Role of Individual Differences and My Organizational Behaviour Outcomes - Case Study Example

ROLE OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND MY OB OUTCOMES Name: Course: Instructor: Institution: City: Date: Table of Contents Introduction 3 The Big Five Model of Personality 4 Openness 4 Conscientiousness 4 Extraversion 5 Agreeableness 5 Neuroticism 5 Analysis of my own Management/ Leadership Style 5 My Relative Strengths and Weaknesses 6 Effect of my Personality on my Management/ Leadership Style 7 How I can improve my Management Style in Future 9 Conclusion 9 References 10 Introduction According to Schwartz, Cieciuch, Vecchione, Davidov, Fischer, Beierlein, et al. (2012), human beings have unique differences among them. It is these differences that make them unique individuals especially in organizations where such unique characteristics define the overall performance of an individual. When employing people, organizations are usually very keen on the unique skills, personalities, and attitudes such employees bring to work based on the role at hand (Muhammad & Azhar, 2015; Voon, 2011). For that reason, it is critically important to have an understanding on the individual differences that exist among people in relation to their own management practices and organizational behaviour. Personality is an important parameter in understanding an individual’s patterns of behaviour as it demonstrates their stable feelings, ideas, and attitudes. According to Revelle, & Wilt (2013), it is this personality that makes each individual person different and unique from any other individual. By studying one’s personality, therefore, it is possible to know their likely approach when faced with different circumstances. In an organizational setting, this is critically important. While there are various other ways through which individual differences among people may be determined, the most commonly used method is the Big Five Model of Personality (Revelle, & Wilt, 2013). This paper, therefore, critically reflects on the role of individual differences in my own management practices and organizational behaviour outcomes based on the outcomes of the Big Five Model of Personality. Specifically, it entails a discussion on the relative strengths and weaknesses in my personality profile based on the dimensions of the Big Five, how my management or leadership style is affected by my personality based on the relevant dimensions of the Big Five, and how I can improve my management or leadership style in the future based on the relevant dimensions of the Big Five. The Big Five Model of Personality The Big Five Model of Personality is a universally agreed tool used by most psychologists to understand the personalities of their clients and in many other areas. Also known as the Five Factor Model (FFM), this theory is founded on five main parameters upon which it defines an individual’s personality traits. The five parameters are Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism often abbreviated as OCEAN (Harkness, Finn, McNulty, & Shields, 2012). Openness According to Muhammad & Azhar (2015), Openness refers to an individual’s ability to have the curiosity to experiment new things and a wider spectrum of areas. It entails such traits as innovativeness, creativity, and adventurous. High openness may be taken to imply lack of direction and aim, originality, complexity, and creativity. On the contrary, low openness may be perceived to mean narrow-mindedness, uncreative, respectful, and conventional (DeYoung, Weisberg, Quilty, & Peterson, 2013). Conscientiousness Conscientiousness refers to the presence or lack thereof of dependability, being organized, commitment, and goal-setting. High conscientiousness implies obsession, punctuality, dependability, and systematic. Low conscientiousness, on the other hand, may be perceived as unreliability, spontaneous, sloppiness, and flexibility (Harkness, Finn, McNulty, & Shields, 2012). Extraversion Extraversion is often associated with such traits as the ability of an individual to freely interact with others in whatever type of environment (Quilty, DeYoung, Oakman, & Bagby, 2014). High extraversion is often associated with attention-seeking, sociable, talkative, and domineering over other people, while low extraversion may mean reserved, unsociable, less talkative, and self-absorbed (Smillie, 2013). Agreeableness Agreeableness may be defined as an individual’s tendency to feel with others. High score on this factor implies compassion, tolerance, courtesy, naivety, and submissiveness. Low agreeableness implies rudeness, independence of thought, argumentativeness, unkind, and insensitive (Wilkowski, Robinson, & Meier, 2006). Neuroticism This factor is used to refer to one’s tendency to have distasteful encounters which include anger, anxiety, and moodiness. High neuroticism implies irritable, anxious, angry, depressed, and vulnerable, while low neuroticism may be perceived as calmness, stableness, and unconcerned (Harkness, Finn, McNulty, & Shields, 2012). Analysis of my own Management/ Leadership Style (Based on my Big Five Test Results) My scores in the Big Five Personality Test revealed Low Openness, High Conscientiousness, High Extraversion, High Agreeableness, and Low Neuroticism. Each of these