Personal Effectiveness in Organisations - Case Study Example

Executive Summary This paper focuses on the use of assessment tests to evaluate the personalities as well as the learning, working and communicationstyles of employees in a workplace. Using the test results of two individuals belonging to one team, ideas and suggestions on how these two persons can think, act and behave within a workplace are identified. Five examination methods are used to recognize such characteristics and the ways in which their organization can effectively respond to their styles within their work environment. Why and how the company and the two individual members themselves can effectively utilize these results for their own advantages have been discussed as well. Introduction In any working environment, the implementation of management as well as the establishment of communication and relationships becomes more effective if there is a complete understanding of each individual’s traits and capabilities so every working person can be further managed, motivated and developed. Understanding one’s personality and becoming familiar with his or her learning style is an effective means of determining ambivalent qualities that are hard to pin down (Spender & Scherer, 2007). Through the use of self-assessment tests, learning styles indicators and personality tests, individuals are helped in developing self-awareness that is extremely essential when working with any organization (Atherton, 2003). Consequently, companies will be able to support others in achieving self-awareness and working further towards development. They will also be able to improve their level of knowledge of how they can understand and motivate their employees, which will eventually aid them to function better in the workplace and even within their personal lives. In turn, these organizations may attain benefits from the improved performance and effectiveness of their employees; desirable outcomes for the organization include increased productivity, enhanced sense of collaboration, and sustained efforts towards self-development. To understand various personality types has been proven valuable for any company as they are able to appreciate their value, strengths and qualities in relation to their contribution to the organization’s goals (Malone, Crowstone & Herman, 2003). Organizational members develop an understanding that their differences are primarily based on their personalities and thus have to find ways of leveraging on such differences rather than allowing these to deter them from reaching organizational goals. Furthermore, aside from managing employees, the use of style and personality indicators are helpful in selecting, recruiting, and training potential employees (Krell, 2005). However, when a company does not have any background or knowledge regarding the nature and purpose behind such tests, they can become confusing and misleading. This transpires in situations wherein results are not clearly explained or when wrong results are given to the person who took the test (Grimshaw & Miozzo, 2009). The primary aim of this paper is to determine how personality tests and learning styles indicators can influence the decisions made by the human resource management department in an organization. Furthermore, personal characteristics of two employees along with how they work and perform as a dyad or as team members were assessed using such tests. Recommendations were also developed for human resource management to use as a basis for their decisions. Discussion When assessments for individual behavior, personality and learning styles are effectively utilized in organizations, they can be extremely useful in increasing the knowledge of one’s self- his or her strengths and weaknesses as well as the learning, working, management and communication styles that he or she prefers (Whitley, 2008). Since individuals have varying needs, understanding one’s personality is essential to generate motivation in a workplace. That is, the more that management understands its employees, the greater will their capability be in motivating these individuals and making adjustments to adapt to their styles and personality (Judge, 2001). When companies are aware of the means with which they can adapt their manner of communication, provision of learning and information as well as appointment of tasks, they also become capable of effective management and motivation of these employees. For the primary purpose of self-assessment, two team members completed a number of tests including the test on hemisphere dominance that is used to determine which side of the brain prevails more than the other. The learning styles test suggests which approach is best for an individual’s learning process. Moreover, the interaction styles test identifies the ways in which the individual best communicates. The Big Five Locator distinguishes one’s most effective personalities. Finally, the self-monitoring test determines the personality of an individual when faced with different situations. The first team member, Chenchen Yan, took all five tests and these are the following results: 1. Hemisphere dominance test for Team Member 1: Number of questions responded to as a right brained person: 8 Number of questions responded to as a left brained person: 10 Type of Cognitive Processing Brief Description Linear Processing information from part to whole; in a straight forward logical progression. Sequential Processing information in order from first to last. Symbolic Processes symbols and pictures; likes to use letters, words and mathematical symbols. Logical Processes information piece by piece using logic to solve a problem. Verbal Processes thoughts and ideas with words. Reality-Based Processes information based on reality; focuses on rules and regulations Due to the fact that there were more responses to questions relating to the left side of a human’s