|
Individual Growth and Development By Soboyejo A. Awosika-Coker Seattle, Washington
Abstract With the advent of technology and the resulting fast paced and ever-changing climate of activity, it is imperative that an individual better understand his or her own personal learning, adaptive and communication styles. A better understanding of one’s personal attributes would invariably help foster greater and qualitative interaction, through personal development. As the world gets smaller, both literally and figuratively speaking, it has become more incumbent upon individuals and organizations, to develop their total arsenal of human skills. Improved relational and communicative skills will naturally translate into greater individual and organizational success, regardless of the sphere of operation. This paper, apart from being an assessment of my personal attributes, also serves as a framework for a plan, geared towards my individual development. I, using The Prentice Hall Self-Assessment Library CD-ROM, answered a series of individual assessment questions. The answers to the various questions are expected to give insights into my skills, abilities, and interests. The ramifications of the results and other issues pertaining to the Self-Assessment Library are also discussed.
Individual Development Plan This paper, more than anything else, serves as an exercise in personal enrichment and growth. The days of the maverick individual are definitely gone, probably for good. The advent of the global economy, due largely in part to the unrelenting disposition of the information age, has made the climate of interdependence, the seemingly ultimate panacea for all "human ills." From news and information, to business and medicine, we have become increasingly inter-connected in the global landscape (or should I say landless and increasingly wired-scape).
There is an increasing importance for individuals and organizations to become better communicators, as well as administrators. Whether you are in Microsoft or McDonalds, Bangladesh or Karachi, the onus is the same; on us all to be better adaptable to people, places and situations around us.
The need for a greater convergence of ideas and knowledge becomes even greater, in light of the inevitable shrinking of geographical and national boundaries. The spirit of teamwork thus becomes the norm. Hence, the need for more productive and viable teams, as a function of each individual’s understanding of their personal attributes, with a view to better adapting this to a team environment, regardless of the theatre of operation. According to Thompson, Aranda, and Robbins (2000), " a team is a collection of individuals who are interdependent with respect to information, resources, and skills and seek to combine their efforts in order to achieve a common objective." The Self-Assessment Library therefore serves as a tool for individual assessment, with a view to discerning personal attributes, and subsequently develops a framework for capitalizing on my strengths, and improving on my weaknesses. The objective is to improve my overall capabilities as an individual performer, in a team environment, within my organization.
Method Leadership Style Assessment This leadership instrument, taps the degree to which an individual is task or people-oriented. Task orientation has to do with getting the job done, while people-orientation seeks to focus on group interactions, as well as the needs of individual members (Robbins, 1999). The cut-off scores separating high and low scores are as follows:
A high score on both orientations would indicate an individual who can balance his or her task-people orientation to various situations. These people are the best leaders. If an individual is too task-oriented, they tend to be rather autocratic, while someone who is too people-oriented may become guilty of laissez-faire leadership. Hence, the former gets the job done, but at a high emotional cost, while the latter may have an unproductive workforce due to a laid-back organizational structure (Robbins, 1999).
Team Player Assessment This team member instrument, seeks to provide insights as to whether an individual would fit well on a team, as opposed to working alone. It taps individualistic vs. collectivist orientation. The total score will be between 20 and 140. The higher an individual’s score is, the more collectivist they are, in their orientation. A score below 69 indicates a strong individualistic ethic. Scores above 109 indicate a strong team mentality (Robbins, 1999). Team Building and Leading Assessment This instrument proposes an assessment of team development behaviors in five areas: · Diagnostic team development · Managing the forming stage · Managing the conforming stage · Managing the storming age · Managing the performing stage An individual’s score is expected to range between 18 and 108 (Robbins, 1999).
Power Orientation Assessment This instrument was designed to decipher an individual’s Machiavellianism (Mach) score. Individuals with high-Mach scores are said to be pragmatic. They maintain an emotional distance and believe that the end justifies the means (Robbins, 1999). According to the National Opinion Research Center, in a recent sample of American adults, the national average was 25. High-Machs are said to be more likely to manipulate others, win more and are less persuaded than low-Machs. High-Machs are also said to be more likely to alter the truth or act unethically in a situation where a favorable outcome is important to them (Robbins, 1999).
Preferred Type of Power Assessment Five power bases have purportedly been identified. They are as follows: · Reward - Based on the ability to distribute valuable rewards · Coercive – Based on fear · Legitimate – Based on formal position · Expert – Based on possessing knowledge and skill · Referent – Based on the desire of others to identify with someone A high score (4 or greater) on any of the afore-mentioned dimensions suggests that an individual prefers to influence others by using that particular form of power. A low score suggests a non-preference for employing the said power base (Robbins, 1999).
