 |
|
« The Essentials of Leadership | Main | The Fundamentals of Fuel Cells »
February 15, 2005
7 Basic Styles of Workplace Behavior
From the shrinking violet "avoider" to the flamboyant "performer," a business consultant says that employees fall into seven categories. Which one are you?
In the workplace, we behave in seven "classic" ways, says a recent Fabricating and Metalworking article. According to author Francie Dalton, who is founder and president of Dalton Alliances, Inc., a Maryland-based business consulting firm specializing in communication, management, and the behavioral sciences, these general categories may not encapsulate all the actions of your co-workers, but they will give you insight into how to better deal with them:
Commanders
Curt and controlling, commanders don't waste time on niceties. While they don't mean to offend, they often forsake tact to get their point across. As bosses, commanders often fail to delegate important assignments. In response, you should strive to earn their trust and demonstrate that you also prioritize structure and results. As subordinates, commanders could seem overly aggressive. In response, you should clearly communicate the results you expect and leave it up to commanders to execute. Says Dalton, "value and validate commanders for their ability to overcome obstacles, to implement, and to achieve results."
Drifters
Averse to structure, drifters often have trouble with rules, work hours and deadlines. They lose track of details and can neglect to see a project through to completion. While they're warm and affable, their disorganization can be off-putting. As superiors, drifters often fail to provide structure. In response, you must take it upon yourself to establish procedures and objectives. As subordinates, drifters may make their managers seem ineffective. In response, you should give them shorter assignments and more flexible hours. Writes Dalton, "value and validate drifters for their innovation and creativity, their ability to improvise on a moment's notice, and their out-of-the-box thinking."
Attackers
Ill-tempered and contemptuous, attackers can have a dampening effect on workplace morale. They tend to criticize others in public, believing themselves to be superior. As managers, they can push subordinates to the breaking point. In response, you should keep interactions as short and affect-free as possible. As subordinates, attackers can demoralize your entire staff. In response, you should provide guidance to others on how to deal with this type of behavior and weigh the pros and cons of keeping such a person on the team. Writes Dalton, "value and validate attackers for their ability to take on the ugly, unpopular assignments no one else has the mettle to do, and for their ability to make unemotional decisions."
Pleasers
Considerate, sociable and friendly, pleasers rarely deny the requests of others and think of colleagues as extended family members. They have trouble coping with conflict, avoiding it as much as they can. As superiors, pleasers may fail to provide constructive criticism. In response, you should try to get critical feedback from other colleagues. As subordinates, pleasers can place greater emphasis on relationships than on the company, keeping silent about others' wrongdoings in order to protect them. To counter this, you should continually emphasize the importance of the "greater good." Says Dalton, "value and validate pleasers for the way they humanize the workplace, and for their helpful, collaborative work style."
Performers
Witty, charismatic and outspoken, performers engage and entertain others in the workplace. They are skillful at promoting themselves, taking credit--even when it's not due--for successful projects and appearing to be in a rush to get important things done. As superiors, performers may not recognize subordinates' achievements and deflect accountability to them for failures. In response, you should carefully document instructions and accomplishments. As subordinates, performers may exaggerate their contributions. To handle this, you should doublecheck their statements and reward teamwork with incentives. Writes Dalton, "value and validate performers for their ability to establish new relationships, and for their persuasive and public speaking skills."
Avoiders
Clinging to the status quo, avoiders shy away from increased responsibility because they fear it will make them more visible and accountable. Reticent and reserved, they thrive when working alone and establishing safe, closed-off environments. They do as they're told and do not take initiative. As superiors, avoiders may hamper subordinates' advancement by turning down new projects. In response, you should try to join selected teams in the company or help others with special assignments. As subordinates, avoiders could prove exasperating because of their lack of initiative. In response, you should always give detailed instructions and should be sensitive to the avoider's fear of greater responsibility. Says Dalton, "value and validate avoiders for their reliability, for their meticulous attention to your instructions, and for getting the job done right the first time, every time."
