motivational analysis of organizations

2. There is a tendency for people to verbally espouse different styles from those that
they actually employ. This disparity can lead to discrepancies between the selfperception
of the person involved (often influenced by the talk, despite the actions, of
the person involved) and the perceptions of others who are very close to the respondent.
Typically, highest and lowest scores are perceived identically by both parties, but styles
with the two middle scores are perceived differently.
3. There may be more adherence to a “company person” style than one might
expect in light of the findings commonly published about the decline in loyalty to
organizations.
People differ remarkably in regard to the clarity and detachment with which they
interpret their scores. Merely listening to another person’s discussion of his or her scores
can be a source of insight. It is wise to allow plenty of time for a follow-up discussion
after the administration and scoring of the instrument. It may be advisable to structure
the discussion somewhat, because a discussion of personal styles of any type can
engender defensiveness and other dynamics. In particular, the style to which most
objection seems to be taken is that of the careerist. Follow-up discussions of the merits
and drawbacks of this style tend to become quite heated.
REFERENCES
Downs, A. (1966). Inside bureaucracy. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Handy, C. (1979). Gods of management: Who they are, how they work, and why they will fail. Pan Books.
Maccoby, M. (1976). The gamesman: The new corporate leaders. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Plutzik, R. (1980). What price loyalty? Training/HRD, 17(10), 22-30.
Schein, E.H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
6 ❘❚
The Pfeiffer Library Volume 19, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer