INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY

School of Education

Course: ORGANISATION

BEHAVIOUR

LEVEL: Masters in

Education

Name: PHIRI GIVEN

SIN: 1408212372Assignment no. 01&2TASK

1. Federick W. Taylor (1911), Henri Fayal (1916) and

Max Weber (1920) all contributed to thoughts of

developing management/organizations. In the order of

years of developing those thoughts, discuss how such

make a sensible linkage? 

2. Discuss the strength of personality studies in

relation to team/groups at work places. 

This paper will try to discuss the contribution of Henri Fayol,

Fredrick W. Taylor and Max Weber to the thought of developing

Management or organization. Firstly lets give the background of

Henri Fayol and his contributions.

Frederick Taylor and Scientific Management

In 1911, Frederick Winslow Taylor published his work, The Principles

of Scientific Management, in which he described how the application of

the scientific method to the management of workers greatly could

improve productivity. Scientific management methods called for

optimizing the way that tasks were performed and simplifying the

jobs enough so that workers could be trained to perform their

specialized sequence of motions in the one "best" way.

Prior to scientific management, work was performed by skilled

craftsmen who had learned their jobs in lengthy apprenticeships.

They made their own decisions about how their job was to be

performed. Scientific management took away much of this autonomy

and converted skilled crafts into a series of simplified jobs

that could be performed by unskilled workers who easily could be

trained for the tasks.

Taylor became interested in improving worker productivity early

in his career when he observed gross inefficiencies during his

contact with steel workers.

Soldiering

Working in the steel industry, Taylor had observed the phenomenon

of workers' purposely operating well below their capacity, that

is, soldiering. He attributed soldiering to three causes:

1. The almost universally held belief among workers that if

they became more productive, fewer of them would be needed

and jobs would be eliminated.

2. Non-incentive wage systems encourage low productivity if the

employee will receive the same pay regardless of how much is

produced, assuming the employee can convince the employer

that the slow pace really is a good pace for the job.

Employees take great care never to work at a good pace for

fear that this faster pace would become the new standard. If

employees are paid by the quantity they produce, they fear

that management will decrease their per-unit pay if the

quantity increases.

3. Workers waste much of their effort by relying on rule-of-

thumb methods rather than on optimal work methods that can

be determined by scientific study of the task.

To counter soldiering and to improve efficiency, Taylor began to

conduct experiments to determine the best level of performance

for certain jobs, and what was necessary to achieve this

performance.

Time Studies

Taylor argued that even the most basic, mindless tasks could be

planned in a way that dramatically would increase productivity,

and that scientific management of the work was more effective

than the "initiative and incentive" method of motivating workers.

The initiative and incentive method offered an incentive to

increase productivity but placed the responsibility on the worker

to figure out how to do it.

To scientifically determine the optimal way to perform a job,

Taylor performed experiments that he called time studies, (also

known as time and motion studies). These studies were characterized by

the use of a stopwatch to time a worker's sequence of motions,

with the goal of determining the one best way to perform a job.

The following are examples of some of the time-and-motion studies

that were performed by Taylor and others in the era of scientific

management.

Pig Iron

If workers were moving 12 1/2 tons of pig iron per day and they

could be incentivized to try to move 47 1/2 tons per day, left to

their own wits they probably would become exhausted after a few

hours and fail to reach their goal. However, by first conducting

experiments to determine the amount of resting that was

necessary, the worker's manager could determine the optimal

timing of lifting and resting so that the worker could move the

47 1/2 tons per day without tiring.

Not all workers were physically capable of moving 47 1/2 tons per

day; perhaps only 1/8 of the pig iron handlers were capable of

doing so. While these 1/8 were not extraordinary people who were

highly prized by society, their physical capabilities were well-

suited to moving pig iron. This example suggests that workers

should be selected according to how well they are suited for a

particular job.

The Science of Shoveling

In another study of the "science of shoveling", Taylor ran time

studies to determine that the optimal weight that a worker should

lift in a shovel was 21 pounds. Since there is a wide range of

densities of materials, the shovel should be sized so that it

would hold 21 pounds of the substance being shoveled. The firm

provided the workers with optimal shovels. The result was a three

to four fold increase in productivity and workers were rewarded

with pay increases. Prior to scientific management, workers used

their own shovels and rarely had the optimal one for the job.

Bricklaying

Others performed experiments that focused on specific motions,

such as Gilbreth's bricklaying experiments that resulted in a

dramatic decrease in the number of motions required to lay

bricks. The husband and wife Gilbreth team used motion picture

technology to study the motions of the workers in some of their

experiments.

Taylor's 4 Principles of Scientific Management

After years of various experiments to determine optimal work

methods, Taylor proposed the following four principles of

scientific management:

1. Replace rule-of-thumb work methods with methods based on a

scientific study of the tasks.

