Good Self-Esteem of My Staff Is the Key to Success

Abstract

I am Regional Sales Manager for EnviroSolar, the number one solar installer in the state of Texas. I managed a team of fifteen salespeople. My organization consists of a CEO, Vice President of Sales, CFO, Director of Sales, and a Regional Sales Manager for every market in the company. Our company is a sales-driven business that invests thousands of dollars into every salesperson at my company. We spend five days a week actively working and training with every sales rep in our company.

I effectively draw in with the workforce, sellers, different directors, and official administration day by day to give amazing customer benefit in a remunerating domain for representatives to feel drawn in and satisfied both professionally and by and by to accomplish corporate goals. I constantly look at the master plan of the office overseeing spending plans and process streams while concentrating on day-by-day tasks to lead workforce in effectively meeting all administration level understandings and office objectives.

Get quality help now

Bella Hamilton

Verified writer

Proficient in: Self Assessment

5 (234)

“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Are you Intoverted or Extroverted?

1. The purpose of this assessment is to identify my level of extroversion or introversion.
2. 18 (A) + 10 (B) = 28
3. Introversion rated low with company alignment. My qualities are consistent with those of the firm I work for. Extroversion appraised low independence. I line up with colleagues the objectives created by the group to meet organization goals and desires.
4. By knowing my consequences of this evaluation I can more readily adjust my initiative style to draw in individuals on my group diversely who are individualists. As a collectivist I generally energize assemble exercises that manufacture group attachment and amicability.
   Get to Know The Price Estimate For Your Paper

   Topic

   Deadline: 10 days left

   Number of pages

   Email Invalid email

   By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

   "You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"

   Write my paper

   You won’t be charged yet!

   I can share those responsibilities with the team and let members select other activities building their locus of control and increasing their social identity (McShane & Von Glinow, 2018, pp. 52, 68-69).

The group I am as of now with I feel extraordinary regard for. When I went along with them they flourished with strife. A condition for tolerating the supervisor position was redesigning the group to make a durable work unit. Since I distinguish intimately with gathering objectives and values and have full of feeling authoritative responsibility to the firm I acknowledged the position and the test. Therefore, I encouraged the group around the association's vision and goals and started to change office standards and demeanors. I needed to 'stress their own association with one another' (McShane and Von Glinow, 2018, pp. 52, 106). As a group we in the end made a division vision articulation surrounded from the association vision proclamation. This associates the group to consider each other responsible to the standards made and to keep up a firm work unit (McShane & Von Glinow, 2018, p. 223).

How Do You Cope With Stress?

1. The purpose of this assessment is to help estimate the level to which I use my preferrd style of coping with stress.
2. My scores are 4 (problem-solving), 3.25 (social support), 1.25 (avoidance), 0.25 (blaming others), for a total score of 8.75.
3. All of my scores are in the “Low” category. I have an emotional labor-intensive work environment that requires emotional intelligence and stability. This contributes to the coping mechanisms I employ when dealing with stressful situations. (McShane & Von Glinow, 2018, pp. 98, 101)
4. By knowing my results of this test, I can better recognize the coping strategies I engage most and develop the strategies that are effective in removing or minimizing the stressor, as these can be practiced and implemented. Working with a production team, when errors occur the person must be identified to allow coaching to occur, not to blame. I am responsible at times to identify who was responsible for what happened (McShane & Von Glinow, 2018, pp. 107, 112).

I was surprised avoiding did not rate higher. I have to be very conscious not to avoid problems and issues seeing as this is my true preferred coping mechanism. Leadership classes I have been privledged to participate in provided guidance in conscious leadership which gave tools to address different situations immediately. Through practice the skills become easier regardless, my voice still shakes with emotion and my stomach knots with tension when having to confront someone with a performance problem or other issue.

How Strong Are Your Growth Needs?

1. The reason for this self-appraisal is to help decide my development needs quality.
2.  Total score 36
3. My score evaluated me as moderate development needs quality, for confidence, individual accomplishment, and self-completion. I am presently in an animating, subjective testing workplace that gives learning openings. As provincial supervisor I have scope and autonomy over division choices inside authoritative targets and spending objectives (McShane and Von Glinow, 2018, p. 167).
4. By knowing my outcomes of this test, I can all the more promptly see the adjusting procedures I associate most and develop the frameworks that are convincing in ousting or restricting the stressor, as these can be cleaned and executed. Working with a creation gathering, when bungles happen the individual must be perceived to empower teaching to occur, not to blame. I am able every so often to perceive who was responsible for what happened (McShane and Von Glinow, 2018, pp. 125, 166).

