Essay Sample on Big Five Score Model: Key to Corporate Success

Introduction

Organizational management is critical in the implementation of corporate strategic plans. In the wake of globalization, managers have focused on establishing good corporate governance to enhance the competitiveness of their organizations. However, managers' personality traits and leadership styles have considerable impacts on the success of organizations. The Big Five scores model is a critical tool that measures a person's characteristics, which includes neuroticism, agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness. This paper critically evaluates a manager's personality traits scores from the model and its effects. The essay, in this perspective, strives to recommend an appropriate management style for a manager besides assessing its impacts on work experiences. Also, it evaluates perceptual errors that can potentially affect the managers' decisions. The Big Five model, however, is a useful tool that organizational managers should use to gain more insights into their personality traits. It is beneficial since it enables individuals to adjust behaviors that can influence their experiences in the workplace.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Dimensions of the Big Five Personality Model

This model is a multidimensional approach that enhances the assessment of personality traits by measuring agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion, and openness. The Big Five model, according to Pekkala, Kerr, and Xu (2017), has been a predominant method that researchers have been using since the 1980s. The previous findings suggest that the five traits which underpin the model influence work performance and career choice (Pekkala et al., 2017). As such, the negative and the positive aspects of the five-factor model have a significant influence on how I carry out my task and routine work besides the experiences at the workplace.

Openness: This component describes the tendency of an individual to think in complex and abstract ways. The average score for this attribute is 58% whereas my ratings are 52%. High scorers, in this case, tend to be conceptual thinkers, unlike low scores who are concrete thinkers. My scores, thus, suggests that I have a moderate level of creativity and intellect capacity. Ulgen, Saglam, and Tugsal (2016) noted that the level of openness scores indicates one's creativity, intellectual curiosity, flexibility to new ideas, and change besides a tendency to learn new things. My openness scores are below 58%, and thus suggests that I would find it challenging to embrace changes that take place in the organization - for instance, changes in technology, laws, and regulations. Since the scores are relatively fair, my creativity and intellectual curiosity will be beneficial in the workplace. My past performance records support this view since it indicated that I was curious to learn, innovative, and creative.

Conscientiousness: The trait describes an individual's ability to pursue goals and objectives by exercising self-discipline and control. My conscientiousness scores are 65%, which suggest that I have a high tendency to control myself in the workplace. The ratings imply that I can potentially exercise self-discipline in relations with work colleagues, supervisors, and managers. The ratings have positive effects since the trait will enable me to develop good relationships, which is critical in building the spirits of teamwork in the workplace. Juhasz (2010) noted that conscientiousness determines the level of performance, motivation, and dedication. The author further argued that it is a critical predictor of the job performance of all the traits. High scorers are focused on long-term benefits and would forgo immediate gratification. My ratings also have adverse effects in that I would tend to focus on pursuing long-term goals, which negatively affect my current performance perceptions.

Extraversion: It describes the tendency of an individual to seek stimulation from other people, especially by seeking attention. People with high scores in this trait actively interact with others to earn friendship. My extraversion scores are 65%. The ratings are high and hence suggests that I am an extravert person. My approach to other people in the workplace through sociability, positive-emotionality, assertiveness, and sociability will enable me to gain new ideas by interacting with other people. Accordingly, I will be in a better position to learn from other peoples' past experiences. However, it is also detrimental since the events and circumstances outside the workplace can distract me from achieving goals and targets.

Agreeableness: It describes peoples' ability to forego their interests and instead put that of others ahead. High scorers tend to cooperate with others rather than competing with them besides being forgiving and trusting. My agreeableness scores are 37.5%, which is below average. The negative experiences that I would encounter in the workplace are the inability to coordinate teams, motivate others, and create an environment that enhances their development, especially when I am in a managerial position. The reason is that low scorers are antagonistic, competitive, and hostile (Juhasz, 2010). However, it will also allow me to develop my career by prioritizing my interests over the aspirations of my colleagues.

Neuroticism: It describes people's tendency to develop negative emotions, such as shame, guilt, anxiety, sadness, and fear. My ratings on this trait are relatively fair (54%). Its workplace effects are the ability to manage emotions that result from the actions of the managers and other employees. It implies that I can manage stress and guilt whenever I cannot meet my work targets. However, since the scores are average, it suggests that my emotional stability can easily change. The possible adverse effects are feeling tense, sad, and anxious, in case of failure to meet targets. Hence, the inability to manage emotions will lead to a decline in performance.

