Assignment one
The strengths, virtues, vitality, and resilience of individuals and organizations
Identify your top five strengths. Describe how each of these strengths might benefit an organization.
Could there be a downside or unintended consequences for managers who focus primarily on the findings of positive organizational behavior research? Explain your answer.
List three concrete ways a high-involvement manager could empower employees.
My top 5 strengths are that I am reliable, trustworthy, respectful, determined and dedicated. Being reliable benefits any organization by being responsible and showing up on time, and working the best that I can in any position. Trustworthy by having a company trust me for the position and as well as the responsibilities I must partake in. Being respectful in an organization is key for positive work environment between coworkers and customers to any company. Determination by having faith in myself that I am able to do whatever it takes to get the job done right. And by being dedicated to an organization and pouring out all that I can into the company reflects positivity to myself and others surrounding me.
Yes, there could be a downside to managers who only focus on positive organization behaviors. Some managers might take things too serious and focus on one down-fault to an employee although they may have everything else positive to them. Every employee and every manager is not perfect and somedays people will have a good day or bad day. That can not determine the persons behaviors. It can also change the work environment for employees knowing that the manager is only focusing on that. It could be more harmful than beneficial. Managers should have to focus on one thing, they need to focus on the management as a whole and as well as each employee as an individual with their own perks and downfalls.
Three concrete ways a high-involvement manager can empower their employees is by empowering them to make decisions, provide each employee with extensive training and opportunities to increase their knowledge base and share important information as well as provide incentive compensation.
Example of what someone responded with
Kole,
I think that your top 5 strengths are so useful in any field. For example, in a organization working with technology the reliability aspect plays a big hand in your role or in an organization that is customer service-centered your ability to be respectful will make you a favorable employee. I think it’s realistic of you to mention a manager fixating on a singular fault of an employee which will definitely inhibit the positive organization behavior model. but you can find it in almost any organization nowadays which is why there is such a high percentage of employee turnout.
Thank you for such an interesting post!
Melanie
2. Identify your top 5 strengths. Describe how each of these strengths might benefit an organization.
As someone who has had previous work experience, specifically in an organization, I believe my top 5 strengths include: patience, ability to work well with people (especially big groups of people), can speak more than one language, proficiency in Microsoft/Google software, and skilled public speaker. I think patience is probably a necessary component of working with other people, regardless of age or position, it pays to be patient in terms of work because it allows you to process and make sound decisions based on the information provided. I believe my ability to work well with people is beneficial to organizations because regardless of what type of organization it may be, people are a fundamental aspect of any organization- whether its working with them or providing a service. I think speaking more than one language, in my case 3, broadens up the amount of people I can successfully interact with, with benefits organizations from a globalist standpoint. Due to the pandemic, many, if not all, organizations went remote and because I am skilled in Microsoft and Google softwares, the technological aspect does not put me at a disadvantage because I am already acquainted with it. An organization may benefit from my public speaking skills when it requires employees to present information to an audience.
Could there be a downside or unintended consequences for managers who focus primarily on findings of positive organizational behavior research?
An automatic downside for managers who practice positive organizational behavior research is that it only works on specific employees. Organizations have to have the right type of employee, someone who cares more for the service than the pay or of similar nature, to effectively practice the POB research. For example, a manager must have perfect the art of choosing an employee that would excel under the conditions of the research because if they don’t the POB research fails to provide beneficial results. Another possible downside may be that after a manager has thoroughly trained an employee to perfectly execute a skill, the employee might move to another organization that provides better benefits. Similar to these, an unintended consequence may include: an employee not making the right decision.
List three concrete ways a high-involvement manager could empower employees.
Allowing employees to make their own decisions
Providing employees with opportunities to increase their knowledge and/or skill
Providing employees incentive compensation
Example of response
Hi Melanie,
Reading through your strengths, you have so many great attributes that can bring positivity into a workplace! You touched upon patience, in which I agree is vital to have when working with other people. Everyone works and learns at their own pace, so having a high level of patience is key. I also agree with the downside to managers who practice positive organizational behavior. Some employees may not be as compliant or fitting for every environment. Finding the right people to join a team will create a more balanced and productive group. Thanks for sharing!
Assignment 2
Nature vs Nurture
Take a stand – Answer one of the questions below. Take a position for nature vs nurture or the middle ground. Be sure to back up your answers with the readings or outside research;
If you believe that individual differences were primarily determined by nature (i.e. inherited and hard-wired) what common-sense arguments could you use to support your belief?
If you believe that individual differences were primarily determined by nurture (i.e. shaped by one’s upbringing and environment) what common-sense arguments could you use to support your belief?
