Employee's Personality and Management - Essay Example

Running head: ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR Employee personality and the difficulties of managing the differences that can be found within an organizational team Name of Client Name of University Name of Class Employee personality and the difficulties of managing the differences that can be found within an organizational team When a team is put into place under a manager, one of the most significant aspects of leading will be to understand the differing personalities that will exist within that team. I agree that if all employees were the same, it would be far easier to manage them within the work setting. Managing a team of people who all respond and behave the same would be a far easier prospect than managing a team of individuals. However, the fact that that each employee is different is part of the reason they will all be needed as the unique skills of each member will be vital to meshing a successful team, otherwise those individuals would not have been hired. This is not to say that every employee is a perfect fit within that team. However, understanding the individual motivational needs of an employee will allow for a goals oriented team dynamic to develop. A good manager will learn to extract the qualities that an employee possesses in order to enhance the work that a team will do on the goals that the team is determined to accomplish. The way in which an manager approaches understanding the ways in which individual personality will affect the interactions of employees with each other and with management will have a profound effect on the success of those interactions. It is helpful to look at the Nike contract manufacturing factory in Vietnam where U.S. born managers are charged with the task of managing the workforce. In a broader sense, the differences between cultures can be analogous to the differences between individuals. In order for the managers in the Nike factory to adequately motivate and interact with the work force they must have an understanding of how the anthropological, sociological, psychological, political, and economic forces within the culture affect the overall motivational factors within the culture (Griffin & Moorehead, 2010, p. 13). Essentially, each employee is as unique as each culture. Just like the manager who goes overseas to work must learn how to effectively manage another culture, so must a manager in his own culture look at each unique individual in order to understand their motivations. Each individual has their own sense of what is important and is motivated by different factors that are associated with the personality traits that the individual brings into the workplace. A valuable theory that can assist in understanding the way that individual personality will affect the organization is called interactionalism. Interactionalism is the theory that assumes that “individual behaviour results from a continuous and multidirectional interaction between characteristics of the person and characteristics of the situation” (Griffin & Moorehead, 2010, p. 18). Interactionalism suggests that merely looking at cause and effect is not adequate to describe the interpersonal situations that evolve within the work place. There are many behaviours that are related to the way in which one interacts in the workplace. The first, and the primary concern of the business, is productivity. The productivity is the behaviour of output work that is exhibited by the employee. Performance, on the other hand, is related to how that productivity is achieved. One employee may have great productivity, but may not give anything more than is required. Another employee may have the same level of productivity, but the way in which they approach their job might be with more enthusiasm and a better attitude. Performance is directly related to personality factors that will affect how productivity is achieved (Griffin & Moorehead, 2010, p. 19). In order to more fully understand personality and differences in employee behaviours, one must come to an understanding of the reciprocal processes associated with change with change. From a interactionalism perspective, change can occur is it is imposed on by the actions and reactions within a group (Poole, 2004, p. 33). In other words, as a group or team functions, change will happen within the group as an organism, and within each of the individuals within that group. The dynamic of the group will develop as the personalities develop new connectivity through the action of change. The phrase “not a good fit” can apply when an employee does not enhance the working potential of his group because of factors that have nothing to do with productivity. When an employer is recruiting for his or her organization, a good manager will try to assess an employee for more than just basic skill information. The employer will look for goals and motivating factors that a potential hire will have that can be met by employment within the organization. If these goals and motivations can be satisfied, there is a greater potential for success within the company (Mills, 2007, p. 103). However, sometimes the employee will not end up living up to expectations or will not be satisfied by the dynamic that has developed within a group. Most often, some aspect of performance will be lacking that affects the work and goals of the whole. High levels of stress can be created by employees who do not properly fit into the group dynamic (Sims, 2002, p. 132). As long as productivity is adequate, the factors most relevant to a ‘fit’ issue within a group will be associated with personality. The way in which different personality types handle the stress related to work will affect the way in which a manager must approach dealing with the employee. A person who fits within the category of a Type A personality will become very stressed in relationship to the pressures of work. This can sometimes be expressed in displays of aggression. However, it can also be expressed in highly organized behaviours that end up benefiting the organization (Hellriegel & Slocum, 2007, p 202). However, if an entire group of people was made up of Type A personalities, the level of stress within the group might possibility begin to feed on itself, creating a pressure cooker that will affect the overall performance, thus diminishing the effectiveness of the group (Mills, 2007, p. 101). This is the challenge of creating an effective team. The team must function together in order to provide the greatest level of success. If a manager approaches a team with only the concept of controlling the team in mind, then the productivity will not be at its optimum level. Motivating a team requires an understanding of what the team members each need most in order to create the greatest intent to perform well. Understanding how an employee is most effectively motivated will provide a framework for a management team to effectively utilize the individual needs of each