Reply 2 to DRGO I think self -monitoring is how we evaluate ourselves and is a way to make us better. If we were to truly monitor, correct the faults that we see, and build on our strengths on some of the critical traits for locus of control, how we perceive ourselves and others, self-efficacy, attitude and self-esteem we could change our weaker areas. "Locus of control deals with the degree to which people feel accountable for their own behaviors"(The Saylor Foundation, 2017). Locus of control discusses the internal and external locus of control. Internal means that you are the reason something is happening and external is saying that something else caused this to happen. "Perception may be defined as the process with which individuals detect and interpret environmental stimuli"(The Saylor Foundation, 2017). The three areas of perception are visual, Self and social. A persons perception might not always be as they think it is and might cause them to judge another person the wrong way by misunderstanding their actions. I think self perception has to do with the way people are and depends a lot on how they grew up. It plays a large part in their self esteem, whether they are approachable, social or just like to keep to themselves. "Self-efficacy is a belief that one can perform a specific task successfully"(The Saylor Foundation, 2017). Everyone does not have this ability, but the ones that do are usually successful when trying new things and getting the job done above the standard. I think that this is crucial in any organization, especially the Army. We are always getting new tasks, promotion, and missions that we have never done before that if we fail have a lot of consequences. Failure cannot be in our thought process. Understanding this in the work place will help with the dynamics that come a long with a lot of different personalities. You shouldn't be quick to judge others by getting the wrong perception. Helping yourself and others understand this will build a stronger organization and team within that organization. Reply 2 to TRGR Locus of control, self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-monitoring, and attitudes and perception make-up a sort of melting pot of how one behaves. Locus of control describes the level of accountability people assume in regard to their behavior, (Saylor Foundation, 2017). Self-esteem is described as how a person feels about themselves, (Saylor Foundation, 2017). Perception is how individuals “detect and interpret environmental stimuli, (Saylor Foundation, 2017). Finally, self-efficacy refers to the belief an individual has that they can perform a specific task specifically, (Saylor Foundation, 2017). Depending upon the levels of these concepts that the individual possesses is the result of how one is able to self-monitor their actions in a number of situations, (Saylor Foundation, 2017). For example, a person with high self-esteem is likely to have much higher job satisfaction and performance. Relative to self-mo ...

1. Reply 2 to DRGO
I think self -monitoring is how we evaluate ourselves and is a
way to make us better. If we were to truly monitor, correct the
faults that we see, and build on our strengths on some of the
critical traits for locus of control, how we perceive ourselves
and others, self-efficacy, attitude and self-esteem we could
change our weaker areas. "Locus of control deals with the
degree to which people feel accountable for their own
behaviors"(The Saylor Foundation, 2017). Locus of control
discusses the internal and external locus of control. Internal
means that you are the reason something is happening and
external is saying that something else caused this to happen.
"Perception may be defined as the process with which
individuals detect and interpret environmental stimuli"(The
Saylor Foundation, 2017). The three areas of perception are
visual, Self and social. A persons perception might not always
be as they think it is and might cause them to judge another
person the wrong way by misunderstanding their actions. I think
self perception has to do with the way people are and depends a
lot on how they grew up. It plays a large part in their self
esteem, whether they are approachable, social or just like to
keep to themselves. "Self-efficacy is a belief that one can
perform a specific task successfully"(The Saylor Foundation,
2017). Everyone does not have this ability, but the ones that do
are usually successful when trying new things and getting the
job done above the standard. I think that this is crucial in any
organization, especially the Army. We are always getting new
tasks, promotion, and missions that we have never done before
that if we fail have a lot of consequences. Failure cannot be in
our thought process. Understanding this in the work place will
help with the dynamics that come a long with a lot of different
personalities. You shouldn't be quick to judge others by getting
the wrong perception. Helping yourself and others understand
this will build a stronger organization and team within that

