All papers are checked via
|← The Death of Macho||"Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau →|
Based on years of psychological study, Dr. Carl Rogers in his Theory of Personality noted that self-assessment and accepting yourself for who you are is vital for further growth, health and psychological development. That is true for any area of human life. Therefore, I believe that this assignment has helped me in reaching my yet-to-be-set future goals. Here are my results and brief commentary on them.
The first test I took was the Managerial Assumptions Self-Assessment test, which is based on Douglas Macgregor’s Theory X and Theory Y – the two basic theories of human work motivation. Based on my results of 4 and 5 points of the X and Y scores respectively, if I were a manager I would be slightly more inclined to consider employees as being self-motivated and self-controlled. However, the difference between the two scores is very close. I deem this to be a good thing if I can take the most important ideas, lessons and motives out of both theories. On the one hand, I tend to believe in the employees` ability to work productively without the induction of the element of fear to lose their jobs and constant supervision that most employees detest. Nevertheless, on the other hand, I follow the principle that incentive is a catalyst that keeps people’s motivation and drives it at a high level. I take into consideration good points and flaws of both theories in order to implement my solutions.
My Internal-External Control Assessment survey yielded the score of 6 points, which in turn puts me in the category of “moderate internal locus of control”. I think this is a good score. People with quite a high external locus of control tend to panic when they must step up and make a decision. Whereas a person with a high internal locus of control may take too many matters into his own hands and may have a totalitarian point of view about his employees. A mixed locus of control is also not the best option as the person may act differently in different situations. In addition, it is possible that he/she may make hasty decisions of his/her own when the situation requires counseling or, on the contrary, would lean too much on advisors, who may be divided in their opinions about the situation discussed and, therefore, nothing would be solved. History teaches us that the greatest leaders are the ones who are not afraid to take matters into their own hands when the circumstances require it, but at the same time are open to advice and counsel. Many strong leaders have fallen because they did not heed the counsel of fellow advisers; likewise, many opportunities have been wasted because no one took responsibility to make a decision. Therefore, I think that a moderate internal locus of control is the best characteristic of control for a leader to have – to be able to take control of the situation and, yet, to keep in mind the principle of “in the multitude of counselors there is safety” as the Bible says.
The score of my Organizational Design Preference Assessment was 69 points. This means that I am more comfortable with an organic design. In my opinion this is a good score, especially considering the fact that with the swift rise of knowledge, technology and constant change in the world today, contemporary organizations rely on the ability to adapt to the situation more and more. Managers and employees in companies facing changes need to be ready for them. Additionally, having the knowledge of how to handle work in companies with organic design will enable one to have little to no problems working in an organization with a mechanistic system, whereas the situation might not be the same vice versa. Also, employees prefer adaptive organization with adaptable goals, few rules and procedures, wide spans of control, shared tasks, many teams and task forces, and an informal and personal coordination.
According to the “least preferred coworker scale” (LPC), developed by Fred Fiedler to assess a person’s particular style of leadership according to the situation I was rated with 104 points. Fiedler considers this to be the score of a “relationship-motivated” leader, as opposed to a “task-motivated” leader. There are different points of view on the matter of which of these leadership styles is best. Some say that relationship-motivated leaders work most effectively in moderately favorable situations and task-motivated managers are effective either way. On the other hand, the job-centered style may be exploitive and unheeding of the employee’s interests. The employee-centered style of managing involves communication and encourages a participative atmosphere. I am apt to see eye-to-eye with the positive view on a relationship-motivated leader as a job can get dull and routine, but good friends can make any dreary day cheerier.
My Stress Self-test was scored 123 points. With this score I fall into the category of personalities associated with bringing high levels of stress on themselves, even in circumstances where others do not stress. This is, of course, a negative character trait, which needs to be worked on. To be a good, effective manager with great results one must be able to control his stress level.
According to the Two-Factor Profile Assessment based on Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation, I have a tendency of putting motivation slightly higher than the hygiene factors. The correlation of MF to HF was very close – 29 points to 31 respectively. This in turn proves that the hygiene factor is not of small importance to me. Of course, I do put emphasis on work motivation, monetary incentives, interesting job assignments or something else. But I like to work in a comfortable, hygienic environment. By analyzing myself and my ideal work environment I may learn how most of my employees, similarly, would like to work.
By examining and determining my Conflict management Strategies self-assessment results I have made several notes. My lowest scores show that I am inclined the least to the avoiding tendency. I think this is good, as many people time and again have said that no-reaction to a situation is certainly not a sign of a strong leader. The fact that I scored highest on “forcing tendency” was interesting for me. Forcing people is not a good character trait as it is going to affect their contentment level sooner or later. Only collaboration and problem solving will lead to resolution of the conflict. Unfortunately, my “problem-solving tendency” lies between the forcing and avoiding tendency, on one level with “compromising” and “yielding” tendencies. Both compromise and yielding can be good if they are used at the correct time under the right circumstances. But generally, these traits do not serve a real leader well.
Based on the self-assessment I have done I reached the conclusion that I have many clear leadership strengths. These are as follows: my view on human work motivation takes into consideration good points and flaws of Theory X and Theory Y, namely, the confidence in employee’s ability to work without constant supervision, however, at the same time I uphold the idea of creating incentives to keep the people content and fulfilled. My control assessment indicates that I fall into the category of “moderate internal locus of control”, which, for reasons explained above, I consider to be the best locus of control for a manager and an employer. I am comfortable with an organic design of a company organization. I am a relationship-motivated leader, who, I believe, has quite a few valid advantages over work-driven employers. I understand that working in a comfortable environment is essential for effective work and happy employees. I take action when a situation arises. All these principles will help me to reach my full potential and success, which is reaching my goals, getting results, working efficiently, being able to manage any crisis situation with minimum stress and tapping into resources that other people provide. This means having other people work for you, but working willingly, happily, honestly and productively.
My weaknesses are a high stress level and resolving conflicts without maximum effectiveness. The first will get in the way of me effectively working and the second may cause great consequences in the relationship with my employees and sometimes even bear catastrophic results for my organization.
I believe the most important values of the ones analyzed are the control locus and conflict management. Control locus is very important to define for yourself as it forms your character as a manager. Knowing how one takes control of situations is vital to one`s career. Conflict management is also important as people will always have clashes and skirmishes – sometimes small, sometimes large. Knowing when and how to fix them, while keeping employees at good terms, is an art few can or have mastered.
I venture to conclude that these rankings say that I can and I will be a good manager and an excellent leader. Sure, there are aspects that need to be worked on. But, firstly, everyone has them and, secondly, I think the weaknesses I need to improve are not major and many of them may be fixed with work and experience.