Analyticals
Meticulous, thorough and cautious, analyticals can get mired in details. When presented with a new idea, they tend to focus on the reasons why it will fail and should not be pursued. They feel compelled to check, doublecheck and triplecheck their work for any inaccuracies. As bosses, analyticals can nitpick and stymie creativity. In response, you should consistently submit error-free work in order to gain trust and be able to work with a measure of independence. As subordinates, analyticals can present too much information to their managers. To deal with this, you should ask big-picture questions and focus on actionable data. Writes Dalton, "value and validate analyticals for their commitment to accuracy, and for their ability to anticipate and evaluate risk far enough in advance to allow risks to be reduced."
What do you think? Is Dalton on to something? Do these basic categories help describe your behavior or that of others in the workplace?
Source:
The Seven Classic Types of Workplace Behavior
Francie Dalton, Dalton Alliances, Inc.
Fabricating & Metalworking, January 12, 2005
www.fandmmag.com/fmmag/article.asp?article_id=697&channel_id=10
|
Advertisement
|
Comment
36 CommentsInteresting article. While a bit idealized (I seriously doubt all personalities encountered in the work place can be pigeonholed so neatly into just 7 personality types) it does provide some helpful insight into distinguishing between personality types.
February 15, 2005 3:03 PMVery interesting information. I do agree with Mr. McRay's comment about 'pigeonholing', however that is true of any generalization. But as with any generalization there is truth behind it. Yes, most people will show many if not all of those qualities to some degree, but will usually fit one best.
February 15, 2005 4:46 PMPoppycock. Anyone managing by personality trait is headed for the bancruptcy court. Proper management is by statistics measuring true production. How many new clients, how many ball bearings sold, how many dollars of worth of quality production that did not require re-do. If a company or any organization keeps statistics for every individual in the company from janitor to president, and manages by statistic alone, it almost cannot help flourishing and growing. If this is done, the whole company will find a new esprit-de-corps that will make this personality game obsolete and carry the company into true power.
February 15, 2005 5:08 PMVery usable info, if I can 'fit' the descriptions in with the 'Auditory' v. 'Visual' v. 'Kenisthetic' types for either the class 'A' or class 'B' personalities. So far, however, it seems everyone has a different sort of baggage which determines who they are and how they respond to the different stimuli in our world, depending upon whether it is before lunch or after quitting time. (and I'm an Optimist!)
February 15, 2005 6:02 PMThese behaviors can be self fulfilling prophesies & therefore become organizationally negative fast. So why not emphasize your ideal from the beginning? You can by focusing on the job-related character qualities necessary for true success, integrated with the company's culture & value set.
February 15, 2005 6:06 PMAfter, reading this article, it seems, I fit into each one of the seven catagories in one way or another. So, to me, the person who wrote this article sure didn't put much thought into it! Apparently, this person has not done enough research on his\her findings. These 7 styles of workplace behavior are too generalized. I know many people who have most of these styles of behavior when they feel the particular style needs to be used. Anyone who would actually use this misinformation, seems likely, they wouldn't want to be in business very long.
February 16, 2005 12:19 AMPossibly useful list of qualities that lean toward the negative aspects of personalities. But what about the positives, among them the "Doers": those that take the assignment and get it done with a minimum of fuss. Surely you can think of other positives.
February 16, 2005 8:12 AMWhen teaching or manageing people you must look at peoples strengths and weakness. A team that has a good mixture of trates is always going to come up on top. The key is to make sure that you have a comander comanding that can read wear each person can fit. Then look at the glass as half full or turn a negitive into a positive!
February 16, 2005 8:45 AMAs in all things, some I agree with and some I do not. However, you have it wrong on the Attackers. They do not make unemotional decisions. They are always emotional.
February 16, 2005 9:31 AMThen there's the Fad Followers. They read the latest hot management book, fall for it totally, and think this is the greatest thing since (insert last paradigm). As for pidgeonholing people, better to pass out Chinese fortune cookies, and whatever it says in your fortune is what you are.
February 16, 2005 9:55 AMI have seldom found a person who totally fits totally one profile.