2. Scientifically select, train, and develop each worker rather

than passively leaving them to train themselves.

3. Cooperate with the workers to ensure that the scientifically

developed methods are being followed.

4. Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so

that the managers apply scientific management principles to

planning the work and the workers actually perform the

tasks.

These principles were implemented in many factories, often

increasing productivity by a factor of three or more. Henry Ford

applied Taylor's principles in his automobile factories, and

families even began to perform their household tasks based on the

results of time and motion studies.

While scientific management principles improved productivity and

had a substantial impact on industry, they also increased the

monotony of work. The core job dimensions of skill variety, task

identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback all were

missing from the picture of scientific management.

While in many cases the new ways of working were accepted by the

workers, in some cases they were not. The use of stopwatches

often was a protested issue and led to a strike at one factory

where "Taylorism" was being tested. Complaints that Taylorism was

dehumanizing led to an investigation by the United States

Congress. Despite its controversy, scientific management changed

the way that work was done, and forms of it continue to be used

today.

Henri Fayol (Istanbul, 29 July 1841 – Paris, 19 November 1925)

was a French mining engineer and director of mines who developed

a general theory of business administration that is often called

Fayolism. He and his colleagues developed this theory

independently of scientific management but roughly

contemporaneously. Like his contemporary, Frederick Winslow

Taylor, he is widely acknowledged as a founder of modern

management methods.

Fayol (1916),”Fayol's work was one of the first comprehensive

statements of a general theory of management”. He proposed that

there were five primary functions of management and fourteen

principles of management

Functions of management

1. To forecast and plan

2. To organize

3. To command or direct

4. To coordinate

5. To control

The control function, from the French contrôler, is used in the

sense that a manager must receive feedback about a process in

order to make necessary adjustments and must analyse the

deviations. Lately scholars of management combined the commanding

and coordinating function into one leading function.

Fayol's work has stood the test of time and has been shown to be

relevant and appropriate to contemporary management. Many of

today’s management texts including Richard L. Daft's have reduced

the six functions to five: (1) planning; (2) organizing; (3)

leading; (4) controlling (5) forecasting. Daft's text is

organized around Fayol's five functions.

Henri Fayol (1949) is generally considered as the father of

planning. As early as 1917, he led a nationally owned French

mining concern from the brink of bankruptcy to international

dominance. This was clearly the result of his development of a

specific system. This system involved forecasts from various

levels and persons within the organization. Managers from each

level submitted their best estimates of the coming years activity

and, based on this information, the Chief Executive Officer would

make up a one to five year plan. Financial evaluations and

control of departments were then based upon these projections.

Based on the business practices and policies of 1917, this was a

radical and unsettling approach. Prior to Fayol’s innovation, the

charisma and entrepreneurial abilities of the firm’s leadership

was believed to be the major factor leading to its success. As

more firms became corporations and the size of business entities

continued to grow, Fayol’s planning approach became widely

accepted. General Motors adopted this approach (luring the 1930s

and 1940s and provided an excellent example of this (Sloane,

1963) in the United States.

Since World War II, the evolution of planning approaches can be

viewed as three distinct phases (Camillus, 1986). The first of

these phases lasted through the 1950s and was, in actuality, an

evolution of Fayol’s approach. Its base of operation was in the

accounting department of a business. Budgeting and financial

projections were used by management to develop future projections

and to control operational decisions. From this writer’s

experience, this appears to he the primary planning process used

in the field of child and youth care today. How many of our

present day agencies are operated (in reality) by a business

office...

Fayol was the first person to attempt to systematize management

by accentuating the higher levels of control (Robbins, 1991:37).

Henri Fayol, a French industrialist, is now recognised as the

Father of Modern Management. In year 1916 Fayol wrote a book

entitled "Industrial and General Administration". In this book, he gave

the 14 Principles of Management. These 14 principles of

management are universally accepted and used even today.

According to Henri Fayol, all managers must follow these 14

principles.

Henri Fayol's 14 Principles of Management are briefly explained

below.

1. Division of Work

The full work of the organisation should be divided among

individuals and departments. This is because a division of work

leads to specialisation, and specialisation increases efficiency,

and efficiency improves the productivity and profitability of the

organisation.

2. Discipline

Discipline means a respect for the rules and regulation of the

organisation. Discipline may be Self-discipline, or it may be

Enforced discipline. Self-discipline is the best discipline.

However, if there is no self-discipline, then discipline should

be enforced through penalties, fines, etc. No organisation can

survive without discipline.

3. Authority and responsibility

According to Henri Fayol, there should be a balance between

Authority (Power) and Responsibility (Duties). Authority must be

equal to Responsibility. If the authority is more than

responsibility then chances are that a manager may misuse it. If

responsibility is more than authority then he may feel

frustrated.

