5. Diagnóstico
5.2. Predicción de PE
These are Cattells' original personality factors.
Primary Factor
Warmth
Reserved, impersonal, distant, cool, reserved, impersonal, detached, formal, aloof
Warm, outgoing, attentive to others, kindly, easygoing, participating, likes people
Reasoning
Concrete-thinking, lower general mental capacity, less intelligent, unable to handle abstract problems
Abstract-thinking, more intelligent, bright, higher general mental capacity, fast learner
Emotional Stability
Reactive, emotionally changeable, affected by feelings, emotionally less stable, easily upset
Emotionally stable, adaptive, mature, faces reality, calm
Dominance
Deferential, cooperative, avoids
conflict, submissive, humble, obedient, easily led, docile, accommodating
Dominant, forceful, assertive, aggressive, competitive, stubborn, bossy
Liveliness Serious, restrained, prudent, taciturn, introspective, silent
Lively, animated, spontaneous, enthusiastic, happy-go-lucky, cheerful, expressive, impulsive
Rule- Consciousness
Expedient, nonconforming, disregards rules, self-indulgent
Rule-conscious, dutiful, conscientious, conforming, moralistic, staid, rule-bound
Social Boldness Shy, threat-sensitive, timid, hesitant, intimidated
Socially bold, venturesome, thick- skinned, uninhibited, can take stress
Sensitivity
Utilitarian, objective, unsentimental, tough-minded, self-reliant, no- nonsense, rough
Sensitive, aesthetic, sentimental, tender-minded, intuitive, refined
Vigilance Trusting, unsuspecting, accepting, unconditional, easy
Vigilant, suspicious, skeptical, wary, distrustful, oppositional
Abstractedness Grounded, practical, prosaic, solution- oriented, steady, conventional
Abstracted, imaginative, absent- minded, impractical, absorbed in ideas
Privateness Forthright, genuine, artless, open, guileless, naive, unpretentious,
Private, discreet, non-disclosing, shrewd, polished, worldly, astute,
involved astute, diplomatic
Apprehension
Self-assured, unworried, complacent, secure, free of guilt, confident, self- satisfied
Apprehensive, self-doubting, worried, guilt-prone, insecure, worrying, self-blaming
Openness to Change
Traditional, attached to familiar, conservative, respecting traditional ideas
Open to change, experimenting, liberal, analytical, critical, free- thinking, flexibility
Self-Reliance Group-oriented, affiliative, a joiner and follower, dependent
Self-reliant, solitary, resourceful, individualistic, self-sufficient
Perfectionism
Tolerates disorder, unexacting, flexible, undisciplined, lax, self- conflict, impulsive, careless of social rules, uncontrolled
Perfectionist, organized, compulsive, self-disciplined, socially precise, exacting will power, control, self- sentimental
Tension Relaxed, placid, tranquil, torpid, patient, composed, low drive
Tense, high energy, impatient, driven, frustrated, over-wrought, has high drive, time-driven
The Five Global Factors (16PF5)
This is a simplification from the above 16 factors, which are sometimes also called the 16PF5. Note that these are very closely related to the 'big five'. These are not a simple grouping of the 16PF - some of the sixteen appear in more than one of the five.
Global Factors
Low HighExtraversion
Introverted, sociallyinhibited
Extraverted, social participant
Anxiety
Low anxiety, relaxed, imperturbable, well- adjusted
High anxiety, tense, perturbable, histrionic
Tough-Mindedness /
Willpower
Receptive, open-minded, intuitive, emotionality, feeling Tough-minded, resolute, non-empathetic, determinedIndependence
Accommodating, agreeable, selfless, subdued Independence, persuasive, wilfulSelf-Control
Unrestrained, impulsive,uncontrolled
Self-controlled, inhibitory of impulses
BIG FIVE MODEL
The 'Big Five' were derived as personality indicators from Cattell's larger 16PF set. The names have changed, but they are very close to the Global Factors. The 'Big' word perhaps implies the hopeful belief that at last they had got it right.
The Big Five
When working with other people five characteristics/traits/preferences are a lot easier to
remember than sixteen. This also leads to the obvious criticism that we are much more than 'five traits'.
Using the first letters of the first three factors, the term NEO often appears in descriptions. The initial letters are also sometimes arranged to spell OCEAN.
