SELF-ASSESSMENT
SCORE SHEET
MGT 202
To:
Dr. David
Chappell (Dr. Chappell's Website)
From: Ted
J. Crane
Re:
Assessments
Date:
March 7, 2002
Value Added:
1. Linked pictures to websites: 1, 2
2. Re-created theory models using paintbrush: 1,
2,
3
3. Easy navigation through the paper
Table of Contents:
| Assessment
#2 (Organizational Design Preference): |
74 |
Interpretation:
The insight this assessment provides me
about my managerial style is that it shows that I am more comfortable
with a "mechanistic" organizational design than an "organic" design.
The assessment summary stated that the new workplaces are becoming more
organistic and less mechanistic than before. This tells me that if
I want to have an advantage in today's workplace I have to accept the organistic
style of organization. I can remain mechanistic, but as long as I
can conform to a organistic style then I can be a successful worker in
the system.
Return to Top |
| Assessment
#3 (Least Preferred CoWorker Scale): |
72 |
Interpretation:
The 72 I scored on the Least Preferred
Coworker scale places me in the range between 65 and 72. The interpretation
states if the score is between 65 and 72 "...Fiedler leaves it up to you
to determine which leadership style is most like yours." My score
of 72 is closest to what Fiedler considers a  "relationship-motivatived"
leader. For me to be successful in the working world I will be better
off placing people who are alike together to achieve working harmony between
coworkers. An example of group harmony is how Ford
Motor Company successfully used small groups to design, build, and
market automobiles.
Return to Top |
Assessment
#4 (T-T Leadership Style Assessment):
Transformational
Score:
Transactional
Score: |
28
22 |
Interpretation:
I was tested as having a transformational
leadership score of 28, this is higher than my transactional score of 22.
After reading the summary on the differences I found that it is to my advantage
to have a higher transformational score. This assessment is testing
whether I inspire a sense of vision and desire for extraordinary accomplishment
in followers. A way for me to see if I am doing this is to observe
the "Big Ugly Model."
Return to Top |
Assessment
#7 (Cultural Attitudes Inventory):
Masculinity-Femininity
Score:
Individualism-Collectivism
Score:
Uncertainty Avoidance
Score:
Power Distance
Score: |
1.67
4.2
4
2.17 |
Interpretation:
My Masculinity-Femininity score is 1.67
which is high in feminism. My Individualism-Collectivism score is
4.2 which is high in collectivism. My Uncertainty Avoidance score
is 4 which is high in uncertainty avoidance. Lastly, my Power Distance
score is 2.7 which is low in power distance. My high feminism score
is beneficial to me because it shows that I can handle working with women,
and that I'm not set in a male-dominated society. This assessment
also shows that I favor group success over individual success. I
avoid uncertainty, and I do not distance my self from power.
Return to Top |
Assessment
#11 (Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory):
Motivator
Factor Score:
Hygiene Factor
Score: |
36
24 |
Interpretation:
My Motivator Factor score of 36 shows that
I place more importance on job content through motivation. My Hygiene
Factor score of 24 asserts that I place not as much importance on job context.
Motivation is defined as Expectancy times Instrumentality times valence.
To explain this equation I have re-created the Expectancy Theory model
which shows the definition of motivation as well including other factors.
Return to Top |
Assessment
#12 (Conflict Management Styles):
Competing
Score:
Collaborating
Score:
Compromising
Score:
Avoiding Score:
Accommodating
Score: |
12
7
9
11
12 |
Interpretation:
My assessment is very interesting when
observing the results due to my same high scores in both Competing and
in Accommodating. This is different because these two are on opposite
sides of the spectrum. I am least good at Collaborating, which is
the best method to use in the working world, for it achieves the best results.
I should work on this management style for the future to be more influential.
To illustrate this I have created the Conflict Resolution Techniques model
below.
Return to Top |
Assessment
#14 (Theory X and Y):
Interpretation:
As a manager I tend to believe that humans
do not like their jobs and will find ways around doing his or her work
should the case arise. That is the "X Theory" being demonstrated
relating my higher X Score of 6 and my Y Score of 5. To improve my
Y Score in the future I can be more creative as a manager. I could
also punish and control those under me differently as well by using constructive
criticism. To read more information on Douglas McGregor's Theory
X and Theory Y I have provided a link here.
Return to Top |
Assessment
#20 (Personal Power):
Reward
Power Score:
Coercive Power
Score:
Legitimate Power
Score:
Referent Power
Score:
Expert Power
Score: |
4
2
5
5
4 |
Interpretation:
My scores of 4 or better in regards to
Reward Power, Legitimate Power, Referent Power, and Expert Power implies
that I prefer to influence people by using that particular form of power.
My score of 2 in the Coercive Power category shows that I do not utilize
that style unless I have to. The summary states that if I add certain
styles together I can increase my output of power. My Legitimate
and Referent Power scores are both five's, so if I can add those two together
as a manager I can demonstrate a substantial amount of power to lead my
employees. In addition, Referent Power is the most powerful if used
correctly.
Return to Top |
Assessment
#39 (Managerial Skills Inventory):
Technical
Score:
Human Relations
Score:
Conceptual Score: |
24
22
23 |
Interpretation:
My Technical Score is highest because I
have not had any upper management experience which are  commonly
associated with Human Relations and Conceptual Skills. To improve
my Human Relations score I plan on being a summer camp counselor at Camp
Hazen, a YMCA camp
in Chester, Connecticut. I will be responsible for school children
ranging in from third graders to sophomores in high school. I will
have to increase my Human Relations if I want to be a successful camp counselor.
In addition by clicking here
you will be linked a Katz leadership skills article.
Return to Top |
| Assessment
#41 (Classroom Ethics): |
2.65 |
Interpretation:
My views on ethics are strong, but they
all are not consistent with the two years that were previously surveyed.
For example, my biggest difference in scores is in "Visiting a professor
after an exam to bias his/her grading." I don't see a problem in
going into a professor's office to discuss my objections to the grading
of the exam. However, knowing these differences, I can make better
decisions pertaining to the age group I am dealing with. I now know
what age group thinks what is ethical and what is not ethical; this is
very helpful when grouping people together. Click on the icon to
listen to a NPR report on school testing ethics.
Return to Top |
|