some organizations use the performance review meeting to begin the next cycle, Grote (2002) suggests that the next performance planning meeting should be held separately, but should build on the outcome of the performance review meeting. At that meeting, you should review the outcomes of the performance review meeting.

If your organization already has a system in place, you might consider its effectiveness from the perspective of employee growth and development. Does your current system consider employees' need for feedback? Does it encourage managers to engage in frequent conversations with employees during the time period from one performance evaluation to another? As noted above, managers should meet at regular intervals with each employee to provide specific feedback on employee performance and suggestions for improving performance. Table M1.4 provides some guidelines for giving feedback. While these guidelines are generally useful for both informal conversations and formal performance evaluation sessions, managers should recognize the differences between ongoing feedback and the performance review meeting. Bacal (2004) differentiates between the two by defining evaluation as focused on judging an individual's contributions, whereas feedback is more focused on "improving performance by making information available to the employee" (p. 146). To provide such information, managers need to make sure that they regularly observe the performance of employees and make notes of concrete incidents that can provide specific examples of both positive and negative behaviors.

In considering your organization's performance management system, you may also try to identify additional techniques for increasing employees' involvement, communication, and trust. For example, Jacobs (2009) argues that performance management systems should focus more on employees' perceptions of their work and suggestions for improvement than on the managers'. Of course, this would require that employees have access to other forms of feedback, either directly based on output or from others with whom they interact, such as colleagues or customers. Jacobs suggests that such a system helps develop employees to a greater extent because it gives them greater responsibility for their success. Even if the employee's perception does not drive the performance review meeting, you can ask the employee to prepare a written evaluation of her performance for you to read in advance of this meeting. By reading the employee's self-evaluation in advance, you can develop greater empathy and gain a better understanding of how this person sees her performance. In scheduling the session, be sure to set aside enough time to fully discuss the employee's self-evaluation and make sure that you have a private setting where you will not be interrupted. By allowing enough time and space to fully discuss the employee's self-evaluation, the session can become a learning opportunity for both yourself and the employee.

In the previous section, we examined the performance evaluation process and noted that it is generally disliked in organizations. One reason why performance evaluations are generally disliked is that managers and employees both tend to see the performance evaluation process as focused on control, providing managers with an opportunity to raise concerns about employees' poor performance. In contrast, the performance evaluation process also can be seen as focused on collaboration. From this perspective, the performance evaluation process provides an opportunity to celebrate an employee's successes and identify opportunities for new achievements in the future. In making suggestions about how to improve such systems, the focus was on finding ways to personalize the process and providing employees with more opportunities for input into the process. In recent years, there has been growing emphasis on two organizational processes that are designed to help employees grow and develop—coaching and mentoring. Both of these processes emphasize the one-on-one relationships between an employee and someone who is more experienced, either a coach or a mentor, and both emphasize the use of feedback as a tool for development.

Although the terms "coaching" and "mentoring" are often used interchangeably, many differentiate between the two, emphasizing that coaches tend to be the individual's direct supervisor, whereas mentors are often one or two levels higher in the organizational hierarchy and may even be in a different department or division. In addition, many organizations have formal mentoring systems, in which an individual is assigned a mentor, whereas coaching occurs when a trusting relationship develops between an employee and his supervisor so that the individual is able to grow and develop in his career and in the organization. In organizations that have formal mentoring systems, the focus of the mentoring relationship may be to help the protégé build his network within the organization, rather to provide feedback on specific work-related behaviors (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 1999).

Gilley and Gilley (2007) identify a number of benefits of coaching to the individual, the manager, and the organization. Several of these benefits also occur when the relationship is with a mentor, rather than with a coach. For individuals, the greatest benefit is having the opportunity to develop to their fullest, which generally leads to greater job and career satisfaction. In addition, in coaching situations, individuals have the opportunity to work in a positive work environment. Managers also benefit from coaching; working with a more motivated and productive workforce energizes managers, which can result in further improvements to unit performance. In addition, Boy-atzis, Smith, and Blize (2006) argue that leaders who "coach with compassion" benefit because it reduces their personal level of stress. Finally, coaching benefits the organization, because there is better communication among managers and employees, as well as enhanced creativity in decision-making and problem solving, which ultimately leads to improved effectiveness and enhanced productivity.

The question then becomes: How do managers develop their skills and abilities as coaches? Gilley and Gilley (2007) identify four roles that coaches play: career advisor, trainer, performance appraiser, and strategist. Interestingly, these four roles bear some similarities to the quadrants of the competing values framework. Career advising has elements of the collaborate quadrant and focuses on being supportive and helping employees develop their self-awareness. As a trainer, the coach is more directive and takes on responsibilities associated with the control quadrant, focusing on specific information the employee needs to enhance her work performance. The performance appraiser is also directive, and takes on responsibilities associated with the compete quadrant, emphasizing goals and standards as a means to enhance performance results. Finally, the strategist focuses on developing employees using approaches associated with the create quadrant and is skilled at facilitating change. This suggests that to develop your capacity as a coach, you should develop your capacity to perform well in each of the quadrants and be flexible enough to switch between roles, depending on the needs of your employees. To better understand the needs of your employees, you especially need to build your capacity to empathize and understand your employees' perspectives. You also need to gain a strong understanding of their strengths and weaknesses so that you can encourage them to take on new tasks and responsibilities, as appropriate. In the next section, we focus on delegation as one approach to helping employees take on new tasks and responsibilities.

Most often, when organizational researchers examine delegation, they do so from the perspective of how it can help managers use their time more effectively. They note, for example, that managers who learn to delegate effectively provide themselves with additional time and thus are able to focus attention on more significant issues. By delegating tasks, managers can increase efficiency and productivity by ensuring that (1) the work is being done at the appropriate level and managerial time is saved for work that requires managerial attention and (2) employees are not waiting for managers to complete tasks that could be performed by others (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 1999).

