This paper focuses on a reflection of SCARF analyzing how SCARF impacts me personally within my career. I am in the US Army, working as a 92A, automated logistical specialist. My location of operation is in FT Carson CO and the reflection is based on my experiences in this capacity. Basically, all aspects of the SCARF will be covered where my perception of status, certainty, autonomy, fairness and relatedness will be discussed.
To begin with, Status affects an individual’s health and life duration. Rock, 2008, asserts that higher social status is associated with low levels of baseline cortisol hence longer and healthier life. Notably, there is a direct effect on the brain. From the status that I hold, there is significant difference in comparison with other people in the same environment. Being an automated logistical specialist causes a feeling of superiority and control in warehouse management which is hugely rewarding. This agrees with the perception that it is due to the brain circuitry on primary reward getting activated that causes high levels of dopamine in the body. Moreover, being a 92A in the US Army gives me financial strength that makes my life enjoyable since I hold high status in the society. In a different manner, lack of involvement in key activities is harmful in equal measure as they activate the brain regions dealing with physical pain (Rock, 2008). Therefore I feel threatened by any lack of involvement in maintenance and management as the brain interprets it as a reduction of the previously held status. In worse scenarios, I may perceive the lack of involvement as rejection causing an unhealthy life. Status threat also occurs where my superiors come in the picture ordering or showing indications of lack of quality work by faulting it. In fact, those activities that I interpret as indicators of being perceived as less than others causes a feeling of being threatened and triggers me to respond by holding arguments and opinions that are not sensible in a bid to avoiding the pain felt from a reduction in status.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Other aspects that cause me to feel threatened as an automated logistical specialist are such as reviews of performance which actually cause no change in my behavior as it makes me feel threatened. Therefore, to achieve a change in an organization, the management needs to explore ways of giving feedback that do not reduce my status as a supervisor. Notably, most organizations achieve improvement of status of their employees through promotions to higher ranks. Nevertheless, the promotion may cause a reduction in status if the post of promotion is an area that the employee is incompetent in as it will cause flawed performance (Rock, 2008). However in my case, this is very sustainable. It becomes even more effective through incorporation of other sustainable ways such as complements and public acknowledgements of the efforts made in providing quality work. Also, I do the same to the employees working in ranks below where I regularly complement them for excellent work done.
From an individual perspective, the status can be raised by beating oneself at activities. For instance, setting improved personal records in undertaking various activities results in improved status. I personally set records that supersede what I have achieved earlier on in warehouse management. When doing team work activities, I encourage fellow workers to have a change of perception to focus on individual contribution rather than the overall outcome as it causes an improvement of individual status.
Certainty is a major aspect in work places. Basing it on the dependence on previous experiences as a supervisor, I am able to decipher the pattern of occurrence of events in the work place. However, a deviation from the norm stimulates the brain to pay more attention on the cause of the anomaly. As a result of the anomaly, the brain focuses on the details of the change thus deviating from the goals set in the work place. In similar manner, when the junior employees show inconsistent trends in telling the truth triggers the orbital frontal cortex to detect the irregularity and focus on unraveling it ( Lieberman, 2007). In similar manner, lack of job security or expectations required has debilitating effects. Fortunately, I have guaranteed job security but in cases of extreme unaccountability, my job may be on the line. Notably, achieving what is expected causes increase in dopamine levels making me feel certain as a competent supervisor. In my line of work, going to familiar places causes a good feeling since recalling the mental picture of the place is much easier. Nevertheless, I am also able to adjust to new environments.
All types of changes deemed significantly threatening in my place of work results in feelings of uncertainty on my position thus reduced focus on the organization’s goals. In this context, managers can explore a plethora of ways that can reduce the uncertainties in work places. Notably, clarifying the strategies and processes in the workplace can reduce uncertainty ( Lieberman, 2007) . Similarly, breaking down steps in the management process as well as establishing what is expected at each step is essential in reducing uncertainty. In increasing certainty, the manager can use varied approaches such as detailed information on discussions, meetings and events which make me feel as a huge part of the army. In situations where the manger lacks information beforehand, utilization of a predicted date can go a long way in improving my certainty as an automated logistical specialist.
