Importance of Individual Differences in Understanding Behaviour at Work - Essay Example

?Importance of Individual Differences in Understanding Behaviour at Work The workplace acts as a point of interaction between people of different social backgrounds; hence, interactions and conflicts among people with different behaviours, beliefs, perceptions and convictions. On the other hand, having common points of reference for people with varied social backgrounds is not as easy as it seems since there are numerous possible character combinations. This is the main reason for numerous theories and models whose main aim is to explain human behaviour, with the attempt to predict the reactions people would have in different scenarios. For instance, motivation theories explain how different personalities can be motivated depending on their sensitivity to various motivation factors. Some factors that are motivating to some people are discouraging and demotivating to others. In this regard, a manager needs to understand their employees to ensure the use of the most effective approaches when motivating them. In addition, understanding the employees would help a manager to know how to work with them in terms of supervision, since some people work best under pressure and others need to be left alone to chart their own way. Consequently, understanding employee psychology enables not only seamless working with the management, but healthy and productive interactions with colleagues, as well (Koppes 2007). There are three main factors that influence the quality of one’s interactions in the workplace, which are a person’s personality, emotional status and ability which includes a person’s work related possibilities and limitations. Personality is determined by one’s background and a person’s predisposition to certain behaviour traits, thus influencing the people a person can interact with productively since a person works well with people with shared values and beliefs. A person’s emotional status is another crucial factor as people react to stressing situations differently depending on their emotional status. Like personality, a person’s emotional status is partly determined by the background one grew in and genetic predisposition. Finally, there is an employee’s activity, determined by one’s training as well as physical and intellectual abilities. Depending on the job requirements, a manager can put a mechanism in place that encourages employee ability development. Therefore, it is necessary for a manager to understand, tolerate and exploit the aspects of employees that they are not able to change and improve on those aspects that need improvement. The aim of this essay is to examine the importance of individual differences in understanding behaviour at work with reference to theories, models and work experience (Lowman 2002). Theories Models and Research Various models, theories and research determine the success of an employee’s interaction with workmates, performance, work attitudes, motivation, well-being and stress, and other wide organisational processes. These include triarchic model, hierarchical model, research on cognitive ability, trait theory, and the big five model (Borman, Ilgen and Klimoski 2003). Triarchic Model According to Salas, Stagl and Burke (2004, p. 50), this is a model of intelligence formulated by Robert Sternberg that categorises intelligence into analytical intelligence, synthetic intelligence and practical intelligence. Analytical intelligence is the ability of a person to come up with answers to problems that have only one correct answer; an important tool in doing academic tests. Analytical intelligence is useful in tasks that require exact solutions, with no room for alternative approaches. Synthetic intelligence is the ability of a person to draw from experience and come up with novel answers to unfamiliar problems, usually requiring some creativity in solving the problem. Individuals with a high level of synthetic intelligence are useful in fields where problems are non-recurring with the need for a different approach with every problem that presents itself. However, due to variations in perspective, individuals with a high degree of synthetic intelligence have a high propensity for giving the wrong answers even to recurring problems. Finally, there is practical experience that is necessary for daily survival, and an individual has to use knowledge, skills and experience to determine what needs to be done in their current situation. On the basis of the triarchic model, a person can hold a position with duties that are best suited to their dominant intelligence type. Hierarchical Model Common models for testing intelligence are usually based on one or more aspects of a person’s intelligence, simplifying the analysis such that the researcher gets an estimate about a person’s intellect and then put the person in one of the many predetermined groups. However, the hierarchical model uses numerous aspects of intelligence and computes all the possibilities based on different combinations of these factors, giving a cleare picture of a person’s intellect . The hierarchical model results in many classes of people depending on their abilities, such that it reflects even minute differences; hence making it more possible to determine a person’s strong points accurately. On the determination of these strong points, an employer can then put a person in a position where their intellectual abilities are fully exploited (Goleman 2002). Cognitive ability Researchers have divided behaviour study into cognitive and affective studies, dealing with how people know the world and how they emotionally understand it. In cognitive ability, different people learn through different media with some learning through their own experience and others preferring a formal learning setting among other learning approaches. In order to train and develop the careers of employees effectively, both employers and their workers should understand how best an employee learns. This allows the human resource management to develop schedules that best suit the employee in question; for instance, some people learn best in the work environment as opposed to formal learning institutions. Therefore, the management should ensure that the work environment is stimulating enough for these employees to learn new skills and improve their existing ones without having to go to a classroom environment (Hughes, Ginnett and Curphy 2009). Trait Theory According to psychologists, people with similar behaviours, predispositions, beliefs and characteristics share the same traits. For instance, extroverted people are said to be successful in business while introverted people are more successful in creative arts. However, it is not just characteristics at the workplace; some psychologists have attempted to link a person’s happiness, performance and relationships with others to their traits. These