Industrial-Organizational Psychology Learning Module Personality and Work

1
Industrial-Organizational Psychology Learning
ModulePersonality andWork
Prepared by the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology - SIOP
2
Lesson Objectives
At the end of this lecture, you should understand

• 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.

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 80s, early
  90s.
• 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, personalitys effect on performance may be
  fully or partially (dotted line) mediated by
  motivation

Self-efficacy
Conscientiousness
Performance
Goals
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

• 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
  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
How Accurately Can You Describe Yourself?
1 2 3 4
5 Inaccurate Slightly Neither
Slightly Accurate
Inaccurate Accurate
1. Bashful 15. Harsh 29. Sloppy 2. Bold 16.
Imaginative 30. Sympathetic 3. Careless 17.
Inefficient 31. Systematic 4. Cold 18.
Intellectual 32. Talkative 5. Complex 19.
Jealous 33. Temperamental 6. Cooperative 20.
Kind 34. Touchy 7. Creative 21. Moody 35.
Uncreative 8. Deep 22. Organized 36.
Unenvious 9. Disorganized 23. Philosophical 37.
Unintellectual 10. Efficient 24. Practical 38.
Unsympathetic 11. Energetic 25. Quiet 39.
Warm 12. Envious 26. Relaxed 40. Withdrawn 13.
Extraverted 27. Rude 14. Fretful 28. Shy
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
Extraversion (Factor I)
1. Bashful 15. Harsh 29. Sloppy 2. Bold 16.
Imaginative 30. Sympathetic 3. Careless 17.
Inefficient 31. Systematic 4. Cold 18.
Intellectual 32. Talkative 5. Complex 19.
Jealous 33. Temperamental 6. Cooperative 20.
Kind 34. Touchy 7. Creative 21. Moody 35.
Uncreative 8. Deep 22. Organized 36.
Unenvious 9. Disorganized 23. Philosophical 37.
Unintellectual 10. Efficient 24. Practical 38.
Unsympathetic 11. Energetic 25. Quiet 39.
Warm 12. Envious 26. Relaxed 40. Withdrawn 13.
Extraverted 27. Rude 14. Fretful 28. Shy
16
Emotional Stability (Factor II)
1. Bashful 15. Harsh 29. Sloppy 2. Bold 16.
Imaginative 30. Sympathetic 3. Careless 17.
Inefficient 31. Systematic 4. Cold 18.
Intellectual 32. Talkative 5. Complex 19.
Jealous 33. Temperamental 6. Cooperative 20.
Kind 34. Touchy 7. Creative 21. Moody 35.
Uncreative 8. Deep 22. Organized 36.
Unenvious 9. Disorganized 23. Philosophical 37.
Unintellectual 10. Efficient 24. Practical 38.
Unsympathetic 11. Energetic 25. Quiet 39.
Warm 12. Envious 26. Relaxed 40. Withdrawn 13.
Extraverted 27. Rude 14. Fretful 28. Shy
17
Agreeableness (Factor III)
1. Bashful 15. Harsh 29. Sloppy 2. Bold 16.
Imaginative 30. Sympathetic 3. Careless 17.
Inefficient 31. Systematic 4. Cold 18.
Intellectual 32. Talkative 5. Complex 19.
Jealous 33. Temperamental 6. Cooperative 20.
Kind 34. Touchy 7. Creative 21. Moody 35.
Uncreative 8. Deep 22. Organized 36.
Unenvious 9. Disorganized 23. Philosophical 37.
Unintellectual 10. Efficient 24. Practical 38.
Unsympathetic 11. Energetic 25. Quiet 39.
Warm 12. Envious 26. Relaxed 40. Withdrawn 13.
Extraverted 27. Rude 14. Fretful 28. Shy
18
Conscientiousness (Factor IV)
1. Bashful 15. Harsh 29. Sloppy 2. Bold 16.
Imaginative 30. Sympathetic 3. Careless 17.
Inefficient 31. Systematic 4. Cold 18.
Intellectual 32. Talkative 5. Complex 19.
Jealous 33. Temperamental 6. Cooperative 20.
Kind 34. Touchy 7. Creative 21. Moody 35.
Uncreative 8. Deep 22. Organized 36.
Unenvious 9. Disorganized 23. Philosophical 37.
Unintellectual 10. Efficient 24. Practical 38.
Unsympathetic 11. Energetic 25. Quiet 39.
Warm 12. Envious 26. Relaxed 40. Withdrawn 13.
Extraverted 27. Rude 14. Fretful 28. Shy
19
Openness to Experience (Factor V)
1. Bashful 15. Harsh 29. Sloppy 2. Bold 16.
Imaginative 30. Sympathetic 3. Careless 17.
Inefficient 31. Systematic 4. Cold 18.
Intellectual 32. Talkative 5. Complex 19.
Jealous 33. Temperamental 6. Cooperative 20.
Kind 34. Touchy 7. Creative 21. Moody 35.
Uncreative 8. Deep 22. Organized 36.
Unenvious 9. Disorganized 23. Philosophical 37.
Unintellectual 10. Efficient 24. Practical 38.
Unsympathetic 11. Energetic 25. Quiet 39.
Warm 12. Envious 26. Relaxed 40. Withdrawn 13.
Extraverted 27. Rude 14. Fretful 28. Shy
20
Caveats and Future Research Directions

• Is the Big Five the best model?
• Its 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 (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 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/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
  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.