The A-Team Essay Example

The A-Team Essay The science of categorising behavioural style started with the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates in 400 BC who recognised that we could be described as fitting into one of four temperament styles. This century, behavioural theory has been used to develop self-assessment tests that aim to provide an insight into our behavioural tendencies.Over the past twenty years organisations have espoused these self-assessment instruments into their human resources tool kit(De Dreu et al. 2001). Over the last two decades I have predominantly worked in a team oriented environment within the construction industry. I have had roles that required me to both lead and follow the lead of others. In my experience I have seen examples of teams working well together and teams not working well together. I feel as though good team dynamics at work are recognisable and intuitive beyond any theoretical explanation.This is the first time I have ever considered the behavioural aspects of team dynamics and how m y personality factors in. Personality cohesion is essential to the effectiveness and efficiency of a team. The purpose of this report is to better understand myself and others in a work team context, by exploring self-assessment tools and reflecting on the relevant literature I hope to discover more about my potential as a leader. 2. Self-Assessment using Self-Assessment Exercise The self-assessment tools I selected were: 1. DiSC Personal Profile SystemThe DiSC behaviour model is based on research by William Moulton Marston, in his book Emotions of Normal People. The word DiSC is an acronym of the four primary dimensions of behaviour as described by Marsden: * Dominance * Influence * Steadiness * Conscientiousness THE DiSC assessment tool is currently used in my workplace to assist management in developing effective work teams and also to help individuals improve their relationship and communication skills. I chose the DiSC test because I am interested in developing my own self-awar eness.It is important to note that I was asked to answer the question (Assessment input) within the context of my current role and to reflect on the results in terms of that role. I found the results of this test to be informative. There were three different stages to the results of the test. The first result identified that my own strength was in Steadiness, I was provided with descriptions based on how the behavioural dimension of Steadiness is characterised. The second stage to the DiSC test was the dimensional intensity index, indicating numerically the scale to which I was awarded within the context of each of the behavioural dimension.Thirdly, the last stage of the test was related to a classic profile pattern, integrating my results from the four different behavioural dimension intensity indices and placing me into one of eighteen different classic profile patterns. I think the classic profile pattern attributed to me (practitioner) is accurate for my current role as I am cur rently employed as a technical officer. For example, I value proficiency in a specialised area; I’m motivated by being good at something; I have unrealistic expectations of others at times.It came as a surprise that the test indicated my goals were personal growth and that I fear not being recognised as an expert. 2. Dutch Test for Conflict Handling I chose this test because I believe the way we handle conflict in the workplace has a significant impact on how effective we are in our role within the organisation. I was interested in finding out about how I handle conflict in the workplace so I could look to improving or better managing my weaknesses and leverage of my strengths.The Dutch Test for Conflict Handling is a self-estimate test which allows you to estimate the extent to which you prefer to use each of the five conflict handling styles: * yielding * compromising * forcing * problem solving * avoiding The evaluation scale for this test was developed from research done by CARSTEN K. W. DE DREU et al (De Dreu et al. 2001). The format for the assessment is comprised of twenty questions asking how one handles different aspects of conflict. The results are in the form of a scale for each of the five conflict handling styles.The scale estimates the extent to which you prefer each of the styles and compares you to a range of scores from a sample. The results of my test showed me that my most preferred conflict handling style is Problem Solving, as most of the conflicts in my current role are technical in nature I can see how preferring this approach would be the most beneficial. I also scored high in the yielding style which also fits the type of work I do, often after exploring the issues I can see if in this instance, another’s oint of view is a more appropriate technical solution and I will agree with them. Though these two approaches work well for technical issues I face in my current role, as I progress in my career, to higher management I n otice the nature of conflict becoming more complex. I will need to consider how I might develop skills that enhance my ability in the areas of compromising rather than yielding. 3. Overview of relevant literature According to the Wall Street Journal, the use of self-assessment tests are becoming more prevalent in today’s business world.Self- assessment tests measure intangible behavioural and emotional dimensions as leadership tools. Lopez says that emotional intelligence enables leaders to regulate their emotions so as to cope effectively with stress and adjust to organizational changes (N Lopes et al. 2006). The recognition for the future benefits of applying this theory of self-assessment is evident through the employment of these tests in business schools, now measuring and reviewing Emotional Intelligence Quotient as part of the application process for new enrolments, in an attempt to identify future stars (Korn 2013).Cangas establishes that members of organizations who participate in the process of self-assessment are likely to develop a deeper understanding of the fundamental principles of continual improvement and an increased motivation to participate in subsequent improvement activities (Cangas 1996). Continual improvement is defined as an ongoing effort to improve products, services, or processes. McKenna et al adds that there is a perception that significant benefits are achieved in organisations where managers understand the emotional intelligence of their employees.They write that the benefits are better hiring; career planning; job placement; as well as enhanced collaboration and teamwork; better communication; more effective conflict resolution; increased job satisfaction and morale; improved meeting effectiveness; and overall improvement in team and organizational performance. They do, however, go on to explain that very little empirical research has been conducted to support the link between understanding emotional intelligence and the outlined benefits. McKenna, Shelton, and Darling 2002). Other research indicates that there is an important link between effective team leadership and self-awareness. Sosik et al suggests that self-awareness supports a leader’s translation of purpose and meaning, turning obstacles into invigorating challenges for employers (Sosik and Megerian 1999). Following this Mayer et al claims self-awareness may help leaders to better â€Å"hear† the emotional implications of their own thoughts and the feelings on others (Mayer and Geher 1996).In the article a meta-analytical review of the relationship between emotional intelligence and leaders’ constructive conflict management by Schlaerth et al. It is proposed that, the ability to accurately perceive and manage our own emotions enables one to develop the capabilities required for understanding the perspectives of others. In the context of