Communicator style and social style: testing a theoretical interface.

The purpose of this empirical study was to examine the interface between two key models of communication style: social style and communicator style. Social style is based on a two-by-two matrix composed of two dimensions of observable patterns of behavior: assertiveness and emotiveness. Communicator style was established in the communication discipline and involves nine factors and one global assessment of communicator image. The current study measured self-assessments of social style and communicator style by 852 individuals to test the theoretical interface of the models. Factor analysis confirmed the social style dimensions and some of the communicator style dimensions. The resulting components were factored, resulting in four dimensions of transactional style: emotive, assertive, relaxed, and accurate. Regression results indicate three of the dimensions are predictive of communicator self-image and explain nearly 36% of the variance.

Keywords: communication; leadership style; social style; communication style; behavioral style

**********

It is by now axiomatic that effective communication is an essential component of effective management and leadership. The search for ways to understand complex communication behavior, however, is an evolving process. One mechanism for understanding communication behavior has been the notion of style. A number of models of style have been proposed in various disciplines, including leadership style (Blake & Mouton, 1974; Fiedler, 1967; House & Mitchell, 1974), relational style (e.g., Bales & Cohen, 1979; Borgatta, Cottrell, & Mann, 1958), social style (Buchholz, 1976; Buchholz, Lashbrook, & Wenburg, 1976; Merrill & Reid, 1981), and communicator style (Norton, 1978, 1983). Although each model has distinct features, all have in common the notion that some pattern of human behavior can be observed by others and will have some impact on an individual's success in interpersonal communication, organizational leadership, management, or other interpersonal endeavors. Only two of these models--social style and communicator style--are specifically concerned with general patterns of communication behavior, and these are the focus of this investigation.

Although each model has been tested independently, to date the models have rarely been examined together. The purpose of this research is to examine the dimensions of communication behavior underlying each model and to test the theoretical interface among them in hopes of establishing a coherent, unified model of communication behavior.

Social Style Model

Over the past 30-plus years, social style has been used extensively to train managers and sales personnel to increase behavioral versatility through role shifting. This model has been the subject of extensive research and application in the private sector, as well as the focus of limited academic testing. A trainee is typically asked to have five coworkers or regular co-interactants complete an instrument (Snavely, 1992) to indicate the trainee's other-perceived social style. The trainee is taught to understand and accurately identify his or her social style and those of others. Ultimately, the participant learns how to alter his or her communication strategies to adapt to the styles of others.

The result of learning such strategies appears to be positive. Prince (1986) reported that "both formal and informal assessments have found that more productive and satisfying work relationships have resulted from the [social style] training" (p. 66).

The social style model was developed as a two-dimensional matrix descriptive of human interactive behavior (Buchholz, 1976; Buchholz et al., 1976; Merrill & Reid, 1981). V. J. Lashbrook and W. B. Lashbrook (1980) and Snavely and Waiters (1983) reported four underlying assumptions about human behavior that frame the concept of social style:

1. Humans develop relatively stable behavior patterns.

2. Humans form immediate impressions about others based on verbal and nonverbal behavior.

3. The way individuals behave toward one another is largely determined by their perceptions of each other.

4. The most prevalent and probably the most important perceptual dimensions are assertiveness and responsiveness. (Snavely & Walters, 1983, p. 122)

Assertiveness

The assertiveness dimension of social style is defined as "the degree to which a person is perceived as attempting to influence the thoughts and actions of others" (Wenschlag, 1987, p. 22). The assertive person is one "who shows a tendency to state opinions or beliefs with assurance, confidence, or force" (Snavely, 1981, p. 133). Assertiveness is an action dimension often associated with an orientation to task. Highly assertive people are perceived by others as being confident, active, ambitious, opinionated, risk taking, fastpaced, directive, and competitive. Low assertive individuals, however, are perceived as being private, quiet, easygoing, submissive, risk avoiding, supportive, and reserved (W. B. Lashbrook & V. J. Lashbrook, 1979).

Early research that tested the impact of assertiveness on other key work-related perceptions indicated that assertive managers were seen as being more powerful and competent than their low assertive counterparts (Sullivan, 1977). W. B. Lashbrook, V. J. Lashbrook, Parsely, and Wenburg (1977) found that assertive college students were trusted more and were perceived as being more versatile than nonassertive students. In a study of 375 adults, Snavely (1981) found assertiveness to be associated with perceptions of trust, power, extroversion, versatility, and value similarity. Knutson and Lashbrook (1976) found highly assertive individuals as having lower communication apprehension when compared to low assertive individuals. Snavely and Walters (1983) concluded that assertiveness is associated with the managerial role, which calls for directiveness and decisiveness. Bacon and Severson (1986) found that assertiveness was a strong predictor of leadership emergence in small groups.

Emotiveness

The second dimension of social style was originally termed responsiveness. Unfortunately, the term responsiveness may not readily convey the meaning of the dimension. All authors describe responsiveness as involving emotive behavior. However, people may "respond" to others in nonemotive ways. In fact, the dimension does not involve degree of response but rather type of response. As a result, recent research has instead used the term emotiveness.

Emotiveness can be defined as "the degree to which a person is perceived as expressing feelings when relating to others" (Wenschlag, 1987, p. 26). Snavely (1981) described the emotive person as "someone who appears to express emotional states through verbal and nonverbal behavior" (p. 133). A nonemotive person is more controlled and is therefore harder to read. Emotiveness does not indicate the amount of emotion that a person experiences but rather the amount of emotion one demonstrates during interaction with others. More important, the social style model posits that assertiveness and emotiveness are independent dimensions. Highly emotive individuals are perceived as emotional, people oriented, dramatic, approachable, permissive, subjective, easygoing, open, and sociable. Low emotive people are seen as independent, cool, rational, objective, cautious, impersonal, and business-like (W. B. Lashbrook et al., 1977).

The research on emotiveness suggests that a number of positive evaluations are associated with more emotive styles. Several studies have found a correlation between emotiveness and perceptions of versatility and trust (Buchholz, 1976; W. B. Lashbrook, Knutson, Parsely, & Wenburg, 1976; W. B. Lashbrook et al., 1977; Snavely, 1981; Sullivan, 1977). Sullivan (1977) found emotiveness to be associated with sociability, social attraction, interpersonal solidarity, composure, and low dogmatism. Knutson and Lashbrook (1976) found those with highly emotive styles to be less apprehensive about communicating. Snavely and Walters (1983) found that emotiveness was perceived as being more communicatively competent than nonemotiveness. They concluded that

subordinates may find it easier to relate to "emoting"

behavior than to non-responsive, controlled behavior.

The latter style may be seen as too cold, detached

or uncaring. Because they do not tend to express

emotions in an overt manner, these individuals may

find it more difficult to convey to others whatever

empathy or versatility they feel. (p. 131)

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Style Matrix

Combinations of the communication behavior dimensions of assertiveness and emotiveness in a 2 x 2 matrix (see Figure 1) result in four distinct styles. Those low in both assertiveness and emotiveness are termed analyticals; those low in assertiveness and high in emotiveness are termed amiables; those high in assertiveness and low in emotiveness are termed drivers; and those high in both dimensions are termed expressives.

It is interesting to note that individuals do not necessarily perceive themselves in the same way that others perceive them. Unfortunately, little research has been conducted to understand the reasons or the extent of these perceptual differences. Prince (1991) reports industry findings that managers are only 30% accurate in estimating their own styles when compared to the perceptions of others. People may know their own thoughts, feelings, and intents but can only observe the enacted behavior in others.