LDR 531 Week 2 Assignment - Creating a Plan for Positive Influence Paper
LDR 531 Week 2 Assignment - Creating a Plan for Positive Influence Paper
CSU - Dominguez hills
Popular in Course
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Department
This 7 page Study Guide was uploaded by smartwriter Notetaker on Monday November 16, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to a course at a university taught by a professor in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 23 views.
Reviews for LDR 531 Week 2 Assignment - Creating a Plan for Positive Influence Paper
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 11/16/15
Running head: CREATING A PLAN FOR POSITIVE INFLUENCE PAPER Creating a Plan for Positive Influence YOUR NAME LDR/531 DATE NAME OF PROFESSOR CREATING A PLAN FOR POSITIVE INFLUENCE IN PAPER: In a business life, it is common to have huge projects to increase the company’s profit, repute and maintained that clients’ expectations. The following paper is based on analysis of a selected group, with respect to their self assessment scores that how would they perform in any mega project of company. The tests were three in number and provided by University of Phoenix (UOP) to five member group. SUMMARY OF RESULTS: The first test was named as DISC PLATINUM RULE BEHAVIORAL STYLE ASSESSMENT. The purpose of this test was to check that how much group members possess power in their attitude. NAME and NAME acquired high score in “Controlling Method” which also had the subtype of “The Creator” (UOP, 2009). They had the natural time management tendencies and like to administer the assignments fully (UOP, 2009). As they are innovative in style, thus they like to involve in projects which have great modification power (UOP, 2009). NAME and NAME, both scored equal in “Interactive” approach but they had dissimilar sub style of interactive. NAME is prone towards “The Helper”, while NAME had great tilt towards “The Impresser” (UOP, 2009). NAME is broad minded in the sense that he likes to work in friendly environment and does not like bossy behavior. He does work under pressure and dislike of having directions from others. On the other hand, NAME’s sub style “The Impresser” is not that broad like him, she wants to prove herself by talent and have great sensitivity of other’s emotions and sentiments. At last, Name is having a calm style of work, in contrast of NAME’s dominant method (UOP, 2009). NAME and NAME got highest marks in EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE (EI) assessment. Its purpose was to test inner skills and capability, in which other members got normal. Their highest marks indicate that they had no problem in understanding of issues, solution, and are able to sustain and support the emotions and feelings of other group members (UOP, 2009). Their scores indicate that they have very good leadership qualities and will prove to be outstanding leaders (UOP, 2009). In the final test, which was about the values, determined the efficiency of team at last (UOP, 2009). It contained three significant questions, The extent of involvement in job The satisfaction level of job The behavioral pattern regarding office environment (UOP, 2009) Only one member from team had happiness and satisfaction due to job (UOP, 2009). While, three other members showed “Salvation; finding eternal life” and most of the members in group considered that they were having “Knowledge and Eternal Wisdom”, through their job (UOP, 2009). In the criteria of involvement in job (UOP, 2009), all team members had revealed their scores except one. Others had normal scores, but NAME disclosed that she has not very much enthusiasm regarding her job. This thing reveals all group personals had maintained their personal and social life. In the criteria of satisfaction regarding job, all the members of group were very pleased towards it, but one member was very much happy, NAME. In the final test, of behavioral pattern regarding office environment (UOP, 2009), the team members are quite comfortable with each other. PLAN RECOMMENDATION Earlier, I have discussed that NAME and NAME, had very good leadership style and sub styles (UOP, 2009). While, NAME also got highest marks in the EI test and she seems perfect for leadership. But she must be have cautious attitude with NAME, because he does not like to be dominated by others and it my lead to resistance between them. But NAME also achieve higher marks in EI, therefore, there is possibility of diminish clash between them. As far as NAME is concerned, he has very good tendencies to impress others. He keeps group compact and make them work to achieve the target efficiently. Therefore his presence is necessary for group. Except, none member has any inclination to delay or postpone the project which may destroy the harmony of NAME (UOP, 2008). The scores show that no member was very much involved and satisfied with their job but at normal rate (UOP, 2009), hence, there is possibility to make them more involved, satisfied, and happy with it. Here Robbins & Judge (2007) played their part very effectively by contributing to this issue. They suggest that in the case, described above, the interest can be developed by JOB CHARACTERISTIC MODEL (JCM), given by Hackman and Oldham. In order to improve their working capability and skills company should give them free hand regarding their time setting, to fulfill their daily targets and desired targets, they must not be watched over by someone else, everything which is related to their work, should be in their domain. It will not only increase their efficiency but also satisfaction and involvement in job. It helps the company to have huge number of benefits through employees (Robbins & Judge, 2007). As we have already discussed that all the members of group are very innovative and prochanger, therefore the tasks should also be very exploring and daring in their own way. It will keep the members fresh to work more and more on new assignments, and help them to come up with new things every time. Here I would like to quote Robbins & Judge, according to them, “From a motivational standpoint, the JCM says that internal rewards are obtained by individuals when they learn (knowledge of results) that they personally (experienced responsibility) have performed well on a task that they care about (experienced meaningfulness). The more that these three psychological states are present, the greater will be employees’ motivation, performance, and satisfaction” (Robbins & Judge, 2007). If company arrange to fulfill the desires of every member regarding their project by providing suppleness in their time management, and huge array of opportunities to make the project more attractive, it will help to reduce the frustration and workers would be happier with their job (Robbins &Judge, 2007). But we cannot ignore the fact that group members are already satisfied with the balance in their personal and work life, from their score from involvement. This already possessed involvement and further free hand from company will lead team members to outstanding results (UOP, 2009). The team members are very much positive regarding diverse environment of workplace, but they should be very careful not to contend. Being a realist, NAME will have an ease to resolve the problems of variety (UOP, 2009). Usually, the executives of any company have a priority of self respect and security as their best norms (UOP, 2009). But, none member has gone with these qualities as their priorities. NAME and NAME considered self respect as their norm, while NAME gone with security. There is another quality which CEOs of companies like to choose as their best choice, which is truthfulness (UOP, 2009), which was selected by NAME only. Consequently, if we analyze all team members all together, we find them excellent for any project, target, task or assignment. And if they work together, they would come up with best results (UOP, 2009). References Robbins, S. P., and Judge, T. A. (2007). Organizational behavior (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. University of Phoenix. (2009). DISC assessment. Retrieved February 10, 2009 from University of Phoenix Course Materials, Week Two. LDR/531—Organizational Leadership Web site. University of Phoenix. (2009). Team # (2009, February 13). Week two team posts. Posted to University of Phoenix class forum, LDR/531—Organizational Leadership course Web site. University of Phoenix. (2009). Web link: Values and attitudes insights assessment. Retrieved February 10, 2009 from https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/secure/aapd/sas/robbins_sal3v3/sal3v3web.html. University of Phoenix. (2009). Web link: What’s my emotional intelligence score? Retrieved February 10, 2009 from https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/secure/aapd/sas/robbins_sal3v3/sal3v3web.html.
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'