Despite the potential benefits of delegation, many managers, especially new managers, resist delegating tasks to employees (Walker, 2002). Why do managers find it difficult to delegate? First, some managers associate delegation with negative managerial behaviors, such as abdicating responsibility for a task or letting someone else—typically those "lower" in the organization—do the dirty work. Some are concerned that employees will be offended if their manager asks them to take on a task previously performed by the manager. Second, many managers fear that they will lose control. They are concerned that employees will not do the job as well or exercise the same level of judgment as the manager would if she did the job herself. Third, many new managers do not fully grasp that they must make a transition from their previous role as contributor to a new role as leader (Hill, 2003; Walker, 2002), and assign tasks. Finally, and perhaps most important, is the fact that many managers have not learned how to delegate effectively; they have not learned that delegation is more than simply giving assignments to employees and hoping for the best. Rather, it is the entrusting of a particular assignment, project, task, or process by one individual to another (Schwartz, 1992). As such, it requires a good understanding of what can and cannot be delegated, careful attention to employees' current skill levels, and a good communication process that allows for questions and feedback for both the manager and the employees. It also requires managers to do more than simply tell employees what they want them to do; managers need to share with employees the reasons for the assignment, that is, why the task needs to be done (Klein, 2000). Navy Commander D. Michael Abrashoff, who commanded the USS Benfold, a ship that is known for getting tough assignments, argues that it is important for managers in all situations to communicate purpose. He states "getting [crew members] to contribute in a meaningful way to each life-or-death mission isn't just a matter of training and discipline. It's a matter of knowing who they are and where they are coming from—and linking that knowledge to our purpose" (quoted in LaBarre, 1999).

More important for the discussion here, however, is the fact that delegating tasks and responsibilities to employees is an effective means of developing employees. When managers delegate responsibilities to their employees and give them challenging assignments that push them to go beyond their current level of functioning, they give employees opportunities to develop new skills and abilities, as well as to learn more about the work unit and how it functions. This helps employees to be more effective in their work and strengthens the work unit, thus allowing for a better allocation of organizational resources.

Becoming a more effective delegator requires managers to remember that delegation involves three core elements: responsibility, authority, and accountability. Before delegating, the manager should be aware that while she is still ultimately responsible for the successful execution of the assignment, project, task, or process, effective delegation involves clarifying the difference between the managers' and the employees' responsibilities. In particular, the employee should be responsible for achieving intermediate and specific goals and milestones along the way. Managers should also make sure that those individuals to whom assignments are delegated have sufficient authority to allow them to carry out the task and obtain the resources and cooperation required for its successful completion. Finally, individuals who are delegated assignments should be held accountable for meeting established goals and objectives. While using delegation as a means to develop employees suggests that employees should have a certain level of autonomy, the manager should supervise and monitor as appropriate. Periodic reports and evaluations may be critical here. Here we suggest five steps for using delegation to develop employees. You may note that these steps are similar to the four stages of effective performance evaluation systems.

In the 1980s, organizations in the United States were introduced to the notion of teams as a more effective way to organize (Parker, 2008; Thompson, 2000). While some saw teams as a way to increase workplace democracy, arguing that employees should have the opportunity to have input into decisions that affect their lives (Weisbord, 1987), most argued that that the most compelling reasons for adopting team-based arrangements are economic—that organizations that use teams to involve employees in organizational decision-making will have a competitive advantage because those closer to the actual work have more knowledge and understanding of the issues and are therefore able to make better decisions (Lawler, 1992).

Indeed, largely as a result of global competition, changes in workplace technology, and other external pressures, organizations in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors began to experiment with a variety of team-based arrangements in the 1980s and 1990s. Understanding the value of team-based arrangements, however, is rather complicated, given that there is no consensus on the definition of work teams or a single taxonomy for classifying teams. Some, for example, differentiate between work groups and work teams based on both structural and affective criteria. From this perspective, groups are generally defined as two or more individuals who interact to fulfill a common goal (Bowditch, Buono & Stewart, 2008), whereas teams not only share a common goal, but also work together interdependently. Thus, they share a sense of mutual accountability and have a sense of connection with other team members. When defining teams in this way, there is an expectation that each individual who works (or plays) on a team sees how she contributes to the common goal and is willing both to express opinions and to listen to others' ideas, with the expectation that civilized disagreement will lead to the best decision (Parker, 2008). When people define teams in this way, they often talk about the synergy that is created when the individuals interact, that is, the sense that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Alternatively, many organizations define teams strictly in terms of structural criteria, whereby individuals in the work unit work together interdependently and may be involved in some of the decision-making associated with the work arrangements. From this perspective, people differentiate among different types of team-based approaches based on how much autonomy and control team members are granted in carrying out their work (Thompson, 2000). For example, in traditional manager-led teams, team members have no little or no input in deciding the team's goals, but may be involved in deciding how the work will be carried out. Alternatively, in self-managed teams (a.k.a. self-directed or empowered teams), team members are responsible for many tasks that are traditionally held by supervisors or managers, including planning, scheduling, and performance evaluation. When defining teams as structures, it is important to remember that teams may be made up of individuals from within functional work units or involve individuals from several different work units who come together to serve as a cross-functional team (Parker, 2003). In addition, bringing individuals together to form a team does not necessarily mean that team members will interact regularly on a face-to-face basis; some teams interact through computing technology and are referred to as virtual teams. And sometimes team-based arrangements involve individuals working on a short-term project or task, and sometimes team-based arrangements involve permanent organizational structures that are considered to be more formal elements of the organization's design.

Here we will use Thompson's (2000) definition: "A team is a group of people who are interdependent with respect to information, resources, and skills and who seek to combine their efforts to achieve a common goal" (p. 2). This definition recognizes that not all work groups are teams, but does focus more on the structural, rather than affective, nature of teams. Nevertheless, we will also recognize that the most effective teams develop a way of interacting that leads team members to feel a sense of "team spirit." We begin with a framework for understanding the types of factors that influence group and team effectiveness and identify some potential positive and negative consequences of using teams to make decisions. Next, we consider the topic of member roles. This competency concludes with a discussion of some ways to enhance group and team performance, including increasing the effectiveness of meetings and using techniques to facilitate the process of team development.

