Download - Personality Slides
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
1/22
Industrial-Organizational PsychologyLearning Module
Personality and
Work
Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
2/22
Lesson Objectives
What is meant by personality.
A brief history of personality theory and research. The elements of the most commonly accepted model of
personality - the Five-Factor Model (Big Five or FFM). How personality has been shown to affect job performance
and other work-related outcomes. Why and how organizational managers use personality
assessment as a tool in decision-making.
At the end of this lecture, you shouldunderstand:
Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
3/22
What is Personality?
Internal perspective: Processes withinan individual thatexplain whyhe or she behaves in characteristic ways.
Attitudes, emotions, ways of thinking
Fairly stable across time and situations Partly inherited
External perspective: How the individual isperceivedbyothers that he or she interacts with (reputation).
She has a great personality!
Shaped by two fundamental motives related to socialinteraction Getting along with others (cooperation)
Getting ahead of others (competition)
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
4/22
Personality Theory
and Research
Allport: Cardinal and Central Traits
Cattell: Sixteen Personality Factors
Eysenck: Extraversion, Neuroticism, andPsychoticism
Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
5/22
Personality, Organizations, and
the Organization of Personality Early researchers believed the personality-job
performance relationship was weak. Reasons: Comparatively weak analytic techniques.
Inappropriate measures (most used psychopathologyinventories, e.g., MMPI). No theoretical framework on which to base research
findings. The belief that behavior is determined more by situations
than by traits (Mischel,1968).
Research and theoretical innovations thatrehabilitated personality in late 80s, early 90s. Meta-analysis: A new quantitative method for
summarizing research findings.
The Five-Factor Model: A new organizing taxonomy forpersonality structure (The Big Five).
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
6/22
The Five-Factor Model
Premise: Personality can be efficiently described with fiverelatively independent trait dimensions.
Model derived from factor-analytic studies of much largersets of traits.
Factor analysis: A method for reducing a large set of datainto something interpretable
Allport & Odbert (1936): Identified more than 18,000 traitterms in unabridged dictionary Eventually factor analyzed into five dimensions
Five-factor model reproduced across many cultures andlanguages (Saucier, Hampson, & Goldberg, 2000).
Research evidence points to the heritability (Rowe, 1997)and stability (Costa & McCrae, 1997) of the FFM.
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
7/22
The Five-Factor Model
The Five Factors and their Characteristics:
Extraversion: Assertive, competitive, positiveemotionality, sociable
Agreeableness: Warm, likeable, gentle, cooperative
Conscientiousness: Orderly, dependable,industrious, disciplined
Emotional Stability: Relaxed, free from anxiety,
depression, negative emotionality Openness to Experience: Creative, cultured,
intellectual, perceptive
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
8/22
The Five-Factor Model and Job
Performance: Research Findings Summary of meta-analytic findings (Barrick & Mount, 1991):
Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability are the bestpersonality predictors of job performance across nearlyall jobs.
Extraversion and Agreeableness are important in jobsrequiring a high degree of interpersonal work
Less consistent evidence for Openness to Experience Personality has been shown to predict:
Job performance and results (e.g. $ sales volume) Job satisfaction Training performance Leadership .and many more important job-related behaviors and
attitudes
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
9/22
HowDoes Personality Affect
Job Performance? Theory and research show that Big Five factors impact
motivation, which in turn affects performance. Forexample
Thus, personalitys effect on performance may be fully orpartially (dotted line) mediated by motivation
Conscientiousness
Self-efficacy
Goals
Performance
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
10/22
Why Should Organizations
Test Personality? Personality predictsaspects of job performance
that may not be strongly related to knowledge,skills or abilities.
Incremental validity Predicts what a person will do, as opposed to what
they can do.
Contextual job performance (Borman & Motowidlo,1993) Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: Willingness to
go above and beyond the call of duty
Unlike other selection tools, little or no evidence ofadverse impact (different selection ratios betweendemographic groups).
