Performance and personality: The process of adaptation

Summary: [You might care to view the posts “Are we bound by type?", “Motivated drives", “A case of tactics”, and “Reactivity: the monkey business!” before this]. We adapt well when we ‘read’ the conditions and strive to match our abilities. Thus every personality has the capacity to alter performance. Its effectiveness depends on our being proactive or reactive.


How does personality relate to performance? The environment plays a significant role in any performance. We like to be in familiar surroundings that are conducive to our skills sets. Our level of comfort contributes to our performance being optimum.

No guarantees of continuity

But continuity of conditions isn’t ever guaranteed, especially in diversity. We’re exposed to new places, new people and new processes.

When we ‘read’ the conditions well we’re able to adapt to them, successfully utilizing our technical and creative skills to fulfil our purpose. We may even change our behaviours in adjustment.

Thus every personality has the capacity to alter performance according to requirement. Personality tests can’t identify these aspects. It would then seem that we achieve the ‘impossible’ only by becoming different persons!

Proactive and reactive

In competitive situations, we’re further confronted by our opponents’ performance. The performance bar constantly needs to be raised. Where skill sets are similar, the better adapted would be more effective in action.

We can be proactive or reactive to the many external challenges. When proactive, we’re continually learning, applying fresh effort to create the best product in the business as we anticipate and welcome change.

But as we often witness, it’s appears far easier to be reactive, to devise shortcuts to ‘success’ instead of due diligence.

The bubble burst

The shortcuts are tactics to win by default. The preference becomes to control environments, events and people, and to prevent change.

But change is constant and uncontrollable; it will happen whether one wants it, or not.

Reactivity creates complications. Fact is, ‘bubble’ existence decreases reasoning, chances to develop, and successful adaptation to change. So when – not if – the bubble bursts, you bring the system down or head into extinction!

Develop through life

The relationship between personality and performance isn’t obvious or definable. Personality develops throughout lifetime. So can performance, but whether it actually does or not depends on many influencing factors - and in ways that are unpredictable.

The many enduring traits of personality motivate learning, responses to change, adapting and thence performance. It's the individual’s choice to be proactive or reactive in responding to environmental challenges. But to prove being the best, or even to survive in the fray you must perform. That, as they say, is Karma.

Let’s have a last word next…

Performance and personality: Reactivity - the monkey business!

Summary: [You might view earlier posts “Are we bound by type?”, “Motivated drives”, “The need to win”]. Reactivity can be dangerous if handled poorly, especially in diversity. What rules perhaps is ignorance of language and culture, a distorted need for achievement and mental ill-health.


How does personality relate to performance? In the Australia-India test cricket series 2007, inept handling of situations by match officials on the turf itself spun matters out of control. And with the charge of racism being lodged, game performance aside, the series itself was put to jeopardy.

Bias?

Do consistent winners make fewer mistakes, and are they more honest in actions than others? Not so, but because of the record status, it’s often presumed so. The manner in which they report, appeal, claim a catch or stand ground can bias rulings in their favour, and which they may well count on.

Did an Indian player racially abuse an Australian player during the 2nd cricket test match in Sydney, calling him a monkey?

The on-field umpires didn’t hear it; the Indians vehemently denied it; video footage from cameras around the ground didn’t have it on record.

But satisfied with the hearsay evidence from some of the Australian squad, the arbitrators opted to ban the Indian player for 3 matches - appeal pending, of course.

Or ignorance?

Many say both charge and ruling actually an exhibition of ignorance of language and culture.

Firstly, in Indian mythology, the monkey god is the very symbol of power and prowess. Sportsmen and soldiers invoke his name and blessings for success on any mission. Culturally, the word is hardly satisfying to vent with!

Secondly, the m-word has been used to refer to people of colour – Asians, as in the notable case of Republican George Allen. In the cricket match, what colour would the ethnic Indian be defending against the ethnic Australian?

Finally, the English language isn’t a strong point for many of team India, including the accused. Reports that say he voiced a Hindi/Punjabi expletive may well be right. “Maaki…” does sound phonetically similar!

[Update: Eventually the appeals commissioner found no evidence of racism and revoked the ban. However, since this followed an Indian threat to pullout, the Australians cried foul!]

Goes around, comes around

Many around the world suspect the ‘racism’ issue a strategic ploy to decimate the opponents’ bowling talents in ways other than with superior batting. A ban on the premier spin bowler would effectively remove that threat from the equation!

The point is what goes around, e.g. sledging, comes around. In the Australia-India cricket series as often in business competitiveness, we may have been looking at the same distorted need for achievement affecting both sides.

Sports need spectators/viewers just as businesses are concerned with customers. But if group energy is focused on other than best performances, the ‘product’ attraction and its market may soon be lost. The consumer, with choice and buying clout in hand, eventually wants value for money.

Let’s examine adaptation next…