I cant work with him. We have a personality clash. How can we explain a personality clash when social constructionists challenge the idea of personality as fixed, stable or real - Essay Example

Personality Clash Unit Introduction We all have different personalities, which make us different from each other. Our personalities are determined by our genes and this results to different behaviors. For example, some people are analytical and logical, outgoing, ordered, concerned, emotional and introspective among others. Carlson (1998) claims that these are some of the differences that are natural and become either our strengths or weaknesses as teams or individuals. However, they can also be a source of conflicts in organizations.

For example, a person may only prefer to look at things on the other side of a coin, while others will prefer to go to details. This makes them frustrated with each other and as a result, considers one another as irresponsible for not going into the analysis, which results to personality clash or conflict. In that regard, this paper aims at explaining personality clash, in regard to the topic” I can’t work with him. We have a personality clash!”, when social constructionists challenge the idea of personality as fixed, stable or real.

Confrontation in the workplace depends on the type of work people deal with on a daily basis. For example, if someone deals with customers, most likely he deals with customer conflicts or complaints every day. Such situations may also arise in the work place with other colleagues and as a result turn the working environment into hell and a stressful place to be. Dyer and Jeffrey (2010) explain that, such conflicts are brought by personality clashes, where each one of us prefer things to be done according to his way or considers his personality to be better that the others.

One’s personality is also said to be natural occurrences. According to Dubrin and Geerinck (2004) personality clashes bring about organizational conflicts, which is caused by interests, values and needs between individuals working together. There are many forms of organizational conflicts, but the most common one is personality clashes, where different personalities clash with other or colleagues, making it difficult to work together. I can’t work with him. We have a personality clash!”, when social constructionists challenges the idea of personality as fixed, stable or real, is a topic that is debatable.

As much as social constructionist challenges the idea of personality as fixed, real or stable other scholars do not agree. Some claims that everyone chooses his or her own personality and can change it whenever he feels like in order to suit his needs. However, I agree with what social constructionist believes in, one’s personality is real and stable, meaning that it is natural. Therefore, in a working environment different personalities are represented by each person. There are those who are outgoing, introspective, emotional, and some prefer to keep to themselves, among others.

The person who is outgoing will definitely clash with a person who prefers to keep to himself and as a result; these two individuals will prefer not to work with each other. Such conflicts may be destructive and as a result have some effects on the groups involved as well as individuals. Additionally, it can increase the capability of individuals affected and therefore, used as a motivating force towards change and innovation. Personality conflicts are individual’s inner workings and other related problems.

Carlson (1998) contends that some personality clashes are difficult beyond management, but some are understandable. This is because; personality clashes bring about social conflicts in any organization, where different individuals having different personality claim that they cannot work or cope with each other because their personalities clash. Such cases are common in organizations, where social conflict is regarded to as intergroup, intragroup and interpersonal differences. Therefore, personality is a behavior of human beings which cannot be separated from him as well as the culture that surrounds him.

Furthermore, when one goes for an interview, the interviewers ask someone to talk about their personality, in terms of strong and weak points. This is because, they believe that each of us having a unique and different personality that is shaped by experiences, families, schooling, and of course our culture. Russell (2010) argues that personality is a set of personal traits, predispositions to respond such as confident, funny, sensitive, honest, and characteristics. Personality concept can also convey stability and consistency in terms of responding across situations and time.

Therefore, it is our nature to excpect people who are honest to be honest anytime, even in most tempting situations, while confident people to always have self-efficacy even if it makes others feel insecure and funny people to be always smiling even when they are sad. Behavioral scientists and social constructionists think of personality as nurture that is shaped by our personal histories and the environment. However, personality can be explained using different theories, most obvious one being self-monitoring.

This comes as shock to many when it tries to explain that we do not have personalities and at the same time, we have many personalities at. Therefore, such consistent personality trait receives support from accurate eyewitness and perceiver. This is explained by looking back at our lives and having a picture of our personality, where sometimes we excuse ourselves as not being in our senses. Therefore, it is hard to reconcile with our apparent evidence of our feedback and senses that we often receive from others with the conception that we do not have a personality (O’Hagan, 2004).

Social constructionists challenge the idea of personality as fixed, stable, or real, because they have come to embrace the concept of being self rather than that of personality. The notion of self is more of inquiry that moves us from our personality, and can be influenced by social desirability and other related issues. This can be explained well by developmental theory, which believes that stages of development in personality traits can be keyed as biological maturity. These stages are said to influence the sense of development and personality.

For example, according to this theory, children who were abandoned at a tender age would have difficulty in trusting any other person later in life (Russell, 2010). Therefore, Russell (2010) claims that we should try resolve such conflicts at early stages because when they continue to adulthood, they form a personality trait that normally conflicts with people for example, in work places. Therefore, the concept of development requires that one should skip any stages, and most importantly they should be completed before going to later ones.

This is because; skipping such stages will create problems in personality during adulthood. Additionally, in learning theories, Battista (1999) asserts that there are no fixed stages. This is because behavior often results from reinforcement contingencies and imitation that is acquired from others as no particular order. However, personality or problems linked to the theory are only the habits often rewarded once and are ranked as habits or personality. Physical control or linguistics can therefore, influence one’s personality traits.

Therefore, we often feel we have a personality because we have our own self as well as scripts and responses as adults. To add to this, our personal history and memories are real and stored physically in our brains. Such memories and personal history are said to influence our personality traits, even though we have choices that can be informative. Because of such cases, we view the behaviors of other people, as determined by their personalities than our own behavior. Our own behavior is also determined by the environment which is the most fundamental error (Dubrin & Geerinck, 2004).

To borrow from, Cava (1999) claims that the self is an image, schema or concept of our own self, and is both object and subject. Well explained by the self-facts that are subjective, where we often plan our self, think about us and view ourselves, as we would do to other people. Therefore, as social constructionist believes in the personality is an on-going process and will never finish. This is because; there are fresh experiences and memories which continue to shape our personality every day.

It is because of our self that we believe we have a personality. Conclusion Personality clashes bring about workplace confrontation and at times it becomes impossible for such individuals to work together. Some workplaces may use team buildings as a way of strengthening the bond between the employees as well as avoid personality clashes which often bring confrontation. The concept of personality is considered as internal self, product of personal experiences and history, objective entity and a collection of stable predispositions of response.

However, once it is established, it is considered to be permanent and as our situations or lifestyles changes, the self or personality changes. Personality clashes bring about social conflicts in any organization, where different individuals having different personality claim that they cannot work or cope with each other because their personalities clash. Such cases are common in organization, where social conflict is regarded to as intergroup and interpersonal differences. References Battista.O (1999)The Power to influence people.

NewYork: Routledge Cava.R (1999) Dealing with Difficult People; Interpersonal Communication. Stanford, Stanford Univ.Press. Carlson.R (1998), Don’t sweat the small stuff at work : simple ways to minimize stress and conflict while bringing out the best in yourself and others. New York: Hyperion Dyer.W & Jeffrey.D (2010 ) Team Building : Proven Strategies for Improving Team Performance. Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI. Dubrin,A & Geerinck.T (2004), Human Relations : Interpersonal, Job-oriented Skills.

Upper Saddle River,N.J: Prentice Hall O’Hagan,A (2004),Personality.Orlando,FL,Harcout,Inc. Russell.J (2010), Manage Your Boss : How To Build A great Working Relationship. University Microfil International,Pennyslvania