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


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:



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)


4/22

Personality Theory

and Research

Allport: Cardinal and Central Traits

Cattell: Sixteen Personality Factors

Eysenck: Extraversion, Neuroticism, andPsychoticism



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).


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.


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


8/22

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


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


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).


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!!


12/22

Big Five Mini-Marker Exercise


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?


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


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)


16/22




Emotional Stability (Factor II)


17/22




Agreeableness (Factor III)


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


Conscientiousness (Factor IV)


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


Openness to Experience (Factor V)


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?


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.


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.

personality slides

Documents