4. Subordination of Individual Interest to General Interest

In an organisation, there are two types of interest, viz., the

individual interest of the employees, and the general interest of

the organisation. The individual interest should be given less

importance, while the general interest should be given most

importance. If not, the organisation will collapse.

5. Remuneration

Remuneration is the price for services received. If an

organisation wants efficient employees and best performance, then

it should have a good remuneration policy. This policy should

give maximum satisfaction to both employer and employees. It

should include both financial and non-financial incentives.

6. Centralisation

In centralisation, the authority is concentrated only in few

hands. However, in decentralisation, the authority is distributed

to all the levels of management. No organisation can be

completely centralised or decentralised. If there is complete

centralisation, then the subordinates will have no authority

(power) to carry out their responsibility (duties). Similarly, if

there is complete decentralisation, then the superior will have

no authority to control the organisation. Therefore, there should

be a balance between centralisation and decentralisation.

7. Order

There should be an Order for Things and People in the

organisation. Order for things is called Material Order. Order

for people is called Social Order. Material Order refers to "a

place for everything and everything in its place." Social Order

refers to the selection of the "right man in the right place".

There must be orderly placement of the resources such as Men and

Women, Money, Materials, etc. Misplacement will lead to misuse

and disorder.

8. Equity

The managers should use the equity while dealing with the

employees. Equity is a combination of kindness and justice.

Equity creates loyalty and devotion in the employees.

9. Initiative

Management should encourage initiative. That is, they should

encourage the employees to make their own plans and to execute

these plans. This is because an initiative gives satisfaction to

the employees and brings success to the organisation.

10. Esprit De Corps

Esprit de Corps means "Team Spirit". Therefore, the management

should create unity, co-operation and team-spirit among the

employees. They should avoid the divide and rule policy.

11. Stability of Tenure

An employee needs time to learn his job and to become efficient.

Therefore, he should be given time to become efficient. When he

becomes efficient, he should be made permanent. In other words,

the employees should have job security.

12. Unity of Direction

All activities which have the same objective must be directed by

one manager, and he must use one plan. This is called Unity of

Direction. For example, all marketing activities such as

advertising, sales promotion, pricing policy, etc., must be

directed by only one manager. He must use only one plan for all

the marketing activities.

13. Scalar Chain

Scalar Chain is a line of authority. This line joins all the

members (managers and employees) from top to bottom. Every member

must know who is his superior. He must also know who is his

subordinate. Scalar Chain is necessary for good communication.

Scalar Chain must not be broken in norm circumstances. However,

if quick action is necessary, then this chain can be broken.

14. Unity of Command

According to this principle, a subordinate (employee) must have

only one superior (boss or manager). A subordinate must receive

orders from only one superior. In other words, a subordinate must

report to only one superior. According to Fayol, if one

subordinate receives orders from more than one superior then

there will be disorder. This will affect the discipline,

efficiency, productivity and profitability of the organisation.

Unity of Command is a very important principle of management.

This principle is based on the rule "Too many cooks spoil the soup."

Max Weber (1864–1920)

Max Weber (1864–1920) was a German philosopher, historian, and

political economist. Weber’s ideas along with those of Karl Marx

(1818–1883) and Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) played a significant

role in the development and growth of the social sciences.  Weber

advocated research that was value free or unencumbered by the

researchers own views. However, Weber understood that social

behavior did not fit precise measures like time and temperature,

thus he advocated using versthen (German for “understanding” or

“insight”) to develop the ability to see the world as other do.

Using versthen. Weber studied the meanings and purposes

that individuals attach to their own actions in a non-empirical

manner called antipositivism. Weber’s most well known work

combined the study of religion and economics in the The Protestant

Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905).

Weber was a key proponent of methodological antipositivism,

arguing for the study of social action through interpretive

(rather than purely empiricist) means, based on understanding the

purpose and meaning that individuals attach to their own actions.

Weber's main intellectual concern was understanding the processes

of rationalisation, secularisation, and "disenchantment" that he

associated with the rise of capitalism and modernity, and which

he saw as the result of a new way of thinking about the world.

Kim, Sung Ho (24 August 2007). “Weber is best known for his

thesis combining economic sociology and the sociology of

religion, elaborated in his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of

Capitalism, in which he proposed that ascetic Protestantism was one

of the major "elective affinities" associated with the rise in

the Western world of market-driven capitalism and the rational-

legal nation-state. Against Marx's "historical materialism",

Weber emphasised the importance of cultural influences embedded

in religion as a means for understanding the genesis of

capitalism”. The Protestant Ethic formed the earliest part in Weber's

broader investigations into world religion: he would go on to

examine the religions of China, the religions of India and

ancient Judaism, with particular regard to the apparent non-

development of capitalism in the corresponding societies, as well

as to their differing forms of social stratification.