Preferred Conflict-Handling Style Assessment Five conflict-hand styles have been identified through research. They are defined as follows:
An individual’s conflict-handling score will range from 4 to 20. The category with the highest score is a person’s preferred conflict-handling style. The next-highest total is an individual’s secondary style. An individual should ideally adjust his or her conflict-handling style to the pervading situation (Robbins, 1999).
Listening Skills Assessment This instrument is designed to provide an individual with some insights into their listening skills. Scores range from 15 to 75. The higher one scores, the better listener one is acclaimed to be. Cut offs are essentially arbitrary. A score above 60 entails a well honed listener while scores of 40 or less suggest a need to make a concerted effort at improving one’s listening skills (Robbins, 1999).
Giving Feedback Assessment Skills This assessment instrument seeks to assess how good an individual is, at providing feedback. Here, the "a" responses are an individual’s self-perceived strengths while the "b" responses are one’s self-perceived weaknesses. By looking at the delineation of the "a" and "b" responses, an individual is able to see how effective they are, when giving feedback. The ultimate goal is to determine where one’s strengths and weaknesses lie (Robbins, 1999).
Basic Personality Assessment The five-factor model of personality, often referred to as the Big Five is as follows: · Extraversion – Sociable, talkative, and assertive. High score indicates an extravert and low score indicates an introvert. · Agreeableness – Good-natured, cooperative and trusting. High score indicates values harmony while low score suggests one who prefers to have their way or say on issues. · Conscientiousness – Responsible, dependable, persistent, and achievement oriented. High score indicates pursuance of fewer goals in a purposeful way. Low score indicates one who is more easily distracted and hedonistic (pleasure seeking). · Emotional Stability – Calm, enthusiastic and secure. High score indicates positive emotional stability. Low score suggests negative emotional stability. · Openness to Experience – Imaginative, artistically sensitive and intellectual. High score indicates a wide range of interests and an affinity for novelty and innovation. A low score indicates a more conventional disposition and preference for the familiar (Robbins, 1999).
MBTI Personality Type The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a popular personality framework. It classifies individuals as extroverted or introverted (E or I), sensing or intuitive (S or N), thinking or feeling (T or F), and perceiving or judging (P or J). The classifications are then combined into as much as sixteen personality types (e.g. INTJ, ENTP). This particular questionnaire is an abbreviated version of the MBTI (Robbins, 1999).
Locus of Control Assessment This instrument seeks to tap an individual’s perception of the source of their fate. Internals are people who see themselves as masters of their own fate, while externals see themselves as pawns of fate. The former believe that they control their own destinies. The latter, on the other hand, believe that what happens to them is a matter of luck or chance. The scores can be interpreted as follows: · 8-10 = High internal locus of control · 6-7 = Moderate internal locus of control · 5 = Mixed · 3-4 = Moderate external locus of control · 1-2 = High external locus of control An individual’s locus of control score should provide them with insights into how well they accept blame for their actions (Robbins, 1999).
Self-Esteem Assessment This is a measure of how well individuals like or dislike themselves. The higher one scores, the higher one’s self-esteem is. Individuals with low self-esteem are more susceptible to external influences than those high in self-esteem (Robbins, 1999).
Values Assessment This instrument serves to give an individual, some insight into what it is they value most. The individual is asked to rate in order of importance, various terminal and instrumental values such as knowledge and wisdom, self-respect, lasting friendships, assertiveness, dependability, and truthfulness, among others. Values are basic convictions of what is right, good, or desirable. This self-assessment merely gives some directive insights into a person’s value structure (Robbins, 1999).
Motivation Assessment This particular instrument taps the three needs of growth, relatedness, and existence. It is based on Clayton Alderfer’s revised need hierarchy, called the ERG theory (Robbins, 2001, p. 161). Growth needs are usually rated the highest. A low score may imply that a need is unimportant to an individual or that it is substantially satisfied (Robbins, 1999).
Ethics Assessment This instrument represents philosophical and practical positions. The instrument works best when one compares their answers to those of others. There are therefore, no "right" answers (Robbins, 1999).
Results & Discussion The results of the Self-Assessment Library tests and their implications are delved into in this section. As stated earlier, these assessment tests are merely designed to give an insight into my various inclinations and idiosyncrasies, with a view to helping me better adapt to my environment. On the Leadership Style Assessment, which taps the degree to which an individual is task or people-oriented, I had a score of 8 regarding "concern for people" and a score of 14 regarding "concern for task." For task-orientation, high is a score above 10, while low is a score below 10. For people-orientation, high is a score above 7, while low is a score below 7. Since I had a high score on both task and people-orientation, I am therefore regarded as being in the category of the "best leaders", those that can balance their task-people orientation to various situations (Robbins, 1999). This should serve as the proverbial "shot in the arm" for my leadership aspirations in business and politics, where my unique leadership style, will surely come in handy. The ability to be decisive (sometimes independently) while at the same time maintaining my basic humanity seems best suited for today’s business and political climate.