In trying to determine how to improve group and team effectiveness, many researchers begin with a basic model that examines inputs, processes, and outcomes (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp & Gilson, 2008). Traditionally, outcomes have included task performance and member satisfaction. That is, managers want to know whether or not the group or team has been able to accomplish its goal (what was done) and whether members were satisfied with the group process (how it was done). More recently, researchers have begun to look at team learning as an outcome that goes beyond whether or not the group or team has accomplished its goal, and considers whether the team gained a better understanding of the problem and/or developed an ability to improve its task performance (Edmondson, Dillon & Roloff, 2007).

Inputs involve an array of factors including individual team member characteristics (e.g., individual competencies and personalities), team-level factors (e.g., team size, team composition, task structure, and leadership structure), and contextual factors, which may be internal to the organization (e.g., organizational culture, reward systems, and information and communication technologies) or external to the organization (e.g., national culture, economic environment, and laws and regulations). Mathieu et al. (2008) note that, more recently, researchers have adapted this general inputs-processes-outcome (IPO) model to recognize the contextual nature of the inputs. Thus, individuals' competencies are seen as embedded within the team-level factors, which are in turn embedded within the contextual factors. While members do have influence on team-level factors, which then influence contextual factors, these influences are not as strong as the influences in the other direction.

In the Assessment exercise, you rated yourself along a variety of individual-level inputs, such as whether or not you tend to trust others in the group, the degree to which you are open to or avoid new ideas, and whether you share leadership with others or try to maintain control of the group. Inputs such as these create conditions for potential effectiveness. Whether or not the group reaches its potential depends on group processes, or how team members interact. Sometimes there is conflict in groups, which may reduce group members' willingness to trust others and to participate fully. Other times, individuals may not believe that their effort makes a difference (social loafing) or may actively believe that no one will notice if they slack off (free-riding). Such situations are referred to as "process losses" because they detract from the teams' performance (Brown, 2000). As noted above, there are also times when individuals are open to learning from others and may even be inspired by other team members' actions. In these situations, team members trust each other and are willing to exert great amounts of effort because they see themselves as working toward a common goal and so identify with the team. In these situations, there are process gains; that is, total team performance exceeds what individuals would have been able to accomplish if they were acting individually (Brown, 2000). Recent models of team effectiveness emphasize the complexity of these processes, as well the temporal nature of team functioning (Mathieu et al., 2008).

In deciding whether or not to bring individuals together to solve a problem or make a decision, managerial leaders need to consider both the potential advantages and disadvantages of team decision-making, as well as the likelihood that the inputs (team members, organizational context, and environmental context) can be brought together and structured (processes) in a way that is more likely to lead to process gains than process losses. Here we list some potential positive and negative outcomes and the conditions that lead to these outcomes.

One factor that is consistently identified as an important characteristic of effective teams is that team members have specific, and sometimes very specialized, roles (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). A role is a set of expectations held by the individual and relevant others about how that individual should act in a given situation. For example, in basketball, the point guard is expected to bring the ball down the court and set up the play; the center is expected to get under the basket and to rebound. In the workplace, an employee's role is defined by the specific tasks he or she is expected to perform. For example, in a factory there are production managers, machine operatives, and repair persons. In addition, there are health and personnel specialists, accountants and financial managers, maintenance staff, secretaries, and office clerks. Each of these individuals has a specialized role.

In pulling a new team together, people are often expected to perform somewhat different roles on the team. Therefore, it is important to think about the specific competencies, both technical and interpersonal, that people can bring to the task. Technical competencies refer to substantive knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to complete a task. Interpersonal competencies refer to more personal qualities, skills, and abilities that help the team work together. Some organizations, such as Context Integration, have developed web-based knowledge-management systems to help employees identify who can be a resource for solving specific technical problems (Salter, 1999). In addition to the specific or unique competencies that can be used to select team members, team leaders might also consider general characteristics that all team members should possess. At the Mayo Center, for example, teams are composed of specialists who know why they are there and what to do, but all team members are guided by the motto "The best interest of the patient is the only interest to be considered" (Roberts, 1999, p. 156). Each team is assembled and disassembled to achieve this goal, and doctors are paid a set salary to avoid incentives or penalties for referrals or consulting with colleagues. Such an example suggests that whether we focus on technical or personal competencies or unique abilities or general characteristics everyone on the team should possess, one of the important responsibilities of the manager is to provide role clarity for her employees—to make clear what is expected of each individual performing on the team.

Role clarity implies the absence of two stressful conditions: role ambiguity and role conflict. Role ambiguity occurs when an individual does not have enough information about what he should be doing, what are appropriate ways of interacting with others, or what are appropriate behaviors and attitudes. Consider the following story about four people: Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.

There was an important job to be done and Everybody was asked to do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when actually Nobody asked Anybody.

New employees, who are not familiar with the work unit's norms and procedures, will likely experience role ambiguity if their manager does not clarify for them what is expected in their job. New managers, making the transition from worker to manager, also often experience role ambiguity because their role expectations have changed (Hill, 2003).

Role conflict occurs when an individual perceives information regarding her job to be inconsistent or contradictory. For example, if manager X tells employee Y to perform task A, and then manager X's boss tells employee Y to stop what she is doing and to perform task B, the employee is likely to experience role conflict. Role conflict can also occur when an individual's own morals and values conflict with the organization's mission or policies and procedures. For example, an environmentally minded advertising executive might find it difficult to accept a contract with a company that produces toxic or nuclear wastes as a side effect of its primary production of goods (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

Team-building efforts that focus on clarifying roles help everyone in the work unit or work team understand what others expect. Later in this section, we will discuss how team-building techniques can help with the clarification of roles. First, however, we discuss four roles that employees play in teams, each of which can facilitate or hinder team effectiveness.

Most often, when people talk about the roles people play in groups and teams, they differentiate between task roles and group maintenance roles (Benne & Sheats, 1948; Dyer, 1995). In a task role, one's behaviors are focused on what the team is to accomplish. Performing in a task role is sometimes referred to as having a task orientation, or being task oriented. In a group maintenance role, one's behaviors are focused on how the team will accomplish its task. Performing in a group maintenance role is sometimes referred to as having a group maintenance, or process, orientation, or being process oriented. Because many maintenance activities focus on the team members and how they interact, some texts refer to people in those roles as being relationship oriented.