In increasing better relational mindfulness I can thusly lead others all the more successfully using this mindfulness. Utilizing uplifting feedback instructing I can urge the group to achieve their potential by persuing the five center activity attributes. At the point when openings are accessible every division director can organize with their representatives, in light of the their objectives to learn and develop, to offer time-off from work to enable them to exploit the chances.

Decision Making?

1. The purpose of this self-assessment is to help estimate the level to which I make decisions using rational choice or intuition.
2. 16 (A) + 8 (B) = 24
3. Rational decision style scored high showing I have a preference for systematic approaches with a calculated process to isolate the best selection choice when making decisions.
4. My inclination to comprehend the actualities of every factor so as well as can be expected be determined before settling on a choice some of the time results in choices taking also long or so long one doesn't get made by any stretch of the imagination. On occasion, all actualities are not accessible and dynamic choices must be made dependent on fractional data. Compelling pioneers accumulate however much data as could be expected and observe important actualities required and dependent on past encounters depend on activity contents, to frame a modified choice reaction. They settle on the best choice with the data they had accessible and gain from whatever botches were made, assuming any. I have conceded choices to my manager that could have been managed. My test is going out on a limb and giving endorsement on issues which can possibly result in money related misfortunes (McShane & Von Glinow, 2018, p. 192).

The mental models I have built from working with a small prorprietorship early in my career shaped how I make decisions today. The treatment received when an error was made and the questioning when suspicions were high over trival items lowered cohesion. The trigger of fear continues to power the action of caution and extra review and my desire for information to ensure the right decision is made when equipment fails or incoming files are from alternate sources (pp. 73)

What Team Roles Do You Prefer?

1. The purpose is to assist with identifying if my preferred team roles favored in meetings and team activities which influence team effectiveness are beneficial to my team or a hinderance.
2. 3.67 (encourager), 3.67 (gatekeeper), 4 (harmonizer), 3 (initiator), 1.67 (summarizer), for a total score of 16.01
3. All of my scores reflect a low preference. Daily meetings are with senior level management or my direct team which each group is highly functional and responsible requiring minimal influence.
4. By knowing my results of this test, I can be better prepared for meetings or activities with staff and other departments to provide encouragement more. My direct staff defers encouragement and recognition to their teams who work diligently on the production floor however, I can provide different forms of encouragement to each manger based on their personalities and preferrences. I can also prepare questions ahead of time for larger staff meetings to engage employees who do not regularly participate and could possibly be uncomfortable.

Our team has many members and as such other members have the different roles described, harmonizer, gatekeeper, summarizer, initiator, encourager. Leading the team, I expect my role to be diverse and minimal, allowing others to build their skills and perform their rolls effectively, cooperating with team members reinforcing positive team norms (McShane & Von Glinow, 2018, pp. 227-229).

Are You An Active Listener?

1. The purpose of this self assessment is to help me understand where I need to improve in listening actively when communicating with others.
2. My scores are: 5 (avoiding interruption), 6 (maintaining interest), 7 (postponing evaluation), 4 (organizing information), 8 (showing interest), for a total score of 30.
3. The results indicate I have good active listening with high scores in mainting, showing interest, and postponing evaluation, however, an average score was received for avoiding interruption and a low score for organising information. Ratings were not indicated for clarifying the message or empathizing.
4. The assessment reinforces I need to empathize with who I am speaking with and clarify what they are saying by repeating what I have heard. I participated in a leadership class provided by my employer. We were taught active listening skills and roll played. I continue to struggle in the same areas in which I did during class. I improve when I review the learning materials frequently to refresh the techniques learned but, I have to keep them close at hand. The 360-degree feedback conducted before and after the leadership class, indicated empathy is not a trait I possess, one comment listed me as “robotic.” I believe this is a result of me being task oriented and a bottom line thinker, my nonverbal cues are ambiguous. Organising information, avoiding interruption, showing interest, postponing evaluation, and maintaining interest accumulate to focusing on the speaker and engaging, of which I find easier to do especially, when I am able to take notes while the speaker talks (McShane & Von Glinow, 2018, p. 255, 343).

What’s Your Approach to Influencing Co-Workers?

1. The purpose of this self assessment is to help estimate the level to which I prefer each influence tactic and which is preferred to influence co-workers.
2. My scores are: 4 (persuasion), 2.33 (silent authority), 0.67 (exchange), 1 (assertiveness), 2 (information control), 2 (coalition information), 2 (upward appeal), 2.33 (ingratiation), for a total score of 16.33
3. All of my scores are in the “Low” category. Persuasion is the preferred tactic overall. Exchange and assertiveness being least preferred tactics.
4. By knowing my results of this test, I can be better prepared to utilize more effective tactics of influence and persuasion. Recognizing ingratiation and silent authority have equal scores I can consciously select if ingratiation is the most effective tactic to use. More concerning is information control scored the same with coalition information and upward appeal. Then again, I am unable to share a lot of information given to me and my peers, from our manager, due to the sensitive nature of the information. Nevertheless, I can change the way I think about information and recognize information as a resource. I can be self-aware as I share information to recognize if I am distributing the information freely or reframing and withholding any of the information. If I am deliberately reframing and/or withholding any of the information I can examine my motives to isolate why and be conscious of the decisions I make (McShane & Von Glinow, 2018, p. 282, 291-292).