2. organization.
Reply 2 to TRGR
Locus of control, self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-monitoring,
and attitudes and perception make-up a sort of melting pot of
how one behaves. Locus of control describes the level of
accountability people assume in regard to their behavior,
(Saylor Foundation, 2017). Self-esteem is described as how a
person feels about themselves, (Saylor Foundation, 2017).
Perception is how individuals “detect and interpret
environmental stimuli, (Saylor Foundation, 2017). Finally, self-
efficacy refers to the belief an individual has that they can
perform a specific task specifically, (Saylor Foundation, 2017).
Depending upon the levels of these concepts that the individual
possesses is the result of how one is able to self-monitor their
actions in a number of situations, (Saylor Foundation, 2017).
For example, a person with high self-esteem is likely to have
much higher job satisfaction and performance. Relative to self-
monitoring, high self-esteem has a positive parallel to high
social monitors whom are able to assess social situational
demands and act accordingly, (Saylor Foundation, 2017). Self-
efficacy relates specifically to job performance, so in relation to
self-monitoring, a person with high self-efficacy will set higher
goals for themselves and behave in ways to accomplish those
goals, (Saylor Foundation, 2017). Locus of control relates to
self-monitoring in that those with an internal locus of control
will attribute their behaviors to their internal characteristics,
while external locus of control will cause an individual to
attribute their behaviors to their external environments. A high
social-monitor likely has a form awareness of both internal and
external locus of control, thus allowing them to assess a
situation effectively and behave accordingly, (Saylor
Foundation, 2017). These concepts are important to understand
in the workplace because each of them will have an effect on
job satisfaction and performance. High self-esteem, high self-
efficacy, high internal locus of control, and high social
monitors are likely to be high performers and have higher job

3. satisfaction, leading to a lower turnover rate, (Saylor
Foundation, 2017). Individuals who do not possess increased
levels of these qualities will require more coaching and perhaps
specialized training and alternative interactions with colleagues.
Indicators of low self-esteem, self-efficacy, and internal locus
of control may also deter recruiters from hiring these
individuals as they may prove unfavorable to the job and/or
organizational fit, (Saylor Foundation, 2017).
Name:
Date:
Week 3 Assignment SOCI 4080C
Introduction
(Delete this material and insert your materials. Review the
following Writing Center resource
http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/writingprocess
/outlining#s-lg-box-3032373 to determine how to structure
your introduction.)
Potential
Solution
s
(Delete this material and insert your materials here. In this
section describe at least two potential solutions to the social
issue, as identified in your literature review. Describe the keys
steps involved in each potential solutions. See the following
Writing Center resource
http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/evidence .
Remember, all paragraphs must be in MEAL plan format

4. http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/paragraphs/or
ganization. )
Feasibility
Overall Feasibility
(Delete this material and insert your materials here. In this
section discuss the feasibility of the solutions. Are the potential
solutions feasible? Why/why not? )
Stakeholders
(Delete this material and insert your materials here. In this
section discuss the interests, rights, and values of all parties
involved with the potential solutions to the social issue.)
Ethical Dilemna’s
(Delete this material and insert your materials here. In this
section discuss any ethical dilemmas involved with the potential
solutions the social issue. If you do not believe there are,
describe how you arrived at this conclusion.)
Conflicts
(Delete this material and insert your materials here. In this
section discuss what conflicts exist among various perspectives
regarding potential solutions to the social issue? If you believe
there are no conflicts, describe how you arrived at this
conclusion.)
Future Outlook
(Delete this material and insert your materials here. In this
section briefly describe how the future might look like if these

5. potential solutions are successfully implemented. Support your
argument(s) with evidence.)
Conclusion
(Delete this material and insert your materials. Review the
following Writing Center resource
http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/writingprocess
/outlining#s-lg-box-3032377 to determine how to structure your
conclusion.)
References
(Delete this material and insert your materials. This section
requires a minimum of 4 references using proper APA format.
Make certain that each reference corresponds to an APA
formatted in-text citation within the paper. For additional
clarification on completing a reference list see the following
Writing Center resource
http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/apa/references
and for information on citations see the following
http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/apa/citations
.)
Reply 1 to SACA
After completing both personality tests and comparing the
results, I have learned that I am a natural leader. I am confident
and an original thinker, and believe strongly in myself. I am a
strong individualist who seeks new angles or novel ways of

