I was looking through my classmate, Aaron’s, blog post when his article “muted potential” has caught my attention. In the article, he was responding on another classmate’s blog post about introverts. Aaron gave great examples of current leaders considered themselves introverts, and he argued that introverts are just as capable of achievement and leadership compared to extroverts.
This was interesting to me because from my experience and understanding, many people do indeed realize that introverts carry strengths of their own. Aaron raises the topic of how society deems introverts as less capable beings, however, I think that a more applicable issue regarding the perception of introverts is about stereotyping individuals based on the characteristic of appearing reserved.
I think it is important to realize that being introverted does not necessarily mean that they lack social skills. As a self identified introvert, I can honestly relate to the quote “Introverts just don’t talk unless they have something to say. They hate small talk. Get an introvert talking about something they are interested in, and they won’t shut up for days” on http://carlkingdom.com/10-myths-about-introverts
I think the problem stems within the theory of the halo effect, where people tend to overgeneralize a person base off of a single characteristic (in this case, being shy). I think the idea of attributing personality traits to personal skills is an outdated one, especially in todays standards where there are ample resources to improve oneself.
I also wonder if these negative connotations towards introverts really derives from a failure of the educational sector, such as Aaron claims, or are there other causes that are applicable.
Addressing the focus of social activities in schools, I believe that skills such as being able to clearly communicate ideas, being able to work with others, and to have others reciprocate your efforts should not be seen as exclusive skills for extraverts. Although an extravert’s traits do coincide nicely with these aspects, I think these skills serve as a backbone to a functioning society and should continue to be encouraged and taught in classrooms. After all, no matter how well though out an idea is, if one cannot it communicate clearly and precisely, then the idea’s potential can never be fully recognized. With that said, I don’t agree with Aaron about the shift in focus away from group work. I think that it is more effective to teach about the importance of being able to integrate with others, and recognizing their strengths and weaknesses.

Langton, N. | Robbins, S. P. | Judge, T. A. (n.d.). Organizational Behaviour (7th Canadian Edition) [Texidium version]. Retrieved from http://texidium.com

While reading through one of my classmate’s blogs, I was able to draw some parallels but also, some contrasting points on his topic. In the blog, Jason discusses about the impacts of commission based work and how it sales could potentially be increased if there were more incentive to work together instead of working against each other. In some aspects, I agree with what Jason is trying to convey. He mentions that his job as a food hawker should emphasize teamwork instead of introducing competition between employees. He believes that this method is more effective as it introduces a unified goal.
My experiences working with retail clothing companies that don’t offer commissions based pay tells a different story. In my past job working as a stylist with Levi Strauss & Co. I, alongside my fellow employees, were given a flat rate with minor opportunities to receive a raise through outstanding work performance after working at the company for over a set amount of hours. We did not work with commission, and as a result the workplace did indeed foster a friendly environment. However, I noticed that most of my fellow employee’s motivation declined the longer they stayed with the company. In my opinion, this is the very nature of receiving a flat salary. There is a principal – agent problem in which employees are faced with inadequate motivations to strive and perform their very best. “why should I work twice as hard, when I get paid the same amount?” was a re-occurring topic within our store.
I also think that infrastructure set for receiving a raise was not the most transparent system, but was instead very subjective. Managers had no concrete data, nor did they set any units of measurement to back up the decision of how much of a raise each person gets. Many employees felt as if their hard work goes unnoticed, and so, would not go above expectations when working. Slowly, I noticed the store’s standards and sales decrease each month.
While I think that commissions based pay can create a competitive environment, I have to disagree with Jason and argue that it is a very effective tool for motivating employees, especially part-time students who tend to be more extrinsically motivated. There is definitely risk of associated with the 2 different salary structures. How can employers maximize the efficiency of their employees? I believe they have to tackle both intrinsic and extrinsic values. Having commission rates and monetary rewards are fine, as long as the employer also creates recognition and rewards individuals for team based efforts (cleaning the store, helping out fellow employees, etc.).

While exploring the topic of personality traits and the dark triad, I found myself wondering whether a specific combination of these traits are more beneficial for one’s overall success. While scouring the web for some information online, I stumbled across an article which paints a different perspective on Machiavellianism. The author of the article claims that, in his research between millionaires and middle class citizens, millionaire’s posses more knowledge of Machiavellian behavior and that they “play to win”. In another study on German businesses, the results claimed that “narcissism was positively linked to salary, while Machiavellianism was positively linked to leadership level and career satisfaction”.

Whether or not these studies are accurate, it made me think further about the dark triad of personalities. In the class textbook, the dark triad was deemed “negative” and “undesirable”. However, if these traits can enable one to success, such as the studies claim, then are they really undesirable for the individual? After all, between the two presidential candidates of the world’s most influential country this year, many people regard one as a narcissist, while the other, a Machiavellian.

I recall my Psych 102 class with Professor D.Paulhus, where he researched the possibility of a “successful psychopath”. He explored the idea that, an adequate amount the dark triad of behavior can bring one to success. As long as the levels of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy was not severely high, one can enjoy the beneficial factors (such as leadership, confidence, career advancements) without facing the consequences (not being liked by others, counterproductiveness).

In my opinion, I believe that some degree of the dark triad of personalities should be needed in order to advance in a competitive setting. I believe that some of these traits can enable one to realize more opportunities as well as the decisiveness to pursue it. Therefore, the dark triad should not be perceived as completely undesirable.  However, I also think that these traits should not be sought after, especially compared to other traits that are better for a team environment. Employers should definitely look for traits such as agreeableness, emotional stability, etc. so that the workplace can operate well under one leader, of whom may be more indulged in the dark triad.