More recently, Parker (2008) has proposed four roles, or team player styles: the communicator, the contributor, the collaborator, and the challenger. Most often, people are most comfortable with one or two of these roles and will tend to emphasize the behaviors associated with these roles during team meetings. As team members take on these different roles, however, they can play the roles in a positive way that aids team effectiveness or in a negative way that hinders team effectiveness. Interestingly, although Parker uses somewhat different terms from those in this book, these four roles match closely to the four quadrants of the competing values framework.

Communicator Role. According to Parker, "The Communicator gives primary emphasis to team process... [and] believes there is an interpersonal 'glue' that must be present for the team to be effective" (p. 85). When working on a team, the communicator displays many of the competencies associated with the Collaborate (Human Relations) quadrant such as listening carefully to concerns of team members, providing feedback to team members, and helping resolve conflicts as they arise.

Contributor Role. The Contributor is focused on problem solving and decision-making and "sees his or her role as providing the group with the best possible information...freely offering all the relevant knowledge, skills and data they possess" (p. 73). When working on a team, the contributor displays many of the competencies associated with the Control (Internal Process) quadrant such as setting high standards and insisting on high-quality outputs, ensuring that tasks are appropriately distributed across team members, and providing technical training for other team members.

Collaborator Role. The Collaborator is "goal directed... [and] sees the vision, goal, or current task as paramount in all interactions" (p. 79). When working on a team, the collaborator displays many of the competencies associated with the Compete (Rational Goal) quadrant such as establishing long-term goals, working hard to achieve those goals, and helping team members see how the immediate tasks fit into the long-term goals.

Challenger Role. Finally, the Challenger is courageous and willing to question the status quo, even if it means challenging the team's leader. Challengers will also "push the team to be more creative in their problem solving" (p. 96). They are also highly ethical and expect team members to talk openly about team problems. When working on a team, the challenger displays many of the competencies associated with the Create (Open Systems) quadrant, such as encouraging team members to be innovative and to try new approaches, challenging the team to take on well-conceived risks, and insisting on high ethical standards.

While it is expected that different people on a team will take on different roles, it is also important that individuals not overplay a role. Indeed, Parker argues that when any particular role is overplayed, the behaviors can have a negative effect on the team. Parker's description of the consequences of overplaying each role mirrors our discussion of the negative zones of the competing values framework that you will see in the concluding chapter of this text. For example, individuals who overplay the communicator role (collaborate in the CVF) may focus too much on creating harmony and cohesion in the team, and so avoid focusing on the task or, in an attempt to avoid conflict, fail to challenge or confront other team members, even when they believe the other team members are not contributing to the team in a positive way. Individuals who overplay the contributor role (control in the CVF) may focus too much providing data and technical information and thus may lose sight of overarching team goals or advocate for unrealistic performance standards. Individuals who overplay the collaborator role (compete in the CVF) may be so focused on meeting long-term goals that they become insensitive to individuals' concerns and stop encouraging active participation by all team members. In addition, they may be so focused on achieving goals that, even when environmental conditions change, they do not take the time to question whether missions and goals developed at a prior time are still relevant. Finally, individuals who overplay the challenger role (create in the CVF) may focus too much on change and innovation, and may suggest that the team take risks that are not appropriate for the team, or they may present ethical issues to the team in a way that alienates others, who see them as self-righteous.

As a manager, it is your job to ensure that the behaviors associated with each of these roles are valued in the team and that no one role is overplayed in team meetings. Two ways to accomplish this are to carefully structure team meetings and to engage in team-building activities. The next two sections provide some suggestions to help you become more effective with each of these activities.

No doubt you have attended some pretty horrible meetings in your life. You have also likely attended some good meetings. What characteristics differentiate good meetings from bad meetings? First, good meetings accomplish the desired task. Second, in good meetings there is appropriate input from group members, and everyone feels that he contributes in an important way. Third, in trying to make decisions, people feel that they have the necessary information to make decisions that need to be made. Finally, in good meetings, individuals feel safe to challenge others' ideas, and do so in a respectful way. Note the similarity of these characteristics to the four roles discussed in the previous section. Here are some guidelines for effective meeting management; the guidelines focus on preparing for the meeting, running the meeting, and following up on the meeting. (For more detailed suggestions, see Tropman, 1996.)

When a new work group forms, or an established work group undertakes a new task or problem, the group needs to be designed, staffed, structured, and trained before it can transform into a high performance team (Sundstrom, 1999). For example, if team members do not know one another well or have never worked together before, it is important for them to get acquainted and to discuss what competencies each person brings to the team and what types of preferences people have regarding how to approach the task. Alternatively, when an established team takes on a new project, team members are likely to have a good sense of the different competencies people have but still need to discuss various unique perspectives they have on the problem or different approaches that different team members may think are appropriate for the particular project.

Tuckman (1965) identified four stages of team development—forming, storming, norming, and performing—that many teams experience when they first form. More recently, researchers have noted that teams do not pass through these stages in a linear way (Mathieu et al., 2008). That is, when new team members are added to a team or when the team takes on a new task, the team may revert to a previous stage. In addition, researchers have added a fifth stage—adjourning. Parker (2008) notes that each team role has something to contribute in each stage.

When forming, the goals of the group are established and the task is defined. Group members ask themselves what the purpose of this team is and how they can contribute. As noted above, an advantage of team decision-making is that people with different expertise and different backgrounds can bring different ideas, values, and perspectives to bear on the issue being addressed. Here, people in the communicator role can help people get to know one another and create a climate where people can share ideas and feelings. Contributors will focus on what tasks need to be done and how each person can contribute. Collaborators help to ensure that everyone understands the team's overall mission and how it fits into the organizational mission. Challengers can work to ensure that all team members are comfortable with the team's mission and what is expected of the team.

