Personal Effectiveness - Research Paper Example

? Personal Effectiveness Report Prepared for the Human Resources Manager for Global Operations Group assignment Executive Summary The current paper highlights the premium of assessments in gauging the personalities, learning styles, work and communication styles as determinants of effective collaboration of employees. Utilizing the test outcomes of two persons who are part of a single team, issues and recommendations for more effective collaboration are put forth. These are based on their likely cognition, affect, and ways of behaving in the work context. Assessments that tackle brain dominance, learning style, interaction styles, personality (i.e. the Big Five Locator), self-monitoring, and extroversion are presented as well. The ways on how the two individuals may leverage on their strengths and downplay their weaknesses based on these tests are explained. Background Individuals that work within one setting have distinct ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving. Thus, the profound understanding of these cognitions, attitudes and behaviors is critical in ensuring that the enterprise’s bottomlines are effectively met. A person may be better managed if his manager or colleague knows his personality, preferences, and styles of learning and behaving (Melamed & Jackson 1995). A comprehension of the nuances of personality, learning styles, self-monitoring, among others, will aid the manager in determining the best way to increase the motivation; optimize the development; and increase the effectiveness of management (Engleman and Kleiner 1998). Assessment accord insight to management on ambiguous characteristics that may spell the difference between mediocre and exemplary performance (Yeung & Berman 1997). The utilization of assessments heightens mastery of self, and benefits both the incumbent and his manager. Ultimately, such mastery has implications on how the person relates to others; how we works within a team; how driven he is to deliver results; and how substantially he contributes to organizational strategy (Darcy and Tracey 2003). In having such knowledge, managers may be able to recommend apt interventions for development and for filling gaps. Moreover, their motivators are more precisely identified, which will allow them to give more significant contributions at work. Such knowledge will likewise enhance their personal sense of satisfaction and well-being (Melamed & Jackson 1995). Overall, these assessments can aid organizations in achieving desirable bottomlines such as enhanced productivity; seamless cooperation; increased camaraderie; and a more marked emphasis on organizational learning and development (Yeung & Berman 1997). Personality assessments are important organizational tools that help ascertain the strengths and improvement areas of employees that may have implications on their capacity as individual contributors to organizational objectives (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick 1999). The peculiarities among employees should not be a reason for conflict, but rather as a means for productive synergy. Moreover, these assessments may be utilized for recruitment, training, and retention purposes. These standardized assessments are not without limitations (Rhodes & Hammer 2000). They may cause employees to be stereotyped. It is critical for these tests to be accurately interpreted to make sure that the hiring or development decisions that are brought forth are appropriate (Judge et al 1999). Aims The main aim of the paper is to ascertain the ways through which personality assessments may be used to recommend interventions for increased collaboration and team effectiveness. The outcomes of two team members on 1) hemisphere dominance; 2) learning styles; 3) interaction styles; 4) the Big Five Locator; 5) self-monitoring; and 6) extraversion are presented. These results may be used by their superiors and by the HR Department to recommend development interventions for these two individuals. This paper also intends to demonstrate how the outcomes of such assessments may be used to make decisions along the phases of employee recruitment, development, and retention. As mentioned, knowledge of the outcomes of these assessments may be used to increase the sense of collaboration between these two, having positive implications on the achievement of strategic goals. Scope and Limitations The paper involves only the six assessments previously mentioned, and all comparisons between the two individuals are limited to these. In addition, the comparison will involve only two group members. Method The two individuals took the six assessments through the wiki situated on the Blackboard. They separately undertook the assessments and collated these for comparison. While these were the primary data of the paper, secondary data were also obtained through the use of various references. These came in the form of books, journals, and online sources. These allowed the researcher to have adequate knowledge on the use of assessments and their implications on enhanced employee effectiveness. Findings The following are the findings for Team Members 1 and 2, referred to as ‘Carina’ and ‘Kobeke’. 1. Results on Hemisphere Dominance Carina received a score of 7 for right brainedness, and 11 questions for left-brainedness. This suggests that Carina more preponderantly uses her left brain. On the other hand, Kobeke received a score of 98 for his leaning towards right-brainedness, and 9 for left-brainedness. Similar to the results of Carina, Kobeke is also predominantly left brained, possessing the qualities of being linear, sequential, symbolic, logical, verbal, and reality-based in his cognitive processing. 