How compatible is someones personality in accordance to the organizational culture Essay

Upon commencing my research on this topic, I decided to place myself in the â€Å"shoes of a worker† and having had previous work experience myself, I have explored this question in depth, on both a personal and academic level. For instance, many a times I have stopped in the middle of work and asked myself, â€Å"Why do I continue to work for this organization?† When I try to promote my ideas, do my peers frequently react with indifference? It is matters such as the above that workers all over the world question about on a daily basis, or simply, one can question, how compatible is their personality in accordance to the organizational culture of the company for which they work in. New technology creates jobs, which do not require any sort of face-to-face communication. This has undeniable consequences for the relationships that form in corporations. The increased use of technology such as the Internet and Microsoft applications means that it is harder for employees to approach their manager’s and express a problem, since their nature of work is for the most part confined to their offices. In introducing the term â€Å"culture† which simply means: an â€Å"identification badge† that distinguishes between groups of individuals and provides guidelines concerning patterns of behavior and perception of the world around. The cultural match between an individual and an organization is determined by the degree to which the individual’s personal traits fit the organizational culture, or perhaps vice versa. Cooperation between the manager and his subordinate must exist, meaning that either one would willingly lower the priority of one’s own personal needs in order to get along with others. A lower cultural match may indicate that the individual is drained of important resources by having to continuously adjust to the workplace environment. A higher cultural match suggests the potential for a more satisfying interaction for both the individual and the organization. For some people, a personal/culture fit may exist only in the functional area in which they work. For example, an adventurous and non-conformist individual could match the less risk-averse, more creative subculture of the Design department of a clothing company, even though the overall company might be rigidly structured and have a low comfort level with certain ambiguity. It is generally assumed that a successful relationship between an individual and an organization (the manager) is based on a shared foundation of beliefs and behaviors. Similar beliefs and ways of working usually encourage communication and tend to support the working relationship, allowing synergies to emerge. In contrast, a high level of dissimilarity usually requires a high consumption of adaptive energy. While a large base of similarities may enable successful and harmonious interaction, dissimilarities are also valuable. As organizations become increasingly inundated with new techniques and training programs designed to diversify their employee base, frustrations among workers increase while compromising decreases. Groups in favor of diversity feel that they are right in their call for race, sex, disability and age discrimination to be resolved by a bold corrective initiative often referred to as affirmative action. They claim that it is wrong to discriminate in any form. Diversity is a highly intense topic that, while embraced philosophically, it is quickly challenged once institutionalized. Diversity is recognized as an inevitable strategy for meeting the ever-changing demographics in society. It is then studied, is most often adapted as the solution and often the conclusion to problems of inequality in the workplace. Most organizations conclude with a formalized diversity initiative which focus is on diversity training, diversification (integration through hiring), and annual maintenance programs. Each of these initiative components becomes a part of a continuum, which is replicated annually. While this is truly deserving of much praise and support, many corporate leaders are beginning to ask probing questions†¦ Is this it? What do we do now? Therefore diversity training is necessary to assist in developing acceptance rather than tolerance. A change in attitude is necessary, and attitudes are changed when people begin to understand the â€Å"different† members of society and respect is shown towards them. A reality is that forward thinking companies have begun to realize that it is not enough for their employees to appreciate differences, but rather that the appreciation might be turned into a company benefit. They are the source of attraction, of added value and information exchange that give substance and fuel to the relationship. Many corporations have recognized that diversity contributes to the bottom line by making it easier to retain employees showing future potential, lowering costs by developing skills internally, and developing a reputation that helps attract new employees. This is especially significant in a time when the global economy is doing so well, not to mention that demand for skilled labor is at record levels. The key factors in a company’s success in managing knowledge workers will depend upon the level of a partnership existing between workers and management. It’s about support and understanding not control (The more supportive a manager is towards his/her employees, the easier their process of personal development becomes). In adopting this style of management; employees may see their managers’ taking on a dominant leadership role rather than the traditional management notion of â€Å"the Boss†. Managers must choose objectives, let people loose, to be creative. On the other hand when they make mistakes, managers should also recognize and offer counseling advice when necessary. These managerial skills (with the increasing focus on people rather than technology) are necessary in maintaining an organizational culture where people can flourish and achieve’ not only the company’s aims and objectives but furthermore, their own. In theory, working with the available staff that you (as a manager) retain, and pooling their diverse talents and skills to complete a task or assignment may be possible, but in my opinion, firms will miss out on a great opportunity to obtain more, fundamental employees, with a greater variety of skills. For instance, the company may choose to utilize and work with their existing employees, but by recruiting younger, more well-educated staff, or by diversifying and hiring different people with various ethnic backgrounds or more women they may find themselves in a more suitable, advantageous and moreover profitable position, as each of these people will bring a vast array of skills, experience and talent to their jobs. The ability of an employee to make a difference in the workplace or simply to have an influence upon his/her work is the extent to which individuals are able to influence outcomes within the organization. A high ability to influence suggests that the organization is open to input from a wide range of members and is willing to consider and react to those suggestions. A low ability to influence indicates a culture where most individuals have little chance to impact the outcomes. Decisions are made by a small group of individuals at the top who are not open to input from more than a select group of employees. The assumption is that the person with the most skill, intelligence, charm will succeed where others will fail. So that where competition is a fundamental feature of social and economic life, what you will get is competitive people and a model of the person, which is framed in terms of individual differences. So, in order to cope with the various characteristics of employees and the intense competition, managers should pinpoint the ones who get involved in many activities, have the ability to quickly establish relationships with others and lead fast-paced lives, so they can be set as group leaders. This trend in world economies has come to be coined by the popular phrase of â€Å"globalisation.