In the next stage, storming, there is generally conflict as each team member learns more about the task and interdependencies are tested. In addition, if the group has been brought together to reflect different types of expertise and/or different backgrounds, conflict may be generated as team members try to decide how to approach the task. As a result, this is not a productive stage, except insofar as it moves the team to the next stage. To increase the productivity of the team during this stage, the communicator can listen carefully to team members' concerns and work to resolve the conflicts. Contributors can try to help people identify what data and information will help them perform the task. Collaborators might help keep people focused on the mission and might even suggest revising the goals, depending on team members' concerns. And challengers can suggest innovative approaches for performing the task, and avoid challenging the team if it appears that the team has reached consensus.

When teams enter the norming stage, they begin to set the ground rules for working together. It is in this stage that cohesion begins to develop, but the value of differences in individuals' expertise and backgrounds should not be lost. At this stage, it is important that communicators remind team members that disagreements are acceptable and that "getting along" does not mean that everyone must "go along." Druskat and Wolf (2001) argue that, like individuals, groups can build their emotional intelligence. To do so, communicators can encourage team members to provide each other appropriate feedback, which can help build the team's emotional intelligence. Contributors should help the group think about setting priorities and ensuring that everyone knows who is responsible for which tasks. Collaborators can help ensure that tasks are aligned with the team's and the organization's greater mission. Finally, challengers should continue to ask questions and make sure that the ground rules are not arbitrary, that they work for the team.

Finally, the team will move into its most productive stage, performing. In this stage, there is general agreement on both the goals and how the team should work to achieve its goals. During this stage, the communicator can make sure that positive accomplishments are celebrated. Contributors can remind team members of the standards it has set and can focus on whether the team has the necessary resources, human and otherwise, to continue performing in a positive manner. Collaborators can suggest that the team revisit its goals, based on what it has accomplished, possibly identifying new tasks that are aligned with the team's mission. Challengers can help ensure that the team is aware of external changes and adapting, as needed, as well as ensure that different opinions and perspectives are voiced.

If a team does adjourn, it needs to make sure that all members leave with a sense of accomplishment, positive feelings towards the team, and new knowledge that they can use and share as a result of their experience. This can be an emotional period, and communicators play an important role in making sure that everyone's contributions have been appropriately recognized. Contributors can ensure that final products are appropriately documented. Collaborators can encourage team members to stay focused on the team's task until it is clear the goal has been accomplished and help individuals see their contributions in the larger organizational context. Challengers can encourage team members to review the final product and make sure it is of the necessary quality.

In reviewing these stages of team development, one can see how the role that the team leader plays in helping the team develop is both critical and paradoxical. On the one hand, the team leader sets the climate and must be seen as someone with a strong personal vision. On the other hand, the leader must clearly demonstrate a belief in the team's purpose and in the notion that each person's contribution to the team is equally valuable. Thus, team leaders must simultaneously lead and give team members the opportunity to take a leadership role, suggest directions and listen to others' suggestions, and be appropriately involved in the day-to-day work while not micromanaging. In addition, team leaders must find ways to value differences and reward successes, while never allowing some individuals to shine at the expense of the other team members. In the next section, we suggest some formal approaches to team-building that can help increase team effectiveness.

As noted above, even when a team reaches the performing stage of its development, it will likely cycle back through the earlier stages when it encounters new challenges. For example, group members may leave, new people may join the group, tasks and goals may be revised, new tasks and responsibilities may be added, and changes may occur in the group's external environment. These are often times when it is important to "stop the action" and involve the group in formal team-building activities.

You may have heard the expression, "When you are up to your hips in alligators, you forget that you came to drain the swamp." Sometimes it is important to step out of the swamp and think about what you are doing. Formal team-building activities allow the group to put aside the work of the day, evaluate how well the group is performing as a team, and make any necessary changes. Two points are important here. First, team-building activities should not be seen as isolated experiences or events. Rather, they should be part of an integrated approach to team-building that involves regularly scheduled sessions to allow the team to address whatever issues it is currently facing (Dyer, 1995). Second, team members should understand that team-building is not about getting people to like each other. As Dyer (1995) notes, "The fundamental emotional condition in a team is not liking but trusting. People do not need to like one another as friends to be able to work together, but they do need to trust one another" (p. 53, emphasis added). They need to trust that other team members are equally invested in accomplishing the team's goals; they need to trust that other team members will share information appropriately; and they need to trust that other team members will be willing to work out disagreements in a professional manner. At Whole Foods Market, a natural foods grocery chain, teams have clear performance goals and meet at least once a month to share information and solve problems (Fishman, 1996).

Interim Performance Reviews. A fairly simple, but effective, team-building technique involves setting aside a day or two, away from the worksite if possible, to examine three questions: (1) What do we do well? (2) What areas need improvement? (3) What are the barriers to improvement? Starting with an examination of what the team does well reminds the group that while there may be some problems or issues to deal with, the team also has strengths upon which to build. This establishes a positive climate for the team-building session and gets people involved in the discussion. Depending on how much time there is between team-building sessions, the list of areas for improvement may be short or long. This is a good reason to schedule regular team-building sessions. If the list is too long, the team may need to set priorities regarding which issues should be handled first. The last question reminds the team that team-building is more than short-term problem solving. It involves taking a larger look at the system and examining specific problems to determine whether they are isolated events or the result of an underlying structural issue. If there is an underlying structural issue, it will likely need to be dealt with before the improvement can be made. The final team product of such a session should be an action plan to deal with whatever problems or issues are raised in the session. The action plan should include a statement of objectives (what the team wants to accomplish with this improvement effort), a time frame for addressing the issue, and a clear assignment of who is responsible for organizing the improvement effort (remember Anybody, Everybody, Nobody, and Somebody!).

Role Clarification Sessions. As mentioned earlier, one key to effective team functioning is having each team member know her role and how that role fits into the larger team effort. Several techniques are available. Scearce (2007) suggests a variety of techniques to help teams clarify role expectations. She suggests that team members should meet every few months to review their roles and give others feedback. At such a session, each team member has the opportunity to share what he likes best about his job, what he likes least and what might help the individual perform better in his role. In addition to sharing this information with others, each person works with a partner to receive feedback on what he has done well, how the other person can help the focal individual perform more effectively, and one or more ideas the individual has about that role.