In another major work, Politics as a Vocation, Weber defined the state

as an entity that successfully claims a "monopoly of the

legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". He

was also the first to categorise social authority into distinct

forms, which he labelled as charismatic, traditional, and

rational-legal. His analysis of bureaucracy emphasised that

modern state institutions are increasingly based on rational-

legal authority.

Weber also made a variety of other contributions in economic

history, as well as economic theory and methodology. Weber's

analysis of modernity and rationalisation significantly

influenced the critical theory associated with the Frankfurt

School.

After the First World War, Max Weber was among the founders of

the liberal German Democratic Party. He also ran unsuccessfully

for a seat in parliament and served as advisor to the committee

that drafted the ill-fated democratic Weimar Constitution of

1919. After contracting Spanish flu, he died of pneumonia in

1920, aged 56.

Max Weber's thought

Kim, Sung Ho (24 August 2007). “Max Weber's Bureaucratic theory

or model is sometimes also known as the "Legal-Rational" model”.

The model tries to explain bureaucracy from a rational point of

view via nine (9) main characteristics or principles; these are

as follows:

Max Weber's Bureaucratic Model (Legal-Rational Model)

Main Principles (Characteristics)

1. Specialized roles.

2. Recruitment based on merit (e.g. tested through open

competition).

3. Uniform principles of placement, promotion, and transfer in

an administrative system.

4. Careerism with systematic salary structure.

5. Hierarchy, responsibility and accountability.

6. Subjection of official conduct to strict rules of discipline

and control.

7. Supremacy of abstract rules.

8. Impersonal authority. (e.g. Office bearer does not bring the

office with him).

9. Political neutrality.

Merits: Max Weber himself noted, real bureaucracy will be less

optimal and effective than his ideal type model. Each of Weber's

principles can degenerate, more so, when it is utilized to

analyze the individual level in the organization. But when

implemented in a group setting in organizational, some form of

efficiency and effectiveness can be achieved, especially with

regards to better output. This is especially true when the

Bureaucratic model emphasis on qualification (merits),

specialization of job-scope (labour), hierarchy of power, rules

and discipline.

Demerits: However, competences, efficiency and effectiveness can

be unclear and contradictory especially when dealing with

oversimplified matters. In a dehumanized bureaucracy, inflexible

in distributing the job-scope, with every worker having to

specialize from day one without rotating tasks for fear of

decreasing output, tasks are often routine and can contribute to

boredom. Thus, employees can sometimes feel that they are not

part of the organization's work vision and missions.

Consequently, they do not have any sense of belonging in the long

term. Furthermore, this type of organization tends to invite

exploitation and underestimate the potential of the employees, as

creativity of the workers is brushed aside, in favour of strict

adherence to rules, regulations and procedures.

CONCLUSION

Fredrick W. Taylor ,Henri Fayol, and Max Weber contributions as

seen above were linked, as all of them developed a theory that

contributed to the organization or management. As alluded to

above we saw Taylor being the father of scientific Management,

Henri Fayol being the father of administrative Management and Max

Weber coming up with the bureaucratic thought of Management. All

these thoughts are being used and are working very well in

development of Managements and organizations. These theorists

tried to improve on what the other did so as to make an

organization function effectively.

REFERENCES

1. "Max Weber". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 20 April 2009.

Britannica.com

2. Kim, Sung Ho (24 August 2007). "Max Weber". Stanford

Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 17 February

2010.

3. Max Weber; Hans Heinrich Gerth; Bryan S. Turner (7

March 1991). From Max Weber: essays in sociology. Psychology

Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-415-06056-1. Retrieved 22 March

2011.

4. Radkau, Joachim and Patrick Camiller. (2009). Max Weber:

A Biography. Trans. Patrick Camiller. Polity Press.

(ISBN 9780745641478)

5. Giddens, Anthony (1971). Capitalism and Modern Social Theory:

an Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber.

Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521097851.

6. Fayol (1916) cited in: Gerald A. Cole (2003) Management

theory and practice. p. 6

7. Fayol (1916) cited in: Russell C. Swansburg (1996)

Management and Leadership for Nurse Managers, p.

1

8. Fayol (1916) cited in: Ralph Currier Davis (1951) The

fundamentals of top management. p. 157

2. Discuss the strength of personality studies

in relation to team/groups at work places. 

Behavioural and personality models are widely used in

organisations, especially in psychometrics and psychometric

testing (personality assessments and tests). Behavioural and

personality models have also been used by philosophers, leaders

and managers for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years as

an aid to understanding, explaining, and managing communications

and relationships.

Used appropriately, psychometrics and personality tests can be

hugely beneficial in improving knowledge of self and other people

- motivations, strengths, weaknesses, preferred thinking and

working styles, and also strengths and preferred styles for

communications, learning, management, being managed, and team-

working.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002).