Why Bad Guys Win at Work

https://hbr.org/2015/11/why-bad-guys-win-at-work

Are You Machiavellian? Here’s How (and Why) to Find Out

http://www.inc.com/lewis-schiff/leadership-strategy-are-you-machiavellian-find-out.html

Langton, N. | Robbins, S. P. | Judge, T. A. (n.d.). Organizational Behaviour (7th Canadian Edition) [Texidium version]. Retrieved from http://texidium.com

Having been on the receiving end of the interview process numerous times, I often question how employers look at potential candidates. In an article I have recently read, the authors suggest that employers look for traits such as “proactive…ambition…problem solving…”, but how can interviewers possibly know that these qualities exist in an individual within just one or two meetings?

In class, we discussed a lot regarding the theories of perception. The fundamental attribution error and self-serving bias often distort attributions and may give a wrong interpretation of a person. Now, picture an interview setting where the person being interviewed is seemingly struggling to answer the questions given. His face is red and often asks the interviewer to repeat the question. The theories of attribution suggest that the interviewer may fundamentally attribute this behavior to nervousness, or being unprepared. However, another real possibility is that the room was hot and the interviewer was speaking too quietly (external factors).

This made me think more about the interview process. Since perceptions can be flawed, people can project a different version of themselves to appeal to interviewers. For example, in a group interview setting, one can speak in a more clearly or enthusiastically from the rest, creating a contrast effect. If the interviewer remembers his effective speaking, they may also be susceptible to the halo effect of being outgoing and be viewed in an positive light, even when he may have less redeeming qualities.

Are there methods that can reduce the misjudgment of character? It is probable that the people selected to be hired, may have different qualities and characteristics than what is perceived. More often than not, people will tailor what they say and how they act to try to appeal to the interviewers. I suggest that companies should pay special attention at how they recruit new talent. I propose that companies break away from the traditional questions of strengths and weaknesses, and instead use activities to gauge the candidate’s potential. New creative methods of puzzle solving, that requires instantaneous collaboration are already being tested by large companies. I believe that theses new methods will ultimately take over the traditional interview process once more managers realize the difficulty judging a person’s characteristics and the uncertainty of attribution.

http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/4-alternatives-traditional-job-interview/article/1394839

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2016/03/02/12-qualities-employers-look-for-when-theyre-hiring/#797401727508

Langton, N. | Robbins, S. P. | Judge, T. A. (n.d.). Organizational Behaviour (7th Canadian Edition) [Texidium version]. Retrieved from http://texidium.com

Most people would agree that, with a higher incentive to work, they will become more motivated and therefore, be more productive with their tasks. Recently, I came across a TED talk that made me think back to the motivation unit of the class. In this talk, Dan Pink claims monetary rewards are an ineffective way of motivating employees. He argues that the higher the reward, the more inefficient the individuals perform on the task.

His speech made me think about the fundamentals of motivation. If I am asked what would increase my motivation to work, I, like many others, would have said a higher salary. I would have never thought that a higher compensation may hinder my productivity. Dan Pink’s argument is that the extrinsic motivators distract us from the actual task itself. He claims that bonuses set a clear objective and makes one “focus” on only that one goal, but it does not promote more diverse thinking or problem solving.

In our class, we have explored the idea that incentive pay may not be the best method as well. In fact, the text suggests to “Abolish Incentive Pay” and instead, focus on improving “Conditions for Authentic Motivation”.

While I understand the reasoning behind removing financial bonuses, I think that it is still important to be able to be receive a fair amount of monetary rewards to encourage an employee. I believe money itself is a strong initial motivator. In more traditional jobs, as long as the job is fairly likable, I believe that a higher pay can indeed motivate employees. After all, when choosing careers and jobs, usually the initial influential factor is indeed a higher salary. However, in more creative fields, I understand that higher pay may not motivate, but rather give pressure to complete the task at hand. Thus, I believe that incentivised pay should not be a topic of black and white. Rather, companies need to look at the specific job duties and how thier employees operate, in order to decide whether a money- based rewards are suitable.

Langton, N. | Robbins, S. P. | Judge, T. A. (n.d.). Organizational Behaviour (7th Canadian Edition) [Texidium version]. Retrieved from http://texidium.com

On my way to work, I reflected on the recent change in atmosphere at my workplace, and how it applies to organizational behavior concepts. Due to a change in management and new manager, absenteeism and turnover rate was at an all time high. Meanwhile profits and productivity have been the lowest I have ever experienced since working there.

I found it surprising that the workplace environment had changed over a period as short as one month. I was under the assumption that managers were simply unaware of the current state of employee satisfaction. I soon learned that the feedback from employees were ignored and some were even encouraged to resign by management. I began to wonder if employee satisfaction is indeed an important factor in the retail industry where there is such a high supply of labour, and employees are easily replaceable.

Chapter 2 of the course textbook suggest that, “satisfied employees tend to be more effective than organizations with fewer”. This statement held true to my observations, there was a decline in “organizational citizenship behavior” and very little “normative commitment” when coworkers are not satisfied. However, the text does not mention in detail whether employees, who have grown to become dissatisfied, will ever recover a positive outlook on their organization. Is it worth the employer’s time and effort to try to fix conflict within the existing staff, or is it more beneficial to hire a new set of workers who do not have existing grudges in place?

In my opinion, I believe that employee satisfaction should be taken more seriously, even at the lower positions of an organization. Because these positions usually deal with everyday tasks and directly interact with customers, they serve as a foundation to the company’s reputation. I believe it is more beneficial to retain workers and take measures to make each employee feel content. While I understand that there are benefits to start fresh with new hires, the opportunity cost of training new workers can be mitigated by ensuring the well-being of existing employees.

Langton, N. | Robbins, S. P. | Judge, T. A. (n.d.). Organizational Behaviour (7th Canadian Edition) [Texidium version]. Retrieved from http://texidium.com