IV. Practising assertiveness and co-operation

Assertive behaviour

Assertiveness

In training for community participation, assertiveness is a key quality that is sought. It is something that the people of poor communities need to have, if they are to stand up for their rights and organize themselves to enhance the conditions in which they live. It is an essential, basic quality for anyone who is a leader of poor communities - as a representative in negotiations with authorities, as a facilitator of residents' groups or as a project worker.

What is assertiveness and how is it different from aggression? An illustration might help to make the distinction.

Illustration

Andreas has been patiently standing for a long time in a shop queue. Just before he reaches the counter, a man comes and stands in front of him. What does Andreas do about it? He might be too embarrassed to do or say anything, so he avoids any kind of conflict by keeping quiet, or his anger might so much get the better of him that he blurts out something like, "Who do you think you are? Get in the queue like everybody else!" He might even lay his hands on the offender to push him out of the way. This angry, violent response is aggression. Otherwise, he might control his anger but firmly intervene with something like, "Excuse me, but do you realize that there is a queue here and some people have been waiting a long time?" His refusal to be unjustly treated and his intervention are an example of assertion.

The distinction between the three choices open to Andreas will be brought out in the next reflective exercise in which you can learn about your own habitual responses in similar situations.

TASK 5 Measuring assertiveness*

Objectives

To identify the nature of assertiveness and to give you an opportunity to explore your preferred style of operating in conflict situations.

Sequence

In the following questionnaire you will find six sets of three questions, e.g.,

I am a person who:

(a) Does not achieve my goals_______________
(b) Achieves my goals without offending others_______________
(c) Achieves my goals at the expense of others_______________

We all behave in all three ways some times. The method of scoring tries to take account of this fact by asking you to allocate 10 points across the three responses according to how you think they balance out in your case.

For instance, if you consider yourself someone who often fails to achieve your personal s to achieve your personal goals and who takes great care not to give any offence to others, your score might look like this:

(a) Does not achieve my goals	5
(b) Achieves my goals without offending others	4
(c) Achieves my goals at the expense of others	1

If you consider that you try to achieve your goals at all costs, even if it means the domination of others, your score might come out as:

(a) Does not achieve my goals	1
(b) Achieves my goals without offending others	4
(c) Achieves my goals at the expense of others	5

Now complete the questionnaire, making sure that your allocation of points always adds up to 10

I am a person who:

1.

(a) Does not achieve my goals_______________
(b) Achieves my goals without offending others_______________
(c) Achieves my goals at the expense of others_______________

2.

(a) Allows people to take advantage of me _______________
(b) Stands up for my rights _______________
(c) Takes advantage of others_______________

3.

(a) Lets other people choose for me _______________
(b) Makes my own choices _______________
(c) Chooses for other people_______________

4.

(a) Is shy and withdrawn_______________
(b) Is open and expressive_______________
(c) Is competitive and aggressive_______________

5.

(a) Is anxious and inhibited_______________
(b) Is quietly self-confident_______________
(c) Is loud and boastful_______________

6.

(a) Expects not to achieve my goals_______________
(b) Tries to find ways of achieving my own goals and those of others_______________
(c) Is not concerned about the goals of other people_______________

Review

The questionnaire is based on a model that sees assertion as a "happy medium" between two undesirable extremes - passivity and aggression. To work out how you think you stand along this dimension, add up all your scores for each of (a) passivity, (b) assertion and (c) aggression It is always easy to distinguish between assertiveness and passivity but not easy always to distinguish between assertiveness and aggression. However, the distinction is a real one - as the exercise should have demonstrated

The first step in learning how to be assertive is to identify what assertive behaviour entails. The second step is to get an idea of your own way of behaving. The exercises in this manual should have helped you to do this. Feedback from others is important too; it can be very revealing to ask a colleague or someone who knows you well to give you his estimate of how you would score on the above questionnaire. Then you can compare it with your own rating.

It all depends on practice. The role-plays included in this training manual are designed to give you the opportunity for such practice, in simulations which mirror the conflicts you are likely to experience in your work situation. Beyond that, to work on your ability to be assertive, it might be helpful to take note of how you react to particularly problematic situations. Keep a kind of diary in which you record significant events. What kinds of situation bring out a passive or assertive response in you? What sort of people give you difficulty Why is this so? What can you do about it?

Cooperative behaviour

Cooperation

At the other pole from assertion is co-operation - the ability to work with and accept the ideas of other people. The collaborative model of problem- solving and conflict-resolution has been advocate as the ideal for participatory project co-operation - the ability both to express your own ideas and tellings yet, at the same time to recognize and use the ideas and feelings of others.

All of us wilt have had occasions to remember when, in a subordinate position, we have had ideas ignored or rejected by someone in authority over us, but the following exercise asks you to remember those occasions when you have been in a leadership position and have done the same to others

TASK 6 Measuring cooperation

Objective

To identify the factors that can block the acceptance of another person ideas and to give you the opportunity of exploring your own behavior.

Sequence

1. Think back to situations when you have turned down someone else's idea or proposal.

2. Select just one of these occasions and recall the circumstances and the encounter in as much detail as possible

3. Then, make a list of all thereasons - on any occasion - that you might reject an idea.

Be as honest with yourself as you can.

Review

Your list might well have included such reasons as the following:

- The idea is too expensive;
- It is impractical;
- It is politically unacceptable;
- It doesn't come up to minimal required standards;
- He hasn't thought it through enough;
- The costs will never be recovered;
- It challenges my own pet idea;
- I don't like the face of the person who Is putting the idea forward;
- There Is a history of disagreement between us;
- The idea would undermine my own authority;
- It would push my own ideas aside;
- It would mean admitting I have made a mistake;
- It would cause me a lot of extra work;
- I don't want the other person to get the credit;
- It would damage my relationship with someone with whom I want to keep on good terms;
- It challenges my own values.

If reading this list prompts you to think again, add new items to your own list.

Now, go over the reasons you have put down. Think about them. Put yourself in the position of a "cross-examiner" who Is challenging them. Ask yourself some very hard questions:

"How do you know the idea Is impractical? Have you tried it? If not, why not? If there are Impractical elements, what modifications could be made to make them less so?"

"What do you mean by 'politically unacceptable'? How do you know? At what level? With which people?

Have you given the chance of 'selling' the idea?

"Are you convinced that you are not rejecting the idea because you do not like the person? If you find you nearly always oppose the ideas d a particular person, what exactly Is it about him that bothers you? Have you tried to get on good terms with him?"

Finally, you might try out a "force field analysis" on any particular idea you have rejected.

(This decision-making technique Is described In Problem-solving and Decision-making (1): Basic Principles)

How does this exercise effect your thinking about your original decision?

What you do after such a self-examination depends of course on its outcome, but, if you have come to recognize that your reasons for not co-operating are sometimes irrational, superficial or status-oriented, you could make a particular effort to work on your own responses in the real world of work, adopt a co-operative style when this is called for.