brain, this result suggests that the first team member is a left brained person with which she uses her left brain the most. Generally, both the left and the right sides of a person’s brain is functioning all the time; however, these two hemispheres process information through different means (Hanna, Wagle & Kizilbash, 1999). Therefore, each individual has a greater tendency of processing information using one’s dominant side of the brain. Nonetheless, the process for learning and thinking can still be further improved when both sides of the brain are used evenhandedly and that will imply that Chenchen Yan can still improve her learning and thinking process when her right side of the brain, the less dominant one, is strengthened. The table outlines the types of cognitive processing that individuals possess; however, the processes that are described show that of the left brained person. Using linear and sequential processing, it shows that people who utilize their left brains more often are those who process information starting from the first and most basic issue and then work their way up to the biggest one. The logical and reality-based processes also show that left brained persons tend to handle information based on reality along with a step-by-step means of dealing with it. Furthermore, they are able to manage and convey such information through the use of words, as what the verbal process indicates. The second team member, Hongjin Yan, also took the hemisphere dominance test and results were as follows: Number of questions responded to as a right brained person: 9 Number of questions responded to as a left brained person: 9 Though the number of responses were equal, the test suggested that he was a left brained as his fellow team member. Therefore, looking at the same table as indicated for the Chenchen Yan’s results, the same implications can be drawn out for Hongjin Yan. Another test that was taken was the learning styles inventory which determines an individual’s preferred style of learning and attaining information (Mumford & Honey, 1999). When one’s particular learning style is correctly identified, he or she can make the best of use the strengths while improving on the weaknesses. Below are the results for the learning styles inventory for each of the team members. 2. Learning styles Inventory results for Team Member 1: Visual/Non-Verbal: 28 Visual/Verbal: 34 Auditory: 30 Kinesthetic: 20 Through these results it is evident that the primary learning style for Chenchen Yan is the visual/verbal learning style with which she can acquire information best when it is provided through a visual representation as well as in written format. Meanwhile the results of the second team member’s test show: Visual/Non-Verbal: 38 Visual/Verbal: 24 Auditory: 34 Kinesthetic: 28 This means that Hongjin Yan’s preferred learning style is the visual/non-verbal style which is relatively similar to his other team member with which information is best provided and attained visually through pictures or designs. However, instead of using words to express and communicate, people who prefer non-verbal styles practice a creative side that focuses on art and design, in general. The third test that was carried out was for the interaction styles that includes four main points- Chart-the-Course in which people who have this style choose to enter a situation where they have a clear idea of what is to happen and what should be done; Behind-the-Scenes with which people having this style prefer to work with the process so positive results can be attained; In-Charge with which people intend to lead a group by taking immediate action; and Get-Things-Going with which people of this style motivate and inspire others so things can be facilitated. 3. Results for the interaction styles for Team Member 1: Higher scores were evident under the Get-things-going and Chart-the-course style while lower scores were attained for the in-charge and behind-the-scenes style. This suggests that the first team member is more focused upon the process of getting things done and that she prefers to plan ahead and figure out the steps to take in order to reach a goal. It also implies that this member prefers to involve and motivate others in accomplishing tasks. Therefore, she believes that participation and interaction from others can effectively contribute to making decisions in relation to their duties (Langan-Fox, 2001). Furthermore, because Chart-the-course and Get-things-going style have been aligned as the two of the higher scores, it shows that the person places more emphasis on moving and advancing towards their goals. On the other hand, the second team member’s results were as follows: The In-charge style received the highest score, Get-things-going with the second highest and Chart-the-course and Behind-the-scenes with the lowest scores. Such results suggest that this person, similar to the first member, prefers to encourage others in taking action and engaging themselves participatively to work during the process. However, the difference between the two members is that this second result shows the highest score for In-charge style with which the person intends to lead group members to achieve their goals while recognizing what has to be improvedd and further increasing their strong points. The connection between the In-charge and Get-things-going style shows that this person takes on a role that makes the first move and intiates action towards goal accomplishment. Aside from this indicator, another test called the Big Five Locator was carried out which is generally intended to assist in defining issues that can be useful to one’s effectiveness and success in a workplace. 