For a personal evaluation on certain duties, self-esteem would be an important factor to consider because it is a social psychology concept. People of all walks of life try their level best to improve or maintain self-esteem. However, these levels vary from one individual to another. For instance, there were differences attained when the boss conducted employee performance review based on communication, organizational agility as well as prioritizing. The boss gave two women (Kathy and Jennet) equal opportunities to evaluate and discuss their performance in those categories (Fiske, Gilbert, & Lindzey, 2010).
Kathy exhibited positive self-esteem due to a number of facts. In her first response, she takes responsibility for her isolation over the recent project but she reassures the boss that she would branch out while looking for ideas and feedback from the other departments. Kathy does not shift blame nor play defensive when criticized by the boss.
Again, she accepts the shipping error and self-initiates a brilliant solution to that error. The solution does not favor herself but the business for the sake of the other employees. Her willingness to share profitable tools with the others indicates that Kathy does not have to compete with the other workers to improve her value within the company or as part of self-esteem. Therefore, she shows confidence in whatever she does in the business (Fiske, Gilbert, & Lindzey, 2010).
In the planning and prioritizing category, Kathy receives the highest rating as compared to her colleague. She appears to be respectful as well as appreciative and does not bluff on her answer; rather, she enjoys prioritizing and planning. Finally, the boss rates her best between the two, and she thanks the boss. Kathy goes ahead to assure the boss of improvement while aiming higher. This shows her commitment in the future. She has a vision for the company and her performance.
Control theory of self-regulation compares self with the self (Crisp & Turner, 2010). The theory proposes that people use self-awareness in their ability to meet their goals or objectives. It gives individuals another option of making certain efforts in line with the achievement of their goals. The theory can be associated with cognitive feedback loop where people tend to compare themselves or certain individuals with a set standard, which can be public or private. The standard is the test phase, and it depends on personal awareness factor. If a person never meets the standards, efforts can be made towards the goal, and this can be referred to as operation phase. After completion of these phases, an individual compares with the standards. If the standards are achieved, the feedback loop comes to an end while if the standards are not met, the process can be repeated.
Kathy exercised this theory while dealing with the shipping error. She accepted the mistake and explained that she chose another grid. Therefore, while responding to an error, Kathy had to come up with a certain process with vivid step for rectifying the mistake and also for avoiding future errors. This process brings back the job standards back to the expected measures (Fiske, Gilbert, & Lindzey, 2010).
The second theory related to self-concept the self-discrepancy theory, which also describes the self to the self relation. It does not only focus on discrepancies between ideal and actual identity, but involves emotional responses. Three schemes are associated with self here: ought, actual and ideal. Ought self shows characteristics as well as traits that people believe they have. Ideal self represents potential as well as expected characteristics and traits. Lastly, actual self represents current characteristics and traits. In addition to that, the model also can be related to ego, id as well as superego consciousness. Therefore, the theory proposes that individuals get motivation by ensuring that their actual self would be like ought and ideal self.
Similar to control self-regulation theory, this model can be related to the shipping error response. There is a discrepancy between Kathy’s actual self as a worker when compared to her ought and ideal self. The difference initiates discomfort, emotion, physical as well as psychological differences.
This made Kathy formulate ways to rectify the error in shipping.
Finally, social comparison theory states that people evaluate their self-concept with other people surrounding them. Therefore, according to this theory, people evaluate their opinions and abilities in reference to social reality. Social understanding improves self-enhancement as well as understating in an individual. This implies that if a person feels low or inadequate, one can compare himself to a person less accomplished or less adequate. People tend to compare themselves to people within the same domain even while seeking employment opportunities and all other aspects of life (Crisp & Turner, 2010).
With reference to Kathy (in the review), there cannot be certain comparison to this model. However, it can be seen that she would deliver expected social domains by the way she connects with every section. The acquired social awareness (as shown by the boss referring to Kathy) would allow her to make a comparison in traits, attributes as well as social concepts with the other employees. This would open the chance of making changes where it would be desired towards the benefit of the company and the employees. This indicates that she posses the self-concept required for job effectiveness (Crisp & Turner, 2010).
In conclusion, the theories discussed are all important while running self-concept maintenance, which comprises of social comparisons, self-discrepancy and self-regulation. In my opinion, self-discrepancy appears to be the best since it gave Kathy a chance to rectify mistakes incurred and gave the company sufficient future prospects. It would also provide the connection between emotional discomfort and psychological discomfort. Nonetheless, the other theories are also important on that they can interact to bring out excellent results.
References
Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2010). Essential Social Psychology. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (2010). Handbook of Social Psychology, Volume 2. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
