Passive vs. Aggressive vs. Assertive

[Gaze]

Yeah, I agree. There is a confusion people make between being assertive and being aggressive. But in my mind they are very clearly different. And I can detail my mannerisms when I one way opposed to the other. They are not synonymous.

To me assertive is stating your opinion clearly.

Aggressive is demanding.

I don't think being aggressive turns most people on and I find most aggressive people have a thin veneer. I.e. it's all about you and what you want, etc.

Assertive is wanting the best for the team and I think that is better perceived.

Hope I'm making sense and am helpful.

yes, good point, it's the reason behind the use of the style that's important. If it's egocentric, then it may be resisted, but if it's used in the best interest of not you who is making the request but the other party as well, then it will probably have better results or receive more positive response.

I think that something should matter, because it seems to be in the way of what you want. What is that something?

Good question. It's probably the thing's I've fighting to admit that I do want, which is that chance to be heard or understand or have my commands (when appropriate) respected especially if I am acting in an authoritative position. However, I do not want the responsibility of being respected for the sake of position. I don't want the recognition for myself. I want the recognition of what I'm saying if it's about getting the job done and done well. It's not about seeking personal recognition for my views or thoughts anymore, because that's not as important, as why I am asking for that recogition of my voice or thoughts or ideas. It's about what works. When the focus is on me, and HOW I make a request or how I'm perceived, it's a sign, to me, that the focus is not on the right thing. It's a sign that you're focusing on "me" or what you think of me rather what we need to do to adequately complete the task or goal we have in front of us. That's probably why I'm leary of the use of the terms "assertive" etc., because there is this underlying tone of what you want vs. what I want, when I'm really only concerned with "why aren't you listening to what I'm saying, since that's more important and has more relevance to getting the job done." That's my concern with how these styles are being perceived.

 

[JGirl]

The most effective strategy is to make someone want to give you what you want. Generally speaking, being assertive is usually the best route. It helps to be clear and upfront about your want and desires.

agreed. i call it persuasive reasoning however lol

 

[Gaze]

agreed. i call it persuasive reasoning however lol

Yep, that's often a more effective strategy.

 

[TinyBubbles]

Is any one of these more effective than the other in getting what you want or getting things done?

I know that passive is considered weak, while assertive or aggressive is considered pro active.

But in your experience, which of these are more effective and in what circumstances?

My first inclination was to say assertive, but after thinking about it a bit more I'd say it varies. Consider the following scenarios:

#1 You're a sales clerk in a busy supermarket, and you notice a shifty looking man hanging around the DVD section. You suspect he is stealing goods, however you have no proof, and more importantly, no way to defend yourself should he become hostile. In this situation, although your desire is to confront the man and get him to confess to a crime, you'd be better off taking a passive approach, and letting him go. Perhaps later you could call the authorities, but at that moment it would be wise not to antagonize him further and potentially create an even bigger problem. Morally speaking, it is also not advisible to act purely on suspicion.

#2 You're a student and are being physically bullied by another student. You are understandably angry and want to confront this person. You're physically weaker than this person and are likely to lose in a fight, so you desire to lure this person into a quiet area and threaten them with a weapon (side note, this actually happened to a friend of mine ). In this case, being aggressive can work in your favor as it would frighten the other party into backing off and respecting your boundaries. On the other hand, some bullies would take it as a challenge, and the situation could descend into an even more difficult confrontation. It's a gamble, but either way, passiveness is likely to lead to no change, and assertiveness would require some level of cooperation from the other party (if only the desire to listen), which, in this case, is not forthcoming.

#3 You've been working at a company for 5 years and have consistently been overlooked for promotions. You believe the boss is playing favorites, and want to talk to him about it. Given that you've been working for them for such a long time, they probably value your skills at least in some capacity and may simply be ignorant about what you really want. Being assertiveness can help clarify any misunderstandings, without making things (more) personal, or challenging their authority (which could put them on the defensive).

So it varies. If I had to guess which route would prove the *most* effective and reasonable in the *most* number of situations, I'd say assertive. By the way, I wanted to mention that I think some people confuse silence with passiveness. In my opinion, one can be aggressive without saying a word, while another can shout and scream until their throat is raw and still not get their message across.

 

[barbad0s]

In my experience, assertive to aggressive will be more effective in getting things done and winning people over, unless you are dealing with people that value a passive approach.

None of these approaches will be very much more effective over one another though, if the intention and content of what you are trying to push to get done is not good enough. The value of what you are trying to do is more important than how exactly you do it, although making sure you are heard and effective rhetoric do play a part.

Winning people's favour and establishing rapport beforehand is also majorly effective. And if all else fails, you can always try getting things done underhand in a passive-aggressive way.

 

[knight in battle]

Assertive seems best.

Aggressive is too harsh. Passive is too frustrating.

 

[Soulful]

It depends on who you are dealing with.

Two healthy and well-developed individuals will get the most from assertive approaches.

If you are dealing with someone who is dysfunctional, being assertive may result in aggression. In this kind of circumstance, acting in passive-aggressive ways may be the only way to get your needs met. However, it is not worth relying on this as a permanent approach. Something else needs to take place, because no one should have to subjugate themselves to stooping to passive-aggressive actions in order to receive what they need.