6. looking at life. I am extremely capable and intelligent and
strives to always do my best and continue to move in a positive
direction. I have learned that and was already fully aware that
obstacles are one of my biggest challenges. I stayed focus on
my goals, creatively develop a plan and then pour all my energy
into achieving my objective. Because I get so inspired and
involved in what I am doing, my energy level can be awesome
to behold. According to the Jung test, my personality type is the
most independently individualistic (Jung, 2017). I am generally
an anxious person who worries about things and tend to spend
quiet time alone.It has been concluded that my Jung personality
type is Introvert-iNtuitive-Thinker-Judger (INTJ). This means
that I am a reflective, reserved and private individual. I pay
more attention to information that is imaginative and original,
and focus on the future. I make decisions using logic and
impersonal analysis and think with my head rather than my
heart. I prefer a lifestyle that is decisive, planned and orderly. I
like a life that is organized and controlled. I think both tests
were accurate. They basically gave obvious characterizations of
my personality. There is nothing I would change about these
tests and would not devise my own. Based on my work
experiences, I do believe these tests would be effective in the
workplace. They can definitely help each person to take a step
back and evaluate their own character and put them into
perspective. Essentially, adjusting or improving any character

7. can positively impact the work environment. According to the
Saylor Foundation, positive affective people tend to be happier
at work, and their happiness spreads to the rest of the work
environment (The Saylor Foundation, 2014, p. 17).
Reply 1 to JOFI
I was very surprised at my results on both of the tests.
Screenshots are included below for my professor's and my
classmate's analysis/amusement. I suppose that I succeeded in
overcoming the inherent desire that I (and I suspect most other
people as well) have to provide answers which would present
me in a more favorable, if less than completely honest, light.
This is in itself probably a function of my social perception,
i.e., not wanting to be judged too harshly by my professor and
classmates. Had I not succeeded at least in providing honest
answers, I would have liked to have scored more on the
conscienscious end of the spectrum on the Big Five test. I'd
obviously also have liked to have come in a little less toward
"neurotic" (I do tend to let stressors affect me more than I
would like) as well, but In the context of the test, the term
"neurotic" covers a very broad range of separate, though
generally self-defeating, traits. And I am only guilty of a slight
majority of them! The main thing that bothered me about my
low conscientiousness score is how it is clearly detrimental to
productive, team-oriented organizational citizenship behavior.
Since the Saylor Foundation (2017) makes no bones about the

8. fact that the single most effective predictor of performance with
regard to personality traits is conscientiousness, I was
devastated to see that I scored exceptionally low on this
particular area. But I can't deny displaying a lot of the
behaviors which define that end of the spectrum, such as being
disorganized and being a procrastinator. And while I'm being
completely honest here, it probably doesn't help that I generally
have high enough self-esteem and self-efficacy with regard to
most of the tasks I undertake as to believe that I can get the job
done well, even after not being organized and disciplined
enough to set aside sufficient time (and energy) to ensure my
(or my organization's)success. I only hope that further study in
the field of organizational behavior will reveal some actionable
methods of remedying these shortcomings. In the mean time, I
hope that a conscious awareness of my tendency to rely on my
(quite fallible) intuition will remind me to do more sensing and
try to apply a rational and more calculated decision-making
process, as opposed to "going with my gut. With regard to
whether the two tests could be effective in the workplace, I
would say absolutely, especially with regard to staffing/human
resources/person-job fit functions. But I would caveat that
answer with the following:
1. I would have to see evidence that when designing the tests,
their creators took reasonable precautions to prevent people
from answering in a way that they perceived would present

9. themselves in a more favorable light.
2. It might be a good idea to cross reference the answers given
by the test taker with references from previous supervisors, co-
workers... which I guess is really just a way of implementing
the desired control in 1), above.