Self-assessments are useful tools for engaging in critical analysis of one’s own personalities, motives, ethics, values and other factors that may affect one’s management style or effect on the organization. The personality and personal characteristics of the individual may be assessed through a series of personality tests; these results can then be analyzed in order to examine the outcomes of impact on the organization. Emotions, moods, team learning and group dynamics are all affected by these basic personality factors. This report discusses the outcomes of a personality test completed previously and relates these outcomes to the effects on the organization of each of these characteristics. Personality test results are included in Appendix A.
Emotions are an important part of organizational function, because they are the basis of our ability to relate to each other. The use of emotional intelligence, or the ability to understand and relate to the emotions of others, is the basis of Goleman’s theory of leadership (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2005). This theory of leadership stated that the individual emotions of followers must be understood in order to lead appropriately, and offered significant ways in which these emotions could be understood and how they could be responded to. However, the impact of emotions on the organization goes deeper than the simple impact on leadership style described by Goleman. For example, Callehan (2006) studied an organization’s organizational culture from the aspect of gendered emotion. The author found that women had a different perception of the organizational culture, and were more likely to indicate that it required its participants to remain affectively neutral (Callehan, 2006). This difference is significant in terms of organizational perception by its members, because it indicates that men and women may have a basic difference of the perception of the organization. The rating on the basic personality test that relates to emotions is that of emotional stability. On this I scored high, indicating a high emotional stability, high enthusiasm and maturity, and openness to experience and creativity. I can use these traits within an organizational context in order to ensure that I am a positive influence on the organization. For example, creativity, enthusiasm and emotional stability will ensure that I can resolve conflicts between others with some degree of success, although I will need to learn the correct techniques to do so.
Moods also have a significant impact on the organizational context. Hobbs (1965) was one of the first to address the issue of mood in the organizational context. He discussed the recognition of employee moods, particularly in terms of stress and the illnesses caused by it. He identified social and organizational factors that may lead to an increase in stress and negative moods. Goleman (2005) also discussed the use of the mood in the organization; specifically, that the mood of the leader in a group may impact the mood of all the followers in the group as well. The scores in the personality test that are most relevant to mood are agreeableness and extroversion. I scored as an extrovert and an individual that values harmony over dissent. This indicates that, overall, I will have a positive effect upon the mood of the organization as a whole.
A third factor in the individual personality that may affect the organization as whole is team learning dynamics. Team learning is particularly important in high-knowledge workplaces, such as research facilities and academic facilities, but it still must take place in other organizations as well in order to allow individuals to learn to work together. There are different types of team learning; for example, one study found that reflective team learning, in which team members discuss the learning experience and critically reflect on it individually, was highly successful within the academic team (Knights, Meyer, & Sampson, 2007). This learning strategy also takes place in the manufacturing world, as described by Kock (2007). Kock identified several requirements for the team learning environment, including the presence of challenging tasks, development of team leadership skills for the individuals within the organization, supportive learning conditions and the creativity and willingness to learn on the part of the individual team members (which may be either naturally occurring or be emphasized and developed as part of the team learning strategy) (Kock, 2007). The personality test elements that apply most closely to the issue of team learning include agreeableness, conscientiousness and emotional stability. Agreeableness determines how likely someone is to follow directions, conscientiousness indicates the degree to which they will follow directions and how much care will go into their work, and emotional stability maintains an element of creativity and ability to solve problems. My scores are relatively low on agreeability, but high on conscientiousness and emotional stability. This indicates that I will be a valuable addition to team learning; however, I may want to learn to be more willing to follow directions in situations in which it is warranted. This will allow me to contribute most fully to the team learning process.
