* In part 1 we said that some Strengths-based approaches may be wrong and we looked at a more balanced approach.
* In part 2 we continued the theme but looked more specifically at emotional strengths
This week we will focus on relational strengths and what they might look like when in overdrive
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS, THE FOUNDATION AND THEME OF HUMAN LIFE
There is strong evidence that relationships and the capacity to build them in work settings is an important contributor to work success and promotion in the organisation (Blickle et al., 2011). This revelation is not new as many psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists have argued (cf. Buss Daniels, Beesley, Wimalasiri, Reis, Collins, & Berscheid, 2000).
Reis et al. (2000), for example, state that "...interpersonal relationships are the foundation and theme of human life" (p.844). Similarly, Buss and Kenrick (1998) explained that social relationships are pivotal for such activities as "...mating, kinship, reciprocal alliances, coalitions, and hierarchies..." and that the quality and types of relationships have "...strong consequences for successful survival and reproduction" (p. 994).
PERSONALITY, RELATIONSHIPS AND WORK PERFORMANCE
It is no coincidence then that in psychology, prominent personality researchers started looking at personality in terms of social relationships and work performance (Hogan, 1982). For example, socioanalytic theory, proposed by Hogan (1982), argues that human behaviour is not only important for its own sake, but becomes pivotal when observed through the eyes of others. In other words, personality is not so much an intrinsically important component for human success as is the way personality is interpreted by other people and thus how it impacts human relationships (Roberts & Wood, 2006).
For example, Batson, Ahmed and Lishner (2011), argue that the trait of empathy is vitally important for the initiation of altruistic behaviours and the gifting of emotional support to colleagues. Such emotional support and understanding is consequently looked upon favourably by co-workers (Batson et al., 2011). It has also been found that the trait of dominance, or surgency, positively effects the way an interview is perceived by the interviewer (Huffcutt, Van Iddenkinge, & Roth, 2011) and is also important for perceived leadership potential (Lord, de Vader, & Alliger, 1986). Research also shows that being sociable and agreeable, results in increased perceived team effectiveness, performance, and cohesion (Barrick et al., 1998). It can therefore be argued that traits related to positive relational interactions should be identified, developed, and fostered in people, especially in work contexts.
BALANCE
However, as Hogan (1982) identified, certain traits if too dominant, can harm social relationships. Similarly, the StrengthScope views relational strengths as important components for social cohesion and team performance, but also as possible pitfalls for individuals, if overused. The StrengthScope includes the following relational strengths and definitions:
* COLLABORATION: when an individual works cooperatively with others to attain a common goal.
* COMPASSION: When an individual has a deep concern for the well-being of others.
* DEVELOPING OTHERS: When an individual promotes the development and learning of people.
* EMPATHY: When an individual perceives the world from others' perspectives.
* LEADING: When an individual takes responsibility for influencing and motivating others.
* PERSUASIVENESS: When an individual is able to win the agreement and support of others.
* RELATIONSHIP BUILDING: When an individual builds networks and contacts and act as a link between people.
Although these strengths are generally pro-social, they can become antisocial. Below we list pitfalls of these social strengths in overdrive:
* COLLABORATION IN OVERDRIVE: The individual may become completely conflict averse, over focus on a particular relationship at the expense of others, or become deferential not making decisions independently from other people. Others may perceive them as indecisive and incapable of working autonomously.
* COMPASSION IN OVERDRIVE: The individual may over-emphasize the needs of their colleagues and not meet their own goals or performance targets. Others may perceive them as giving help when it is not needed, or as having an inability to focus on their own goals and aspirations.
* DEVELOPING OTHERS IN OVERDRIVE: The individual may constantly seek opportunities to develop and grow others, but ignore their own development needs. Others may perceive them as irritating or as having no faith in the abilities of others.
* EMPATHY IN OVERDRIVE: The individual may become too absorbed by the thoughts and feelings of others without really perceiving the situation objectively which may negate problem solving. Others may perceive them as oversensitive and unable to make tough decisions.
* LEADERSHIP IN OVERDRIVE: The individual may be overly dominating or domineering and may not take others' perspectives into account. Others may perceive them as authoritarian and interested only in their own ideas ignoring the ideas or suggestions of others.
* PERSUASIVENESS IN OVERDRIVE: The individual may become argumentative, cynical and difficult to convince. Others may perceive them as difficult, insensitive and fault-finding.
* RELATIONSHIP BUILDING IN OVERDRIVE: The individual may be too focused on conversation and communication without really meeting performance targets. Others may perceive them as disruptive, overly communicative, and lazy.
Thus, overuse of relational strengths may actually harm relationships. It is important that psychologists, coaches, and human resource practitioners are aware that strengths, although dominant characteristics that can be conducive to optimal functioning, can also be detrimental if over-relied upon.
In part 4 Sandra Case and Paul Vorster will be looking at the dark side of thinking strengths (those strengths that allow individuals to make congruent and optimal decisions).
REFERENCES
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377-391.
Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., & Lishner, D. A. (2009). Empathy and altruism. In C. R. Snyder and S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (pp. 417-426). New York: Oxford University Press.
Blickle, G., Frhlich, J. K., Ehlert, S., Pirner, K., Dietl, E., Hanes, T. J., & Ferris, G. R. (2011). Socioanalytic theory and work behavior: Roles of work values and political skill in job-performance and promotability assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 136-148. Buss,
D. M., & Kenrick, D. T. (1998). Evolutionary social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, pp. 982-1026). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Daniels, K., Cheyne, A., Beesley, N., & Wimalasiri, V. (2013). Problem solving and well-being: Exploring the instrumental role of job control and social support. Journal of Management, 39, 1016-1104. Hogan, R. (1982). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 55-89).
Huffcutt, A. I., Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Roth, P. L. (2011). Understanding applicant behavior in employment interviews: A theoretical model of interviewee performance. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 353-367.
Lord, R. G., de Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-410.
Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). The relationship context of human behavior and development. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 844-872.
Roberts, B. W., & Wood, D. (2006). Personality development in the context of the neo-socioanalytic model of personality. In D. K. Mroczek, and T. D. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 11-39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Photo Credit: Novowyr via Compfight cc
The post The Dark Side of Positive Psychology Part 3: Relational Strengths appeared first on Psychology Africa.
0 comments:
Post a Comment