member of the team. McClelland’s Acquired Need Theory states that there are three core needs that will motivate group or team members towards maximum work output. The first need, the need for achievement, is characterized by a need to continually strive for goals that lead to achieving higher levels of success. This driving need is honed by the mastering of complex tasks and the need to compete and succeed against others. The second need, the need for affiliation, is a socialization need where an employee forms relationships that become the primary sense of satisfaction within the work place. The last core need as defined by McClelland’s Acquired Need Theory is based on the need for power. This need is satisfied by acquiring responsibilities and authority that can be used within a group. A good manager will define the individual needs of each employee and help to feed those needs in order to provide proper motivation. Diversity within a team will give the greatest potential for that team to be successful. While managing a group of people that are all alike and have the exact same personalities and goals would be easier, it would not provide enough differences to stimulate growth and innovation. Managing diversity well within the workplace will reduce overall stress, promote a positive emotional experience for the individuals as well as instil a sense of hope and confidence in the work that is being done (Hartel, Zerbe, & Ashkanasy, 2005, p. 88). When individuals are recognized for their unique presence within a group and feel that there is an appreciation for that uniqueness, then the overall satisfaction that is experienced will translate into a more harmonious group experience. The differences of employees will provide a foundation from which roles within the organization will be adapted. The role taking model provides for the attributes of the focal person to be put into relationship with the role sender in order to best utilize the focal person’s attributes Role expectations are set when the sender develops beliefs about the behaviours that are appropriate for the focal person (Crosby & Stockdale, 2003, p. 80). This relationship and the experiences that occur once it is in place will determine the success of an organization. The responsibility of the sender is to accurately assess the needs and motivational aspects of the focal person in order to successfully set them in a role that will best benefit the organization by meeting the motivational needs of the individual. However, when a focal person does not meet the expected behaviours that the sender has designed as expectations then remedial action will need to take place. As an example, if a role is designed to be a participant in certain activities such as stocking a shelf, then the expectation is that the focal person will participate in stocking a shelf. If other employees do not perceive the role taker as participating at the same capacity that they have participated in, then they will develop a grievance against that person. The sender will then have to step in and give a remedial instruction. If the remedial instruction does not provide enough incentive, then a motivational aspect of the job will need to be used in order to push the focal person to perform (Crosby & Stockdale, 2003, p. 82). However, this might be a good example of a failure to fit into the organization. How the diversity of personalities is handled by the manager will determine the way in which goals are reached. Sometimes, even when goals are reached, the potential of higher performance will still be lost because of poor management of the differing personalities. The manager who is successful on a higher level has taken the time to lead his team through effective behavioural techniques that optimize the personality traits and skills that are unique to each member of the team. The effective manager has found roles for each team member that satisfies the core motivational needs, as well as the unique needs he or she has found amongst the members. There are many methods to reach this end. Sir Richard Branson of The Virgin Group allows a free flowing sense of corporate structure that gives innovation the potential for growth. However, to balance this sense of freedom, he places high performance expectations on his organization (Grant & Neupert, 2003, p. 306). The use of individuality as an asset has helped the business to grow. The understanding that individuals make a group has allowed for thinking that is outside of the box. This has led to optimized growth for the company. Without differences, managing people would be simple as only one set of rules would need to be learned. However, individuals will have a wide variety of needs an motivational factors, as well as personality traits that will create behaviour. Behaviour is both cognitive and non-cognitive and role behaviour will be determined by the way in which the needs of the individual are perceived as satisfied. The effective manager will recognize the difference between his own perception of satisfaction and the actual level of satisfaction that an employee will experience. Recognizing the differences between one’s own point of view and that of others is the first step in making organizational behaviour come into harmony. While the idea of a crew of people that all react exactly the same to each step within the team process of reaching its goals seems like it would be ideal, it isn’t possible. I agree that managing a team where all the people on it were the same would be a much easier task than the one that is faced in reality. More importantly, however, a good manager wouldn’t want a team with people who are the same as this would put great limits on the way in which goals can be reached and surpassed. While the statement is very true that it would be easier, it would not be ideal. Easier does not necessarily make for a better situation. Works Cited Crosby, F. J., & Stockdale, M. S. (2003). The psychology and management of workplace diversity. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Pub. Grant, R. M., & Neupert, K. E. (2003). Cases in contemporary strategy analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Griffin, R. W., & Moorehead, G. (2010). Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations. Australia: South-Western/Cengage Learning. Hartel, C. E. G., Zerbe, W. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). Emotions in organizational behavior. Phillidelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W. (2007). Organizational behavior. Mason, Ohio: Thomson/South- Western. Lane, P. G., & Daft, R. L. (2008). The leadership experience. Mason, OH: Thomson/South- Western. Mills, A. J. (2007). Organizational behaviour in a global context. Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press. Poole, M. S. (2004). Handbook of organizational change and innovation. Oxford [u.a.: Oxford Univ. Press. Sims, R. R. (2002). Managing organizational behavior. Westport CT: Greenwood Press. Read More