A fourth factor that is affected by personal learning styles and strategies is that of group dynamics. Group dynamics can be considered to be simply the way in which members of a group relate to each other and the impact this relationship has on the team’s performance and capabilities. Group dynamics may have multiple affects on the organization in question. For example, it has been observed that the group dynamics of a public organization both reflect and contribute to the corruption of the organization (Gokcekus & Godet, 2006). The authors of this study found that collusive or competitive group dynamics (in which individuals either cooperated or competed) made a difference in the outcomes of increasing monitoring and punishment for bribery; groups with collusive models reduced the corrupt activity, while groups with competitive models decreased the level of activity but increased the amount of bribes taken (Gokcekus & Godet, 2006). The effects of changing group dynamics can be seen in Anderson, Anderson and Mayo’s (2008) discussion of the implications of a management team cohesion exercise, in which the group dynamic was changed to include cooperative activities and effective cooperative work (Anderson, Anderson, & Mayo, 2008). This demonstrates the possibilities of the change in group dynamics brought by the introduction of new positive elements to a group situation. All of the personality elements described below are contributors to the group dynamic and have the possibility to change it. For example, emotional stability and maturity can bring stability to an existing group that lacks this stability, while extroversion can help to create connections between individuals and increase the level of emotional insight in the group as a whole. Agreeableness, including good-naturedness and cooperativeness, can bring an element of positive interaction to the team. Conscientiousness will introduce consistency, achievement and focus to the team’s work dynamic, while openness to experience will increase the ability of the team to react to changing situations. All of these elements are essential in determining the outcomes of the group dynamic, and may have the ability to change, or at least influence, whether a group works on a competitive or collusive model.
The basic personality of an individual has a great effect on the outcome of his or her organization; but it can also determine the “fit” of the individual to the organization (Robbins & Judge, 2006). The individual will only have so much power to change the organization as a whole, particularly if the individual is not a member of upper management, where organizational culture is largely determined. If the differences are too great, or the organization resists the change even on the team level, the individual may not be happy within the organization. For example, I would not be happy within a highly competitive organization because I prefer a cooperative environment; likewise, I would not be satisfied in an organization that did not value creativity and innovation, because these are some of my personal strengths and I like to be able to use them. Ultimately, the fit of the organization and individual is most important, because most individuals will not have significant capability to change the organization enough to make a substantial difference.
Bibliography
Anderson, M., Anderson, D., & Mayo, W. (2008). Team coaching helps a leadership team drive cultural changes at Caterpillar. Global Business and Organizational Excellence , 27 (4), 40-48.
Callehan, J. L. (2006). Gendered emotion management and perceptions of affective culture in a military nonprofit organization. Advancing Women in Leadership , 2 (11).
Gokcekus, O., & Godet, A. (2006). Group dynamics of corruption in public organizations. Journal of Policy Reform , 9 (4), 275-87.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2005). Primal Leadership: Learning to lead with emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hobbs, E. G. (1965). Mood and emotional problems: Effect on the individual and the business organization. Business Quarterly , 30 (3), 57-63.
Knights, S., Meyer, L., & Sampson, J. (2007). Enhanced learning in the academic workplace through reflective team teaching. Journal of Organizational Transformation and Social Change , 4 (3), 237-247.
Kock, H. (2007). the team as a learning strategy: Three cases of team-based production in the Swedish manufacturing industry. Journal of Workplace Learning , 19 (8), 480-490.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2006). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Appendix A Test Results
WHAT’S MY BASIC PERSONALITY?
The five-factor model of personality – often referred to as the Big Five – has an impressive body of research supporting that five basic personality dimensions underlie human behavior. These five dimensions are defined as follows:
Extraversion. Someone who is sociable, talkative, and assertive. High scores indicate an extravert; low scores indicate an introvert.
Agreeableness. Someone who is good-natured, cooperative, and trusting. This is a measure of your propensity to defer to others. High scores indicate you value harmony; low scores indicate you prefer having your say or way on issues.
Conscientiousness. Someone who is responsible, dependable, persistent, and achievement oriented. High scores indicate that you pursue fewer goals in a purposeful way; low scores indicate that you’re more easily distracted, pursue many goals, and are more hedonistic.
Emotional stability. Someone who is calm, enthusiastic, and secure. High scores indicate positive emotional stability; low scores indicate negative emotional stability. Openness to experience. Someone who is imaginative, artistically sensitive, and intellectual. High scores indicate a wide range of interests and a fascination with novelty and innovation; low scores indicate you’re more conventional and find comfort in the familiar.
Your personality score was calculated as follows (with reverse scoring on those items marked with an asterisk). Scores in each category will range from 3 to 15:
Items 1, 6, and 11* Extraversion You scored
Items 2*, 7, and 12 Agreeableness You scored
Items 3, 8, and 13 Conscientiousness You scored
Items 4, 9, and 14* Emotional Stability You scored
Items 5*, 10*, and 15 Openness to Experience You scored
The most impressive evidence relates to the conscientiousness dimension. Studies show that conscientiousness predicts job performance for all occupational groups. The preponderance of evidence indicates that individuals who are dependable, reliable, thorough, organized, able to plan, and persistent tend to have higher job performance in most, if not all, occupations.