1

JC

COM451

Professor Grainey

February 15, 2022

Personal Risk Management Assessment

Communication is an important aspect of harmonious existence. Balance in any social

setting can be achieved even after confrontation and risk-taking incidences. I am an international

learner from China studying in the United States, meaning that I am a minority student in a

dominant cultural setting. To harmoniously exist in such an environment, I must master effective

communication skills. Based on my experience and arguments, I contend that open

communication is important in choosing a preferred work environment, creating a personal risk

philosophy, making the most of risky communication situations, and improving communication

aspects of risk negotiation.

My Preferred Work Environment

I prefer to work in an environment with an open communication climate. For me, it

means having the ability to express myself, voice complaints freely, and suggest improvements

in the work setting if warranted. In the rapidly changing and globalizing economy, we live in a

highly equivocal work environment (Waldron & Kassing, 2018). Employees must recognize

that they are not merely static structures that fit or conform to prefabricated roles within an

organization. As Waldron and Kassing (2018) argue, communication helps all stakeholders make

meaning from uncertain situations. Without the possibility to exchange the information openly

and in a proper way, a hostile work environment can be created (Waldron & Kassing, 2018).

Open communication levels the work field in which strong and weak employees co-exist

harmoniously. Therefore, an open communication climate is considerate of all stakeholders.

The risks that I am willing to condone are those that foster rapport in the workplace, such

as offering constructive criticism and feedback. Nevertheless, feedback can lead to a positive or

negative outcome, depending on the recipient. A good example of constructive feedback is

constructive upward communication (Waldron & Kassing, 2018). It can expose and correct

dysfunctional practices in an organization while acknowledging and respecting the identities of

all interlocutors. This type of preference is risky because it can affect my career. If I provide

constructive feedback in the workplace and if it is negatively interpreted, it can create tensions

within the workplace. Therefore, in evaluating risks to take, one must consider the general

outcome of the risk in the workplace.

Personal Risk Philosophy

My personal risk philosophy is modeled around shared beliefs and methodologies that

profile risk management. In my experience, risks are inevitable in the workplace; and the only

way to manage them is to build a risk tolerance model with universal principles or shared beliefs.

Waldron and Kassing (2018) propose a risk management model that makes it easy to categorize

tolerance levels. The four-stage model involves attending, sense-making, transforming, and

maintaining (Waldron & Kassing, 2018). Each stage of the model has a unique level of risk

tolerance. One can consider the example of innovation. In the attending phase, an innovative

idea is often risky for the organization (Waldron & Kassing, 2018). It can either be accepted or

resisted. The latter case will be counterproductive to the organization’s processes. Innovation,

being a change, can also influence employee mentality in the future: they can feel threatened by

the change and become defensive (Waldron & Kassing, 2018). Innovators can manage risks by

making the innovation process or changeless risky for others. In this innovation example, risk

management can be viewed in three dimensions, personal, organizational, and societal. In all

three dimensions, it can negatively affect performance. I believe that all stakeholders should

share a risk for progress to be realized, and it will require universal principles.

The Most Risky Communication Situation

Lesley’s communication situation in Chapter 10 is the most challenging to me. Her

concern, which makes the situation challenging, is building a team-working mentality without

causing friction with team members, especially with the uncooperative or unproductive ones.

Lesley is dealing with a difficult work colleague capable of producing quality students but is

refusing to be involved in the education process of struggling learners. Waldron and Kassing

(2018) observe that Lesley risks group harmony, productivity, success, effectiveness, and even

group esteem in confronting the teacher. However, it is a risk to be taken for prospects of

progress for the affected student to be made. The teacher in question can be categorized as

a withholder of effort (Waldron & Kassing, 2018). He has a good bilingual knowledge base, yet

his bilingual learners consistently score Ds and Fs. I find this communication situation tricky to

deal with.

To manage it, I will need to improve my emotional communication competencies. This

type of communication skill focuses on sensitive communication when one knows how to

balance their own emotions while being considerate of the emotions of others (Waldron, 2013).

Waldron (2013) argues that emotional communication competency focuses on three dimensions:

mastery of own emotions, sensitivity to others’ emotions, and capacity to express emotion. To

relate to what Waldron and Kassing (2018) discuss, confronting a colleague about performance

issues can come down to identity threats. Ageism is a good example, and I have witnessed it.

Even when he is not, a young intern who is constantly ridiculed for being clumsy and

incompetent may consider such attributes as part of his character. He can react emotionally to

such ridicules and not in the best way. Emotional communication competency ensures that a

risky communication scenario is handled to its best possible end or outcome.

I would consider aggressive accommodation situations my area of specialty. Aggressive

accommodation is about the open confrontation that ultimately inspires change in the desired

direction, even at personal cost (Waldron & Kassing, 2018). Waldron and Kassing (2018) argue

that aggressive accommodation is effective when radical change is needed. The focus is on the

ultimate goal, not personal relationships. I would openly confront the unproductive teacher in

Lesley's case but in an emotionally sensitive way. I believe that for any team to work both

objectively and harmoniously, it must set boundaries of team co-existence; and aggressive

accommodation is the best way to achieve that aim.

Improving Communicative Aspects of Risk Negotiation

My university could do better in the four communication aspects of risk negotiation.

Doing so improves its communication risk tolerance and fosters risk resilience that can inspire

team progress. To improve the first aspect, attending, it needs to improve the communication

orientation of team members (Waldron & Kassing, 2018). To do so, it needs to determine the

most appropriate interaction model from among the four most common ones: monocultural,

modernistic, cosmopolitan, or ethnocentric (Waldron & Kassing, 2018). To improve the

second aspect, sense-making, it needs to embrace diversity (Waldron & Kassing, 2018). In a

group setting, people make suggestions with a valid reason. It is ethical to consider such reasons

because it can promote diversity, inclusivity, and rapport within the university. To improve the

third aspect, transforming, it needs to be flexible to change (Waldron & Kassing, 2018). In most

cases, solutions require multifaceted implementation strategies that will require all members to

be accommodative of change. To improve the last aspect, maintaining, it must adopt favorable

patterns of interacting (Waldron & Kassing, 2018). It can achieve so by making personal identity

subservient to group identity (Waldron & Kassing, 2018). Reevaluating these four
 6

communication aspects of risk negotiation will improve the university’s tolerance to any

communication risk scenario.

Conclusion

Open communication is essential to select an ideal work environment, create personal

risk philosophy, salvage risky communication situations, and improve communication aspects of

risk negotiation. As a result, team members can co-exist with a high risk tolerance level.

Likewise, they can co-exist with a high tolerance level for compromise. I find aggressive

accommodation to manage high-risk situations effective but only when approached objectively.

Communicating to rational team members objectively, empathetic and sensitively can go a long

way in eliminating counterproductive practices and habits while enforcing desirable ones.
 7

References

Waldron, V. R. (2013). Communicating emotion at work. John Wiley & Sons.

Waldron, V., & Kassing, J. (2018). Negotiating workplace relationships. (2nd ed.). Cognella

Publishers.