“Understanding personality - of yourself and others - is central

to motivation. Different people have different strengths and

needs. You do too”. The more you understand about personality,

the better able you are to judge what motivates people - and

yourself. The more you understand about your own personality and

that of other people, the better able you are to realise how

others perceive you, and how they react to your own personality

and style.

Knowing how to adapt the way you work with others, how you

communicate, provide information and learning, how you identify

and agree tasks, are the main factors enabling successfully

managing and motivating others - and yourself. Importantly you

do not necessarily need to use a psychometrics instrument in

order to understand the theory and the basic model which

underpins it. Obviously using good psychometrics instruments can

be extremely useful and beneficial, (and enjoyable too if

properly positioned and administered), but the long-standing

benefit from working with these models is actually in

understanding the logic and theory which underpin the behavioural

models or personality testing systems concerned. Each theory

helps you to understand more about yourself and others.

Personality is defined as the individual differences in patterns

of feeling, thinking, and behaving that characterize each of us

as individuals. The study of personality or what is personality

focuses on two main areas – understanding how the various

characteristics of a person come together to make up the entire

person and the other is understanding the individual differences

in personality characteristics, such as irritability or

sociability.

Team work :The process of working collaboratively with a group of

people in order to achieve a goal. Teamwork is often a crucial

part of a business, as it is often necessary for colleagues to

work well together, trying their best in any circumstance.

Teamwork means that people will try to cooperate, using their

individual skills and providing constructive feedback, despite

any personal conflict between individuals.

“Teamwork is the collective skill of a group that enables them to

achieve a common goal quickly, efficiently, and/or safely”. Zaccaro

(2001)

Teamwork is a joint action by two or more people, in which each person

contributes with different...efficiency of the group in order to

achieve common goals.... it has a synergy phenomenon which means that

collective efforts of individuals is greater than the sum of

individual efforts of each group member ... Teamwork is just having a

group of people work together to the same goal, you get it by finding

the right people and motivating them

As a team leader in the workplace, you may not have much choice

over who is in your team, but with the right approach, you can

create great results.

Let us look at what is teamwork in more detail. Research shows

that team members have:

1. A common purpose and clear goals

2. The necessary skills and resources

3. A common approach to work

4. The willingness to share information

5. Trust and support in each other

6. The ability to work through conflict

7. The willingness to take responsibility for team actions.

The Forming – Storming – Norming – Performing model was proposed

by Bruce Tuckman in 1965.

1st step

Forming is the first step. This is when people are getting to

know each other, yet are not interacting very closely yet. This

is when individuals are just trying to understand their goals,

tasks and what everybody else in the team is doing. Towards the

end of this stage people are still more individually oriented.

 2nd step 

The second step called Storming. It is similar to “Brain

Storming”. This is when members are deciding about the leadership

model they except, divide each others tasks and getting complete

understanding of what others are doing. During this stage the

leader is chosen.

3rd step 

Norming is when everybody have clear vision of goal they work

towards to. If anybody had disagreement with other at that point

they have to give it up in order to work productively in a team.

Norming is when team is actually working towards common goal.

 4th step

Performing is the brightest time in any team’s cycle. This is

when problems being solved fast and without conflicts and when

the work is done smoothly and without much of a supervising.

Moving from one stage to another is a normal process. Team can go

from Performing to Norming and back. And if new members are

entering the team, it can go back to Storming. All this is not

bad, but actually good for as they help to keep new ideas coming

and to avoid stagnation. Norming and Performing is a productive

parts of teamwork cycle. If group stays in Forming and Storming

stages for too long, then it’s not developing and can fall apart

because of conflicts.

The person who supervises the teamwork should look at this

process very closely and intrude any time it’s needed to get them

on a right track. I hope that explains what is teamwork and how

it can be formed.

This paper will attempt to discuss the strength of personality

studies in relation to team/groups at work places. We are also

going to find out the correlations between personality and work

performance. With research on this topic spanning only the past

10 years, this is a relatively new field of research. Although

the question of whether different professions are affected

differently by the personality of an employee is a question for

future research, current data conclusively indicate that

conscientiousness and cognitive ability are two characteristics

of an employee that strongly predict positive workplace

performance.

Research in this field has yielded correlations between the five-

factor model and aspects of job performance such as motivation,

deviation, job satisfaction, and teamwork.

Studies of sales representatives have defined two aspects of

motivation--status striving and accomplishment striving--and they

are correlated with extraversion and conscientiousness,

respectively. These two subsets of motivation lead to sales

performance, although the data imply that status striving leads

to performance and accomplishment striving leads to performance

only indirectly via a relation between accomplishment striving

and status striving (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002). This

study is questionable in that it studied sales representatives,

who are likely required to be extraverted in order to succeed at

their job. To say that extraverted sales representatives perform

better is a bit redundant; shy sales people do not go far.

