Self-Reflection Portfolio

Introduction

The learning style profiler allows individual’s to study the intrapersonal and interpersonal effectiveness; this report aims to evaluate my personal strengths and weaknesses in these areas. This subject has covered many important skills, which are essential for future organization effectiveness, such as reflective practice, intercultural sensitivity, social awareness and writing skills.

The portfolio has provided great opportunity to study individual’s strengths as well as weaknesses. There are two main parts in the portfolio analyses, which are intrapersonal section that reflects my learning style, emotional intelligence; and international personality item pool. I have found the major area to improve to the intrapersonal effectiveness part, which is the ‘deep learning skill’.

However, I have included a strategy to improve my skill in this area. The second part of the portfolio deals with the interpersonal effectiveness, and my focus has been my approach to conflict, I have put in the ways that are more effective for conflict resolution.

Intrapersonal effectiveness

Intrapersonal effectiveness is a process for understanding personal goals, strengths, weaknesses, style and biases, and finding ways to improve personal management skills (De Janasz et al 2006). The use of “assessment of functional and dysfunctional self-development learning through the learning styles profiler” has allowed individuals identifying their learning style.

The learning styles profiler measures self-development learning using the neuropsychological model and divides the results into instinctive and conscious learning. My result based on the LSP-iii has revealed 67 percentile in sensation seeker category, 45 percentile in goal-oriented achiever, 85 percentile in emotionally intelligent achiever category, 70 percentile in conscientious achiever, and 20 percentile in deep learning achiever.

Self-awareness is important not only for self-success but has an important role for working effectively with others. The high percentile in sensation seeking has revealed my excitement and enthusiasm for new opportunities and experiences. However, out of all the conscious learning styles, I am most favored to the emotionally intelligence style, that means I have characteristics that are described in this style such as independent, scientific and have rational approach to problem solving. I have aware my ability to solve issues by logical and adaptive ways.

The scores achieved in the ‘emotional intelligent achiever’ also illustrate my ability to solve the problems independently and with logic. I have learnt to control impulses through emotional intelligence. Schutte’s emotional intelligence scale has added further analytical result showing my emotional intelligence score of 23 out of 33. This is classified under the medium EI category. This Schutte’s measurement of EI illustrates three dimensions, which include, firstly, the appraisal and expression of emotion, secondly, regulation of emotion and lastly the utilization of emotion (Schutte et al 1998).

To study personality of an individual, there are five main categories of dimensions; Neuroticism category, this includes emotional dimensions of; anxiety; hostility; depression; self-consciousness; impulsiveness; and vulnerability to stress. The extraversion category includes dimensions of warmth; gregariousness; assertiveness; activity; excitement seeking; and positive emotion. Openness to experience category includes facets of fantasy; aesthetics; feelings; actions; ideas; and values. Agreeableness category include; trust straightforwardness; altruism; compliance; modesty and tendermindedness.

The Conscientiousness category includes; competence; order; dutifulness; achievement striving; self-discipline; and deliberation (McCrae & John 1992). These five major personality dimensions are linked to a range of job performance criteria (Goldbery 1993).

• Neuroticism 21
• Extraversion 30
• Openness to Experience 22
• Agreeableness 32
• Conscientiousness 30

Major areas to improve on my personality include Neuroticism and Openness to experience. Openness to experience is a measure of the awareness and acceptance of the similarities and differences between people (Strauss & Connerley, 2003). Thompson (2008) has asserted the idea that individuals demonstrates high scores in openness to experience are those that appreciates other’s unique qualities and feels comfortable with different opinions and enjoy the contact with range of diversity in the interpersonal relations.

Trull & Geary (1997) has replicated the Big Five into other variety of languages and cultures, including China. Other work has also suggested the relationship between cultural factors, individualism, power distance, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede 1980) with the big five personality traits (McCrae & Terracciano 2005).

Hofstede’s study has shown that Chinese culture is high in uncertainty avoidance, this means that people of this this culture background fears and are less comfortable in situations that are uncertain. Chinese prefers stability and have always set out rules and procedures in place and therefore are rated high in uncertainty avoidance and low in masculinity (Hofstede 1994). Therefore the Openness to experience is somehow related to the culture I come from, Chinese tend to be more uncomfortable with uncertainty and prefers stability.

Interpersonal effectiveness

Whetten & Cameron has defined interpersonal effectiveness as a serious of skills required in an organization; manage conflicts; to build and manage high-performance teams; conduct efficient meetings; coach and counsel employees; provide negative feedback in constructive ways; influence other’s opinions and motivate and energize employees (Whetten & Cameron, 2011).

Globalisation has changed the work environment around us dramatically and thus stimulated change in societal and business circumstances. (Friedman, 2005; Sirkin, Hemerling, & Bhattacharya, 2008). Coghill (1997) defines globalization as a process which accelerates the worldwide connection in trade, finance, technology, production systems and information. Ohmae (2005) believes such acceleration of world integration has transformed the globe into ‘borderless world’.

The globalisation has increased work diversity in regards to national and culture origins. Many organizations expand the business around the world and beyond the national borders for different customers and employees (Sirkin et al., 2008). Shapiro et al (2005) has suggested that more work assignments are now conducted in teams, with members across the world, therefore, organizations faces more culture issues and those that can manage the issues well can out-perform those that can’t manage it (Ang & Inkpen, 2008). The richness in culture diversity in a team has complicated the group dynamics.

The differences in individual have more chances in creating interpersonal conflict and communication problems. Schneider and Barsoux (2003) has identified that this culture differences have greater potential in causing frustration, dissatisfaction, and leading to high turnover of team members. The performance of multicultural teams requires active management in order to eliminate the lost investment; time; resources; missed opportunities; and disappointing outcomes (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003).