2. Results on Learning Styles Carina received the following scores on learning style: Visual/Nonverbal 22; Visual/Verbal 20 ; Auditory 20 ; and Kinesthetic 18. These indicate that her primary learning style is visual or nonverbal. On the other hand, Kobeke garnered the following scores: Visual/Nonverbal 26; Visual/Verbal 20; Auditory 32; and Kinesthetic 26. These suggest that Kobeke is primarily Auditory/ Verbal in his learning style. 3. Results on Interaction Styles Carina yielded the following scores on interaction styles: get things doing: 10; behind the scenes: 17; in charge: 6; and chart the course: 7. In addition, interaction style scores of Kobeke are as follows: get things going: 25; behind the scenes: 14; in charge: 25; and chart the course: 18. 4. Results on the Big Five Locator of Team Member 1 The next assessment taken is the Big Five Locator. On the results on negative emotionality, it has been suggested that Carina is responsive and this is indicated in her calmness and stability. She turned out to be an ambivert on the subscale of extraversion and thus may work alone or in groups. Moreover, the outcomes on openness indicate that she is a preserver and thus has knowhow in a particular area. The agreeableness factor suggests that she is a challenger, whereby she tends to be tough, exercise fortitude, prudent, and competitive. Finally, on conscientiousness, Carina is highly focused, exhibiting consistency and perseverance in pursuing goals. On the other hand, the outcomes on the Big Five Locator suggest that Kobeke tends to be reactive in terms of negative emotionality. He may tend to be unstable emotionally, easily triggered, anxious and alert. Kobeke is also an extrovert who tends to be warm and comfortable in frequently relating with others. Kobeke’s results on openness indicate that he is an explorer who likes novelty and new experiences. He is also curious about things. Kobeke is a hybrid of being a negotiator and adapter on the scale of agreeableness. He easily trusts people and is willing to help. He is also comfortable working with a team. Kobeke is low in conscientiousness and tends to execute things without much planning. He may be whimsical and indifferent with deadlines. 5. Results on the Self-monitoring Test Carina’s outcomes on self-monitoring suggest that she is neither a low nor high self-monitor, and the same results apply for Kobeke. 6. Results on the Extraversion Test Carina’s results on the extraversion test indicate that she is an introvert, manifested in shyness and in efforts to manifest being normal and approachable. They enjoy being engaged in deep thought and ideas, and may tend to keep their thoughts to themselves. Kobeke’s outcomes indicate that he is neither an extrovert nor introvert, and is able to strike a balance between the two orientations. He is able to blend well in a group, and is also able to reflect about ideas in solitude. Discussion Utilizing assessments for gauging the personality, cognitive processing style, learning style, and self-monitoring of employees is beneficial for enterprises. These allow them to increase the self-mastery of their employees and enhance the likelihood of appropriate development interventions (Berens 2008). Moreover, the strengths that these individuals can leverage on and the improvement areas that they must address may also be ascertained. This information may also help their superiors to better manage their subordinates and consequently recommend more effective development and retention strategies (Conger 2002). The first assessment that has been used is the Hemisphere Dominance Test, which determines which side of the brain is more preponderantly used by the individual (Boer 2001). The second assessment that has been taken by the two is the Learning Styles Inventory which lends insight onto the best means for them to take on, imbibe, and retain information. The Interaction Styles Test ascertains how the person deals with others in task accomplishment. The Big Five Locator describes personality through his negative emotionality, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Pearman, Lombardo, and Eichinger 2005). The Self-Monitoring Test determines the degree to which an individual considers external factors in determining his course of action (Lennox & Wolfe 1984; Snyder & Gangestad 2002). Lastly, the Extraversion Test gives insight on where the person derives his energy –whether internally (from oneself) or externally (from others). Based on the results of Carina and Kobeke on brain dominance, they use their left brain more. This suggests that they tend to process information from parts to a whole, in a direct, well thought of manner. Moreover, they tend to process information in logical sequence from the first to the last. As a predominantly left-brained person, they are effective at processing visuals such as pictures and prefers to use words and mathematical symbols. Their information processing is likewise logical, and done piece-meal, to arrive at a logical solution to a problem. Carina and Kobeke are also verbal, and processes information through words. They also lean towards processing information based on empirical means, keenly emphasizing rules. These outcomes on Learning Style indicate that she learns best when information is presented in pictures. Thus, learning is most optimal when information is aided by films, videos, maps, and charts. Carina may also learn more effectually when studying independently than with colleagues. Recalling is done by Carina