Big Five Factor (16PF equivalent) Describes Neuroticism (Anxiety) Anxiety Angry Hostility Depression Self-Consciousness Impulsiveness Vulnerability Extraversion (Extraversion) Warmth Gregariousness Assertiveness Activity Excitement-Seeking Positive Emotions Openness (Tough-minded) Fantasy Aesthetics Feelings Actions Ideas Values Agreeableness (Independence) Trust Straightforwardness Altruism Compliance Modesty Tender-mindedness Conscientiousness (Self-control) Competence Order Dutifulness Achievement Striving Self-Discipline Deliberation
Four of the big five are widely agreed, but there has been debate about Openness, with alternatives including Culture, Intellect, Imagination, and Openness to experience.
Compared to later-borns, first borns tend to be:
Higher on Conscientiousness & Neuroticism
Lower on Agreeableness & Openness to experience
Higher on assertive and dominance aspects of Extraversion, lower on sociability aspects
Also compared to men, women tend to be:
Much higher on Agreeableness Slightly higher on Conscientiousness
Lower on assertiveness and dominance aspects of Extraversion, higher on sociability
SELF-CONCEPT AND SELF-ESTEEM
By self is generally meant the conscious reflection of one's own being or identity, as an object separate from other or from the environment. There are a variety of ways to think about the self. Two of the most widely used terms are self-concept and self-esteem. Self-concept is the
cognitive or thinking aspect of self (related to one's self-image) and generally refers to
"the totality of a complex, organized, and dynamic system of learned beliefs, attitudes and opinions that each person holds to be true about his or her personal existence" (Purkey, 1988).
Self-esteem is the affective or emotional aspect of self and generally refers to how we feel about or how we value ourselves (one's self-worth). Self-concept can also refer to the general idea we have of ourselves and self-esteem can refer to particular measures about components of self- concept. Some authors even use the two terms interchangeably.
Franken (1994) states that
"there is a great deal of research which shows that the self-concept is, perhaps, the basis for all motivated behavior. It is the self-concept that gives rise to possible selves, and it is possible selves that create the motivation for behavior" (p. 443).
This supports the idea that one's paradigm or world view and one's relationship to that view provide the boundaries and circumstances within which one develops a vision about possibilities. This is one of the major issues facing children and youth today (Huitt, 2004).
Franken (1994) suggests that self-concept is related to self-esteem in that
"people who have good self-esteem have a clearly differentiated self-concept.... When people know themselves they can maximize outcomes because they know what they can and cannot do" (p. 439).
It would seem, then, that one way to impact self-esteem is to obey the somewhat outworn cliche of "Know thyself."
People develop and maintain their self-concepts through the process of taking action and then reflecting on what they have done and what others tell them about what they have done. This reflection is based on actual and possible actions in comparison to one's own expectations and the expectations of others and to the characteristics and accomplishments of others (Brigham, 1986; James, 1890). That is, self-concept is not innate, but is constructed and developed by the individual through interaction with the environment and reflecting on that interaction. This dynamic aspect of self-concept (and, by corollary, self-esteem) is important because it indicates that it can be modified or changed. Franken (1994) states
"there is a growing body of research which indicates that it is possible to change the self-concept. Self-change is not something that people can will but rather it depends on the process of self- reflection. Through self-reflection, people often come to view themselves in a new, more
powerful way, and it is through this new, more powerful way of viewing the self that people can develop possible selves".
There are a several different components of self-concept: physical, academic, social, and transpersonal. The physical aspect of self-concept relates to that which is concrete: what one looks like, his or her sex, height, weight, etc.; what kind of clothes one wears; what kind of car one drives; what kind of home one lives in; and so forth. One's academic self-concept relates to how well the individual does in school or how well one demonstrates an ability to learn academic content. There are two levels: a general academic self-concept of how good one is overall and a set of specific content-related self-concepts that describe how good one is in math, science, language arts, social science, etc. The social self-concept describes how we relate to other people and the transpersonal self-concept describes how we relate to the supernatural or unknowns.
Marsh (1992) showed that the relationship of self-concept to school achievement is very specific. General self-concept and non-academic aspects of self-concept are not related to academic work; general academic achievement measures are related moderately to academic success. Specific measures of subject-related self-concepts are highly related to success in that content area. Bandura (1997) provides evidence that self-efficacy or one's belief that he or she can perform a specific task is the best predictor for success on that task.
