ORG 535 Week 1 Self-Awareness, Values and Decision Tendencies Example

High on Conscientiousness, Quick to Decide Alone: A Self-Assessment of Personality, Values and Decision Habits for a New Plant Manager

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

ORG/535: People and Organizations

Week 1 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The manager, the plant, the assessment scores and every example are composites written for a model paper.

Eight weeks ago I was promoted from production engineering manager to plant manager of a composite food packaging plant in Ohio that employs about 230 people across three shifts and fills and packs snack products for national brands. The plant's results are good on paper, but turnover among line operators runs about 38 percent a year, and the shift supervisors I now lead describe the plant's culture as "do as told." As I take on a role that depends far more on influencing people than on solving technical problems, I completed three self-assessments and asked six colleagues for feedback. This paper reports what I learned and what I will change.

Personality

I completed a five-factor personality inventory. Compared with the instrument's norm group, I scored high on conscientiousness, about the 88th percentile; moderately high on emotional stability, 70th; moderate on extraversion, 55th; moderate on openness, 48th; and low on agreeableness, 22nd. Barrick and Mount (1991) found in a meta-analysis that conscientiousness was a consistent predictor of job performance across occupations, which fits my record as an engineer who delivers projects on time. Low agreeableness is the result that matters most in my new job. People low on agreeableness tend to be more skeptical, competitive and blunt. In engineering, bluntness helped solve problems; in leading supervisors, it can make people stop raising concerns.

Values

A values survey based on Schwartz's model ranked my priorities. Schwartz (1992) proposed a set of basic human values organized in a circular structure, in which values such as achievement and power, emphasizing self-enhancement, sit opposite benevolence and universalism, emphasizing concern for others. My top values were achievement and self-direction; my lowest were conformity and tradition, with benevolence below average. The profile explains why I am comfortable setting ambitious targets and working independently, and why I sometimes undervalue the routines and relationships that supervisors with long service care about.

Decision Tendencies

A decision style measure showed a strong analytical preference: I gather data, reach a conclusion quickly and act. I rarely consult before deciding unless I lack information. Vroom's normative model of leadership decision making (Vroom, 2000) suggests that the right level of participation depends on the situation, including how much the leader needs others' commitment to implement a decision. Many of my decisions now, such as changing shift schedules, depend heavily on commitment, so my habit of deciding alone fits the situations I used to face better than the ones I face now.

The same habits that made me a reliable engineer can make me a manager nobody tells the truth to.

What Others See

I asked my manager, three shift supervisors and two peers to answer five questions anonymously through human resources. Their feedback confirmed two blind spots. First, decisions announced without consultation: four of six mentioned the overtime schedule change I announced in my third week, which supervisors learned about at the same time as operators. Second, impatience in meetings: three noted that I interrupt when I think I know where a point is going. On the positive side, all six described me as fair, consistent and reliable.

Self-assessments have limits. People tend to rate themselves favorably, and personality scores describe tendencies rather than fixed behavior. The colleague feedback is what turns the profile into something I can act on.

Emotional Stability and Pressure

My emotional stability score was moderately high, which colleagues confirmed: they describe me as calm when a line goes down or a customer complains. That is an asset in a plant where something goes wrong every shift. It can also make me seem detached when others are upset, since I move straight to solutions while a supervisor may first need to vent about a difficult night. I plan to acknowledge how people feel before proposing fixes, particularly after incidents on the night shift.

Where My Values Fit the Plant and Where They Clash

My achievement values fit the plant's need to improve delivery and quality for demanding brand customers. My low conformity and tradition scores clash with a workforce in which many supervisors have 20 or more years of service and value established routines. Changes I see as obvious improvements can feel like disrespect for how the plant has always worked. Recognizing this, I will explain the reason for each change, invite supervisors to adjust how it is carried out and keep routines that work even when I would design them differently.

How These Tendencies Affect the Plant

A culture described as "do as told" is partly one I am reinforcing. If supervisors see that decisions arrive already made, they stop offering information, and I lose the knowledge of what happens on the night shift. Work on psychological safety holds that a crew shares bad news and ideas only when doing so carries no social penalty; my blunt, quick style raises that penalty. The turnover rate is not my creation, but my behavior can either help or hurt it.

What I Will Keep

Self-assessment is not only about weaknesses. Colleagues value my consistency and fairness, and my conscientiousness shows in follow-through: when I commit to a supervisor's request, it gets done. These strengths are the foundation for change, because people are more willing to speak up to a manager they trust to act on what they say. The plan below builds on that reliability rather than trying to make me a different person.

Learning From the First Eight Weeks

The overtime schedule change is a useful case. I saw a clear problem, rising overtime on one line, analyzed it alone and announced a new rota. The rota was technically sound, but two supervisors had already promised operators specific days off, which I did not know. The result was a week of absences and a rota partly reversed. Had I asked the supervisors first, I would have learned about the promises in five minutes. The episode shows exactly how my strengths become liabilities in this job.

Development Plan

Consult before deciding: for any decision affecting schedules, staffing or work methods, I will ask the three shift supervisors for input at least 48 hours before deciding and explain my reasoning afterward, including where I did not follow their advice. Measure: decisions logged with the consultation date.

Listen without interrupting: in the weekly supervisors' meeting, I will speak last on each agenda item and summarize what I heard before giving my view. Measure: a supervisor volunteer will note interruptions for four weeks.

Build relationships: I will spend one hour a week on each shift talking with operators and supervisors, without an agenda.

Review: in 90 days I will repeat the six-person feedback questions and compare.

Conclusion

My assessments show a conscientious, achievement-driven manager with a fast, independent decision style and low agreeableness. Those traits served me well as an engineer and create risks as a plant manager: decisions made without consultation and meetings in which others hold back. Colleague feedback confirmed both. A plan built on specific behaviors, consultation, listening and time on the floor, with measures and a 90-day review, is how I will test whether I can change what my scores predict.

References

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6

Vroom, V. H. (2000). Leadership and the decision-making process. Organizational Dynamics, 28(4), 82-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00003-6