by picturing it in her mind and she takes pleasure in visually appealing media. The most effective learning strategies for Carina make use of pictures, flash cards, symbols, diagrams, symbols, color codes, tables, and charts. On the other hand, Kobeke is primarily auditory is learns optimally when concepts are relayed orally. He learns best when they listen to lectures and engage in an oral exchange of ideas. Kobeke learns effectively with the use of audio tapes; repeating information by saying it out loud; listening; and talking. He prefers to be part of a study group and to verbalize the content of what needs to be learned. Lectures are best documented through tape records. Mathematical concepts are best retained by discussing it out loud and explaining the concepts to oneself orally. These outcomes indicate that when they work together, there should be optimal use of both visual and auditory tools to ensure that their learning styles are both addressed. There are higher scores on the two scales of Get-things-going and Behind the Scenes. These indicate that Carina is bent on accomplishing tasks collaborating with others in decision making and task accomplishment. Moreover, Carina also prefers to work silently with the process to get desired outcomes. The lower scores on Charting the Course indicates that she is open to being involved in situations where there is ambiguity and where she does not know for sure what will transpire. In addition, the lower scores on In-Charge suggest that she has less preference for leading a group or for acting instantaneously. In contrast, the results for Kobeke indicate that he has higher scores in Get Things Going and In-Charge. The high score in Get Things Going indicate that he advocates cooperation towards making decisions and accomplishing tasks. The high score in being in-charge suggests that he prefers to lead a group and taking immediate actions. The lower score in Behind the Scenes suggest that Kobeke does not prefer working in the sidelines. Moreover, the lower score in Chart the course suggests that he can tolerate ambiguity. These outcomes suggest that Carina and Kobeke complement each other since Carina prefers to work in the sidelines while Kobeke wants to lead. Both are accepting of ambiguity and believe in the value of cooperation. Carina’s results on the negative emotionality scale of the Big Five Locator indicate that she is typically serene, stable, and secure. She only has a moderate threshold for handling tension-filled situations, and may exhibit negative emotions when stressed. These are in contrast with Kobeke’s outcomes which suggest being highly excitable and emotion-filled. Moreover, the outcomes on the extraversion suggests that she is an ambivert and can work independently or as part of a group; however, experiencing too much of either work scenario can cause Carina stress. She has to strike a balance between working autonomously and working as a team member. Kobeke, on the other hand, is more of an extrovert. The outcomes on openness indicate that Carina is a preserver, and thus tends to stick with proven ways of doing things. She may also tend to lack flexibility and to resent change. Kobeke is an explorer who loves to experiment and try new things. Finally, on conscientiousness, it has been shown that Carina is focused, suggesting that she is very organized in doing things, and persists amidst difficulty. She also manifests a very high level of discipline and is comfortable with repetition. Kobeke is low on conscientiousness and may lack discipline in task accomplishment. The results on the self-monitoring test of both team members indicate that she manifests behaviors related to both high and low self-monitoring. In some situations, they may tend to use their values and internal standards as a compass for behaving. In other situations, they may lean towards looking at others’ behaviors and dispositions to determine how they6 should act. Carina’s is an introvert and tends to think of ideas alone and not talk about them. There is also an attempt to show that one is normal and approachable. They are not comfortable being the focus of attention and prefer to keep silent about things. While Carina is an introvert, Kobeke is able to strike a balance between the two, and this is again a point of complementarity between the two group members. Workplace Scenario The assumption that has been used in the paper is that the two individuals are working within the small accounting firm. Based on the outcomes, it may be said that the two can effectively work together in a team. The results on hemisphere dominance show that both of them are predominantly left-brained, which suggests that they largely use logic and symbols in processing information. They are sequential and process information in a piece-meal manner. This is very important in Accounting, since this profession lies very strongly in logic. Their learning styles, while different, are not necessarily in conflict. Carina is visual, while Kobeke is auditory. Thus, in studying an Accounting report, for instance, they may opt to use both visual and auditory strategies to the advantage of both individuals. In studying a report, a Power Point presentation with a lot of graphs and charts may appeal better to Carina. The verbal explanation of these charts will allow Kobeke to absorb the information effectively. For the outcomes on Interaction styles, Carina seems to be better off working on the sidelines while Kobeke has a preference for leading. This implies that Kobeke may function more effectively as a team lead, while Carina may lend strong back-end support