scores relates, in a way, to my own management or leadership style both positively as well as negatively. My Relative Strengths and Weaknesses The scores in the personality profile as demonstrated by the Big Five Personality Test demonstrate both strengths and weaknesses. I exhibited low scores on Openness to Experience. The strength associated with these scores is that I am respectful and highly-focused. Being respectful is a virtue that people should strive to have as it also commands respect from other people as well. Being focus ensures better results especially along one line. My weaknesses, based on the low scores, are that I am narrow-minded, uncreative, and conventional. Narrow-mindedness is a weakness in the sense that it shows I don’t accept varied opinions. Lack of creativity is a weakness that implies I do not think outside the box hence may not adequately handle complex situations that require creativity. Finally, I am conventional hence implying I like routine which also implies my inability to offer creative solutions. With regards to my high scores in the Conscientiousness factor, my first strength is that I am time-conscious and punctual which implies that I don’t waste time neither do I delay. The second strength is that I am dependable as I can be trusted with a task or role. I am also organized which implies that organized and can plan my goals and objectives quite effectively. My first weakness, however, with respect to the high scores on conscientiousness factor is that I am rigid and may not be comfortable being persuaded to abandon my stance. The other weakness is that I am likely to be obsessed with some things. My high scores in Extraversion factor of the Big Five Personality Test demonstrate my strength in being sociable and friendly which helps me easily and cordially mingle with other people. The first weakness associated with my score in this factor, though, is that I may be domineering – a trait that may not go down well with working in teams. My second weakness is that I am talkative and as such may not be a good listener. Attention-seeking is also a weakness that I exhibit from these scores. With regards to my high scores in the Agreeableness factor, I exhibit the strengths of compassion, tolerance, and courtesy. It shows that I am generally empathetic with troubled persons, I can withstand people with opposing views and opinions, and I am very respectful and polite. My two major weaknesses are naivety and submissiveness which show that I am highly likely to show inexperience and lack of wisdom. My low scores in the Neuroticism factor indicate that I am calm, polite, and emotionally stable which imply that I am not generally disturbed by extreme emotions. On the limitations, however, these scores portray me as one who is less concerned even with issues that may seem to be important (Harkness, Finn, McNulty, & Shields, 2012). Effect of my Personality on my Management/ Leadership Style After a thorough evaluation of my leadership skills, I have come to appreciate that I employ the Laissez-Faire type of leadership style. This is backed by my belief that the people I lead should have their freedom especially in making decisions with regards to their areas of jurisdiction (Nor, Norliya, & Nurhidayah, 2014). I am also of the opinion that as a manager or leader, I have the responsibility of providing mentorship and guidance when such help is needed, otherwise, my followers should always rule themselves (Abdul, & Husnain, 2012). My personality traits discussed above have had a number of influences on my Laissez-Faire style of management. First, my lack of creativity has been in the forefront in strengthening my type of management i.e. the Laissez-Faire management style. Being conventional and uncreative, I resorted to allowing the people I manage to take the forefront and unleash their creativity in order to compensate for my lack of creativity as a manager. As a matter of fact, it is this personal trait that has persuaded me into adopting this type of leadership. I remember one time when I was selected to lead a team of young people during my early school days at the university when I literally took a back seat during the presentations. In fact, I had to let a team member who seemed creative in presentation to give a presentation of our team’s performance. While this may seem as being irresponsible, it has always worked for me, and it has always yielded impressive results in the teams I manage. Secondly, my rigid personal trait has affected my management type by helping balance my ability to delegate duties with my ability to make my own informed decisions. As a manager it is critical that irrespective of your style of leadership, you should be able to make decisions and, if possible, stay by them. In the course of my management role, I make decisions that seem tough and I don’t allow anyone to talk me out of those decisions due to my rigidity as long as I am convinced it is the right decision to take at that very moment. Thirdly, my unconcerned nature sometimes tends to have a negative impact on my Laissez-Faire style of leadership in the sense that it may lead my followers into taking my leadership for granted. They are likely to abuse the freedom my leadership style offers to them by not performing