Regarding the Team Player Assessment, which measures individualistic vs. collectivist orientation, I had a score of 82. The higher you score, the higher your collectivist orientation. The total score is expected to be between 20 and 140, with a score below 69 indicating a strong individualistic ethic, and scores above 109 indicating a strong team mentality. According to a recent survey of students at a large U.S. university, 492 students enrolled in a management course had an average score of approximately 89 (Robbins, 1999). I expected to probably get a higher score than 82 in light of the fact that I grew up in a collectivist society.
My score of 82 may however be reflective of a seeming conflict between my current (Western) and earlier (African) orientations. I have probably become less collectivist in my outlook, as a function of my current environment. The key for me therefore, is to strike a delicate balance between the two cultures, by embracing those virtues that add to my humanity and personal development, while disavowing those that may be detrimental to my personal growth and overall development. This is particularly important since I do intend to go back to Nigeria, in the not-too-distant future. Mind you, regardless of the trend towards globalization, the basic and core elements of a society, one with such strong traditions and culture as Africa, in particular, will remain the same.
On the Team Building and Leading Assessment, which assesses team development behaviors. I had a score of 88. This score put me in the second quartile (the top quartile having a score of 95 or above). This would serve to connote a rather strong ability at building and leading a team (Robbins, 1999). Combining this with my positive leadership style and ability to be a team player, I would seem pretty well placed to be a veritable leader in an organization. I have always naturally assumed a leadership role in whatever organization I have found myself. The key is to continue to further hone my overall leadership skills in order to realize my ultimate goal; that of being a highly successful businessman and political leader.
On the Power Orientation Assessment, which was designed to compute my Machiavellianism (Mach) score, I had a score of 29 (higher than the U.S. adult national average of 25), which is considered to be fairly high (Robbins, 1999). The connotation here is that someone with a high-Mach score like myself, is inclined to be more manipulative, and more persuasive than others. There is also the notion that I would be more likely to alter the truth or act unethically, to bring an uncertain situation to an outcome that is favorable to me. I am personally of the opinion that what should really suffice here, is the fact that individuals with high-Mach scores are more pragmatic due to their high level of emotional intelligence. There is absolutely no question in my mind that in maintaining one's basic humanity, an individual need possess the requisite killer instinct as the situation may warrant it. A true leader (in business and politics) must possess these juxtaposing attributes in order to be truly effective. After all, what is the definition of ethics? I would hazard a rather ambiguous and relative definition from various sources. And the truth… well it is relative and I must say, can also be quite subjective.
The Preferred Type of Power Assessment identifies five power bases namely Reward (had a score of 4.00), Coercive (had a score of 2.00), Legitimate (had a score of 4.00), Expert (had a score of 4.00), and Referent (had a score of 4.00). A high score (4 or greater) on any of the five dimensions suggests a preference for that particular form of power. A low score (2 or less) suggests that I would rather not use the said form of power (Robbins, 1999). From my scores, I seem well placed as it relates to all the power bases with the exception of the coercive power base. My preference for trying to imbibe a sense of belonging into others may be the reason for my low score, regarding the coercive power base. I may however need to develop this particular power base as I move up further in an organization, or more importantly, in the political arena. While a leader may not necessarily want to be feared, but would rather be respected, it may however be timely to have the element of fear, as an option, in an organizational setting.
The Preferred Conflict-Handling Style Assessment identifies five styles in this regard namely Competing (had a score of 13), Collaborating (had a score of 15), Avoiding (had a score of 13), Accommodating (had a score of 13), and Compromising (had a score of 16). The category you score the highest is your preferred style while the next highest total is one's secondary style (Robbins, 1999). Consequently, my preferred conflict-handling style is compromising while my secondary style is collaborating. I also retain the option of being either competing, or accommodating as the situation may warrant it. My scores go to show more than anything else, that my pragmatism is a functional as opposed to a dysfunctional one. It is a pragmatism that incorporates a healthy dose of realism, while retaining my basic humanity.
The Listening Skills Assessment seeks to provide some insight into my listening skills. Scores range from 15 to 75 and any cut off is essentially arbitrary. Few people score above 60, while a score of 40 or less indicates that an individual needs some work, regarding their listening skills (Robbins, 1999). I had a score of 44. This would seem to be a fairly solid score. I do however know from my personal experience that I need to improve my listening skills. Rather than my present disposition of being presumptuous and judgmental of people’s positions, I may need to practice the art of active listening in the discussion process. It is my goal to improve on this attribute within the next five years.
