Summary Reflection Result

Q1.How do these assessments impact my perception of me?

a.How do these assessments impact my career aspirations?

b.How do these assessments impact my work style?

c. How do these assessments impact how I contribute to teams and an organization?

My total Result:

Yielding

Yielding

0

20

14

14/2014 out of 20

Range14 to 20

Strong Yielding Preference

Yielding involves giving in completely to the other side's wishes, or at least cooperating with little or no attention to your own interests. This style involves making unilateral concessions, unconditional promises, and offering help with no expectation of reciprocal help.

Compromising

Compromising

0

20

11

11/2011 out of 20

Range11 to 16

Moderate Compromising Preference

Compromising involves looking for a position in which your losses are offset by equally valued gains. It involves matching the other party's concessions, making conditional promises or threats, and actively searching for a middle ground between the interests of the two parties.

Forcing

Forcing

0

20

12

12/2012 out of 20

Range9 to 15

Moderate Forcing Preference

Forcing tries to win the conflict at the others' expense. It includes 'hard' influence tactics, particularly assertiveness, to get one's own way.

Problem Solving

Problem Solving

0

20

12

12/2012 out of 20

Range11 to 16

Moderate Problem Solving Preference

Problem solving tries to find a mutually beneficial solution for both parties. Information sharing is an important feature of this style because both parties need to identify common ground and potential solutions that satisfy both (or all) of them.

Avoiding

Avoiding

0

20

11

11/2011 out of 20

Range8 to 12

Moderate Avoiding Preference

Avoiding tries to smooth over or avoid conflict situations altogether. It represents a low concern for both self and the other party. In other words, avoiders try to suppress thinking about the conflict.

This self-assessment estimates the extent to which you prefer to use each of the five conflict handling styles identified in the conflict management literature: yielding, compromising, forcing, problem solving, and avoiding. Scores for each conflict handling style range from 4 to 20. A higher score indicates that you have a higher preference for that style of conflict handling. Norms vary across cultures, occupations, and other groups, so these norms might not be representative for you. Also, keep in mind that these scores represent self-perceptions. Evaluations from others (such as through 360-degree feedback) may provide a more accurate estimate of your preferred conflict handling style.

Persuasion

Persuasion

0

15

8

8/158 out of 15

Range 3 to 15

Showed more respect toward the co-worker, hoping this would encourage him or her to support me.

Silent authority

Silent authority

0

15

11

11/1511 out of 15

Range 3 to 15

The silent application of authority occurs when someone complies with a request because the target person is aware of the requester's legitimate or expert power. This influence tactic is very subtle, such as making the target person aware of the status or expertise of the person making the request.

Exchange

Exchange

0

15

10

10/1510 out of 15

Range 3 to 15

Exchange involves the promise of benefits or resources in exchange for the target person's compliance with your request. This tactic also includes reminding the target of past benefits or favors with the expectation that the target will now make up for that debt. Negotiation is also part of the exchange strategy.

Assertiveness

Assertiveness

0

15

7

7/157 out of 15

Range3 to 15

Assertiveness involves actively applying legitimate and coercive power to influence others. This tactic includes demanding that the other person comply with your wishes, showing frustration, or impatience with the other person and using threats of sanctions to force compliance.

Information control

Information control

0

15

5

5/155 out of 15

Range3 to 15

Information control involves explicitly manipulating others' access to information for the purpose of changing their attitudes and/or behavior. It includes screening out information that might oppose your preference and embellishing or highlighting information that supports your position. According to one survey, more than half of employees believe their co-workers engage in this tactic.

Coalition formation

Coalition formation

0

15

8

8/158 out of 15

Range3 to 15

Coalition formation occurs when a group of people with common interests band together to influence others. It also exists as a perception, such as when you convince someone else that several people are on your side and support your position.

Upward appeal

Upward appeal

0

15

7

7/157 out of 15

Range3 to 15

Upward appeal occurs when you rely on support from people higher up the organizational hierarchy. This support may be real (senior management shows support) or logically argued (you explain how your position is consistent with company policy).

Ingratiation

Ingratiation

0

15

10

10/1510 out of 15

Range3 to 15

Ingratiation is a special case of impression management in which you attempt to increase the perception of liking or similarity to another person in the hope that they will become more supportive of your ideas. Flattering the co-worker, becoming friendlier with the co-worker, helping the co-worker (with expectation of reciprocity), showing support for the co-worker's ideas, and asking for the co- worker's advice are all examples of ingratiation.

Influence refers to any behavior that attempts to alter someone's attitudes or behavior. There are several types of influence, including the eight measured by this instrument. This instrument assesses your preference for using each type of influence on co-workers and other people at a similar level as your position in the organization.

Each influence