Personal Review on Self-Assessment
Understanding the concept briefly, Psychological Capital (PsyCap) is an assessment of gather positive capacities of an individual at a workplace through four psychological elements, which could produce effective outcomes after an adequate training. PsyCap comprises of four positive psychological capacities namely hope, optimism, self-efficacy, and resilience. The score of PsyCap indicates the productivity, stress tendency, and well-being of an employee at a workplace (Steeneveld, 2016).
Evaluating personal PsyCap scores, I scored 16 points in “self-efficacy” that refers to the broadness in performance and role activation at a workplace. I affirm the accuracy in scored points since my personality during work and workplace participation is extremely charismatic. I enjoy the encounter with workplace challenges and tend to perform outstandingly. According to colleagues, my confidence is a reliable weapon to deal with potential uncertainties and workplace crisis. Hence, high level of self-efficacy is not a surprising element for me in the PsyCap results.
According to the PsyCap levels, my “resiliency” is another element that comprise with higher tendency. Agreed to the score since my crisis management is extremely calm but prompt. I tend to react towards adverse results immediately by having a strict control over stressing emotions. Besides, my degree of calmness increases during adverse situations, which is a stronger and rare characteristic to possess and demonstrate timely.
I disagree with the results in the segment of “hope” since my initial planning does not have multiple pathways to reach the final destination of an objective. I tend to create a single path and deploy my entire focus avoiding the ongoing environmental transformations. It may not be an appropriate practice to follow but personally, I believe that complete focus would result perfectly and perfect results do not require contingency planning.
I also disagree with my moderate result in optimism. As mentioned previously, my workplace participation is extremely active and I stay confident during panic situations. I possess and demonstrate an utmost confidence and reliability in my personal conducts, skills, and ability of seeing the bigger picture of each conduct. Resulting moderately is something that I would not support in PsyCap assessment.
Using my capacity of hope, I aim to become an “Area Manager” for my organization until the next announcement of “employee growth”. In order to attain this objective, I would require at least four monthly recognitions consecutively so the regulatory could consider me for the designation. On the contrary, I should start interacting with the authorized entities directly and make them feel my presence and charisma. However, the pathway of achieving the designation through consecutive appraisals is more appropriate and ethical.
Considering the primary pathway, I would require to motivate my team and hit 20% additional to the monthly benchmark. This benchmark would require constant institution of efforts from each team member throughout the quarter. Besides, I would need to conduct a participative management approach to maintain the impact of synergy and motivation among my team members throughout the span.
Specifying my personal talents and skills at workplace:
Effective time management
Effective crisis management
Charismatic
Interactive
Active listener
Active learner
Environmental adaptability
Preference to “we” approach instead of “I” approach
Ability to prioritize and understand the bigger picture
The set of skills I possessed is adequate to lead a team with consistent outcome for a quarter. Being interactive, active listener, preference for “we”, and charisma would allow me to keep the team members on a mutual path with favorable consent. Besides, the environmental adaptability, prioritizing, active learning, and time and crisis management abilities would allow me to deal with entities having the authority for selecting my as Area Manager of the company by next announcement. As an optimist, I believe that other team leaders will give me a challenging span and upper management will expect an extraordinary for considering me specifically. I might require diversifying my focus and developing contingencies for successful outcome in regards to the objective.
Motivation Theories and Job Performance
Maslow’s Need Hierarchy
According to the theory proposed by Abraham Maslow, the managers have a strict accountability to ensure that need deficiencies are fulfilled to sustain an employee with an organization. A manager that understands the need of employees and provide them adequate resources of fulfillment, an employee will input his/her entire dedication to perform outstandingly. However, it must be notified that motivational needs fluctuates and change at regular intervals and managers are liable to detect them in a timely manner (Lipman, 2016). Maslow’s theory stresses that managers should provide employees resources such as affiliations, security, and healthy environment to increase the quality of job performance subsequently.
Acquired Needs Theory
According to David McClelland, an individual is subject to three motivational drivers namely achievement, affiliation, and power. Each individual has distinct need that managers are liable to recognize, understand, and provide systematically. Providing them roles based on the suitable motivational drivers would result in excellent degree of productivity. An employee expecting a role of leadership would not perform appropriately as a supervisor. Managers need to evaluate this need and create leadership role accordingly in order to retain that talent with maximum dedication and higher productivity.
Equity Theory
The equity theory is a sensitive tool of motivation for managers since it engages significant level of emotions. According to the theory, the inequities at workplace, both real and perceived, have a strong tendency of disturbing the on-job motivation and sabotaging the job performance (Tanner, 2012). Due to inequities at workplace, employees could reduce the inputs, demand higher rewards for minimal efforts, sabotaging the performance of other organizational participants, etc. Hence, managers need to deal with the emotions and minimize the tendency of inequities for better results.
Two-Factor Theory
The two-factor theory proposed by Herzberg is a combination of theories proposed by Taylor and McClelland. According to Herzberg, the motivational factors are distributed in two segments namely intrinsic and extrinsic. The extrinsic motivators include tangible elements such as remuneration, security, fringe benefits, reputed designation, etc. On the contrary, the intrinsic motivators comprise with intangible elements such as career opportunities, challenging tasks, role definition, etc. Managers need to understand the inverse relation between the factors and balance accordingly for sustaining the quality job performance.
Self-Determination Theory (SDT)
SDT is titled as macro theory to study human behavior and varying personality traits. It stresses on tendency of behavior that an individual demonstrates for self-motivation. In context to the theory, managers should provide adequacy, balanced intrinsic and extrinsic motivators to each resource, and observe the self-determination. If the self-determination is low, the managers should make immediate changes in motivators and re-monitor the behavior.
References
Lipman, V. (2016). The Best Managers Motivate. Forbes. Retrieved 27 August 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2016/02/13/the-best-managers-motivate/#7018090620c3
Steeneveld, M. (2016). Psychological Capital: Training the 4 Positive Capacities. Positive Psychology Program. Retrieved 27 August 2016, from https://positivepsychologyprogram.com/psycap/
Tanner, R. (2012). Equity Theory - Why Employee Perceptions About Fairness Matter?. Management Is A Journey. Retrieved 27 August 2016, from https://managementisajourney.com/equity-theory-why-employee-perceptions-about-fairness-do-matter/
