Presentation on theme: "Industrial-Organizational Psychology Learning Module Personality and Work Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP."— Presentation transcript:
Industrial-Organizational Psychology Learning Module Personality and Work Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP
2 Lesson Objectives n What is meant by “personality.” n A brief history of personality theory and research. n The elements of the most commonly accepted model of personality - the Five-Factor Model (“Big Five” or “FFM”). n How personality has been shown to affect job performance and other work-related outcomes. n 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? n Internal perspective: Processes within an individual that explain why he or she behaves in characteristic ways. u Attitudes, emotions, ways of thinking u Fairly stable across time and situations u Partly inherited n External perspective: How the individual is perceived by others that he or she interacts with (reputation). u “She has a great personality!” u Shaped by two fundamental motives related to social interaction F Getting along with others (cooperation) F Getting ahead of others (competition)
4 Personality Theory and Research n Allport: Cardinal and Central Traits n Cattell: Sixteen Personality Factors n Eysenck: Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP
5 Personality, Organizations, and the Organization of Personality n Early researchers believed the personality-job performance relationship was weak. Reasons: u Comparatively weak analytic techniques. u Inappropriate measures (most used psychopathology inventories, e.g., MMPI). u No theoretical framework on which to base research findings. u The belief that behavior is determined more by situations than by traits (Mischel,1968). n Research and theoretical innovations that “rehabilitated” personality in late 80’s, early 90’s. u Meta-analysis: A new quantitative method for summarizing research findings. u The Five-Factor Model: A new organizing taxonomy for personality structure (The Big Five).
6 The Five-Factor Model n Premise: Personality can be efficiently described with five relatively independent trait dimensions. n Model derived from factor-analytic studies of much larger sets of traits. u Factor analysis: A method for reducing a large set of data into something interpretable u Allport & Odbert (1936): Identified more than 18,000 trait terms in unabridged dictionary F Eventually factor analyzed into five dimensions n Five-factor model reproduced across many cultures and languages (Saucier, Hampson, & Goldberg, 2000). n Research evidence points to the heritability (Rowe, 1997) and stability (Costa & McCrae, 1997) of the FFM.
7 The Five-Factor Model n The Five Factors and their Characteristics: u Extraversion: Assertive, competitive, positive emotionality, sociable u Agreeableness: Warm, likeable, gentle, cooperative u Conscientiousness: Orderly, dependable, industrious, disciplined u Emotional Stability: Relaxed, free from anxiety, depression, negative emotionality u Openness to Experience: Creative, cultured, intellectual, perceptive
8 The Five-Factor Model and Job Performance: Research Findings n Summary of meta-analytic findings (Barrick & Mount, 1991): u Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability are the best personality predictors of job performance across nearly all jobs. u Extraversion and Agreeableness are important in jobs requiring a high degree of interpersonal work u Less consistent evidence for Openness to Experience n Personality has been shown to predict: u Job performance and results (e.g. $ sales volume) u Job satisfaction u Training performance u Leadership u ….and many more important job-related behaviors and attitudes
9 How Does Personality Affect Job Performance? n Theory and research show that Big Five factors impact motivation, which in turn affects performance. For example… n 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? n Personality predicts aspects of job performance that may not be strongly related to knowledge, skills or abilities. u Incremental validity u Predicts what a person will do, as opposed to what they can do. u Contextual job performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993) F Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: Willingness to “go above and beyond” the call of duty n 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 n You’ve been hired to design a selection system for customer service workers at McToxic Pizza u Step 1: Conduct a thorough Job Analysis F You discover that high-performers are friendly, dependable, and low in imagination u Step 2: Refer worker attributes to a validated model of personality (e.g., the Big Five) F Friendly: Agreeableness; Dependable: Conscientiousness; Unimaginative: (Low) Openness to Experience. u Step 3: Incorporate a personality test as one factor guiding selection decisions F DO NOT base selection decisions solely on a single test score of any kind!!
20 Caveats and Future Research Directions n Is the Big Five the best model? u It’s a model of personality, not a theory u Some research suggests that 3, 7, or 9 factor models best represent human personality u Studies have shown greater predictive validity for finer-grained facets of personality - measure predictors and criteria at the same level. n Are self-report personality tests accurate? u Personality test-takers can distort responses when instructed to do so u Most research suggests that distortion does not undermine validity of personality tests n Again: How does personality affect performance? u Are there other mechanisms besides motivation?
21 References n General overview u Barrick, M.R., & Ryan, A.M. (Eds.). (2003). Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. u Roberts, B.W., & Hogan, R. (Eds.). (2001). Personality psychology in the workplace. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. u 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. u Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B.W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions. American Psychologist, 51, 469-477. n Meta-analyses u Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26. u 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. n The Five-Factor Model u Wiggins, J.S. (Ed.) (1996). The Five-Factor Model of personality. New York: Guilford. u 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. u 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. u 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) n Personality, Motivation, and Performance u 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. u Judge, T.A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807. u 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. n Contextual Performance/OCB’s u 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. n Alternatives to the Big Five u Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215. u 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. n Incremental validity for facets u 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. n Distortion u Hough, L.M. (1998). Effects of intentional distortion in personality measurement and evaluation of suggested palliatives. Human Performance, 11, 209-244.