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
11/22
Personality in Selection
Decisions: A Case Study Youve been hired to design a selection system for
customer service workers at McToxic Pizza Step 1: Conduct a thorough Job Analysis
You discover that high-performers are friendly,dependable, and low in imagination
Step 2: Refer worker attributes to a validated modelof personality (e.g., the Big Five) Friendly: Agreeableness; Dependable:
Conscientiousness; Unimaginative: (Low) Openness
to Experience. Step 3: Incorporate a personality test as one factor
guiding selection decisions DO NOT base selection decisions solely on a single
test score of any kind!!
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
12/22
Big Five Mini-Marker Exercise
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
13/22
1. Bashful 15. Harsh 29. Sloppy2. Bold 16. Imaginative 30. Sympathetic3. Careless 17. Inefficient 31. Systematic
4. Cold 18. Intellectual 32. Talkative5. Complex 19. Jealous 33. Temperamental6. Cooperative 20. Kind 34. Touchy7. Creative 21. Moody 35. Uncreative8. Deep 22. Organized 36. Unenvious9. Disorganized 23. Philosophical 37. Unintellectual
10. Efficient 24. Practical 38. Unsympathetic11. Energetic 25. Quiet 39. Warm12. Envious 26. Relaxed 40. Withdrawn13. Extraverted 27. Rude14. Fretful 28. Shy
1 2 3 4 5Inaccurate Slightly Neither Slightly Accurate
Inaccurate Accurate
How Accurately Can You Describe Yourself?
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
14/22
Reverse score items:1, 3, 4, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 25, 27, 28, 29,33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40
1 = 5
2 = 43 = 34 = 25 = 1
Sum items:
1, 2, 11, 13, 25, 28, 32, 40 = Factor I
12, 14, 19, 21, 26, 33, 34, 36 = Factor II
4, 6, 15, 20, 27, 30, 38, 39 = Factor III
3, 9, 10, 17, 22, 24, 29, 31 = Factor IV
5, 7, 8, 16, 18, 23, 35, 37 = Factor V
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
15/22
1. Bashful 15. Harsh 29. Sloppy2. Bold 16. Imaginative 30. Sympathetic3. Careless 17. Inefficient 31. Systematic4. Cold 18. Intellectual 32. Talkative5. Complex 19. Jealous 33. Temperamental
6. Cooperative 20. Kind 34. Touchy7. Creative 21. Moody 35. Uncreative8. Deep 22. Organized 36. Unenvious9. Disorganized 23. Philosophical 37. Unintellectual10. Efficient 24. Practical 38. Unsympathetic11. Energetic 25. Quiet 39. Warm
12. Envious 26. Relaxed 40. Withdrawn13. Extraverted 27. Rude14. Fretful 28. Shy
Extraversion (Factor I)
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
16/22
1. Bashful 15. Harsh 29. Sloppy2. Bold 16. Imaginative 30. Sympathetic3. Careless 17. Inefficient 31. Systematic4. Cold 18. Intellectual 32. Talkative5. Complex 19. Jealous 33. Temperamental
6. Cooperative 20. Kind 34. Touchy7. Creative 21. Moody 35. Uncreative8. Deep 22. Organized 36. Unenvious9. Disorganized 23. Philosophical 37. Unintellectual10. Efficient 24. Practical 38. Unsympathetic11. Energetic 25. Quiet 39. Warm
12. Envious 26. Relaxed 40. Withdrawn13. Extraverted 27. Rude14. Fretful 28. Shy
Emotional Stability (Factor II)
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
17/22
1. Bashful 15. Harsh 29. Sloppy2. Bold 16. Imaginative 30. Sympathetic3. Careless 17. Inefficient 31. Systematic4. Cold 18. Intellectual 32. Talkative5. Complex 19. Jealous 33. Temperamental
6. Cooperative 20. Kind 34. Touchy7. Creative 21. Moody 35. Uncreative8. Deep 22. Organized 36. Unenvious9. Disorganized 23. Philosophical 37. Unintellectual10. Efficient 24. Practical 38. Unsympathetic11. Energetic 25. Quiet 39. Warm
12. Envious 26. Relaxed 40. Withdrawn13. Extraverted 27. Rude14. Fretful 28. Shy
Agreeableness (Factor III)
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
18/22
1. Bashful 15. Harsh 29. Sloppy2. Bold 16. Imaginative 30. Sympathetic3. Careless 17. Inefficient 31. Systematic4. Cold 18. Intellectual 32. Talkative5. Complex 19. Jealous 33. Temperamental6. Cooperative 20. Kind 34. Touchy7. Creative 21. Moody 35. Uncreative8. Deep 22. Organized 36. Unenvious9. Disorganized 23. Philosophical 37. Unintellectual10. Efficient 24. Practical 38. Unsympathetic11. Energetic 25. Quiet 39. Warm
12. Envious 26. Relaxed 40. Withdrawn13. Extraverted 27. Rude14. Fretful 28. Shy
Conscientiousness (Factor IV)
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
19/22