traits influence a person’s life so much that most of what a person does, how they do it, and whether it results in the success or failure is tied down to that person’s personality traits. Though personality traits may not have a direct impact on these, personality determines how a person reacts to situations, which ends up having a significant impact on the success of their undertakings (Yukl 2010). Big Five Model The big five model is one of the major approaches in personality trait analysis; majoring on openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. All these traits are analysed in consideration to two opposite character traits, one for each extreme manifestation of the trait in a person. The big five model is the most comprehensive of all personality trait analysis models, as it gives a clear picture that can be used to classify a test subject into one of the many personality categories (Leavitt 2002). Workplace Scenario Interpersonal interaction According to Aube and Rousseau (2005, p. 203), at the place of work, colleagues should interact with each other since most tasks require the input of one or more persons. In this regard, employees working in the same department are supposed to be people who can tolerate each other, cooperate in their tasks and act professionally without messing up the social relationship they enjoy with each other. However, no two people are the same, and not all people are easy to live or cope with. For instance, a person may have a bossy attitude and keep telling others what to do, or one may be a perfectionist and wants to do everything singlehandedly. While the former delegates everything due to their high regard for self, the latter does everything on their own since they do not trust others to do things in the right manner. Performance One employee succeeds in everything they do while another always fails no matter how hard he or she tries. In this regard, the management should determine if the employee fails due to inability to undertake tasks, due to refusal or any other causes before judging the non-performing employee. The management should identify underlying causes and look for solutions instead of treating symptoms by victimising the employee, who may have little or no control over what happens. Therefore, differences in results should not be the only basis when evaluating employee performance, underlying factors must also be of concern to evaluating team (Haines and Taggar 2006, p. 198). Work Attitudes According to the evaluation apprehension theory, the presence of people judging one’s performance can affect one’s attitude. For instance, when I was an intern my work was excellent when working with supervisors who encouraged me. Therefore, it is crucial for seniors, especially in the management, to know the effect of their words and actions towards employees and vary them accordingly to achieve optimal results. In addition, at the workplace, I noticed that people got distracted whenever there was a commotion outside or any incident likely to attract attention. According to the distraction conflict theory, different employees were distracted from their duties by the incident in varying degrees, from those who seemed not to notice the incident to others who had to go out and confirm what was happening. These two extremes are a perfect example of people who enjoy their work so much that they cannot be distracted from it and others who get bored and are always trying to add some life into their working lives, respectively (Frank, Zhao and Borman 2004, p. 158). Motivation According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs model, human needs are classified into five levels in a pyramid structure, with the lowest being the most basic of all needs, as needs in the lower levels are satisfied, a person feels the need and urgency to satisfy higher ones. In the workplace, this is evident due to the varying complaints that employees give about their work; lowly paid employees are always concerned about a pay rise to cater for bills, and highly paid workers only worry about developing their careers. In this case, employers should not implement employee training and development if the latter do not get optimal salaries to cater for their needs. This is because the training will be wasted on the employees, especially if it does not result to direct financial benefits. Therefore, for employees to be motivated to work, the management must cater for their physiological, safety, social, esteem and self-actualisation needs in that order, that is, according to the Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory (Latham and Pinder 2005, p. 496; Weightman 2008). Well Being and Stress During my internship, many employees used to call in sick so frequently that I suspected they did not want to come to work. I later learnt that the firm had acquired a new boss who had relaxed regulations, as opposed to the earlier one who pressurised the employees. Under the earlier boss, it was difficult for an employee to absent himself or herself from work for any reason. In addition, workers were always under pressure to achieve unrealistic targets, and there were no tea breaks while lunch breaks were so short that no one could manage to take a decent meal. With the change of guard, everyone became livelier due to the new freedom they enjoyed; paradoxically, this did not lead to deterioration of values of a drop in performance but employees performed better now that their personal needs were being catered for. In the old management, stress from the harsh working conditions had resulted in a drop in performance and no matter how much the management tried, it could not reverse the situation without first catering for employee welfare (Mitchell and Daniels 2003, p. 238; Vigoda-Gadot 2006, p. 86). Wider Organisational Processes For an organisation to perform optimally, it must have the ability to attract, hire and keep the best talents; ensuring a sustained high output with optimal resource utilisation for maximum profitability. In this regard, the recruitment, training and development processes should be tailored for the benefit of employees who are the most valuable resource for any business. Once employees are sure that the management cares for their welfare, they feel obligated to do their best in the dissemination of their services and the organisation prospers (Kozlowski and Bell 2003, pp. 350-356). Analysis Theories, research, and models are indispensable tools in understanding work experiences, as they help to rationalise common employee behaviours according to acceptable basic models. Most theories take the findings of a research sample and then expand the measures of the sample to generalised parameters in specified populations. For instance, the Maslow's theory examines the generalised view of human needs and then attempts to classify all employees to fit its postulates. Other theories like theory