Hansford and Hattie (1982) found that the relationship of measures such as self-concept and self- esteem were only weakly correlated (r = 0.20). However, using linear discriminate analysis, Byrne (1990) showed that academic self-concept was more effective than was academic
achievement in differentiating between low-track and high-track students. Hamachek (1995) also asserts that self-concept and school achievement and school achievement are related.
The major issue is, therefore, the strength and the direction of the relationship: does general or academic or subject-specific self-concept produce achievement or does achievement produce these various measures of self-concept. Gage and Berliner (1992) state
"the evidence is accumulating, however, to indicate that level of school success, particularly over many years, predicts level of regard of self and one's own ability (Bridgeman & Shipman, 1978; Kifer, 1975); whereas level of self-esteem does not predict level of school achievement. The implication is that teachers need to concentrate on the academic successes and failures of their students. It is the student's history of success and failure that gives them the information with which to assess themselves" (p. 159).
If academic achievement leads to self-concept/self-esteem, but self-concept is a better predictor of being a low-track or high-track student, it would appear that there is some intervening variable. James (1890) states that the intervening variable is personal expectations. His formula is:
Self-esteem = Success / Pretensions.
That is, increasing self-esteem results when success is improved relative to expectations.
Bandura's (1997) research on the importance of self-efficacy could be thought of as a measure of pretensions or expectations. He also stated that one's mastery experiences related to success is the major influence on one's self-efficacy. Bandura showed that modeling and social persuasion (giving encouragement) can also be helpful, but not as much as being successful previously on the same or a similar task.
As self-efficacy and self-esteem are both constructed by one's conscious reflections, it would appear that educators and parents should provide experiences that allow students to master relatively specific content and skills rather than attempting to boost self-esteem directly through other means. In fact, Hattie (as cited in Huitt, Huitt, Monetti, & Hummel, 2009) found that students' self-report of their previous grades, which can be thought of as a correlate of student self-efficacy, was the most powerful predictor of academic achievement (with an effect size of d = 1.44) when compared to the other 137 variables . [Note: A normal cutoff effect size to
determine the practical importance of a relationship between two variables is d = 0.40 (Hattie, 2009) and only 66 of the 138 variables that Hattie in his investigation of 800 meta-analyses met this relatively stringent criteria.]
By rearranging the components of the equation, an interesting corollary can be produced stating that success is limited by pretentions or expectations and self-esteem:
Success = Pretensions * Self-esteem.
This equation states that success, especially the limits of one's success, can be improved by increasing expectations and/or self-esteem. However, as noted by Gage and Berliner (1992), the research on the relationship between self-esteem/self-concept and school achievement suggests that measures of general or even academic self-concept are not significantly related to school achievement. It is at the level of very specific subjects (e.g., reading, mathematics, science) that there begins to be a relatively strong relationship between self-concept/self-esteem measures and academic success. Given the above formula, this suggests that success in a particular subject area is not really changing one's self-concept (knowledge of one's self) or even self-esteem (one's subjective evaluation of one's value or worth), but rather is impacting one's expectations about future success based on one's past experience.
The Situational Leadership
The Situational Leadership method from Kenneth Blanchard and Paul Hersey holds that
managers must use different leadership styles depending on the situation. The model allows you to analyze the needs of the situation you‘re in, and then use the most appropriate leadership style. Depending on employees‘ competences in their task areas and commitment to their tasks, your
leadership style should vary from one person to another. You may even lead the same person one way sometimes, and another way at other times.
Blanchard and Hersey characterized leadership style in terms of the amount of direction and of support that the leader gives to his or her followers, and so created a simple matrix (figure).
Leadership Behavior of the Leader
S1 – Telling / Directing – High task focus, low relationship focus – leaders define the roles and tasks of the ‗follower‘, and supervise them closely. Decisions are made by the leader and announced, so communication is largely one-way. For people who lack competence but are enthusiastic and committed. They need direction and supervision to get them started.
S2 – Selling / Coaching – High task focus, high relationship focus – leaders still define roles and tasks, but seeks ideas and suggestions from the follower. Decisions remain the leader‘s prerogative, but communication is much more two-way. For people who have some competence but lack commitment. They need direction and supervision because they are still relatively inexperienced. They also need support and praise to build their self-esteem, and involvement in decision-making to restore their commitment.
