Analysis of Locus of Control, Least Preferred Coworker, and Path-Goal

Introduction

Leadership has been the subject of many research and theories. Of these studies, several assessment instruments excel in providing insights into personal leadership propensities and styles. The three prominent measures are Locus of Control, Least Preferred Coworker, and Path-Goal scales. Assessing scores along these scales can help an individual have exhaustive knowledge of their natural tendencies towards leadership. This research paper focuses on a reflective analysis of my scores in these assessments to highlight my dominant leadership style and how it might be perceived professionally.

Locus of Control (L.O.C.)

According to Chang and Kat (2023, p. 8), the Locus of Control (L.O.C.) is a poignant measure to illuminate whether individuals control their life outcomes or believe that external forces are behind most such issues. My score of 13 indicates a slight external Locus of Control, which implies that I assume my life happens at the will of other forces rather than through my actions.

This score reflects my emotions on the same, somehow, in the workplace. Even though personal efforts count, outcomes can be primarily influenced by the environment, team processes, organizational climate, and managerial decisions. There are instances where I have tried my level best, but the outcome depends on external forces. This perspective influenced my collaborative style, which stresses teamwork and alignment with the broader organizational goals.

The score would make a future employer assume that I value the bigger picture and understand how external factors impact the results of projects. It also suggests my preference for working with others. However, one may wonder whether I can only associate all the failures with external aspects.

L.O.C. is not a stable characteristic and could be changed during life. In gaining experience in and through various professional environments, individuals may increasingly feel more in control or recognize external factors. Perceptions may change with personal growth and through varied experiences.

There are benefits to adjusting one’s L.O.C. score. Working domestically could advance accountability when aiming for a more internal L.O.C., and moving between an interior and a balanced view might promote better teamwork.

Least Preferred Coworker (L.P.C.)

Using an L.P.C. score is an enlightening measure of leadership style. I am rated at 81, and it is obvious that I am Relationship-motivated, which translates to valuing social interactions. I am likely to emphasize the development of a conducive working environment.

This score reflects my approach to work. For my part, I am inspired by the motive of developing healthy relationships and feel that a united team can face up to different difficulties more adequately. Tasks are essential, but a joint team can better navigate obstacles than those with various members.

An employer analyzing my score would see my team-building strengths, conflict resolution skills, and fostering an excellent working atmosphere, making me a perfect choice for jobs requiring much teamwork or H.R. and team management positions.

However, with time and experience that may differ, the L.P.C. may change. Some leaders become more robust all around, while others slowly change and learn the importance of the opposite aspect. Adjusting one’s L.P.C. score is an advantage to improving on how versatile one is as a leader.

Path-Goal (P.G.)

According to the P.G. Theory, there are different styles of leadership. My scores depict a high inclination towards Directive (Score: 32) and Achievement styles (Score: 24), in addition to a generic predisposition toward Supportive (Score: 25) and Participative styles (Score:26).

1. Directive: My style pervades this score. I mitigate ambiguities by often making clear instructions and setting expectations upfront.
2. Supportive: Although not my primary style. I do care about team welfare. I make an effort to create an enabling work environment where everybody feels treated with value.
3. Participative: My standard score here shows how I buy into working together to reach an agreement. I appreciate my team’s input and consider every individual’s feedback when planning.
4. Achievement: My score was high because of the drive. I always had big dreams for myself and my team, keeping them within the bounds.

My scores indicate to an employer that my leadership approach is balanced. I am directive and achievement-oriented, but at the same time, I have to involve others and their emotional welfare, which is essential in dynamic workplaces.

One can easily picture how their P.G. scores shift as individuals accumulate varied experiences. According to Metwally et al. (2019, p. 7), one may modify their leadership style to adapt to different team needs and organizational cultures. However, the scores of these metrics are refined to expand one’s toolkit on leadership.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the journey through my Locus of Control, Least Preferred Coworker, and Path-Goal scores has been illuminating, providing a reflective mirror of my leadership style. Even though these assessments are quantitative, they touch upon the qualitative sides of leadership that, as a rule, remain intangible. Instead, they act as a compass leading most leaders into nuances of their strengths and areas for future development. Given that leadership is not a static standard but grows through experience and introspection, these scores provide the basis for continuous learning and adaptation. I have developed a more vital self-awareness and motivation to shape my leadership in conjunction with my growing self and the changing demands of the professional setting.

List of References

Chang, Y. and Katz, M., 2023. When the feeling is for pursuing: exploring the moderating role of spectatorship locus of control on fans’ emotion-directed pursuit of consumption goals. Sport Management Review, pp.1-22.

Metwally, D., Ruiz-Palomino, P., Metwally, M. and Gartzia, L. (2019). How ethical leadership shapes employees’ readiness to change: The mediating role of an organizational effectiveness culture. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, p. 7.