1. Bashful 15. Harsh 29. Sloppy2. Bold 16. Imaginative 30. Sympathetic3. Careless 17. Inefficient 31. Systematic4. Cold 18. Intellectual 32. Talkative5. Complex 19. Jealous 33. Temperamental6. Cooperative 20. Kind 34. Touchy7. Creative 21. Moody 35. Uncreative8. Deep 22. Organized 36. Unenvious9. Disorganized 23. Philosophical 37. Unintellectual10. Efficient 24. Practical 38. Unsympathetic11. Energetic 25. Quiet 39. Warm
12. Envious 26. Relaxed 40. Withdrawn13. Extraverted 27. Rude14. Fretful 28. Shy
Openness to Experience (Factor V)
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
20/22
Caveats and Future ResearchDirections
Is the Big Five the best model?
Its a modelof personality, not a theory Some research suggests that 3, 7, or 9 factor models best
represent human personality
Studies have shown greater predictive validity for finer-grainedfacets of personality - measure predictors and criteria at thesame level.
Are self-report personality tests accurate? Personality test-takers can distort responses when instructed to
do so Most research suggests that distortion does not undermine
validity of personality tests
Again: How does personality affect performance? Are there other mechanisms besides motivation?
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
21/22
References General overview
Barrick, M.R., & Ryan, A.M. (Eds.). (2003). Personality and work: Reconsideringthe role of personality in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Roberts, B.W., & Hogan, R. (Eds.). (2001). Personality psychology in theworkplace. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Hogan, R. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M.D. Dunnette &
L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol 2).Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B.W. (1996). Personality measurement andemployment decisions. American Psychologist, 51, 469-477.
Meta-analyses Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26. Hough, L.M., Eaton, N.L., Dunnette, M.D., Kamp, J.D., & McCloy, R.A. (1990).
Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of responsedistortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595.
The Five-Factor Model Wiggins, J.S. (Ed.) (1996). The Five-Factor Model of personality. New York:
Guilford. Saucier, G., Hampson, S.E., & Goldberg, L.R. (2000). Cross-language studies of
lexical personality factors. In S.E. Hampson (Ed.),Advances in personalitypsychology (Vol. 1). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1997). Longitudinal stability in adult personality. InR. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology.San Diego: Academic Press.
Rowe, D.C. (1997). Genetics, Temperament, and personality. In R. Hogan, J.Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology. San Diego:
Academic Press.
-
8/13/2019 Personality Slides
22/22
References (cont)
Personality, Motivation, and Performance Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P.L. (2000). Individual differences in work motivation:
Further explorations of a trait framework. Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 49,470-482.
Judge, T.A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performancemotivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., & Strauss, J.P. (1993). Conscientiousness andperformance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal-setting.Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715-722.
Contextual Performance/OCBs Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to
include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W.C. Borman (Eds.),Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Alternatives to the Big Five Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality
description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215. Schneider, R.J., Hough, L.M., & Dunnette, M.D. (1996). Broadsided by broad
traits: How to sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 17,639-655.
Incremental validity for facets Stewart, G.L. (1999). Trait bandwidth and stages of job performance: Assessing
differential effects for conscientiousness and its subtraits. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 84,959-968.
Distortion Hough, L.M. (1998). Effects of intentional distortion in personality measurement
and evaluation of suggested palliatives. Human Performance, 11, 209-244.