S3 – Participating / Supporting – Low task focus, high relationship focus – leaders pass day-to-day decisions, such as task allocation and processes, to the follower. The leader facilitates and takes part in decisions, but control is with the follower. For people who have competence, but lack confidence or motivation. They do not need much direction because of their skills, but support is necessary to bolster their confidence and
motivation.
S4 – Delegating – Low task focus, low relationship focus – leaders are still involved in decisions and problem-solving, but control is with the follower. The follower decides when and how the leader will be involved. For people who have both competence and commitment. They are able and willing to work on a project by themselves with little supervision or support.
Effective leaders are versatile in being able to move around the matrix according to the situation, so there is no style that is always right. However, we tend to have a preferred style, and in
Likewise, the competence and commitment of the follower can also be distinguished in 4
quadrants.
Development Level of the Follower
D4 – High Competence, High Commitment – Experienced at the job, and comfortable with their own ability to do it well. May even be more skilled than the leader.
D3 – High Competence, Variable Commitment – Experienced and capable, but may lack the confidence to go it alone, or the motivation to do it well / quickly.
D2 – Some Competence, Low Commitment – May have some relevant skills, but won‘t be able to do the job without help. The task or the situation may be new to them.
D1 – Low Competence, High Commitment – Generally lacking the specific skills required for the job in hand, but has the confidence and / or motivation to tackle it.
Similar to the leadership styles, the development levels are also situational. A person could be skilled, confident and motivated for one part of his his job, but could be less competent for another part of the job.
Blanchard and Hersey said that the Leadership Style (S1 – S4) of the leader must correspond to the Development level (D1 – D4) of the follower – and it‘s the leader who adapts. By adopting
the right style to suit the follower‘s development level, work gets done, relationships are built up, and most importantly, the follower‘s development level will rise to D4, to everyone‘s benefit. Steps in Situational Leadership. Process
1. Make an overview per employee of his/her tasks 2. Assess the employee on each task (D1…D4)
3. Decide on the leadership (management) style per task (S1…S4) 4. Discuss the situation with the employee
5. Make a joint plan
6. Follow-up, check and correct
Strengths of the Situational Leadership model. Benefits Easy to understand
Easy to use
Limitations of the Situational Leadership model. Disadvantages
Model fails to distinguish between leadership and management. What is called leadership style is really management style.
Leadership is not primarily about making decisions anyway – it is about inspiring people to change direction.
Leaders may indeed vary the way they inspire people to change. But this is when they have already decided on the need to change. Hence leadership style does not reduce to decision making style.
Focuses too exclusively on what the person in charge does.
Of course both leaders and managers have to behave differently in different situations. But that is just a trivial fact of life, rather than anything profound in terms of our basic understanding of what it means to lead or manage.
Assumptions of Situational Leadership. Conditions
Leaders should adapt their style to follower ‗maturity‘, based on how ready and willing the follower is to perform required tasks (that is, their competence and motivation). There are four leadership styles that match the four combinations of high/low readiness and willingness.
The four styles suggest that leaders should put greater or less focus on the task in question and/or the relationship between the leader and the follower.
CASE STUDY: NARAYANA MURTHY AND INFOSYS
Introduction
In February 2001, Infosys Technologies Ltd. (Infosys)1 was voted as the Best Managed Company in Asia in the Information Technology sector, in leading financial magazine
Euromoney's Fifth Annual Survey of Best Managed Companies in Asia. Infosys was started in 1981, by seven2 professional entrepreneurs led by Narayana Murthy, Chairman and CEO of Infosys with an equity capital of Rs.10,000. By 2000, Infosys' market capitalization reached Rs.11 billion and by 2001, Infosys was one of the biggest exporters of software from India. Narayana Murthy had built an organization that was respected across the country, with very strong systems, high ethical values and a nurturing working atmosphere. With his sound
management skills, Narayana Murthy seemed to have taken Infosys to the pinnacle of success in two decades. From a turnover of Rs.1.16 million in 1981, Infosys had grown to a Rs.19 billion company in 2001.
Infosys was the first company to push for off–shore software development3 as against body shopping4 that was coming during the 1980s. He championed corporate governance in India. Infosys was the first Indian company to follow the US Generally Accepted Accounting