Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Industrial-Organizational Psychology Learning Module Personality and Work Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Industrial-Organizational Psychology Learning Module Personality and Work Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP."— Presentation transcript:

1 Industrial-Organizational Psychology Learning Module Personality and Work Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP

2 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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!!

12 12 Big Five Mini-Marker Exercise

13 13 1. Bashful15. Harsh29. Sloppy 2. Bold16. Imaginative30. Sympathetic 3. Careless17. Inefficient31. Systematic 4. Cold18. Intellectual32. Talkative 5. Complex19. Jealous33. Temperamental 6. Cooperative20. Kind34. Touchy 7. Creative21. Moody35. Uncreative 8. Deep22. Organized36. Unenvious 9. Disorganized23. Philosophical37. Unintellectual 10. Efficient24. Practical38. Unsympathetic 11. Energetic25. Quiet39. Warm 12. Envious26. Relaxed40. Withdrawn 13. Extraverted27. Rude 14. Fretful28. Shy InaccurateSlightly Neither Slightly Accurate Inaccurate Accurate How Accurately Can You Describe Yourself?

14 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 = 5 2 = 4 3 = 3 4 = 2 5 = 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 15 1. Bashful15. Harsh29. Sloppy 2. Bold16. Imaginative30. Sympathetic 3. Careless17. Inefficient31. Systematic 4. Cold18. Intellectual32. Talkative 5. Complex19. Jealous33. Temperamental 6. Cooperative20. Kind34. Touchy 7. Creative21. Moody35. Uncreative 8. Deep22. Organized36. Unenvious 9. Disorganized23. Philosophical37. Unintellectual 10. Efficient24. Practical38. Unsympathetic 11. Energetic25. Quiet39. Warm 12. Envious26. Relaxed40. Withdrawn 13. Extraverted27. Rude 14. Fretful28. Shy Extraversion (Factor I)

16 16 1. Bashful15. Harsh29. Sloppy 2. Bold16. Imaginative30. Sympathetic 3. Careless17. Inefficient31. Systematic 4. Cold18. Intellectual32. Talkative 5. Complex19. Jealous33. Temperamental 6. Cooperative20. Kind34. Touchy 7. Creative21. Moody35. Uncreative 8. Deep22. Organized36. Unenvious 9. Disorganized23. Philosophical37. Unintellectual 10. Efficient24. Practical38. Unsympathetic 11. Energetic25. Quiet39. Warm 12. Envious26. Relaxed40. Withdrawn 13. Extraverted27. Rude 14. Fretful28. Shy Emotional Stability (Factor II)

17 17 1. Bashful15. Harsh29. Sloppy 2. Bold16. Imaginative30. Sympathetic 3. Careless17. Inefficient31. Systematic 4. Cold18. Intellectual32. Talkative 5. Complex19. Jealous33. Temperamental 6. Cooperative20. Kind34. Touchy 7. Creative21. Moody35. Uncreative 8. Deep22. Organized36. Unenvious 9. Disorganized23. Philosophical37. Unintellectual 10. Efficient24. Practical38. Unsympathetic 11. Energetic25. Quiet39. Warm 12. Envious26. Relaxed40. Withdrawn 13. Extraverted27. Rude 14. Fretful28. Shy Agreeableness (Factor III)

18 18 1. Bashful15. Harsh29. Sloppy 2. Bold16. Imaginative30. Sympathetic 3. Careless17. Inefficient31. Systematic 4. Cold18. Intellectual32. Talkative 5. Complex19. Jealous33. Temperamental 6. Cooperative20. Kind34. Touchy 7. Creative21. Moody35. Uncreative 8. Deep22. Organized36. Unenvious 9. Disorganized23. Philosophical37. Unintellectual 10. Efficient24. Practical38. Unsympathetic 11. Energetic25. Quiet39. Warm 12. Envious26. Relaxed40. Withdrawn 13. Extraverted27. Rude 14. Fretful28. Shy Conscientiousness (Factor IV)

19 19 1. Bashful15. Harsh29. Sloppy 2. Bold16. Imaginative30. Sympathetic 3. Careless17. Inefficient31. Systematic 4. Cold18. Intellectual32. Talkative 5. Complex19. Jealous33. Temperamental 6. Cooperative20. Kind34. Touchy 7. Creative21. Moody35. Uncreative 8. Deep22. Organized36. Unenvious 9. Disorganized23. Philosophical37. Unintellectual 10. Efficient24. Practical38. Unsympathetic 11. Energetic25. Quiet39. Warm 12. Envious26. Relaxed40. Withdrawn 13. Extraverted27. Rude 14. Fretful28. Shy Openness to Experience (Factor V)

20 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 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, 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, 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, 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 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, u Judge, T.A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 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, 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, 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, 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, n Distortion u Hough, L.M. (1998). Effects of intentional distortion in personality measurement and evaluation of suggested palliatives. Human Performance, 11,


Download ppt "Industrial-Organizational Psychology Learning Module Personality and Work Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google