Academic journal article International Journal of Communication Research

Assertive Communication and Efficient Management in the Office

Academic journal article International Journal of Communication Research

Assertive Communication and Efficient Management in the Office

Article excerpt


The sentence "my job is my second house" has already become a common assertion - which is really true, if considering that a large part of one's day is spent at work. However, the feelings with which one arrives in his office differ from one individual to another. Some are happy to come, as they are motivated both professionally and/or financially, others do this for mere living. The interpersonal relations we develop place us in one category or another, no matter if involved here is the chief-subaltern or mate-mate communication. A relaxed, pleasant atmosphere, encouraging professionalism, is the ideal of any employee, whichever his position in the company, in any domain of activity. An ideal difficult to attain, indeed, as demonstrated by the daily experience and reality. Unfortunately, in too few cases focus is put on a performant communication at work. In most cases, the only scope of the boss is to attain the proposed performance parameters, while that of the subalterns is to do minimum work for receiving the negociated wages. When very precise objectives are to be accomplished, nobody will ever take into consideration the feelings and aspirations of the employees, the more so that the number of those who apply for a job is much higher than the number of available positions. Under such circumstances, quite naturally, the relations among employees are obviously affected by unorthodox attitudes and practices, on one hand, for the preservation of job, and by an ermetic management, with no interest in a real feed-back, on the other.


The present study analyzed 1,000 questionnaires, addressed equally to men and women, 500 of them working in public institutions and 500 - in private structures.

Out of the total number of 1,000 questionnaires, 360 were rejected - either because not all questions had been answered or because they did not correspond to the requirements of analysis.

The final number of participants to the study was of 640: 360 women (56.25%) and 280 men (43.75%) (Fig. 1). Out of the women, 230 (63.8%) are hired in private structures and 130 (36.2%) work in public institutions, while, in the group of men, 160 (57.14%) work in private institutions and 120 (42.86%) - in public companies (Fig. 2).

All the 1,000 subjects interviewed by the questionnaire agreed to participate to the study and signed a "File of informed consent".

The variables of research

1. Informed consent questionnaire, by which all participants to the study fully agreed to participate into, confidentiality being assured, by protection of their identification data, on one side for not suffering possible repercussions at work - for the responses they gave - on the other, for obtaining sincere responses.

2. Independent variables of research: sex (women/men), studies (8 classes, 12 classes, high education), age (18-29 years, 30-39 years, 40-49 years, 50-59 years, over 60 years), working place (public/private institutions), position (management/execution function).


The interviewed subjects answered 10 questions, which evidenced the type of communication they prefer at work, in relation with the chief-subaltern, subaltern-chief, colleague-colleague relations, respectively, passive/submissive, aggressive, assertive communication. The observation made was that, in public institutions, the assertive type of communication (42%) and the passive/ submissive one (38%) occur in almost equal ratios, while the aggressive-type communication registers a ratio of 20% (Fig. 3), the last one being present in a 17% ratio among mates and in only 3% in the chief-subaltern relation.

Among the subjects working in private institutions, the ratios are substantially modified, as follows: aggressive-type communication - 58%, assertive-type communication - 36%, and passive/submissive type communication - 6%, the explanation being that public employees are much protected at work, comparatively with those from private structures. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.