The Best Management Style Based on the Scores

Management styles directly impact on the efficiency of operations in an organization. Also, it determines the level of coordination among team members besides their behavior. However, the choice of management style according to the author depends on critical factors such as personality traits, specific situations in the company, and the characteristics of subordinate groups. However, organizational situations and it's working conditions, according to Zuchowski (2015), overweighs a person's traits and thus are the primary determinants of management styles that the managers use to lead other people.

The main types of management styles are laissez-faire, autocratic, persuasive, consultative, and democratic model (Taucean, Tamasila, & Negru-Strauti, 2016). In this perspective, consultative leadership is the best fit and the most appropriate technique for achieving managerial roles. This model is where the manager widely consults the employees and other stakeholders before making a final decision. While the subordinates have an opportunity to contribute their ideas in running the organization, the manager makes the final decision after considering the perspectives of other people. This method is beneficial since it balances organizational interests and that of the employees.

Critical factors underlying my personality trait scores suggest that consultative management is an appropriate strategy. First, my personality pattern shows that I tend to apply my interpretations. This trait is a weakness since my perspective on critical aspects of the organization may not be the best approach. The functions of a manager, however, are sensitive and has a significant influence on the organization. Applying own interpretations without consulting others may adversely impact on the relationships between the manager and the subordinates. Also, there are higher chances of implementing decisions that are not in the best interests of the organization, an aspect which may lead to a failure of strategies. As such, consultative management is necessary to mitigate the risks underlying personal traits such as applying my interpretations in managing the organization.

Secondly, I have a weakness and a tendency of doing things the conventional way until the approach stops working and thus, consultative leadership is necessary to incorporate the perspective of other parties in decision-making. Martins and Terblanche (2003) argued that managers should be able to nurture creativity and innovation in the organization while encouraging a culture of experimenting with new ideas. It is no doubt, in this case, that using conventional approaches to solve organizational problems in an ever-changing environment may lead to failure. Accordingly, consultative management is an ideal approach that will support the manager in mitigating weaknesses underlying personality attributes. This model enables the manager to consult other people and thus, encourages the implementation of modern approaches of business instead of being depended on the conventional strategies.

Thirdly, my degree of agreeableness is below average (37.5%) and thus suggests a high tendency of low empathy and the emergence of conflicts with the subordinates. Consultative management is the best approach in this scenario, where there are tendencies to fall out with the employees and other stakeholders. This management style brings all people on board through consultations and therefore will support the manager in fostering good relations. Ulgen et al. (2016) noted that people with low agreeableness are self-serving, pessimistic, and manipulative. Also, other individuals are less trustworthy towards non- agreeable people since they are less collaborative, affectionate, thoughtful, patient, helpful, and kind. As a manager, therefore, I would implement consultative management to build close interrelationships.

Ulgen et al. (2016) further argued that managers whose agreeableness is below average should focus on building and keeping harmony. They should also prefer to use compromising approaches when handling conflicts. However, my openness ratings are 52% against average scores of 58% and thus suggests my leadership tend to embrace traditional ways. Consultative leadership, hence, fits in this situation since it encourages openness to new ideas. It makes the manager flexible to other people's opinions, which is a critical aspect of fostering creativity and innovation in the organization.

Perceptual Errors in Organizational Settings

Human being has a high tendency of attaching meaning to values and interpretations. However, the activities that people do entirely depends on how they understand the surroundings and the immediate environment. The term perception refers to the dynamic psychological processes that attend to, organize, and interpret sensory information (Ahmad, Gilkar, & Darzi, 2008). The main internal factors that shape perception, according to the authors, are learning, personality, and motivation. The external factors, on the other hand, are the stimulus, context, and attention. The term perceptual errors refer to the inability to judge situations, things, and human accurately and relatively (Ahmad et al., 2008).

The categories of perceptual errors, according to Elnaga (2012), are projection, selective perception, and halo effect. The other types are stereotyping, contrast error, and impression perceptual errors. The areas where managers apply these aspects are performance appraisal, employment interviews, assessing employee loyalty, and their efforts (Ahmad et al., 2008). Impressions, projection, and contrast effect are critical perceptual errors that have dramatic impacts on my behavior in organizational settings. The contrast effect is common in the wo...