industrial-organizational psychology learning module personality and work
DESCRIPTION
Industrial-Organizational Psychology Learning Module Personality and Work. Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP. Lesson Objectives. What is meant by “personality.” A brief history of personality theory and research. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Industrial-Organizational Psychology Learning Module
Personality andWork
Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP
2
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 should understand:
Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP
3
What is Personality? Internal perspective: Processes within an individual that
explain why he or she behaves in characteristic ways. Attitudes, emotions, ways of thinking Fairly stable across time and situations Partly inherited
External perspective: How the individual is perceived by others that he or she interacts with (reputation). “She has a great personality!” Shaped by two fundamental motives related to social
interaction Getting along with others (cooperation) Getting ahead of others (competition)
4
Personality Theory and Research
Allport: Cardinal and Central Traits
Cattell: Sixteen Personality Factors
Eysenck: Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism
Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP
5
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 psychopathology
inventories, 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 that
“rehabilitated” personality in late 80’s, early 90’s. Meta-analysis: A new quantitative method for summarizing
research findings. The Five-Factor Model: A new organizing taxonomy for
personality structure (The Big Five).
6
The Five-Factor Model Premise: Personality can be efficiently described with five
relatively independent trait dimensions. Model derived from factor-analytic studies of much larger
sets of traits. Factor analysis: A method for reducing a large set of
data into something interpretable Allport & Odbert (1936): Identified more than 18,000 trait
terms in unabridged dictionary Eventually factor analyzed into five dimensions
Five-factor model reproduced across many cultures and languages (Saucier, Hampson, & Goldberg, 2000).
Research evidence points to the heritability (Rowe, 1997) and stability (Costa & McCrae, 1997) of the FFM.
7
The Five-Factor Model The Five Factors and their Characteristics:
Extraversion: Assertive, competitive, positive emotionality, 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
The Five-Factor Model and Job Performance: Research Findings Summary of meta-analytic findings (Barrick & Mount, 1991):
Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability are the best personality predictors of job performance across nearly all jobs.
Extraversion and Agreeableness are important in jobs requiring 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
9
How Does Personality Affect Job Performance?
Theory and research show that Big Five factors impact motivation, which in turn affects performance. For example…
Thus, personality’s effect on performance may be fully or partially (dotted line) mediated by motivation
Conscientiousness
Self-efficacy
Goals
Performance
10
Why Should Organizations Test Personality?
Personality predicts aspects 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 of adverse impact (different selection ratios between demographic groups).
11
Personality in Selection Decisions: A Case Study
You’ve 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 model of 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!!
12
Big Five Mini-Marker Exercise
13
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. 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?
14
Reverse score items:1, 3, 4, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 25, 27, 28, 29,33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40
1 = 52 = 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
15
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. Warm12. Envious
26. Relaxed
40. Withdrawn13. Extraverted
27. Rude14. Fretful
28. Shy
Extraversion (Factor I)
16
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. Warm12. Envious
26. Relaxed
40. Withdrawn13. Extraverted
27. Rude14. Fretful
28. Shy
Emotional Stability (Factor II)
17
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. Warm12. Envious
26. Relaxed
40. Withdrawn13. Extraverted
27. Rude14. Fretful
28. Shy
Agreeableness (Factor III)
18
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. Warm12. Envious
26. Relaxed
40. Withdrawn13. Extraverted
27. Rude14. Fretful
28. Shy
Conscientiousness (Factor IV)
19
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. Warm12. Envious
26. Relaxed
40. Withdrawn13. Extraverted
27. Rude14. Fretful
28. Shy
Openness to Experience (Factor V)
20
Caveats and Future Research Directions
Is the Big Five the best model? It’s a model of 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-grained
facets of personality - measure predictors and criteria at the same 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?
21
References General overview
Barrick, M.R., & Ryan, A.M. (Eds.). (2003). Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Roberts, B.W., & Hogan, R. (Eds.). (2001). Personality psychology in the workplace. 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 and employment 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 response distortion 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 personality psychology (Vol. 1). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1997). Longitudinal stability in adult personality. In R. 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.
22
References (con’t) Personality, Motivation, and Performance
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P.L. (2000). Individual differences in work motivation: Further explorations of a trait framework. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 470-482.
Judge, T.A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., & Strauss, J.P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal-setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715-722.
Contextual Performance/OCB’s 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 Organizational Behavior, 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 Applied Psychology, 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.