These kinds of behaviors are not constant in every person, for many of us need to act as a commander, as a drifter, as a pleaser,etc., according to the situation. It'd be pointless to act as a pleaser when a subordinate hasn't accomplished his/her tasks.
February 16, 2005 9:57 AMAll these negative aspects of people and the workplace and not what I have found to be true. I have found 40% of the workers are doers, 40% ride the fence, and 20% could care less. The 20% can and do affect those in the 40% fence rider type and eventually will drag down other from the top 40% of workers and all the behaviors mentioned affect all employees. We all have some of the behaviors mentioned.
February 16, 2005 1:00 PMThe first line or two of every type is so negatively emphasized that nobody would want to admit to being any of them. Let's face it. When reading this, we're looking for our own personality type rather than someone else's. I do not know if there is value in the information. It was too excruciating to read. It seems very simple to me- we will become whatever we need to be as long as we want our job. When we no longer want our job- we either sabotage ourself or move on.
February 16, 2005 3:04 PMWhile it is interesting to note the "typing of individuals, our research indicates that "job fit" evaluation is more essential to employee productivity and employer profitability than labels. Job fit relates to the cognitive abilities, occupational interests, and behavior traits empirically measured against benchmarks established for successful individuals within that specific corporation. Which is why we use preeassessment tools as part of our hiring process.
February 24, 2005 12:22 PMVery thought provoking. I agree with the writer that said people are attackers one day and pleasers another. I applied it to me and my most troublesome employee. It also proves my pet peeve, that I must find ways to pat employees on the back even if I have to be creative, or if it is really undeserved, just to keep a body in the seat. Toughest part of being a boss today.
February 28, 2005 3:01 PMThis looks like a version of DISC behavioral style profiling. Some of the assessment versions today can map nearly 300 styles. These are not personality maps so much as maps of behavioral preferences - strengths, blindspots, how someone prefers to communicate, and so on. It doesn't describe values or interests or competencies. It is one tool among many for "job fit". Its strength is that it will describe rather well the kind of working environment that someone prefers. If you then do a profile of the job itself, you can see at a glance how compatible someone might be in that position. There are tools now that combine behavioral style with other measures such as competencies, work-related integrity, and so on. A model like the above is "broad-strokes" description; a bit reductive, but good for an initial understanding of some basic differences between different styles.
October 11, 2005 12:05 PMI thought this was a very interesting article. I like how it categorized the different types of people you may come in contact with in the workplace. I know most people do not fit one category, but rather a mix of many. But I think the main point of the article is not generally if a person's personality fits one specific profile, but rather if your coworkers act this way for how they do certain projects.
From experience, I have actually seen some people who seem to fit one specific category and nothing else when in the work environment. Let's not forget a perfect example everyone should be able to see, The Office, a comedy on television, shows a "Pleaser" personality (the manager of the office). He never offers any constructive feedback and would rather have people like him than do progress on their assignments.
What I love most about this article is that it showed a positive side to each category. If I am working on a project with someone and their "drifter" side comes out, I think they offer a good suggestion on how to handle it (establish procedures and objectives). There are always people in the workplace that make it difficult to deal with, this can help give a new perspective.
April 29, 2006 3:33 AMGREAT article. I could actually place many people - both in my professional and personal life - into one of these categories. Many people are a combination of two or more categories, which is understandable. I like the way the writer has suggestions on how to work with the categories as a boss or a subordinate. Would like ideas on dealing with these types as a peer. That perspective can present interesting challenges as well.
June 30, 2008 10:24 AMAny "behavioral discipline" that tries to put people into neat little boxes only ends up with people smushed into boxes and little else. Change is the one true constant in life.
People change, modify their behavior and grow. They develop new facets, not unlike the growth of crystals. They are random, beyond any smart-assed, self-satisfied method of measurement.
The obsession our business society has with quantifying the unquantifiable, down to the sub-atomic level, is onanistic. They have already gone blind from it. More than once.
August 29, 2009 2:36 PM
