Interpersonal-mentalizing skills

To my knowledge, there are no previous researchers that have looked at

interpersonal-mentalizing skills in relation to relationship learning. I wanted to include this in the survey to find out if there is a positive relationship between company representatives who are high on interpersonal-mentalizing skills and relationship learning.

Interpersonal-mentalizing skills are referred to as a person’s ability to understand the mind of the customer or supplier. These skills further include the ability to put yourself in the shoes of the other person, and to sense non-verbal cues during interaction (Dietvorst 2009). Dietvorst et.al (2009), have created a theory-of-mind scale which can differentiate between the better-skilled and less-better-skilled interpersonal-mentalizers. In their study they tested the scale on sales people.

“Our ability to explain and predict other people’s behavior by attributing to them independent mental states, such as beliefs, needs, intensions or preferences is defined as having a theory-of-mind (ToM). The ability to process subtle cues and make decisions based on this new information is a part of such skills (Gallagher & Frith 2003).

32 Neuroscience research has revealed that interpersonal-mentalizing occur as an generally unconsciously process, which trigger special regions in the brain (Dietvorst 2009). The three most consistently activated regions include; the left and right temporoparietal junctions (TPJ), the left and right temporal poles and the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) (Frith & Frith 2006). In the ideal case these areas cooperate to form a complete interpretation of the mental states or events of the other person in an interaction (Frith & Frith 2003).

Dietvorst (2009) explain that top and bottom performers can be distinguished on their ability to build and maintain relationship, meet goals and achieve high number of sales. The high scorers are more adaptive and flexible in selling situations, better able to take the perspective of the other party and have less social anxiety. It has been proposed that adaptive selling is synonymous with working smarter. Knowledge about how behavior is formed through contact and interaction, together with the ability to modify behavior in sales situations is a core ability in adaptive selling (Hamel & Prahald 1994). A core conclusion we can draw from

neuroscience, is that the brain consist of several modules that are triggered by different cues in the environment and is highly dependent upon on individual and personal differences (Dietvorst 2009). These modules and cues are working together to make sense of what we perceive is being communicated.

Interpersonal-mentalizing skills can have a positive impact on relationship learning because it is the people in companies that learn, and it could be that people with high ToM capabilities are better and faster learners and that they are better able to facilitate relationship learning.

The ability to take initiative in conversations, ask questions and search for information and hints - can be important in order to get more knowledge about the other company in the relationship.

If a person is able to understand hints communicated from a customer or a supplier, it could give a better understanding of what the other company really wants and why they need to buy this particular product. In order to become more effective the person needs to also understand the customer’s mental states and needs. The main purpose for why salespeople interact with customers is to offer products that best meet their needs. These skills are just as important for the people working in the supplier company, who can better understand how and on what premises the customer company make their choices (Dietvorst 2009).

The theory-of-mind (ToM) scale consists of four distinct factors. The first factor in the ToM-scale is the ability to build rapport and take initiative in conversations. The second factor includes ability to detect cues and hints and the third factor is related to coordinating

33 interactions to achieve closure on a deal. The fourth factor is the ability to shape interaction, but Dietvorst et al. (2009) did not find this factor addressed in the literature on interpersonal-mentalizing before. That is also why I chose to include the items from their fourth factor (shaping the interaction) in my questionnaire. It is strongly related to the other questions in the survey because this factor has an element of care and psychological safety from learning organizations theory. The items of shaping the interaction are related to trying to make people feel comfortable and create a positive atmosphere during conversations or meetings. I have further used the items from factor one -rapport building in my study. I chose to include this factor because Dietvorst et al. (2009) in their study found this factor to reduce social anxiety related to sales situations, and can thus help strengthen performance related to sales or buying situations. Items from this factor include for example the ability to kindle a small conversation with a supplier or customer.

Building on ToM, the following two hypotheses evolve:

Hypotheses 3: Rapport building skills has a positive relationship with relationship learning.

Hypotheses 4: Ability to shape the interaction has a positive relationship with relationship learning.

In addition to these hypotheses, I control for the effect of environmental uncertainty on relationship learning. Organizations build relationships as a response to environmental turbulence. It is therefore suggested that organizations take part in collaborative learning activities in order to gain control over turbulence in the environment (Selnes & Sallis 2003). I also test the effect of relationship learning on relationship performance, which I assume to be positive.

Figure five below presents the theoretical model of relationship learning, in this study.

34

Figure 5: Theoretical model of relationship learning

35