What’s Your Preferred Conflict Handling Style?

1. The purpose of this self assessment is to help estimate the extent to which each conflict handling style I prefer to primarily use.
2. My scores are: 2.5 (yielding), 3 (compromising), 2 (forcing), 2.75 (problem solving), 3.25 (avoiding), for a total score of 13.5
3. All of my scores are in the “Low” category. None registered high enough to rank for a rating. Avoiding is my highest rating and closest to being ranked with a Low Preference.
4. Avoiding is my preferred conflict handling style. Avoidance is my preferred style of coping with stress, unofficially, as well. Compromising then problem solving are preferred respectively. I have to consciously force myself to address issues immediately and not allow them to linger. If I wait, I have a bad tendency to let other things take priority. In doing this, the issue or conflict has not been resolved and many times result in the decline of team morale. One or more of the team members believe a procedural injustice has been inflicted when another team members’ inappropriate actions are not addressed (McShane & Von Glinow, 2018, pp. 144, 312-313).

The diversity of the low preference scores in my assessment reflects the multitude of conflict handling styles I employ. By knowing the results of my assessment, I can be more aware of the options available. This will allow me to select the most appropriate option for the situation since each situation is unique and requires a review or evaluation (McShane & Von Glinow, 2018, p. 213).

Do Leaders Make a Difference?

1. The purpose of this assessment is to help determine my beliefs about the influence of leaders on organizations’ success.
2. My score total is 33
3. The average score indicates my belief that leaders can make a difference in an organizations’ success.
4. Chief executive officers don't have a ton of creation process specialist inside the association's they run in any case, their capacity of influence to impact and join the organization under a reasonable vision, propelling workers around that vision, empowering those representatives to roll out the improvements important to achieve that vision give the CEO's incredible impact over the associations achievement. Having worked for a firm which the CEO set doubtful destinations for the association enabled offices to build up unattainable objectives bringing about dishonest and crimal conduct from representatives. The organization went into receivership and was sold. Luckily, working for an organization now that has an unmistakable vision and statement of purpose and practices the vision and statement of purpose starting from the ceo has a fruitful reputation notwithstanding weathering the money related emergency of 2008 – 2012 turning out more grounded (McShane and Von Glinow, 2018, p. 336).

As devotees of Christ, God is our pioneer, the plumb line against what everything ought to be estimated. He effectively lead Israel out of Egypt, 'However he brought his kin out like a rush; he drove them like sheep through the wild. He guided them securely, so they were unafraid' (Ps 78:52-53, NIV). Incredible pioneers, lead individuals to be the best individual they can be, to accomplish the objectives of the enterprise or individual objectives.

What Organizational Structure Do You Prefer?

1. The reason for this appraisal is to help gauge the sort of authoritative structure in which I would want to work dependent on my own needs and qualities.
2. My score sums are: 10 (tall hierarcy), 11 (formalization), for an aggregate score of, 24.
3. My score appraised normal for unthinking and natural hierarchical stuctures. Formalization is recorded as my inclination with a one point distinction.
4. I don't have a solid inclination for either unthinking or natural hierarchical structures. I have worked in both condition and delighted in the advantages of each. The unthinking structure has a tight range of control, tall heirarcy, furnishing few representatives with every boss or supervisor. The littler employee:manager proportion builds group attachment because of low assignment inconstancy. Representatives progress toward becoming employment experts. Then again, the natural structure has a wide range of control expanding the employee:manager proportion, expanding the errand changeability and the representatives work fulfillment (McShane and Von Glinow, 2018, pp. 168, 221, 370)

Knowing my aftereffects of this evaluation, enable me to dissect nearer the organization I am thinking about applying to for work. The more natural the association has assembled their hierarchical structure, the more research I will require on the organization to decide whether I really wish to work in an increasingly uncertain condition. The group building stage will take longer. But then, the prizes could be essentially higher in working with a powerful firm group and friends that cultivates learning, data sharing, and enabled work-drive (McShane and Von Glinow, 2018, p. 370).

References

1. McShane, S., & Von Glinow, M.A. (2018). Organizational behavior (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.