Per the module’s instructions, the assessment scores I received do indeed reflect my locus of control at work. Moreover, I too was administered the DISC personality assessment — ( a similar personality evaluation), per my employment as an Account Executive and Mortgage Loan Officer; all of which demonstrate the module’s assessments accuracy. To summarize the test postulation:
I have a low locus of control, which indicates that I may have an overwhelming proclivity to self-reflection.
I believe any force oppositional to one’s direction could very well be overcome by reasonable action, hard-work, and determination. Moreover, in a transversal sense, opposition is transisitive to success. Success cannot be had without opposition. It clears dissonance, as destiny then can be pivoted to having to overcome the opposition. Thus to achieve such feats, and to mitigate the nuances of uncertainty — such as ‘luck attribution’ — one must first practice deep introspection.
Luck in itself is not the impetus to future wellbeing; but rather an excuse to scapegoat failure. ‘Luck’ — or the lack thereof — is akin to gambling, as it is trivial in nature, propagating the lurking saliencies of uncertainty. Luck is trivial, and the high degrees of variability between successful/failed outcomes should not be considered when evaluation destiny.
Therein, perhaps, success is not predicated on luck, but rather premised on the actuality of failure, wherein transversely, the premise of of not succeeding drives success. Moreover, deriving ones destiny on luck action of failing and failing to try again in itself is another precept where uncertainty remain unabbetted. Incremental success is success,— thus, conversely, if one does not try again, then they too cement the certainty of failure.
Failure is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s not only determined by one’s lack of hard-work and determination — but rather a maladaptive paradigm where one may scapegoat his woes upon others, ad nauseum. Therefore, for myself to be successful I must: always work with great vigor, caution reasonable action, and remain determined.
Having been tested as INTJ per Myers Briggs, and being diagnosed as high D-C personality via employment mandated DISC assessment, it is a safe conjecture that the aforementioned assessment has highly correlated postulations— where the qualitative data provided from both assessments envelop consistent personality profiles.
How do you think that work locus of control might influence your effectiveness as a manager?
I find this question rather peculiar as the very essence of leadership echoes the logos of most symbiotic relationships: a leader could not exist without followership, and (in general) followers tend to meander when left leaderless.
In determining how my work locus of control could influence my effectiveness as a manager, I first had to determine whether my locus is scalable, and to the degree to which it could potentially scale. For example, (per my own affinity) when given a workplace conflict, to what degree does my low locus begin to shift?
It would require quite a bit.
In realizing my low workplace locus of control, and after researching leadership styles; I think my work ethic and locus of control would be quite beneficial to myself transitioning into a transformational leader. Transformational leaders shift leadership responsibility by stimulating followership via adherence to workplace ethics, inclusiveness, and inspiration. Thereby, a mangers management style orchestrates the mood and the climate in which we work, so as a leader, why not leverage my low locus to help others become better?
I would strive to encourage a subordinate-leadership responsibility within my work team by fostering a followership role orientation — subsequently, avoiding the pitfalls one may face with poor leadership-followership orientation.
3. What do you think is the ideal locus of control in a work setting and why?
I think an effective manager would have a low propensity towards being empathetic while possessing a moderate to high tolerance for risk and risk-related ambiguity — commonalities intrinsic to high D-C/INTJ individuals (DISC and Myers Briggs, respectively.)
Managers with a low locus of control tend to be considered more effective than those with a higher locus because, per the dictum of personality archetypes- they affect solution-oriented strategies when presented with ill-related grievance and stress-contrived conflict. Additionally, shareholders may view managers with a higher locus as those who avoid solution-oriented — a trait that is considered non-conducive to building equity.
Notwithstanding variables, such as industry and culture, I would contend the most effective manager is one with a low, to a moderately-low locus of control. A manager with a lower locus of control would likely be less privy to blaming others for workplace issues, therein increasing revenue by reducing employee fatigue and turnover.
4. What might you do in the next year to make your work locus of control consistent with your answer to number 3 above?
I must understand the fine line I walk as a manager: avoid, perhaps becoming overly sympathetic to the point where my own personal situation may be threatened. And also avoid a Machiavellian leadership style where authorism governance rules.
Though I am acutely, and often excessively conscious of my feelings and cognizant of the feelings of others; I hate to admit that I have an overwhelming bias to logic, reasoning, and solution-oriented planning. My high C-D/INJT personality is a core competency that I’ve used to further my career and is something I base my future on. However, my approach towards problem-solving and the “nurture” aspects of my conversational style is a more dominant factor within the workplace. Erring towards a lower locus of control, my bias towards an objective/solution-oriented solution often overshadows empathy; which often is perceived as bluntness when interacting with others. However, though I may be ‘hard headed’, my ability to recognize others’ emotions and emotional stability is far from paltry. Therefore, moving forward the next year, I should shy away from my modus operandi of sacrificing “social credits” in an effort to seem more likable. As a potential manager, I must understand the emotional state of an employee/co-worker, be caring, and somehow not be the creator of said vulnerability — even if they are a part of a workplace issue. An over-adherence to solution-oriented principal may not always be the best solution ins a workplace.
[SIDE NOTE] (Observations after this assignment)
I do know how individuals are feeling but in my eccentric way of thinking, finding a greater solution to the bigger problem quickly would lead to greater group and personal satisfaction rather than spending additional time on niceties. In a sense, I do care about the feelings of others, but I care about the solution that helps others more. As I’ve learned from the text/further research, this is backed by the fact that emotional intelligence, personality assessments, and OB theory are nuanced, intersectional disciplines with distinct variations — even amidst people with similarly diagnosed factors.
OB — ASSIGNMENT 2
- Do you think that your score accurately reflects your locus of control at work? Why or why not? If you are not yet working, respond from your own personal interactions.