Once companies have a realistic view of their own culture, they can develop methods to screen out candidates that will not fit in no matter if that is making more descriptive job descriptions that allow candidates to screen themselves out or designing an interviewing process that gets to the heart of a cultural fit. I was doing research on this, and found a podcast by the W. P. Carey School of Business that gave me a brief understanding of how to find candidates that might fit into a specific culture.

If you’re interested, you can find the podcast at: http://knowwpcarey.com/article.cfm?cid=10&aid=1118

If there is a large disparity between natural (most) and adapted (least) styles it can indicate that major role-playing is going on. In essence, if this were your graph it would mean that at work you are becoming somebody you’re not. The bigger this stretch, the more stress, frustration, and energy expenditure you will experience. These are all counter-productive to the individual.

At work, co-workers may first see the facade, but under increasing pressure, the real (natural) styles will surface, and probably the worst parts of that style because of the stress. Ideally, the team should work on creating an environment where team members do not have to change so drastically. To do this, the natural styles are the key focus – the team should plan for and value the natural style of the individual and seek a balance of diverse natural styles to meet the needs of the team’s task, project or long-term responsibilities.

In a team situation where one or more of the team have extremely (even opposing) Natural and Adaptive styles, which of the two styles should the other team members see?

Currently we show the team the Adaptive styles only.
Given that the adaptation is only to fit into the Team and work environment, wouldn’t that be counter-productive? Wouldn’t it be better if the Team learned to work according to the person’s preferred/natural style?

It was great having you on the show! Your wisdom and perspective on how assessing behavior can benefit an individual in building their personal brand were right on target for my listeners.

Come back any time!

-David

http://blogtalkradio.com/david-cohen

Extrinsic motivation comes from the outside, not the inside. What is the “extra” I need to do something I am not currently doing or may not enjoy doing, possibly out of my “character” or norm. The “extra” typically is the carrot – money, power, altruism, knowledge, harmony, doctrine/religion. We each have our priorities as to which of these are important and which are not, as well as how important they may be. One of my disagreements with Pink is his (among others) determination on which of these is higher in his hierarchy. Why is Altruism higher than Harmony/aesthetics, which is in turn “higher” than the others? People who write books on what to look for in the perfect job so often base their recommendations on what would make them happy and assume it works for everyone. Some people do not care about helping others unless they meet their particular criteria for “deserving” help, and they may not change that view as they get older. Is there really anything wrong with that? Is the quest for knowledge really less “advanced” than the quest for harmony/aesthetics? These are judgment calls, and I don’t believe these writers should be passing judgment. Many problems the world faces today are based on differences in these extrinsic motivators or passions. We assume if someone else does not value what we do, they are “wrong”, instead of simply different. We base our decisions on the extrinsic motivators, so they are visible and dynamic. We need to understand this and not necessarily be so judgmental.

In the workplace, our intrinsic motivation comes from our behavioral performance – liking the work we do. The extrinsic motivation comes from the rewards of the job – money, power, knowledge, etc. If we are not receiving the rewards most valued by us, our life is not fulfilled, and we move on.