logo image

Value Driven Management and Personal Happiness Strategy Plan

The attainment of job satisfaction and personal happiness is the responsibility of each individual by maximizing value. An individual has to first undertake responsibility for his personal values which will result in self esteem and growth. To determine the congruence of a persons values with that of the organization and the personal satisfaction derived there from the Organizational Value Congruency and Satisfaction Scale or OVCSS has been developed which has 18 value dimensions and each individual is required to respond by rating its importance to himself and harmonization these with the values of the organization.

(Pohlman & Gardiner, 2000, pp. 214-216). Each value dimension is required to be multiplied with its importance and the organizational congruency score to calculate the satisfaction score for his job. The higher the OVCSS score, the more is the chance of a person maximizing personal value with the work environment. (Pohlman & Gardiner, 2000, pp. 214-216). This is being applied to arrive at conclusions in the current situation. The OVCSS score card has a total of 450 possible points, of which the score achieved is 180.

This is just about 40 percent. This indicates that the person is not satisfied with the present job for reasons which are being analyzed in the succeeding paragraphs. (a) Autonomy and Creativity. The individual prefers greater autonomy and creativity. However the supervisor is not able to provide greater autonomy, hence there may be good reason for the person to switch to a supervisor who can provide greater independence thereby gain more satisfaction in the job. (Pohlman & Gardiner, 2000, pp. 214-216). (b) Complexity.

The individual as well as the supervisor are able to thrive in complexity but there is scope for improvement particularly the individual has to improve his ability to manage complexity. (c) Intensity. The intensity of involvement of the supervisor is low. This factor needs to be reconciled. (Pohlman & Gardiner, 2000, pp. 214-216) (d) Status. The supervisor is not able to score on status, while the individual is concerned about the same. Thus again it is essential that there is a greater alignment between the two.

(Pohlman & Gardiner, 2000, pp. 214-216) (e) Precision. The individual has a high score on precision but the supervisor is not able to provide him the desired impetus for growth. (f) Competition. The supervisor is a competitive person, but the individual is low on competitiveness. Since this is essential to sustain business the individual must improve his competitive skills. (Pohlman & Gardiner, 2000, pp. 214-216). (g) Physical, Outdoor Work, Travel and Routine. In these value dimensions, the individual has scored poorly.

This is obviously denoting that there is a requirement for him to devote attention to outdoor work and also routine to which he is not fully attuned. This needs to be improved or he may seek an indoor job which will provide greater satisfaction. (Pohlman & Gardiner, 2000, pp. 214-216) (h) Security. This is a median score for both and thus an indicator of the need to improve. (j) People and Team Orientation. People and team orientation is relatively high in the individual but low for the supervisor. Switching supervisors may be one solution. (k) Leadership, Authority and Responsibility.

The scores are reasonably high for the individual, but lower for the supervisor. (l) Industry Image. The score is very high for the supervisor and low for the individual. Thus there is a need for him to build a greater alignment towards the industry. (Pohlman & Gardiner, 2000, pp. 214-216). Overall Strategy for Growth. It is obvious that the individual is not satisfied with the present supervisor and hence there is a need for a change in the supervisor or job in the present company. The individual is very autonomous and creative, is not comfortable with outdoor job and travel.

He could opt for an indoor job and needs to enhance his loyalty towards the company image. These aspects should be considered for greater satisfaction and professional growth. The total score achieved is 242. This is just about 53. 7 percent. Thus indicating that the person is not fully satisfied in the present organization and will have to overcome some of his weaknesses to align better to the company as well as gain satisfaction. Assuming that it is not possible to change the organization, there is a need to improve the following aspects by the individual:- (a) Autonomy and Creativity.

The organization is providing a very high degree of autonomy and creativity to the individual, to that extent there is an alignment in this dimension and thus greater degree of satisfaction for the individual leading to the recommendation that he can continue working for it. (b) Complexity. The individual needs to improve his ability to withstand and sustain complexity. (c) Intensity, Status and Precision. These are aligned equally, however the individual should improve upon the same. (Pohlman & Gardiner, 2000, pp. 214-216). (d) Competition. The individual has to improve his competitiveness.

(Pohlman & Gardiner, 2000, pp. 214-216). (g) Physical, Outdoor Work, Travel and Routine. The individual needs to demonstrate greater inclination and ability for outdoor work, travel and routine. (h) Security. This aspect needs greater attention for the individual. (j) People and Team Orientation. People and team orientation is relatively high for the individual though there may be some scope for improvement. (k) Leadership, Authority and Responsibility. The scores are reasonably high for the individual, however could be improved upon. (Pohlman & Gardiner, 2000, pp. 214-216). (l) Industry Image.

The obvious inference of greater attention on this facet by the individual is again underlined. Overall Strategy for Personal Growth. The individual can be satisfied in the present organization in case if he can improve in facets as indicated above. However he definitely needs to change his job position in the company and work under a different supervisor.

References

1. Jones, G. and George, J. (2006). Contemporary Management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 2. Pohlman, R. and Gardiner, G. (2000). Value Driven Management: How to Create and Maximize Value Over Time for Organizational Success. New York, NY: Pohlman, Inc.

Read full document

Can’t wait to take that assignment burden offyour shoulders?

Let us know what it is and we will show you how it can be done!
×
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website. If you need this or any other sample, please register
Signup & Access Essays

Already on Businessays? Login here

No, thanks. I prefer suffering on my own
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website. If you need this or any other sample register now and get a free access to all papers, carefully proofread and edited by our experts.
Sign in / Sign up
No, thanks. I prefer suffering on my own
Not quite the topic you need?
We would be happy to write it
Join and witness the magic
Service Open At All Times
|
Complete Buyer Protection
|
Plagiarism-Free Writing

Emily from Businessays

Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/chNgQy