Whether focused on how the team as a whole can improve or on how individual team members can be more effective in their roles, team-building activities provide the team with a chance to "step out of the swamp" and look at the big picture. In addition, such activities can give team members an opportunity for informal interactions. When individuals have a chance to get to know one another, there is greater potential for building trust among team members.

The following exercises will give you an opportunity to apply the team concepts we have covered to enhance your ability to manage groups and lead teams.

Over the past several decades, the topics of conflict and conflict management have become increasingly important to managers in organizations of all sizes. In the 1980s, research on organizational conflict indicated that managers were spending between 20 and 50 percent of their time dealing with conflict, with managers at the lower levels of the organizational hierarchy reporting more time spent than managers at the higher levels (Lippitt, 1982). Since then, one might expect these numbers to have increased. Considering the nature of changes that are occurring in organizations as they attempt to adapt to and/or anticipate changes in their external environment, it would seem inevitable that conflict will increase as individuals disagree over how work should be organized, who should participate in various decisions, and what strategies should be used to accomplish organizational goals. In addition, as organizational workplaces become more demographically diverse, individuals with different cultural backgrounds may differ in how they approach problem solving and/or in what criteria they believe are most important to determine solutions. Although these statements may at first seem to suggest that organizational anarchy is imminent, you will see in this section that conflict over these types of decisions can potentially lead to stronger organizational performance. When managed appropriately, conflict can be a positive and productive force in decision-making.

Although many people in U.S. society will instinctually say that they see conflict between individuals or groups as harmful and will try to avoid conflict in both work-related and non—work-related situations because they believe it will create bad feelings among people, research shows that conflict can be useful. Studies have found that there are different types of conflict—relationship conflict and task conflict—and that these different types of conflict have different consequences for effective decision-making (Simons & Peterson, 2000). In addition, researchers have found that people use different adjectives when describing these two different types of conflict. When describing relationship conflict, which focuses on differences in personalities and work styles, people typically use negative words, such as "frustrating, anger, stressful, fear and wasteful" (Runde & Flanagan, 2008, p. 22). Alternatively, when people describe task conflict, which focuses on the tasks for which the group is responsible and what alternative approaches might be taken to research the group's goals, they more often use positive words, such as "opportunity, challenge, energizing, learning, and resolution" (Runde & Flanagan, 2008, p. 24).

When individuals in organizations differentiate between these two types of conflict, they are more likely to recognize that not only is conflict in organizations inevitable, but that it should sometimes be encouraged in order to increase opportunities for innovation and change and create a climate where new ideas can surface. As William Wrigley Jr. noted, "When two [people] . . . always agree, one of them is unnecessary" (quoted in Tjosvold, 1993, p. 133). Viewing conflict from this perspective requires us to seek challenges to our thoughts and ideas, to value those challenges over unquestioning acceptance, and to trust those with whom we work (Simons & Peterson, 2000). Jerry Harvey's famous story of the Abilene Paradox (see Box M1.1) provides a clear example of when a challenge can be more valuable than acceptance.

To manage conflict more effectively, we need to understand how conflict emerges naturally, so we begin by presenting some basic definitions and frameworks for understanding the sources and progression of naturally emerging conflict. We will then look at strategies for managing these conflicts that increase the likelihood that positive outcomes will result. Finally, we will look at a technique for stimulating conflict for the purpose of encouraging innovation (and avoiding unnecessary trips to Abilene).

To use conflict constructively, it is important to understand how conflicts arise and how they develop. While our primary focus here is on conflicts that arise between individuals or between groups (and, in fact, that is where most conflicts of consequence to organizations tend to arise), it is important to recognize that conflict occurs at all levels of the organization. For example, conflicts may occur between two different organizations or between units of an organization, when one of these organizations or units senses that the other is working against its particular goals or interests.

Conflicts in organizations develop for a wide variety of reasons. Often conflicts develop because of individual differences, such as differences in values, attitudes, beliefs, needs, or perceptions. Conflicts also develop between individuals when there are misunderstandings or communication errors that lead individuals to believe that there are differences in values, attitudes, beliefs, needs, or perceptions. As organizations expand their use of participative decision-making, there will be more and more situations in which conflict can arise. In addition, as the work force becomes increasingly culturally diverse, conflict may arise out of mispercep-tions that are related to differing worldviews held by different cultural groups (Cox, 1993). The tremendous benefits that derive from diverse people bringing differing perspectives to the decision-making process are not likely to occur without conflict over how the decision should be made, who should have input into the decision, how information about the decision should be disseminated, and what the actual decision should be.

Organizational structures may also increase the likelihood of conflict within or between groups. For example, when two or more units perceive that they are in competition with each other for scarce resources, there is likely to be conflict among the units. Similarly, conflicts can arise when two or more units see themselves as having different goals. For example, in large organizations, units associated with cost or quality control, or with setting organizational policies and procedures, often find themselves in conflict with other organizational units. Although this appears to be a natural consequence of the differing focuses of the units and of the checks and balances that organizations build into the system, Tjosvold (1993) reminds us that our assumption that conflicts arise out of opposing interests and goals is only partly true and that, most often, conflicts arise out of interdependence. That is, conflicts do not arise because two departments or work units have incompatible long-term interests or goals, but because they disagree on the path or means to accomplish the goal and, more important, one cannot accomplish the goal without the other. As Wheatley (2005) reminds us, most systems in nature "arise from two seemingly conflicting forces: the absolute need for individual freedom, and the unequivocal need for relationships" (p. 46). Not surprisingly, many conflicts in organizations emerge from the existence of these two countervailing forces.

Regardless of the level or the source of the conflict, conflicts often follow a set sequence of events or stages. In the first stage, the conflict is latent. Neither party senses the conflict, but the situation is one in which individual or group differences or organizational structures have created the potential for conflict.

When the potential conflict situation is perceived by one or more of the individuals or groups, the conflict moves into the second stage. In this stage, individuals become cognitively and emotionally aware of the differences. Here each of the two parties may attribute intentional and unjustifiable acts to the other. Emotional reactions may take the form of anger, hostility, frustration, anxiety, or pain.