4. Big Five Locator results for Team Member 1: Emotional Stability- 44; Extroversion- 40; Openness to Experience- 40; Agreeableness- 44; Conscientiousness- 59 The set of results for the Team Member 1 showed that she scored the highest for conscientiousness which implies that she takes on work with preparation and order while being very careful before taking on action. However, because the lowest scores fell on the extraversion and openness to expereince category, this shows that the person is an introvert who prefers to work alone and may have difficulties in dealing with change. The second team member showed relatively similar scores: Emotional Stability- 33; Extroversion- 55; Openness to Experience- 34; Agreeableness- 44; Conscientiousness- 61 The highest score for the second team member is similar to that of the first, with a focus on conscientiousness which integrates carefulness and precision upon taking action and exerting efforts. His lowest score, however, was different and focused on emotional stability which shows that the person is not effectively capable of handling stress and other difficult situations. With just one point higher, openness to experience also attained one of the lower scores, suggesting that the person may know a great deal about the nature of his job, though he might find difficulties in accepting new changes. Finally, the last set of results were obtained from the Self-Monitoring Test which determines whether a person changes his or her personality when faced with different situations (Waldersee & Luthans, 1990). Results for both team members are shown below: Self-monitoring Test for: Team Member 1: 50 Team Member 2: 50 This shows that both team members attained similar scores of 50, and because high-self monitors should attain a score of 53 or higher, both are considered low-self monitors. Due to such results, these two are believed to make use of their personal beliefs and inner values when faced with the decisions on how to behave in certain situations, unlike high-self monitors who have a greater tendency of observing their surroundings and altering their behavior for them to fit right in. Conclusion With the accomplishment of a number of tests that can identify and recognize one’s personality as well as styles for learning, thinking and communicating, their results have each yielded indications as to how the person is likely behave within the workplace and beyond. A complete awareness and understanding of these differences may allow companies to effectively assess their employees and adjust their activities towards successful accomplishment of organizational goals (Wilder & Rogers, 1980). The two team members have similarities and differences which suggests the possibility of complementarity. They can work to reinforce their strong points, while complementing each other’s weaknesses to achieve greater results than expected. When one’s trait is leaning towards a negative outcome, the other can balance it out with his positive, complementary characteristic. In one way or another, identifying the individual characteristics of employees will allow both the organization and these employees to have a clear idea of their strengths and weaknesses. Such knowledge can be transformed into opportunities for self-development, towards achieving goals at the personal and organizational levels. Recommendations Conducting assessment tests for employees and potential workers in an organization allows human resource managers to meaningfully analyze the capabilities and competencies of each individual. The results will help them evaluate the potential contribution of the person to the organization’s strategies and goals. Such an evaluation process involves a number of phases such as the selection of methods to be used for assessment; the collection and rundown for the collected results; and the formulation of decisions in relation to the results that have been obtained. For the human resource management department, the evaluation of employee traits and qualities can predict likely level of performance in the future; monitor their progress; identify their weaknesses so they may be recommended for development programs; and to ascertain the best means for enhancing the overall motivation of the employee. References Atherton, A. (2003). The uncertainty of knowing: an analysis of the nature of knowledge in a small business context. Human Relations. 56, 1379 - 1398. Grimshaw, D., & Miozzo, M. (2009). New human resource management practices in knowledge-intensive business services firms: The case of outsourcing with staff transfer. Human Relations 62, 1521 - 1550. Hanna, N., Wagle, J., & Kizilbash, A.H. (1999). Brain dominance and the interpretation of advertising messages. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 9(3), 19-32. Judge, T. (2001). Job satisfaction: A cross-cultural review. Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology. Sage Publications. Retrieved on April 30, 2010from . Krell, E. (2005) Personality Counts. HRMagazine, 50(11), 46. Langan-Fox, J. (2001). Communication in organizations: Speed, diversity, networks, and influence on organizational effectiveness. Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology. SAGE Publications. Retrieved on April 30, 2010 from . Malone, T., Crowston, K., & Herman, G. (2003). Organizing business knowledge. New York: MIT Press. Mumford, A., & Honey, P. (1992). Questions and answers in learning styles questionnaires. Industrial and Commercial Training, 24(7), 398-399. Spender, J.C., & Scherer, A.G. (2007). The philosophical foundations of knowledge management. Organization, 14, 5 - 28. Waldersee, R., & Luthans, F. (1990). A theoretically based contingency model of feedback: implications for managing service employees. Journal of Organizational Change Management 3(1), 46-56. Whistley, R. (2008). Varieties of knowledge and their use in business and management studies: conditions and institutions. Organization Studies, 29, 581 - 609. Wilder, C. & Rogers W. (1980). Taking charge, personal effectiveness in organisations. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. Read More