Argue for a middle ground to the nature vs. nurture debate. How would you support the belief that BOTH genetic and environmental influence personality and differences
Personality is what gives an individual certain traits, qualities, and behaviors. With the nature v. nurture debate, I relate most with the middle ground. I believe that both genetic factors and environmental factors can contribute to one’s personality and differences from others. Although I think that both contribute, I think that nurture has a larger influence on personality. Beginning with nature, there are several factors that support the idea of personality being derived from nature. One way in which nature has been analyzed has been through twin studies. Several researchers have monitored and observed two identical twins who have been separated and raised in different environments. Despite their separation, many twins have still shown commonalities in personality traits and behaviors. One study found that with “most of the Big Five personality traits, especially Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness as well as Conscientiousness, there is substantial evidence for non-additive genetic influences” (Montag et al., 2016, p.11). Even when twins are raised in separate environments, there is evidence that shows their similar set of genes play a role in their personality development.
Nurture is a large factor that contributes to personality as well. I personally believe that nurture has more weight and evidence with this debate, however both sides of the argument still have influence. Nurture is mostly based upon the environment a child is raised in, and can have an affect on the child’s personality and behaviors. These factors may include culture, religion, physical environment, and parental relationships. The parent-child relationship can have a strong influence on the child, shaping their internal and external behaviors. One study found that “parents who are affectionate and supportive toward their children are also more knowledgeable of their whereabouts and less domineering” (Patterson et al., 2017, p.537). Positive relationships with the child have shown to have a large impact on the child’s upbringing, in the same way negative relationships can. If a child is raised in a negative environment where they are neglected or abused, there can later be an impact on the child’s life. Depending upon the environment, this can influence any of the Big Five personality traits of the individual. Nurture is a major factor in an individual’s personality and can affect their actions and behavior later in life. I think that these early childhood experiences are what shape how an individual acts and plays a large role in their personality development.
Montag, C., Hahn, E., Reuter, M., Spinath, F. M., Davis, K., & Panksepp, J. (2016). The role of nature and nurture for individual differences in primary emotional systems: Evidence from a twin study. PLoS ONE, 11(3). https://doi-org.ez.sjcny.edu/10.1371/journal.pone.0151405
Patterson, M. W., Cheung, A. K., Mann, F. D., Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Harden, K. P. (2017). Multivariate analysis of genetic and environmental influences on parenting in adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(5), 532–541. https://doi-org.ez.sjcny.edu/10.1037/fam000029
Example of someone response
Hi Julia,
Great Post! I do realize that genes play a role when it comes to the nature side. You cannot change someone’s DNA. When deciding if someone’s personality is Nature vs Nurture, I believe it’s Nurture. But if we are deciding on where it was originated from, it would be nature. This has been an ongoing debate for before we were born. I think it ultimately comes down to what perspective are you looking at it from. Are people trying to decide this from their personality? I see both points of view, but I see it as personality develops over time as the child grows and develops into an adult. The person will always have the same DNA, but I believe Nurture is the larger factor.
2 Argue for a middle ground to the nature vs. nurture debate. How would you support the belief that BOTH genetic and environmental influence personality and differences?
Personalities are unique facets individuals that varies from person to person. Even siblings brought up in the same household, often have vastly distinct personality types from each other. I would support the belief that, both, genetic and environmental factors influence personality and subsequent differences by highlighting the fact that humans are innately complex individuals (Neck et al., 2018, p. 51). In Organizational Behavior, researchers had “studied identical twins adopted by different sets of parents at birth” and discovered that less than half of the personality traits exhibited in the children were “inherited.” With this result, personalities may be more based on environmental factors, but it is still important to understand that some portion is passed down, despite how small that portion may be. Therefore, the complex nature of humans is the consequence of genetics and environment, no matter which aspect has a more overwhelming pull over the individual.
When discussing the environmental factors that have a 60% significance over personalities, it is an effect of the socialization the child goes through since birth. For example, a child raised in an Asian culture, maybe more likely to be more sociable in large groups because some Asian cultures are centered on collectivism. On the other hand, in the United States, individualism is ingrained in our culture, therefore an American child maybe more focused on their individual needs and wants. A researcher can examine both children and conclude that the Asian child is more extroverted than the American child with the knowledge that these children were socialized within specific cultures that catered to these results. It goes without saying that the exact opposite may ring true because there is no true exploration on how to gauge which aspects of environmental factors affect personality the most.
Source: – Neck, C. P., Houghton, J. D., & Murray, E. L. (2018). Organizational behavior
Example of someone response
I agree with the side you chose, in that nature and nurture are both responsible for our individual differences and personality. Personality is a “stable and unique pattern of traits and resulting behaviors, that gives an individual his or her identity ( Neck et al., p.51, 2020). These traits and resulting behaviors are not solely a cause of nature or nurture, but rather both. Obviously our physical features are mostly affected by out genetics (nature), and there’s very little we can do to change those features. But as you mentioned, children raised in different societies socialize according to how others around them socialize. If a child is never told to constantly interact with others, then they may never learn social skills needed to build parts of their personality. Furthermore, I always bring up the point about language when it comes to nurture versus nurture. Just because someone is of German descent, does not necessarily mean that they have the German language encoded in their DNA. That’s something that a child needs to learn at a young age and continue to practice. Overall, I enjoyed reading your response, and it seems that we both are on the same boat when it comes to this topic.