organisational behaviour, it is theoretically linked to positively impacting on th e rest of the team. (Schlaerth, Ensari, and Christian 2013).Technical knowledge is all too often the deciding factor when assessing the criteria of team members in the selection process. Hiring decisions are typically based on candidates’ work experiences, skills, and knowledge, termination decisions are more often a result of individuals’ behaviours (Wagner 2000). According to McKenna et al It is widely believed that teams whose members have diverse behavioural styles – for example introverts and extroverts, thinkers and feelers, people who are highly assertive and those who are less assertive – will be more effective than teams whose members lack such diversity of styles.It is also commonly believed that work groups whose individuals are aware of and respect one another’s diverse behavioural styles tend to experience improved communication and higher morale, and that individuals whose work environments most closely align with their behavioural st yles tend to be more satisfied. However they go on to say that little research has been done that demonstrates statistically significant differences between organisations that us self-assessment instruments compared with those that do not (McKenna, Shelton, and Darling 2002).Following this we could ask, is the self-assessment test the most appropriate way to achieve this self-awareness? According to Dunning et al one of the problems with using data provided from self-assessment tools is, in general, peoples self-views hold only a tenuous to modest relationship with their actual behaviour and performance. The correlation between self-ratings of skill and actual performance in many domains is moderate to meagre indeed, at times, other peoples predictions of a persons outcomes prove more accurate than that persons self -predictions.They go on to say that peoples general evaluations of their skills and character such as whether they are good leaders or verbally skilled tend not to be tethered very tightly to objective performances in tasks that should reflect those skills and character traits and, when people offer specific predictions about how they will behave in a particular future situation, they make predictions that differ systematically from their actual behaviour when that situation arrives. (Dunning, Heath, and Suls 2004).Rather than behavioural diversity and self-assessment Hackman proposes that the keys to developing effective teams, lies in five conditions that leaders of companies and other organizations must fulfil in order to create and maintain effective teams: 1. Teams must be real. People have to know who is on the team and who is not. It’s the leader’s job to make that clear. 2. Teams need a compelling direction. Members need to know, and agree on, what they’re supposed to be doing together. Unless a leader articulates a clear direction, there is a real risk that different members will pursue different agendas. 3.Teams ne ed enabling structures. Teams that have poorly designed tasks, the wrong number or mix of members or fuzzy and unenforced norms of conduct invariably get into trouble. 4. Teams need a supportive organization. The organizational context – including the reward system, the human resource system, and the information system – must facilitate teamwork. 5. Teams need expert coaching. Most executive coaches’ focus on individual performance, which does not signi? cantly improve teamwork. Teams need coaching as a group in team processes – especially at the beginning, midpoint, and end of a team project (Hackman 2002).In an article titled â€Å"Why Teams Dont Work†, J. Richard Hackman elaborates in an interview setting ‘that people generally think that teams that work together harmoniously are better and more productive than teams that don’t but in a study we conducted on symphonies, we actually found that grumpy orchestras played together slight ly better than orchestras in which all the musicians were really quite happy’. (Coutu and Beschloss 2009). This could possibly suggest that conflict mightn’t necessarily be a bad thing in teams. 4. Applications and limitationsAs the use of self-assessment tests increase. Managers need to be aware of the limitations associated with the tests. The lack of research that supports the benefits of self-assessment tests suggests there is a danger that poorly designed assessment programs could have a negative impact on the organisation. Self-assessment tests can give us an insight into how we might be behaving in the work place; how we are perceived by others, what our strengths and weakness might be and how we fit into the organisation and its objectives.They give us an insight (if we let them) into some of the less attractive of our behavioural styles that we might normally ignore. It is important to develop strategies to increase the objectiveness of the self-assessment res ults. These may include, understanding the limitations of our ability to accurately self-assess and including controls such as peer assessment comparison and the careful selection of well-designed self-assessment tests. Tests should be effective at getting to the objective truth about ones behavioural style.Once we have categorised our behavioural styles and understand the behavioural styles of our co-workers we can begin to develop strategies that maximise opportunities and strengths and mitigate weaknesses or threats, for example if my primary dimension of behaviour has been recognised as being â€Å"dominance† I might be well placed to deal quickly to critical incidents but may lack the tact to be able to negotiate with someone who likes to avoids conflict.This point leads to how self-assessment can be useful in the development and management of effective teams. If the results of team self-assessments are used to identify team constraints early on in a team’s develo pment, managers can proactively implement strategies to manage problems caused by clashing personality and make better use of the identified group strengths. When hiring new staff for existing or new team roles we traditionally base the selection criteria on the hard skills such as qualifications and work experience.It may be beneficial to create a behavioural profile that would best suit the role. In addition to creating a position description the behavioural profile for the job would highlight how a new team member might contribute to the behavioural diversity of a team. For example a software development project team that is made up of conscientious task oriented software engineers may benefit more by employing someone who is a goal orientated communicator. Understanding the context of peoples behavioural styles can help in developing work teams.A recent team assessment done in my work place, using the DiSC Personal Profile System found that a particular department who were under performing had an overwhelming number of team members that fitted into the â€Å"steadiness† behavioural dimension. The results of the assessment were interpreted not as evidence that the team lacked ability to demonstrate behavioural diversity, but the department’s policy and procedures prevented all but a few senior staff members from making decisions or taking risks.Subsequently an intuitive to redefine some of key positions in the team to include the delegated authority over decisions has improved the performance of this team. 5. Conclusion Self-assessment is an important step towards self-enhancement and self-improvement. Organisations can benefit from self-assessment programs especially in the areas of team development and recruitment. It is important that these programs are well designed so as to overcome our tendencies to distort their results. The results of these programs can transform work teams and individuals by identifying possible limitations and potenti al opportunities.