Teams have been proven to enhance work performance and productivity and more true with multicultural teams. The performance of multicultural team is completely the opposite, some performs extremely well whereas the other performs much worse than monocultural teams (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003).

Interpersonal conflict is challenging but a normal issue in organizational context, it is essential to manage this issue. The team diversity in today’s work environment, conflicts are unavoidable (Carlopio & Andrewartha, 2008). Workers from different background has different ways of doing things, when working together, there can be misunderstandings and disagreements. Although many managers fear conflicts in work environment, but it is part of humanity (Carlopio & Andrewartha, 2008). Interpersonal conflict has become a major management skills for managers, and that how the issue is dealt significantly influences the organizational success (Tjosvold, 1991).

Wanous and Youtz (1986) has stated that the organizations with little disagreement on important matters often fail in competitive environment, when members are alike and have similar views on things, lack the ability to improve. Conflicts are believed to be important for stimulating the vibrant and progress of the organizations. The conflicts between team members have the opportunity to stimulate innovation and encourage personal improvement.

There are five categories to the individual’s responses upon conflicts, which include: forcing, accommodating, avoiding, compromising and collaborating (Filley, 1975). These five categories are also used as management and leadership styles for conflicts. Each of the five categories has different degrees of cooperativeness and assertiveness. The difference between the two is that cooperative response is the focus on satisfying the other party, and the importance of the relationship. In contrast, assertiveness focuses on the dominant party and reflects on the importance of the issue (Filley, 1975).

Much literature has found the relationship between culture and preferred conflict management styles, and in some cases, it is found gender significantly influence the preferred use of the five different conflict resolution styles (Seybolt, Derr, & Nielson, 1996; Weldon & Jehn, 1995). Rahim and Blum (1994) has found that Asian culture prefer the non-confrontational styles of accommodating and avoiding as compared to the Western cultures.

In contrast, Americans, and South Africans prefer a more forcing response than Asian Cultures (Rahim & Blum, 1994). In addition, compromise is the most widely accepted style across cultures (Seybolt et al., 1996), because this approach is least costly and most quickly for reaching an agreement between the parties.

Conclusion

The course has provided me with great opportunity to understand more about my personal intrapersonal and interpersonal effectiveness, which are the areas that I have never spend time to explore the insight. Utilizing the many available tests, I have understood myself better and find out the areas that need improvement, openness to experience is the major one. Due to my personal background, I am the only child in my family, I am shy and prefer to do my work individually, but the course has provided me with a chance to understand the importance to improve areas of my interpersonal and intrapersonal effectiveness in order to succeed in organizational
environment.

There are many cultures and personality issues which can influence on work attitudes, my major challenge faced is conflict resolution. Through my study, I have been quite struggled with the group work with many university assignments, and have experienced several incidence of conflict in small group. I have always tried my best to maintain a good relationship with all members, but it is not easy. I think all group members need some degree of understanding of conflict resolution and that to understand the difference between individuals, learn to accept such difference, and spending time communicating with each other, listening to others can be a good channel to conflict resolution.

My experiences of team work throughout the semester, has helped me in conflict resolution, however, I believe future work will keep my learning going and managing work conflicts will become easier as I go along. The intrapersonal tests performed in the course have helped me understand my personality, and that my high score in emotional intelligence is what I believe has helped in the team experience. When facing a conflict or any sort of problem, I tend to have more patience in listening to others, and have more control of my emotions in dealing with something that is not agreeable. I would spend time to listen and help each member of the group to come to an agreeable solution.

References

1. De Janasz, S., Wood, G., Gottschalk, L., Dowd, K., & Schneider, B. (2006). Interpersonal skills in organizations. North Ryde, NSW.: McGraw Hill.
2. Schutte, N., Malouff, J., Hall, L., Haggerty, D., Cooper, J., Golden, C., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.
3. McCrae, R., & John, O. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 8(2), 175-215.
4. Goldberg, L. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.
5. Strauss, J., & Connerley, M. (2003). Demographics, personality, contact, and universal-diverse orientation: An exploratory examination. Human Resource Management, 42, 159-174.
6. Thompson, E. (2008). Development and validation of an international English big-five mini-markers. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(6), 542-548.
7. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences, . California.: Sage Publications
8. Whetten, D., & Cameron, K. (2011). Developing Management Skills. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
9. Sirkin, H., Hemerling, J., & Bhattacharya, A. (2008). Globality competing with everyone from everywhere for everything. . New York The Boston Consulting Group Inc,.
10. Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat: a brief history of the globalized world in the 21st century. London, : Penguin Books.
11. Coghill, K. (1997). Globalisation and local democracy. Melbourne: Montech Pty Ltd.
12. Ohmae, K. (2005). The next global stage: challenges and opportunities in our borderless world, . New Jersey: Wharton School Publishing.
13. Shapiro, D., Von, G., & Cheng, M. (2005). Managing multinational teams: global perspectives, . San Diego: Elsevier.
14. Sirkin, H., Hemerling, J., & Bhattacharya, A. (2008). Globality competing with everyone from everywhere for everything. . New York The Boston Consulting Group Inc,.
15. Carlopio, J., & Andrewartha, G. (2008). Developing management skills: a comprehensive guide for leaders. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
16. Schneider, S., & Barsoux, J. (2003). Managing across cultures. Sydney: Prentice Hall.
17. Ang, S., & Inkpen, A. (2008). Cultural intelligence and offshore outsourcing success: a framework of firm-level intercultural capability. Decision Sciences, 30(3), 337-358.
18. Rahim, M., & Blum, A. (1994). Global Perspectives on Organizational Conflict, : Prager, Westport, Conn
19. Seybolt, P., Derr, B., & Nielson, T. (1996). Linkages between national culture, gener, and conflict mangement styles,. Working Paper. University of Utah.