Interpretation: In reference to the two different sides one could be on this test, it is important to note that the current workplace is more in favor of the organic. Mechanistic design adherence to strict outlines of authority hierarchy and rules for one is not appealing to those in lower level power positions and for two seems to becoming more a part of the past. With the enormous growth of the global market, which encourages and requires participation of all workers and ability to change with the times, more agile and inclusive designs seems more relevant. Organic designs can adapt to changes because the structure of it allows for wooers to freely interact and empowers them to get things done according to the circumstances. 

Personal Interpretation:  My own score is in between because I think people are sometimes attracted to clear lines and roles in a workplace because they know where they stand, but in the organic model one has to be able to know how to be creative and able in order to solve new task. This test shows that there is a definite need for me to be more capable and comfortable in working in a more interdependent workplace. Being in college usually one can only has to depend on ones own performance , but in the real world it is unavoidable to rely on others help. This test mirrors the ideal of the global world, a worker who has the skills and abilities, who can work with others well in open relationships, an who can fit into different molds.

 Return to Top

Interpretation: This test results can be compared to any of the three main leadership theories, Fiedler's Contingency Theory, Hersey-Blancahard Situational Model, or House's Path-Goal Theory and be seen in different ways. "Relationship-motivated" leaders basically give more weight to the people who are working on the task instead of the task itself. It is obvious that being too "relationship" oriented can   hurt the performance of and under such a leader because they can be controlled by the followers that can lead to total failure of the task. "Task-motivated" is more efficient to use to make sure the needed things are accomplished.

Personal Interpretation: My extremely high score, which puts me in the "relationship-motivated", scares me. I do not see myself as someone who is out to please others, but I have experienced some workplaces that have had great relations with followers and high performance. When I look at those jobs by using Fiedlers Contingency Theory, I can see that it really was purely situational. 

 Return to Top

Interpretation:Tranformational leaders, or those who can inspire and direct people  by their own personal charisma, are the most compatible with the current times. They do not push people to accomplish the goals through tasks, rewards, or structures, like transactional leadership. Transformational leaders  make the worker more committed to the vision by being true and honest, rewarding and praising  accordingly, motivating creative solutions, and helping make the work go more smoothly. Thus, when workers feel proud of their work and satisfied with the circumstances they are more willing to put out more effort.

Personal Interpretation:  My scores for both were equal at 25 and show that my main work experiences have consisted on transactional leadership. Even though several jobs have had major roles and responsibilities for me, they all did not show me that inspiring the workers would benefit the jobs at hand. Transformational leadership requires a great bit of charisma in order to inspire others and oneself, and I have had jobs that require me to drive others to want to accomplish the task, but the main problem seems to be that only in a few instances was I myself attracted to the goal. The problem that needs to be addressed for me is my own want is not instinctually to be a leader.
 

 Return to Top

Interpretation: "National" cultures hold an extreme impact on this test because the elements of ones life are built by it and control their outlooks. The American "national" culture has always pushed the individuals survival, which in turn produces lower scores on all four of the levels presented. Other countries have more communal foundations of living, which sometimes see the family,  village, city, and even country as responsibilities for all to look after and contribute to. The Masculine trait is associated with direct strength from within compared to Feminine trait that is more linked to social concern and responsiveness. As a whole having shared values collectivism supports, but individualism  seeks only on concern for ones self. With a group at risk there is more to lose so there is more avoidance of uncertainty rather than only having to risk one individual. When thought is given to how a group will prosper a more equal distribution of power is wanted thus all will benefit rather than one.

Personal Interpretation: I like how my scores differ greatly from the scores of the sample United States students because I feel that our culture's extreme concentration on individual accomplishments has really hurt our country and individually. Our preoccupation with the individuals power to make their life has allowed us to deny any recognition that reliance on and concern for others can actually better everyone. Americans are known to be selfish, and it is clear we are because our culture pronounces it. My upbringing, education,  international experiences, and own belief have brought me to point to recognize the importance of giving and having support in all aspects of my life. 
Site about American Individualism
 Return to Top

Interpretation:Herzber's theoryputs out that even when a job consists of excellent working conditions and wages the worker will not be ultimately motivated to improve their performance. Only by good job contact like feelings of personal growth and an openness for advancement and more connection to the job will a worker be willing to make improvements. His theory merely pronounces that no matter how good an environment one works there needs to be some link to personal identification with the job to produce motivation.

Personal Interpretation: My hygiene score is probably high because I have always wanted a nice work environment, but I have always seen the importance on connecting with ones job that's why I have always wanted a clear path to what sort of jobs I want to experience in my future. If I don't enjoy or feel accomplishment from my job there is no way for me to want to do better in it. With my current job status, which I have had for about 6 years, I am motivated enough to keep it because it with others are the only financial support I have had in my college career. This theory is good to look at as manager because I can see the people's needs from their jobs and the need to make them at least seem important.

 Return to Top

Interpretation:These different styles all have there place in certain circumstances. Avoidance is sometimes needed in times where the outcome needs to be fast and the opposition is not that important,  but it often used too frequently. Accommodation can be beneficially when working with people in higher power positions and places where things need to be smooth. Competition should only be used when authority is there to be tapped. Compromise is a worthy short-term solution that works with both parties wants. Collaboration is the best when both sides win by working through the problems cooperatively.

Personal Interpretation:  Being aware of my own personal traits, I know that I often try to avoid conflicts, but only in certain circumstances. I have always shied away from confrontation or conflict with authority figures because I do not feel anything good for both sides will come of it. I never want to sour terms with anyone by having conflict. The only problem with my scores is that I also have a low accommodating score because of some of my introversion. Internally, I never bow down to others needs, but I do see when it is needed for me to follow the direction justifiably given by those with the power to delegate. 

 Return to Top

Interpretation:McGregor's X and Y theory puts forth that only supervisors that expect themselves and others to work hard  and responsibly will. Theory X is associated with a manager who has a "command and control" attitude that can get things done, but leads to workers who will not pick jobs up on their own and are entirely dependent on directive. Theory Y is a manager who push workers to "participate" and become more involved and have more freedom and responsibility that leads to high performance. Theory Y approach works on valuing workforce diversity and pushes new workplace notions. They both are included in self-fulfilling prophecy, which is the actualization of a person's expectations through performance. This ideas states that whatever a manager invasions as an outcome will probably produce that outcome.

Personal Interpretation: In my current job, I can definitely see my own "self fulfilling prophecies" in my boss! I'm not sure if this theory is supposed to work that  way, but my own low view of my boss's management style have only led it to become more prevalent or obvious to me. In my own supervisor roles, I can recognize how without confidence in others they will never improve.