Autonomy that manifests as the exertion of control over the environment brings about a perception of choice on the subject matter. The aspects of autonomy have a huge bearing on my individual ability of handling stress at the work places and consequently the functionality. Having a proper perception on ability to control stress is less destructive as compared to when faced with uncontrollable stress ( Lieberman, 2007) . High autonomy on stress management is associated with improved health while reduced autonomy causes a feeling of threat hence deteriorating the health of an individual. However in my case, being a supervisor gives me high autonomy where I decide on most aspects of my job. Notably, team work activities reduce autonomy while at the same time increasing status, relatedness and certainty. In this organization, maintaining individual autonomy can be further boosted via setting parameters in which as a supervisor, I can manage the work flow and working hours.
Fairness has been seen to improve the brain’s perception on the rewards given if equal to everyone else. On the other hand, unfairness triggers feelings of threat in an individual and consequently display uncaring attitude to those they perceive as receiving unfair treatment ( Nowack, 2007). In fact, most workers feel rewarded when misfortunes befall those perceived as unfair. Fairness can be boosted by ensuring transparency in all transactions in the organization. In team work, individuals can be allowed to choose the rules that work best for them as a means of ensuring fairness.
Relatedness comes in as a means of evaluating the sense of belonging in an individual. It also encompasses interpersonal relationships, that is, either a friend or an enemy. The groupings that present in an organization play a major role in influencing the harmony among the organization’s employees. Relatedness determines the feelings of empathy towards individuals where those perceived as competitors receive little or no empathy ( Ringleb et al., 2012) . In reflecting on this, I have high levels of relatedness where I try to achieve workable relationships with my superiors and juniors. Nonetheless, I never feel threatened by individuals showing interest of taking up my job as a supervisor as I am highly job secure.
The SCARF model is essential in helping individuals reduce the threats in work places and take full advantage of the rewards in work experiences. From the discussion on the SCARF model, aspects of my interactions with fellow employees have been affirmed. For instance, my application of relatedness is depicted where those we could not get along with received no empathy from me in times of hardships. In like manner, the aspect of certainty greatly affects my working where going to unfamiliar places causes a feeling of threat while going to familiar places makes me feel certain and unthreatened. When it comes to fairness, the decisions that affect my interactions with people are those where favoritism seems evident. I also perceive payment discrepancies as a source of threat where I feel those paid higher amounts as undeserving of any empathy.
My status in the organization makes me feel superior but in cases where the seniors fault my work, I feel threatened. Autonomy is in complete agreement with my perception where I make decisions on my operation in the warehouse management. Notably, this aspect makes me feel in control of circumstances but in situations where the circumstances go way above my control make me feel distress but I am able to handle it by always checking on my crucial role in the organization.
In conclusion, SCARF impacts me personally within my career where being in I am in the US Army working as a 92A, automated logistical specialist stationed in FT Carson CO. the discussion above is based on my experiences in this capacity. Basically, all aspects of the SCARF are covered in the discussion where my perception of status, certainty, autonomy, fairness and relatedness are outlined. Although I agree with all, some aspects such as lack of empathy do not apply in my case as discussed above.
References ;
Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Social Cognitive Neuroscience: A Review of Core Processes. Annual Review of Psychology. Vol. 58, 259-289.
Nowack, K. M. (2007). Why 360-Degree Feedback Doesn’t Work. Talent Management . August issue.
Ringleb, A. H., & Rock, D. (2012). Teaching leadership with the brain in mind. The Handbook for Teaching Leadership: Knowing, Doing and Being . London: Sage Publications.
Rock, D. (2008). SCARF: A brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others. NeuroLeadership Journal . Vol.1(1), 44-52.