† This for workers has a sense meaning of a worker that is an indeterminate, self-propelled character of world affairs. Nowadays, workplaces, in the era of high-value production in the age of services, require workers very different from those of just two decades ago- where a hierarchy structure was in place. This occurs when there is a distinct level of authority ranging from managing director, directors, managers and so on, with the managing director with the most authority over the rest of the company. The new structure in organization requires that the knowledge, information, and responsibility formerly handed down to managers is now (in theory at least) pushed down to the front-line workers. This, however, requires workers now who can learn and adapt quickly, think for themselves, take responsibility, make decisions, and communicate what they need to leaders who train, supply, and inspire them. The goal of social work is to strengthen people’s ability to cope with the task and problems they face in life and to promote improvements in the environment to more adequately meet human needs. The theory of social constructionism emphasizes that â€Å"our generation of knowledge and ideas of reality is sparked by social processes more than individual processes† (Gergen, 1994). According to constructionism, â€Å"knowledge is not something people possess somewhere in their heads, but rather, something people do together† (Gergen, 1985). Therefore, it is considered and viewed to be a collective procedure. For example, the idea that women â€Å"naturally† like to do housework is a social constructionist concept because this idea appears â€Å"natural† because of its historical repetition, rather than it being â€Å"true† in any essential sense. With regards to individualism as opposed to collectivism, one can state that the extent to which the members of the organization are encouraged or given incentives to focus primarily on personal gain (individualism) versus considering first the interests of the group as a whole (collectivism). Individualism includes a person’s values and standards being authentic, beliefs rooted in one’s spirit, embraced and put into practice as expressions of the self. According to Widdicombe, â€Å"The notion of positioning how it constructs persons has its roots in Althusser [whose] central thesis was that ideology ‘interpellates’ or ‘hails’ individuals into particular positions so that they come to have the kinds of identity which are necessary for social practices. As a result, â€Å"people are subjected and trained to recognize themselves in particular ways, and they are thereby produced as particular kinds of being predisposed to certain kinds of activity which fit with the demands of society,† which results in the â€Å"illusion that we have freely chosen our way of life†. One factor that corporations must take into consideration before recruiting an employee is the matter of â€Å"personality testing†. This method has become a routine part of corporate life. Soon it may be as universal as the employment interview or the team-building exercise. Every day, thousands of employees are asked to complete questionnaires about their likes and dislikes or probable reactions to different scenarios. Such as if you found yourself at a party, would you be more likely to linger at the edge of the room and avoid eye contact or to plunge into the crowd and mingle, making friends everywhere? Responses to questions like this may be used to answer other questions like â€Å"have you got what it takes to handle the pressure and be a trusted team-player?† Even though there are supposed to be no right answers, it’s often the case that these tests can be completed to produce a result that suggest you’re a charismatic, natural leader and all-round great person. Few people stop to question the outcome of these tests. After all, they seem to agree with thoughts we already have about ourselves. Personality tests are often believed to be scientific confirmation that you are indeed who you think you are. All though psychological analysis is very time-consuming and requires the personal involvement of experienced, highly qualified (and prohibitively expensive) professionals. There are no psychological tests that are cheap, quick and accurate all at the same time. However, anyone who is curious about their own personality has dozens of tests to choose from, all of which claim to answer some aspect of the question â€Å"who am I?† or â€Å"how will I behave and interact with other personalities†. These questions are more than essential to the employee’s self-image, role and function in the organisation as they help provide insight on matters that matter most to employees and in doing so may help them work more efficiently (if an employee is satisfied from their work and surroundings, they will strive more for excellence and approval within their jobs). Unfortunately, the outcome behind these measures of personality and aptitude tests is rather uncertain. Their theoretical foundations are rooted more in philosophy than fact and their accuracy suffers as a result. Nonetheless, this has not dissuaded thousands of people taking their results seriously. In conclusion, one’s success in the organization often goes beyond â€Å"doing a good job.† Frequently satisfaction with work comes from not only performing well, but also being comfortable with corporate values. It is essential, therefore, to examine the match between personal characteristics and organization culture. If the employee has to work utilizing his/ her ability for example (working with what you have) it does not mean that the employee cannot be better in his/her position and be productive with their current skills. Actually, my opinion is that employees need the assistance of the manager to become more relevant in the work place, in terms of achieving goals. One thing a manager could do is positively encourage the employees for the job that have accomplished, or try to explain the right way in which can they do so-providing support-if they fail. From one perspective, it is true to work with what you have, but on the other hand, this could occur at the beginning when you are a new worker, with advanced skills, starting fresh. We all us have an individual personality, but our personalities have stemmed from different environments such as: friends, parents, neighbors, etc. In my situation, when I go to work I am trying to use different personality which is not my real personality. for example, when I worked in class restaurant every time I have to smile and speak formally. It happens on numerous occasions, that when I went for work my mood was bad and also sometimes I was sad due to things I had said with my parents or from my girlfriend. This is my real personality, but when I have to go to the restaurant to work I have to change my personality and try to become exactly the opposite. This helps me in being real in the environment that matters the most to me and professional in my area of work.