Based on the above case study and relevant theories, contradict between what employers want in employees (agreeable employees) and what employees actually do best (disagreeable employees)?
According to the question, let we discuss the contradiction of agreeable employees and disagreeable employees. Fisrt, let us go through the definition of contradiction so we will deeply understand the whole picture of what will be discuss in this question. Contradiction is define as; to assert or express the opposite of (a statement), to deny the statement of, or to be contrary to; be inconsistent with. Based on the above case study, I noted a confusion of an employer in choosing the right behaviour in hiring the new employee.
Firstly, I would like to go through to agreeable employees. The agreeable employees is likely describe as employees who can easily discuss with, telorant, and can accept ideas without further argue. It is a norm for employer wanting agreeable employee. This is because, it is easier for them to make the final decision. It is also easier to negotiate with the agreeable employee for they will not questionning every single decision made by the employer. The communication process also can run smoother than working with disagreeble employees. For employer that have disagreeable employees, they actually taking the risk of building the conflict in decision making if they can’t find the understanding point between each team member. Disagreeable employee tend not to received all the idea without arguing first. They prefer to debate on it until they get the most satisfy answer for the idea proposed by their employer.
But, both behaviour seems to have their own pro’s and contras. Agreeable employees, tend to swallow all the idea propose by the employer and will not confident enough to voice-out their own idea even they know that it might be better than the one proposed by the employer. Thus,agreeable employees doesn’t always have the new and creative idea. Their idea, most of the time also influence by the employer and not from their own pure idea. They will not help much enough in bringing the innovation to the company. This is not a good situation for company who are working in the culture where new ideas must always come in order to survive in their field and to compete with other companies. Disagreeable employees which more difficult to handle seem can help the employer in order to gain fresh new idea or new invention. By always having new ideas, the company can adapt the business field in all time. Even if there is rapid changes in the way the business should run, the new ideas by the employees help employer to make a better decision.
Agreeable employees is needed for smoother discussion and ideas sharing, but disagreeable employees is needed in creating competitiveness in the company.
Often, the effects of personality depend on the situation. Explain using relevant theory job situations in which agreeableness is an important virtue, and others in which it is harmful?
As discussed earlier in Question 1, agreeableness does bring advantages for an organisation. In this question, I will share my opinion on where and when agreeableness is needed and didn’t. The term agreeableness can be define as; the quality of being agreeable or pleasing; that quality which gives satisfaction or moderate pleasure to the mind or senses, the quality of being agreeable or suitable; suitableness or conformity; consistency, and resemblance; concordance; harmony; -- with to or between.
Agreeableness is vital in the field where the business is run mostly through communication. In doing any discussion, the understanding between each team members is needed. It is not like we discuss a bit, and we suddenly accept the whole single things, but we create the connection of understanding a thing between each team members. By building the connection, we automatically building the tolerant...