X and theory Y place all workers into two classes, one of which are positive towards work and the other that loathe the idea of work. Then there is the big five theory that assumes that people’s characters can be grouped into five classes, and everybody falls in a combination of those classes. From the above examples, one outstanding characteristic of using theories, models and research in the analysis of work experience is making many assumptions (Britt 2008). Most of these assumptions are either unrealistic or irrational; for instance, the Maslow's hierarchy of needs does not account for exceptional cases where a person’s priorities are not as specified in the theory. A perfect example of this is an artist who does not care about their basic needs, as long as they take steps to achieving satisfactory masterpieces. With the current trend of people seeking fulfilment in their work, Maslow's theory should be either modified or discarded as people’s priorities are changing by the day. The above mentioned shortfall is not only seen in the Maslow's law, as many other classical and contemporary laws lose their strength due to the fast rate at which the work environment is evolving. It is, therefore, important that these laws undergo modification, or clearly state their own shortcomings such that a person using them knows what to expect. Theories, models and research have their advantages as well, as they reduce the burden that would befall anyone that aims at studying individuals. Though there are exceptions, theories are a convenient way of simplifying analysis of individuals by assuming that if people share certain characteristics, then they are bound to think, believe and act in similar patterns. Therefore, managers should use theories to generalise their employees so that the latter are handled easily as one unit, but the former must be aware of shortcomings so that they do not leave out employees who do not fit into the general categories (Baumeister and Vohs 2004,). Theory-Based Recommendation Where I worked as an intern there was a low level of motivation amongst employees, with most having a negative attitude towards their work. In this regard, the management should consider using Douglas McGregor’s theory X and theory Y of 1960 to bring in some motivation among the employees in the firm. Theory X assumes employees have a negative attitude toward work and have to be pushed around, an approach that works if the job is unpleasant or if other approaches fail. Taking the theory X approach brings in satisfactory results for the company but causes complaints and rebellion from employees (Jex and Britt 2008; Cervone et al. 2006, p. 350). Theory Y is the approach that assumes that all employees love work and will have maximum productivity if the job is stimulating, with an opportunity for growth. Many modern day managers have applied this approach with encouraging results; including happier employees, healthy employee-employer relationship and high profitability. Therefore, it is recommended that the company where I was an intern takes this approach, as it is beneficial to both employees and the firm (Baron, Handley and Fund 2006, pp. 3-19). Conclusion Due to individual differences among employees, it is important that colleagues and the employer understand the unique characteristics in each of them. This would enable colleagues to coexist peacefully for the benefit of all in the workplace and so that each employee can achieve optimal productivity. For instance, most tasks require the involvement of more than one person for them to be completed satisfactorily. However, this does not mean that people working on one project should have similar predispositions; on the contrary, they should have different personalities and characters. This is due to the different requirements of a task where different personalities are important in its fulfilment at different stages. In addition, if all parties involved understand the behaviours of each other, then they are more likely to coexist productively since they know what to expect from each other. References Aube, C and Rousseau, V 2005, 'Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: the role of task interdependence and supportive behaviours', Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, vol. 9, pp. 189–204. Baron, R, Handley, R and Fund, S 2006, The impact of emotional intelligence on performance, Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Baumeister, RF and Vohs, KD 2004, Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications, New York, Guilford Press. Borman, WC, Ilgen, DR and Klimoski, RJ 2003, Handbook of psychology, Hoboken, John Wiley and Sons. Britt, TW 2008, Organizational psychology, Hoboke, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Cervone, D, Shadel, WG, Smith, RE and Fiori, M 2006, 'Self-regulation: reminders and suggestions from personality science', Applied Psychology: an International Review, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 333–385. Frank, K, Zhao, Y and Borman, K 2004, 'Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: the case of computer technology in schools', Sociology of Education, Vol. 77, pp. 148–71. Goleman, D 2002, Primal leadership, USA, Harvard Business School Press. Haines, VY and Taggar, S 2006, 'Antecedents of team reward attitude', Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, vol. 10, pp. 194–205. Hughes, RL, Ginnett, RC and Curphy, GJ 2009, Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience, Boston, McGraw-Hill. Jex, SM and Britt, TW 2008, Organizational psychology. Hoboken, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Koppes, LL 2007, Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology, Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum. Kozlowski, S and Bell, B 2003, 'Work groups and teams in organizations', Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 12, pp. 333–75. Latham, G and Pinder, C 2005, 'Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century', Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 56, pp. 485–516. Leavitt, P 2002, Rewarding innovation. American Productivity and Quality Centre. Lowman, RL 2002, The California School of Organizational Studies handbook of organizational consulting psychology, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Mitchell, TR and Daniels, D 2003, 'Motivation', Handbook of Psychology, Vol. 12, pp. 225–54. Vigoda-Gadot, E 2006, 'Compulsory citizenship behaviour: theorizing some dark sides of the good soldier syndrome in organizations', Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 77–93. Salas, E, Stagl, K and Burke, C 2004, 25 years of team effectiveness in organizations: Research themes and emerging needs, Chichester, John Wiley and Sons. Weightman, J 2008, The employee motivation audit, London, Cambridge Strategy Publications. Yukl, G 2010, Leadership in organizations, New Jersey, Pearson. Read More