Because extraversion is such an integral aspect of being a

salesperson, this study does not lend much support for a general

model or theory correlating the five-factor model with job

performance.

The five-factor model is correlated with overall level of job

satisfaction experienced by employees. In general, satisfied

employees are more likely to remain in a position and to avoid

absences than are dissatisfied employees.

Initial research indicated that neuroticism is negatively

correlated with job satisfaction, whereas conscientiousness,

extraversion, and agreeableness are positively correlated with

job satisfaction. Openness to experience has a negligible impact

on job satisfaction. Additional research, however, has only been

able to replicate correlations among the factors of neuroticism

and extraversion, with extraversion being positively correlated

with job satisfaction and neuroticism being negatively

correlated. This could be due to the social nature of the

workplace (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002).

This finding may be due to the low level of arousability for

extraverted individuals (Hebb's theory). If the workplace is a

social environment, then extraverted employees are more likely to

be at a low level of arousal while at work, whereas at their home

there is less stimulation. Introverts, on the other hand, are

more likely at their optimal level of arousal outside of the

workplace, where there is less stimulation, and therefore are

more likely dissatisfied with the level of stimulation that they

experience while at work.

Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000), “Workplace deviance occurs

when an employee voluntarily pursues a course of action that

threatens the well-being of the individual or the organization”.

Examples include stealing, hostile behavior towards coworkers,

and withholding effort. Stealing and withholding effort are

categorized as organizational deviance, whereas hostile and rude

behavior toward coworkers are categorized as interpersonal

deviance.

Workplace deviance is related to the five-factor model of

personality. Interpersonal deviance is negatively correlated with

high levels of agreeableness. Organizational deviance is

negatively correlated with high levels of conscientiousness and

positively correlated with high levels of neuroticism. This

implies that individuals who are emotionally stable and

conscientious are less likely to withhold effort or steal,

whereas those who are agreeable are less likely to be hostile to

their coworkers.

Another entirely different factor to consider is perception of

the workplace. Employees who had a positive perception of their

workplace were less likely to pursue deviant behavior. Research

indicates that personality acts as a moderating factor: workplace

deviance was more likely to be endorsed with respect to an

individual when both the perception of the workplace was negative

and emotional stability, conscientiousness, or agreeableness was

low (Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004).

Of the five factors, the single factor of conscientiousness is

the most predictive of job performance (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000).

Absences

Job absence is very much a part of job performance: employees are

not performing effectively if they do not even come to work.

Introverted, conscientious employees are much less likely to be

absent from work, as opposed to extraverted employees who are low

on conscientiousness. Interestingly enough, neuroticism is not

highly correlated with absence (Judge, Martocchio, & Thoresen,

1997). The Judge et al. (1997) study is interesting considering

the Judge et al. (2002) research on job satisfaction and the

five-factor model. The results of the latter research suggests

that extraverted individuals are more satisfied in the workplace,

because work gives them an opportunity to experience an optimal

level of arousal, whereas introverted individuals are less

satisfied in the workplace due to too much stimulation. Combining

the results of these two studies suggests that conscientiousness

is the deciding factor regarding job absence.

Perhaps another factor in absenteeism is that, although

introverts may be less satisfied in the workplace, they go to

work anyway. This behavior might imply either that introverts are

more conscientious or simply that introverts have no compelling

reason not to go to work (whereas extraverts may have friends who

urge them to skip work and go see a movie). This conclusion is

debateable, however, because introverts might be tempted to skip

work to avoid the extra stimulation and might perhaps stay home

and read a book (a book on psychology, no doubt). Judge and his

colleagues will likely continue their research and perhaps

provide answers in the future.

According to Holland, if you can match your job personality type

and your work environment, you can improve your success and

satisfaction.

Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000) “Birds of a Feather, Flock

Together: From a job personality standpoint, the idea is that

“birds of a feather, flock together,” and that people with the

same personality type tend to enjoy working with each other”. 

For example, Artistic people enjoy working with other Artistic

people.

Additionally, people with the same personality type tend to

create a work environment that rewards thinking and behaving like

that type.  For example, an Artistic environment rewards creative

expression. When you’re in an environment that supports your job

personality, you act and feel more effective.  The thing to

remember is that job personality types are really just lenses on

behavior.  Rather than assume you’re just one job personality

type, Holland suggests that you have interests with each of the 6

job personality types, in descending order, effectively creating

720 different job personality patterns.

In the book The Truth About Managing People…And Nothing But the

Truth, Stephen R. Robbins writes about the six job personality

and work environment types.