The Giving Feedback Assessment is designed to assess how good I am at giving feedback. In conjunction with listening skills, it is undoubtedly another primary component of effective communication (Robbins, 1999). In the "a" responses (self-perceived strengths), I had a score of 6, while in the "b" responses (self-perceived weaknesses), I had a score of 2. It seems rather apparent from my scores that my strengths far outweigh my weaknesses as it concerns my proficiency at providing feedback. I do not believe that any one can be absolutely above reproach regarding feedback abilities.
The Basic Personality Assessment identifies the five-factor model of personality or the Big Five. They are Extraversion (had a score of 7), Agreeableness (had a score of 8), Conscientiousness (had a score of 15), Emotional Stability (had a score of 12), and Openness to Experience (had a score of 9). The most impressive evidence relates to the conscientiousness dimension, where studies show that, conscientiousness predicts job performance for all occupational groups. The overwhelming evidence indicates that individuals who are dependable, reliable, thorough, organized, able to plan, and persistent tend to be more effective in most, if not, all occupations (Robbins, 1999).
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) seeks to help me understand my personality-my strengths and weaknesses. My result was Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging (INTJ). This connotes that I have an original mind and a great drive for my own ideas and purposes. I am however skeptical, critical, independent, determined, and often stubborn (Robbins, 1999). These are not exactly negative traits for a leader to have. Most successful leaders tend to combine a healthy dose of skepticism and criticism, with a finite level of independence, determination or resolve, and an appreciable degree of stubbornness. The key is to keep the "negatives" in moderation and further hone the positives.
My Locus of Control score was 9, with a score of 8-10 indicating a high Locus of Control. I therefore see myself as the master of my own fate. This would serve to engender a strong sense of responsibility and accountability. This, I believe, are the true hallmarks of leadership.
My Self-Esteem score was 93 out of a possible 100. This is a measure of how well I like or dislike myself. The higher you score, the higher your self-esteem. My score would suggest that I have a "healthy dose" of self-esteem. My score on the locus of control assessment would give credence to this assertion.
The Values Assessment seeks to help determine what I value the most through the medium of terminal and instrumental values. For the terminal values, what I valued the most was self-respect followed by pride in my accomplishments. What I valued the least was peace and harmony in the world, followed by salvation (finding eternal life). For the instrumental values, what I valued the most was being well mannered and courteous followed by truthfulness. What I valued the least was obedience (following the wishes of orders) followed by open-mindedness or receptivity to new ideas.
The Motivation Assessment taps the needs of growth (had a score of 16), relatedness (had a score of 14), and existence (had a score of 14). It is based on the ERG Theory, (Robbins, 2001, p. 161). This would suggest that my relatedness and existence needs, are satisfied to a certain degree, while my growth needs remain relatively unsatisfied.
The Ethics Assessment presents philosophical positions and practical situations. Here is my comparison to the mean response from a group of 243 management students: · 1) 3.09 (My score: 2) · 2) 1.88 (My score: 2) · 3) 2.54 (My score: 2) · 4) 3.41 (My score: 3) · 5) 3.88 (My score: 2) · 6) 2.88 (My score: 2) · 7) 3.62 (My score: 4) · 8) 2.79 (My score: 4) · 9) 3.44 (My score: 2) · 10) 1.33 (My score: 2) · 11) 1.58 (My score: 2) · 12) 2.31 (My score: 2) One would deduce from the comparisons above, that my mean responses compared fairly well with that of the management students. The slight variances may be as a function of cultural orientation (even though it does not specify the ethnicity of the management students) or life experiences, or a combination of both. According to Frank Nugent (1998), ethical principles provide a frame of reference for individuals. He also asserts that how one regards one’s development is determined in part by one’s social clock, which is a result of socialization and adaptation (p. 26).
According to Nugent (1998), the nature vs. nurture concept refers to the extent to which inborn, hereditary characteristics (nature) and experiential, or environmental, influences (nurture) determine who we are. The effects of any genetically linked trait depend on the environment in which the trait gets expressed; these effects may vary from direct to indirect. Environmental effects occur within a range set by genetically linked traits. The focus therefore, should be on how nature and nurture interact, within a given environment (p. 26).
In my quest for self-improvement and personal development, the key, is for me to realize that in as much as I have peculiar characteristics that are unique to my background, I must make a concerted effort to adapt these traits to a particular environment, I may find myself in. The successful interaction between my initial nature/nurture inclination and my current nurture-nurture enculturation, will ultimately lead to a better understanding of others and myself. References Nugent, F. (1998). Human development: Forces, controversies and models in development Bellingham: Brooks/Cole Custom Publishing. Robbins, S.P. (1999). Insights into your skills, abilities, and interests. New Jersey: The Prentice Hall Self-Assessment Library CD-ROM Robbins, S.P., & Shafer, D. Ed. (2001). Organizational behavior: What is organizational behavior? New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Thompson, L., Aranda, E., Robbins, S.P., & Swenson, C. Ed. (2000). Tools for teams: What is a team? Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing. November 2001
|