A Guide to the Scientific Career. Группа авторов
Читать онлайн книгу.
leaders are willing to make definitive decisions to optimize workflow. Free rein leaders allow group members to exercise individuality and work to their strengths independently in their own styles. However, effective free rein leaders must have an understanding of an individual group member's abilities and how to maximize competency during research projects. Self‐motivation on the part of each research team member is crucial for a leadership style of this type (Sims 2009; Hanna 1999).
In addition to behavioral leadership theory, other forms of leadership doctrines exist that emphasize interpersonal relationships. Emphasis of empathy (relationship‐oriented leaders), team spirit (coaching leaders), and friendship (affiliative leaders) are several varieties of this interpersonal subset. Alternatively, creativity‐based organizational leadership styles are able to encourage visionary and inspirational ideas (transformational) or describe directions based on each person's personality for a system of rewards and punishments for adequate or inadequate work respectively (transactional) (Sims 2009).
Effective leaders in research adopt elements from each leadership style and use many methods to enhance the group experience. No leadership style is mutually exclusive, and a leader with the ability to combine several aspects of many styles is able to engage a larger audience. The goal of the researcher is to produce high‐quality, beneficial work in an efficient manner while maintaining the enthusiasm to encourage others to pursue similar goals. As a leader, targeting one's managerial style to the strengths and weaknesses of the research team is bound to boost morale while maintaining a workplace conducive to quality research. Understanding the specific strengths and weaknesses of the team can be best performed by understanding a team member's personality.
2.2 Personality and Interpersonal Relationships
As mentioned previously, leadership style is often a reflection of the personality traits of the leader. A good understanding of the varieties of personalities of the research team is crucial to developing a keen working atmosphere, but perhaps more imperatively, a thorough understanding of one's own personality can help identify strengths and weaknesses in learning, leadership, and communicative ability. Carl Jung and later, Isabel Briggs Myers and Katherine Briggs contributed significantly to the psychological study of personality typology, their research still applied in the workplace to study interactions among co‐workers, and even a medical student's affinity to certain subspecialties (Freeman 2004; Stilwell et al. 2000; Myers 1962; Myers and Davis 1965). Developed in the 1950s, the Myers‐Briggs Typology Indicator (MBTI), though under some criticism for its reproducibility and validity, can offer a general assessment of personality for an individual if the assessment is taken honestly, and without too much thought into any one question (Freeman 2004; Pittenger 2005). Honest answers from the unique experiences of problem solving, learning style, and communicative ability of the examinee usually result in a genuine assessment congruent to the examinee's temperament. The tool itself can serve as an introductory method to introduce individual differences between group members, which may be beneficial in the beginnings of a group research project, but not meant to be taken too seriously into account (Freeman 2004; Pittenger 2005). There are a variety of exams available online at no charge, yet official ones may be purchased online as well.
The MBTI is a personality assessment tool that, through a series of simple questions, creates a four‐letter personality type for the examinee based on four different personality attributes, originally described by Carl Jung (Freeman 2004). Each personality attribute contains two contrasting subtypes, each represented by a letter. With this breakdown, Myers and Briggs hypothesized that everyone could fall into 1 of 16 different personality types (critics often dismissing the MBTI as too narrowly grouping the personalities of the population) (Pittenger 2005). The four major personality attributes measured by the MTBI are described as follows.
2.2.1 Relationships to Others: Extroversion (E) Versus Introversion (I)
This attribute reflects from whom an individual may derive one's energy–from within, or from those in proximity. Introverts are not described as asocial, but, rather, those who prefer to solve problems by thinking to themselves without an inherent drive to bounce ideas off other people (Atanacio 2010; Freeman 2013). Introverts tend to function better in environments where thought often proceeds speech, and the people surrounding them are also good listeners. Extroverts, by contrast, derive their energy from social situations; they become empowered in group settings, and thoughts and ideas are best conveyed by thinking aloud. Extroverts tend to be more impulsive and expressive than their introverted counterparts (Stilwell et al. 2000; Freeman 2013).
2.2.2 How Information Is Gathered and Metabolized: Sensing (S) Versus Intuition (N)
Sensors rely on the physical world around them to obtain information. They are able to take in the details of their surroundings and rely on the hard, practical facts of nature to arrive at conclusions. Sensors have a tendency to rely on previous experiences to predict the next occurrence in a series of events, and similarly tend to be very literal. Intuitives tend to look beyond the facts and details and rely more on meanings, concepts, and bigger‐pictures to understand a specific situation. Intuitives rely on their ability to recognize their gut‐feelings to understand a series of events. With a few general understanding of their environment, intuitives are comfortable in further exploration of a new concept without the need for excessive detail (Stilwell et al. 2000; Freeman 2013).
2.2.3 Decision‐Making Ability: Thinking (T) Versus Feeling (F)
Thinkers are people who rely on evidence‐based objective rationality to come to conclusions. A thinker by personality is more likely to choose the more logical and direct path to an answer. Thinkers find reward in analytics and problem solving. Feelers are dependent on subjective assessments of their surroundings. They tend to be empathetic and compassionate people, often causing them to consider how their actions may affect other people before acting. Feelers find reward in other people's satisfaction with a given situation (Stilwell et al. 2000; Freeman 2013).
2.2.4 Organization: Judgment (J) Versus Perception (P)
In interacting with the outside world, this final attribute assesses in which environment one may operate most optimally. Judgers tend to be very organized, schedule‐driven people. Their lives tend to be orderly, planned, and controlled. Structure and organization are paramount and with this, a sense of command over their environment leads to quick and effective decision‐making. This comes at a risk of close‐mindedness, however. Perceivers tend to be more open‐minded, relaxed, and capable of dealing with change. Though seemingly irresponsible from their flexibility and spontaneity, their ability to be aware of ideas and events is far higher than that of Judgers, making them more likely to observe the world before coming to a decision. Decisiveness comes more naturally to judgers, however (Stilwell et al. 2000; Freeman 2013).
From these four personality attributes (and eight variations), comes 16 different combinations of personality according to Myers‐Briggs. Effective researchers may fall into any one of the 16 different personality types, but a working knowledge of one's traits is crucial for successful self‐assessment and team collaboration.
2.3 Continuous Self‐Assessment
An honest assessment of one's personality attributes and leadership styles is an effective way to understand the working environment, the temperament, and relationships with co‐researchers, and provides a window of opportunity for self‐improvement to better develop the qualities in effective leadership that one may lack. As stated in the beginning of this chapter, a researcher must be an enthusiastic leader, highly curious, and motivated to contribute to his or her field and inspire those in proximity. While there are many variables in personality and leadership style, the best qualities for researchers are the ones that unite ideas and minds in a supportive and effective atmosphere. Quality research and a strong body of researchers will emerge when the attitude of the leadership and contributors is full of harmony and mutual intrigue for the research in question.
2.4