Here is a summary of the six job personality and work environment

types based on Holland:

1. Realistic (Do’er) – Prefers physical activities that require

skill, strength, and coordination. Traits include genuine,

stable, conforming, and practical.  Example professions

include architect, farmer, and engineer.

2. Investigative (Thinker) – Prefers working with theory and

information, thinking, organizing, and understanding. Traits

include: analytical, curious, and independent.  Example

professions include lawyer, mathematician, and professor.

3. Artistic (Creator) – Prefers creative, original, and

unsystematic activities that allow creative expression.

Traits include: imaginative, disorderly, idealistic,

emotional, and impractical.  Example professions include:

artist, musician, and writer.

4. Social (Helper) – Prefers activities that involve helping,

healing, or developing others.  Traits include cooperative,

friendly, sociable, and understanding.  Example professions

include counselor, doctor, and teacher.

5. Enterprising (Persuader) – Prefers competitive environments,

leadership, influence, selling, and status.  Traits include

ambitious, domineering, energetic, and self-confident. 

Example professions include Management, Marketing, and Sales

Person.

6. Conventional (Organizer) – Prefers precise, rule-regulated,

orderly, and unambiguous activities.  Traits include

conforming, efficient, practical, unimaginative, and

inflexible.  Example professions include accountant, clerk

and editor.

 People are happiest when they are put in jobs that match their

job personality.  Robbins writes:

“The evidence indicates that employee satisfaction is highest and turnover lowest when

personality and occupation are in agreement.  social individuals, for instance, should

be in social jobs, conventional people in conventional jobs, and so forth.”

Teamwork

Oftentimes in the workplace the ability to be a team player is

valued and is critical to job performance. Recent research has

suggested that conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness

are all related to cooperative behavior but that they are not

related to task performance. Although this fortifies the case

that job performance is related to the five-factor model via

increased cooperativeness among coworkers, it lays siege to the

role of personality by implying that actual job performance (task

performance) is related to cognitive ability and not to

personality (LePine & Dyne, 2001).

Leadership abilities are often essential in the workplace,

especially for individuals who aspire to move up into the ranks

of management. Studies of Asian military units have found that

neuroticism is negatively correlated with leadership abilities.

Contrary to what the researchers hypothesized, agreeableness is

negatively correlated with leadership abilities as well. Openness

to experience is unrelated to leadership abilities, but

extraversion is positively correlated with leadership abilities

(Lim & Ployhart, 2004). This evidence is consistent with the

long-standing idea that in teams there are leaders and there are

followers; the leaders make decisions and the followers abide by

them. Although agreeableness is positively correlated with

working with a team, it is negatively correlated with being a

leader. Those followers who do not always agree and are willing

to voice their own opinions end up moving up the ranks, whereas

those who blindly agree are left as followers.

Team work and team building essentials

Team building skills are critical for your effectiveness as a

manager or entrepreneur. And even if you are not in a management

or leadership role yet, better understanding of team work can

make you a more effective employee and give you an extra edge in

your corporate office.

A team building success is when your team can accomplish

something much bigger and work more effectively than a group of

the same individuals working on their own. You have a strong

synergy of individual contributions. But there are two critical

factors in building a high performance team.

The first factor in team effectiveness is the diversity of skills

and personalities. When people use their strengths in full, but

can compensate for each other's weaknesses. When different

personality types balance and complement each other.

The other critical element of team work success is that all the

team efforts are directed towards the same clear goals, the team

goals. This relies heavily on good communication in the team and

the harmony in member relationships.

In real life, team work success rarely happens by itself, without

focused team building efforts and activities. There is simply too

much space for problems. For example, different personalities,

instead of complementing and balancing each other, may build up

conflicts. Or even worse, some people with similar personalities

may start fighting for authority and dominance in certain areas

of expertise. Even if the team goals are clear and accepted by

everyone, there may be no team commitment to the group goals or

no consensus on the means of achieving those goals: individuals

in the team just follow their personal opinions and move in

conflicting directions. There may be a lack of trust and openness

that blocks the critical communication and leads to loss of

coordination in the individual efforts. And on and on. This is

why every team needs a good leader who is able to deal with all

such team work issues.

Here are some additional team building ideas, techniques, and

tips you can try when managing teams in your situation.

• Make sure that the team goals are totally clear and

completely understood and accepted by each team member.

• Make sure there is complete clarity in who is responsible

for what and avoid overlapping authority. For example, if there

is a risk that two team members will be competing for control in

certain area, try to divide that area into two distinct parts and

give each more complete control in one of those parts, according

to those individual's strengths and personal inclinations.

• Build trust with your team members by spending one-on-one

time in an atmosphere of honesty and openness. Be loyal to your

employees, if you expect the same.

• Allow your office team members build trust and openness

between each other in team building activities and events. Give

them some opportunities of extra social time with each other in

an atmosphere that encourages open communication. For example in

a group lunch on Friday. Though be careful with those corporate

team building activities or events in which socializing competes

too much with someone's family time.