In the third stage, the conflict moves from a cognitive and/or emotional awareness to action. It is in this stage that the conflict becomes overt, and the individuals or groups implicitly or explicitly choose to act to resolve the conflict or to escalate it. Actions to escalate the conflict include various forms of aggressive behaviors, such as verbally (or physically) attacking the other person or group, acting in ways that purposefully frustrate others' attainment of goals, or attempting to engage others in the conflict by getting them to take sides against the other party. Actions to resolve the conflict generally require both parties to take a positive problem-solving approach that allows both of their needs and concerns to be heard and handled. If the two parties believe that they are bound by a common long-term goal, it is more likely that they will take a positive problem-solving approach.

The fourth stage of conflict is the outcome or aftermath. Actions taken in the third stage directly affect whether the outcomes are functional or dysfunctional. Functional outcomes include a better understanding of the issues underlying the conflict, improved quality of decisions, increased attention to the use of creativity and innovation in solving and resolving future problems, and a positive approach to self-evaluation. Dysfunctional outcomes include continued anger and hostility, reduced communication, and a destruction of team spirit. More important, conflicts that result in dysfunctional outcomes often snowball, setting the stage for new conflicts that will potentially be more difficult to resolve because their source will be more complex.

In the Assessment activity, you identified your preference among three conflict-handling strategies in a particular situation. These three strategies can be represented along two dimensions that show how individuals think and act in approaching situations in which there is conflict (Thomas, 1976). The first dimension represents cooperativeness, or the extent to which you are willing to work to meet the other party's needs and concerns. The second dimension represents assertiveness, or the extent to which you are willing to work to meet your own needs and concerns. Figure M1.3 shows how these two dimensions define five conflict management approaches. Nonconfrontational strategies are associated with avoiding and accommodating approaches, control strategies are associated with a competing approach, and solution-oriented strategies are associated with collaborating and compromising approches

Figure M1.3. Dimensions of conflict-handling orientations Source: K. Thomas, "Conflict and Conflict Management," in Marvin D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976), 900. Used with permission

Avoiding approaches are used when individuals recognize the existence of a conflict but do not wish to confront the issues of the conflict. In avoiding the issues, they work neither to satisfy their own goals nor to satisfy the other party's goals. Individuals may avoid by withdrawing and creating physical separation between the parties or by suppressing feelings and attempting not to discuss the issues of the conflict. This approach is often useful when some time is needed to allow two parties engaged in a conflict to cool off. In the long term, however, if the conflict is not dealt with, it is likely to surface again. Moreover, if employees avoid dealing with conflict situations because they fear that it is not safe to bring bad news to their boss, organizations risk not finding out important information about organizational problems (Bennis, Goleman, O'Toole & Biederman, 2008).

When individuals use accommodating approaches they do not act to achieve their own goals but rather work only to satisfy the other party's concerns. This approach has the advantage of preserving harmony and avoiding disruption. In the short term, this approach is useful when the issue is not seen as very important or when the other party is much stronger and will not give in. In the long term, however, individuals may not always be willing to sacrifice their personal needs in order to maintain the relationship. In addition, accommodating approaches generally limit creativity and stop the search for new ideas and solutions to the problem. Many unnecessary "trips to Abilene" have been taken by individuals believing that they were helping the situation by accommodating.

In direct contrast to accommodating approaches, competing approaches (sometimes referred to as "forcing") occur when individuals work only to achieve their own goals. In these cases, individuals often fall back on authority structures and formal rules to win the battle. Although competing approaches are appropriate when quick, decisive action is necessary or when one knows that certain decisions or actions must be taken for the good of the group, these approaches often result in dysfunctional outcomes. Competing behaviors set up a win—lose confrontation, in which one party is clearly defined as the winner and the other as the loser. In addition, as with accommodating approaches, the use of competing behaviors generally limits creativity and stops the search for new ideas and solutions to the problem.

Compromising approaches are the first of the solution-oriented strategies. Individuals using these approaches are concerned both with their own interests and goals and with those of the other party. These approaches usually involve some sort of negotiation during which each party gives up something in order to gain something else. The underlying assumption of compromising strategies is that there is a fixed resource or sum that is to be split and that, through compromise, neither party will end up the loser. The disadvantage to this approach, however, is that neither party ends up the winner, and people often remember what they had to give up in order to get what they wanted.

The second solution-oriented strategy is collaboration. Individuals using collaborating approaches are concerned with their own interests and goals as well as those of the other party. The difference is that there is no underlying assumption of a fixed resource that will force everyone to give up something in order to gain something else. Rather, the assumption is that by creatively engaging the problem, a solution can be generated that makes everyone a winner and everyone better off. Clearly these approaches have great advantages with respect to cohesion and morale; the great disadvantage is that they are time consuming and may not work when the conflict involves differences in values.

Each of the conflict management approaches has advantages and disadvantages that make it more or less appropriate for a given situation. Table M1.5 presents the five approaches and the appropriate situations for using each. Clearly your approach will also depend on your own comfort in using the various approaches. Research has shown, however, that approaches that allow for different perspectives and inputs to be integrated into the final decision are associated with such positive outcomes as decision-making productivity and organizational performance (D. Thomas, 2004; D. Thomas & Ely, 1996; K. Thomas, 1976).

A similar framework for thinking about managing conflict is presented in Senge's (2006) discussion of the need for balancing advocacy and inquiry. Senge argues that while many managers are initially promoted because of their advocacy skills, that is, their ability to influence others, the emphasis on advocacy can actually become counterproductive as managers move up the organizational hierarchy and problems become more complex. At this point, "they need to tap insights from other people. They need to learn" (Senge, 2006, p. 183). Learning requires genuine inquiry, asking questions about the other person's understanding of the situation and why they are taking a particular position and truly listening to that person's response.

