High self-monitors (HSMs) easily blend into social situations, knowing what to do or say with each person. They appear more friendly and less anxious to observers, are sensitive to social cues, and are likely to vary their behaviour from situation to situation. High self-monitors read non-verbal behaviour better, and will change their behaviour to suit the situation as they perceive it. They are more concerned with acting appropriately than being true to themselves.
They are more flexible and responsive to their environment than low self-monitors are. For example, high self-monitors can be expected to demonstrate greater flexibility in adapting their leadership style to changing situations, using a variety of conflict-resolution techniques (Robbins, 1993: 714).
High self-monitors describe themselves as flexible, adaptive, and shrewd. They tend to use situational factors to explain their behaviour. They have many friends, but are not very close with most of them. They have different friends for different activities. Friendship loss is not a difficulty, as there are other friends to take the place of any that are lost.
High self-monitors are more likely to be successful in managerial positions where individuals are required to play multiple, and even contradicting roles. Thus, the high self-monitor is capable of putting on different "faces" for different audiences.
They are often more effective than low self-monitors in jobs that require boundary spanning (communicating and interacting with different groups of people who, because of contrasting goals, training, or skills "speak different languages"). Since they can readily adjust their actions to the norms, expectations, and style of each group, high self-monitors are more successful in dealing with them than are low self-monitors, and this improves performance. Boundary-spanning roles are very important in most organizations, so assigning high self-monitoring people to such positions may yield substantial benefits.
Low self-monitors (LSMs), on the other hand, act themselves - regardless of the situation. They rarely conform to the norms of the social setting. LSMs are less sensitive to social cues, and less likely to change their behaviour from one situation to another. Low self-monitors tend to display their true dispositions and attitudes in every situation. Low self-monitors' actions usually reflect their inner feelings and attitudes and thus they are less likely to change or adjust in a new context (Greenberg & Baron, 1990, pp. 204-206).
They prefer to be seen as they really are, and they behave so as to express internal attitudes and dispositions. Their attitudes are more accessible, so LSMs have a greater consistency between their attitudes and their behaviour. LSMs are more likely to show effects of fatigue and moods than HSMs. They have few friends, but these friends are quite close to them. They have the same friends for all of their activities. They select friends with similar attitudes. Friendship loss is difficult, because there are so few that each will be missed quite a bit, and the loss will affect most if not all activities. They tend to have steady, and more intimate relationships, and they care about their partner's personality.
Low self-monitoring, for those guilty of it, may not always be about being oblivious in social situations. It's about freedom of speech. Low self-monitors may see no reason to hold themselves back or sugar-coat the truth - to say anything other than what they're thinking, and acting in ways that doesn't reflect who they are is not something they like.
Example
Have you ever been to a club and seen some people dancing with wild abandon whilst others shuffle about nonchalantly? The wild dancers are low self-monitors, whilst the shufflers are probably high self-monitors.
High self-monitors are more likely to be successful in managerial positions where individuals are required to play multiple, and even contradicting roles. Thus, the high self-monitor is capable of putting on different "faces" for different audiences.
Low self-monitors (LSMs), on the other hand, act themselves - regardless of the situation. They rarely conform to the norms of the social setting. LSMs are less sensitive to social cues, and less likely to change their behaviour from one situation to another. Low self-monitors tend to display their true dispositions and attitudes in every situation. Low self-monitors' actions usually reflect their inner feelings and attitudes and thus they are less likely to change or adjust in a new context (Greenberg & Baron, 1990, pp. 204-206).
They prefer to be seen as they really are, and they behave so as to express internal attitudes and dispositions. Their attitudes are more accessible, so LSMs have a greater consistency between their attitudes and their behaviour. LSMs are more likely to show effects of fatigue and moods than HSMs. They have few friends, but these friends are quite close to them. They have the same friends for all of their activities. They select friends with similar attitudes. Friendship loss is difficult, because there are so few that each will be missed quite a bit, and the loss will affect most if not all activities. They tend to have steady, and more intimate relationships, and they care about their partner's personality.
Low self-monitoring, for those guilty of it, may not always be about being oblivious in social situations. It's about freedom of speech. Low self-monitors may see no reason to hold themselves back or sugar-coat the truth - to say anything other than what they're thinking, and acting in ways that doesn't reflect who they are is not something they like.
Example
So what?
Using it
Appeal to high self-monitors by telling them that they will look good and get social approval for what you want them to do. In advertising, high self-monitors respond more to image-based ads that promise to make them look good, whilst low self-monitors respond better to product-based ads and prefer high quality goods.
Findings also indicate that attitudes towards littering is partially mediated by the relationship between self-monitoring (Ojedokun and Balogun, 2013).
So which side do you fall on? Find out here: Self Monitoring Scale developed by Mark Snyder in 1974.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Findings also indicate that attitudes towards littering is partially mediated by the relationship between self-monitoring (Ojedokun and Balogun, 2013).
So which side do you fall on? Find out here: Self Monitoring Scale developed by Mark Snyder in 1974.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Snyder, M. & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1, 125-139.
No comments:
Post a Comment