in working on an Accounting project. They are both willing to be involved in ambivalent situations and to cooperate with others on a project. The outcomes on the Big Five Locator are interesting. The outcomes on negative emotionality indicate that Carina may complement Kobeke because she tends to be more stable than Kobeke who tends to be more excitable. Wheras Carina is an ambivert, Kobeke is an extrovert who is sociable and talkative. In an Accounting firm, projects that deal with client interface may be more appropriately assigned to Kobeke. There is likewise no conflict in this area because Carina can flex between being an introvert and an extrovert. On openness, Carina is a preserver while Kobeke is an explorer. This may be an area of conflict between the two because where one wants to stick with convention, the other may want to try out new ideas. Accounting projects that require innovative thinking and experimentation may be more appropriately assigned to Kobeke, while the traditional, regular projects are best assigned to Carina. The results of the two on agreeableness suggest that they likewise complement in this area, where Carina is a challenger while Kobeke is a negotiator and adapter. Carina is the tough, prudent one who can focus on task completion whereas Kobeke tends to be more oriented towards helping other people and working with a team. This means that in managing an Accounting team, Carina may complement Kobeke since they represent task and people orientations, respectively. Conscientiousness may again be an area of conflict. Carina is highly conscientious while Kobeke is low in conscientiousness. They must find means to balance out this trait so they will not conflict in terms of work style. Kobeke may be assigned to accounting tasks that have a long deadline, while those that are more urgent are more appropriately assigned to Carina. The outcomes on self-monitoring show that both are able to strike a balance between high and low self-monitoring. They are thus able to adjust in situations where an internal compass is needed and those in which others’ opinions must be considered. Conclusion On conclusion, the current study demonstrated how self-assessments may be utilized to better understand how people think, feel, and behave within the workplace. A profound understanding of the peculiarities between people will be beneficial for those who manage them. Such knowledge has implications on how effectively they can collaborate and their overall effectiveness as individuals and team members (Engleman & Kleiner 1998). Kobeke and Carina have been found to have similarities in terms of their brain dominance, and self-monitoring. The other facets of learning styles, interaction styles, personality, and extraversion present peculiarities. However, differences have been found to be reasons for complementarity rather than conflict. Recommendations From the current paper’s outcomes, it is recommended that companies continue to use assessment tests as tools for enhancing the effectiveness of individuals and teams. This information may help them in attaining their objectives at the individual, department, and organizational levels (Sampson and Lumsden 2000). The HR Departments of companies may do well to prudently select the assessment battery that their employees may take, specifically those that need to work on a critical project or assignment. Managers may also be encouraged to use the results of these assessments for practical purposes, such as matching individuals that are more likely to work effectively with each other. These will have implications on project success and the realization of their objectives overall. References Engleman, D, and Kleiner, BH 1998, Effective employment screening practices, Career Development International, vol. 3, no. 4, pp.164 – 168. Berens, L 2008, Understanding yourself and others: An introduction to interaction styles. Telos Publications. Judge, TA, Higgins, CA, Thoresen, CJ, & Barrick, MR 1999, The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, vol. 52, pp. 621-649. Rhodes, LD, & Hammer, EY 2000, The relation between job satisfaction and personality similarity in supervisors and subordinates. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, vol. 5, pp. 56-59. Lennox, R & Wolfe, R 1984, Revision of the Self-Monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 46, pp. 1349–1364. Snyder, M & Gangestad, S 2002), Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 126, no. 4, pp. 530–555. Pearman, R, Lombardo, M, and Eichinger, R 2005, You: Being more effective in your MBTI type. Lominger International, Inc, Minn. Yeung A & Berman B, 1997, Adding value through human resources: Reorienting human resource measurement to drive business performance, Human Resource Management, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 321–335 Boer, PM 2001, Career counseling over the Internet, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Conger, S 2002, Fostering a career development culture: reflections on the roles of managers, employees and supervisors, Career Development International, vol. 7, no. 6, pp.371 – 375. Darcy, M, and Tracey, TJG 2003, Integrating abilities and interests in career choice: Maximal versus typical assessment, Journal of Career Assessment, vol. 11, pp. 219–237. Melamed, T, and Jackson, D 1995, Psychometric instruments: potential benefits and practical use, Industrial and Commercial Training, vol. 27, no. 4, pp.11 – 16. Sampson, JP, and Lumsden, JA 2000, Ethical issues in the design and use of Internet-based career assessment, Journal of Career Assessment, vol. 8, pp. 21–35. Read More