• For issues that rely heavily on the team consensus and

commitment, try to involve the whole team in the decision making

process. For example, via group goal setting or group sessions

with collective discussions of possible decision options or

solution ideas. What you want to achieve here is that each team

member feels his or her ownership in the final decision,

solution, or idea. And the more he or she feels this way, the

more likely he or she is to agree with and commit to the decided

line of action, the more you build team commitment to the goals

and decisions.

• When managing teams, make sure there are no blocked lines of

communications and you and your people are kept fully informed.

Even when your team is spread over different locations, you can

still maintain effective team communication. Just do your

meetings online and slash your travel costs. Click here for a

free test drive.

• Be careful with interpersonal issues. Recognize them early

and deal with them in full.

• Don't miss opportunities to empower your employees. Say

thank you or show appreciation of an individual team player's

work.

• Don't limit yourself to negative feedback. Be fare. Whenever

there is an opportunity, give positive feedback as well.

Finally, though team work and team building can offer many

challenges, the pay off from a high performance team is well

worth it.

Below are some benefits of team work in any organization:

Problems solving: A single brain can’t bounce different

ideas off of each other. Each team member has a

responsibility to contribute equally and offer their unique

perspective on a problem to arrive at the best possible

solution. Teamwork can lead to better decisions, products,

or services. The quality of teamwork may be measured by

analyzing the following six components of collaboration

among team members: communication, coordination, balance of

member contributions, mutual support, effort, and cohesion.

In one study, teamwork quality as measured in this manner

correlated with team performance in the areas of

effectiveness (i.e., producing high quality work) and

efficiency (i.e., meeting schedules and budgets). A 2008

meta-analysis also found a relationship between teamwork and

team effectiveness.

Healthy competition: A healthy competition in groups can be

used to motivate individuals and help the team excel.

Developing relationships: A team that continues to work

together will eventually develop an increased level of

bonding. This can help people avoid unnecessary conflicts

since they have become well acquainted with each other

through team work. Team members’ ratings of their

satisfaction with a team is correlated with the level of

teamwork processes present.[2]

Everyone has unique qualities: Every team member can offer

their unique knowledge and ability to help improve other

team members. Through teamwork the sharing of these

qualities will allow team members to be more productive in

the future.

In healthcare: teamwork is associated with increased patient

safety.

CONCLUSION

Job performance and personality (as measured in the five-factor

model) are related. It appears that the relation between job

performance and the five factors is more a consequence of the

social aspects of the workplace than of ability. Research

indicates that cognitive ability is more strongly correlated with

task performance than any of the five factors are correlated with

task performance. The five factors are strongly correlated with

cooperating with others and enjoying the overall workplace

experience, which are key components of long-term job success.

Being absent from work or working as a team are correlates of

personality that directly affect whether one will succeed in the

workplace, and they are strongly correlated with the Big Five and

not with cognitive ability.

It is worth noting that the majority of research has been on

sales or other occupations in which interacting with people is

required. Is it possible that these studies are skewed? Perhaps

researching individuals in jobs that require very little human

interaction (such as authors of fiction, like Steven King) would

yield different results.

Conscientiousness and extraversion are the two aspects of the

five-factor model that are always correlated with positive job

performance, although conscientiousness is more positively

correlated (extraversion is negatively correlated with job

performance in that it appears to inspire more absence, but only

when combined with low levels of conscientiousness).

Agreeableness is negatively correlated with job performance

within a leadership role. Openness to experience, in general, is

unrelated. Neuroticism is negatively correlated with job

performance.

Cognitive ability may allow an employee to complete a specific

task, but the ability to work with others and to stay motivated

are aspects of personality. The five-factor model is a valid

predictor of workplace performance. Personality is an

indispensable consideration for employers looking for quality

employees. “What you are comes to you.” —  Ralph Waldo

References

1. Marks, Michelle A., John E. Mathieu, and Stephen J. Zaccaro

(2001). "A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of

Team Processes". Academy of Management Review 26 (3): 356–376.

doi:10.2307/259182.

2. Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Mariani, M. e S. Mengoli (2013)

“Tackling the ‘Galácticos’ Effect: Team Familiarity and the

Performance of Star-Studded Projects”, Industrial and

Corporate Change, 22(6): 1629-1662.

3. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002).

Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating

effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 87, 43-51.

4. Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., &

Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality

and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599-609.

5. Hochwater, W. A., Witt, L. A., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000).

Perceptions of organizational politics as a moderator of the

relationship between conscientiousness and job performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 472-478.

6. Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job

performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology,

85, 869-879.

7. Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. (1997).

Five-factor model of personality and employee absence.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 745-755.

8. Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-Factor

model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530-541.