In many ways, advocacy is similar to K. Thomas' notion of assertiveness and inquiry is similar to cooperativeness. However, unlike assertiveness, both advocacy and inquiry involve actions to develop a deeper understanding of the problem and what data and assumptions have led each party to take the position each is taking. When individuals learn to balance advocacy and inquiry, they can engage in "dialogue," which comes from the Greek "dia-logos... [or] a free-flowing of meaning through a group, allowing the group to discover insights not attainable individually" (Senge, 2006, p. 10).

Senge suggests a few guidelines for balancing advocacy and inquiry that use two competencies we have already covered: thinking critically and communicating honestly and effectively. First, when advocating, it is important to clarify one's own reasoning and to encourage others to ask questions that explore how you arrived at a particulate position. Second, when inquiring, ask others to explain their assumptions and how they arrived at their conclusions. Ask questions in a way that shows openness to the other person's response, rather than in a way that suggests that you already know the answer to your question. And, if you arrive at an impasse, think about what additional information or logic you and the other person might need to change your minds.

As indicated above, approaches that encourage individuals and groups to work together to engage the problem creatively and to develop integrative solutions have been found to be most effective, especially in the long run. These approaches, however, which fall under the solution-oriented strategies, may be especially difficult since, as Wheatley (2005) notes, conflict is generally associated with aggression, so individuals may be hesitant to back off their preferred solution. If individuals and organizational units can move away from associating conflict with aggression, however, they can begin to collaborate and/or engage in productive dialogue.

The first step in taking such approaches is to face the conflict. One party must recognize that a conflict exists, face her feelings about the conflict, and be willing to approach the second party to talk about that person's feelings about the conflict. People often find this to be difficult because it requires that they put aside any anger or hostility they are feeling and also that they be willing to face the anger or hostility that may be presented by the other party. Moreover, if there has been a long history of conflict, the second party might not yet be willing to try to collaborate. In a large group, Wheat-ley (2005) talks about the need for a process that cools down the situation. If you want to try to manage the conflict using a collaborative process, you will need to think in advance about how to handle this situation. Decide how to approach the other person. Be persistent, but give the other person whatever time and space he or she needs to agree to collaborate.

It is often a good idea to meet with the other party in a neutral environment. This will promote an atmosphere of willingness to work together on generating positive solutions. When you meet, it is important that you examine your feelings as well as the actual source of the conflict. Each person should state his views in a clear, nonthreaten-ing way. Make use of the reflective listening techniques presented in Competency 2 of this module—Communicating Honestly and Effectively.

After both parties have had a chance to surface their personal feelings and views of the conflict, try to move to a mutual definition of the conflict in terms of needs. It is important that both parties share a definition of the conflict before attempting to resolve it; otherwise, you may be focusing on two separate and distinct issues. Again, it is important that you use reflective listening to come to a mutual definition of the conflict.

The next step is to generate potential solutions. Search for solutions that address the needs of both parties. Use creative thinking techniques (see Module 4) to increase the likelihood of finding a solution that meets everyone's needs; avoid making judgments about any of the solutions. Instead of asking yourself "What about this solution will not work?" ask "What about this solution will work?" Wheatley refers to this as "enriching through fruitful opposition" and emphasizes that this is a time to learn by "amplify[ing] the differences as the means to create a fuller, detailed appreciation of the situation or problem" (p. 188, emphasis in the original).

After both parties have listed all possible solutions, it is time to select an alternative. Both parties should identify their preferred solutions and think about why these solutions best meet their needs. The two parties should then see if any of the preferred solutions coincide or what sorts of compromises are required to allow them to come to a mutually acceptable agreement.

Once the solution has been identified, decide who will do what and when it will be done. That is, make sure you have an action plan that outlines the steps to carry out the solution and identifies the person responsible for each step. At the end of a meeting, everyone should be clear about what decisions have been reached and what assignments have been made. You may also want to identify steps to evaluate your success in implementing your solution. As a final step, it may be appropriate for both parties to identify what they learned from this conflict and what they will do in the future to avoid finding themselves in the same situation again.

In Module 4, we will go into more detail on negotiating agreement and commitment using a solutions-oriented approach. Ultimately, the key to managing conflict constructively is to keep in mind this maxim: Confront the conflict; confront the problem; do not confront the person. That is, if the two parties in conflict can see the problem as their enemy, rather than each other, it will be easier to come to a mutually acceptable solution.

In the beginning of this section, we discussed the notion that sometimes unquestioning or unhealthy agreement can be more harmful to the organization than overt conflict. Indeed, as was evident in the case of the Abilene Paradox, unhealthy agreement can lead organizations to "take actions in contradiction of what they really want to do and therefore defeat the very purposes they are trying to achieve" (Dyer, 1995, p. 37).

While there are a number of techniques for stimulating conflict in groups (Faerman, 1996), here we present a technique that divides the larger group into two smaller groups and assigns both groups the task of developing a set of recommendations. The assumption here is that higher-quality decisions will emerge from the juxtaposition of two (or more) opposing sets of recommendations, allowing a synthesis of the best of each set of recommendations. In fact, to stimulate creative solutions, Jerry Hirshberg, founder and president of Nissan Design International, advocates "hiring in divergent pairs"; that is, finding two people who have opposite ways of approaching a situation and thus will create abrasion (Hirshberg, 1999). The guidelines in Table M1.6 are adapted from Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1989), who refer to these groups as advocacy groups; these authors suggest that advocacy groups provide a way for decision-making groups to structure the discussion to guarantee that differing perspectives will be presented.

Note that there are similarities between the approaches discussed above for managing existing conflicts constructively and this technique, which is designed to stimulate conflict. That is, whether you are trying to increase or decrease conflict, it is important to ensure that opportunities are created to present and advocate differing ideas, to learn about these differing ideas, and ultimately to search for a solution that is mutually beneficial to all involved parties. The implication of this similarity, of course, is that most organizational conflicts do not involve a "right" and a "wrong" side, or a "correct" and an "incorrect" way of doing something. Rather, there are numerous alternatives that can be chosen, with the best often being a synthesis of the various possibilities.

In each round, confer within your small group and make a group decision. In rounds 5, 8, and 10, you may confer with the other small groups before making your decision. Use the following scorecard to keep track of your points.