their tasks well enough on the premise that their leader is unconcerned and they do not have any reason not to be unconcerned either. My leadership style has also been positively influenced by my time-consciousness personality trait. In most cases, I follow strict deadlines and I am generally very punctual in virtually every management task I engage myself into. I also communicate the same downwards across my followers hence influencing them into being punctuality and time-consciousness. Finally, my Laissez-Faire leadership style has been immensely influenced by my courteous, calm, and respectful nature. While my courtesy and respectfulness have been both mistaken for weakness by some of my followers, I have earned immense respect from a huge number of my followers. Overall, this personality trait has positively influenced my leadership style. How I can improve my Management Style in Future After assessing my leadership skills and the way my leadership style is influenced by personality traits, I realized that there are a few areas I need to improve in. In order to improve my management style, I would first ask for feedback from both my followers and fellow managers on my style of leadership. I would use my social personality trait to informally obtain feedback from these groups of people. By so doing, I will get a clear picture of what my actual strengths and weaknesses are. Thereafter, I will strengthen my weaknesses and continue to improve my strengths. Finally, I also intend to take management professional trainings so that I can be able to work on how best to harmonize my personality traits with my leadership style (DeYoung, Weisberg, Quilty, & Peterson, 2013). Through such trainings, I will be able to minimize some of my weaknesses such as naivety, submissiveness, talkativeness, domineering, and dogma. The trainings will also help me nurture some of my strengths such as courtesy, respect, sociability, and extreme focus. Conclusion In conclusion, therefore, the Big Five Personality Test brings out the various existing differences among different people. These personality traits can be positively utilized to enhance one’s management techniques. Furthermore, it is these personality traits that shape an individual’s organizational behaviour. While management skills are dependent, in one way or the other, on an individual’s personality traits, they can also be learned and developed with time (Oladipo, Jamilah, Abdul, Jeffery, & Salami, 2013). Managers can always improve their management skills by asking for feedback regarding the perception on their management techniques. Depending on the feedback, they can take up such strategies as taking management trainings to help enhance their skills in management and leadership. References Abdul, Q. C. & Husnain, J. (2012). Impact of Transactional and Laissez Faire Leadership Style on Motivation. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(7), 258- 266. DeYoung, C. G., Weisberg, Y. J., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2013). Unifying the aspects of the Big Five, the interpersonal circumplex, and trait affiliation. Journal of Personality, 81, 465–475. Harkness, A. R., Finn, J. A., McNulty, J. L., & Shields, S. M. (2012). The personality psychopathology–five (PSY-5): Recent constructive replication and assessment literature review. Psychological Assessment, 24, 432–444. Jeremy M., Melinde C. and Ciller V. (2012). Perceived leadership style and employee participation in a manufacturing company in the democratic republic of Congo. African journal of business management, 6(15), 5389-5398. Muhammad, I., & Azhar, K. (2015). The Relationship of Big Five Personality Traits with Job Satisfaction Among Banking Employees (A Case Study of Askari Bank in District Peshawar). J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci., 5(5)129-138. Nor, F. T., Norliya, A. K. & Nurhidayah, N. (2014). Transformational, Transactional or Laissez-Faire: What Styles do University Librarians Practice? Journal of Organizational Management Studies, 2014(2014). Oladipo K. S., Jamilah O., Abdul daud S., Jeffery L. D. and Salami D. K. (2013). Review of leadership theories and Organizational performances. International Business Management Journal, 7(1), 50-54. Quilty, L. C., DeYoung, C. G., Oakman, J. M., & Bagby, R. M. (2014). Extraversion and behavioural activation: Integrating the components of approach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 87–94. Revelle, W., & Wilt, J. (2013). The general factor of personality: A general critique. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 493–504. Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., et al. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 663–823. Smillie, L. D. (2013). Extraversion and reward processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 167–172. Voon M. C. et al. (2011). The influence of leadership styles on employees’ job satisfaction in public sector organizations in Malaysia. International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, 2(1), 24-32 (2011) Wilkowski, B. M., Robinson, M. D., & Meier, B. P. (2006). Agreeableness and the prolonged spatial processing of antisocial and prosocial information. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 1152–1168. Read More