individual differences in organization essay

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 4: Understanding People at Work: Individual Differences and Perception

Understanding people at work: individual differences and perception.

Individuals bring a number of differences to work, such as unique personalities, values, emotions, and moods. When new employees enter organizations, their stable or transient characteristics affect how they behave and perform. Moreover, companies hire people with the expectation that those individuals have certain skills, abilities, personalities, and values. Therefore, it is important to understand individual characteristics that matter for employee behaviors at work.

Advice for Hiring Successful Employees: The Case of Guy Kawasaki

When people think about entrepreneurship, they often think of Guy Kawasaki , who is a Silicon Valley venture capitalist and the author of nine books as of 2010, including The Art of the Start and The Macintosh Way . Beyond being a best-selling author, he has been successful in a variety of areas, including earning degrees from Stanford University and UCLA; being an integral part of Apple’s first computer; writing columns for Forbes and Entrepreneur Magazine ; and taking on entrepreneurial ventures such as cofounding Alltop, an aggregate news site, and becoming managing director of Garage Technology Ventures. Kawasaki is a believer in the power of individual differences. He believes that successful companies include people from many walks of life, with different backgrounds and with different strengths and different weaknesses. Establishing an effective team requires a certain amount of self-monitoring on the part of the manager. Kawasaki maintains that most individuals have personalities that can easily get in the way of this objective. He explains, “The most important thing is to hire people who complement you and are better than you in specific areas. Good people hire people that are better than them- selves.” He also believes that mediocre employees hire less-talented employees in order to feel better about themselves. Finally, he believes that the role of a leader is to produce more leaders, not to produce followers, and to be able to achieve this, a leader should compensate for their weaknesses by hiring individuals who compensate for their shortcomings.

In today’s competitive business environment, individuals want to think of themselves as indispensable to the success of an organization. Because an individual’s perception that he or she is the most important person on a team can get in the way, Kawasaki maintains that many people would rather see a company fail than thrive without them. He advises that we must begin to move past this and to see the value that different perceptions and values can bring to a company, and the goal of any individual should be to make the organization that one works for stronger and more dynamic. Under this type of thinking, leaving a company in better shape than one found it becomes a source of pride. Kawasaki has had many different roles in his professional career and as a result realized that while different perceptions and attitudes might make the implementation of new protocol difficult, this same diversity is what makes an organization more valuable. Some managers fear diversity and the possible complexities that it brings, and they make the mistake of hiring similar individuals without any sort of differences. When it comes to hiring, Kawasaki believes that the initial round of inter- views for new hires should be held over the phone. Because first impressions are so important, this ensures that external influences, negative or positive, are not part of the decision-making process.

Many people come out of business school believing that if they have a solid financial understanding, then they will be a successful and appropriate leader and manager. Kawasaki has learned that mathematics and finance are the “easy” part of any job. He observes that the true challenge comes in trying to effectively man- age people. With the benefit of hindsight, Kawasaki regrets the choices he made in college, saying, “I should have taken organizational behavior and social psychology” to be better prepared for the individual nuances of people. He also believes that working hard is a key to success and that individuals who learn how to learn are the most effective over time.

If nothing else, Guy Kawasaki provides simple words of wisdom to remember when starting off on a new career path: do not allow mistakes to limit success, but rather take them as a lesson of what not to do. And most important, pursue joy and challenge your personal assumptions.

Based on information from Bryant, A. (2010, March 19). Just give him 5 sentences, not “War and Peace.” New York Times . Retrieved March 26, 2010; Kawasaki, G. (2004). The art of the start: The time-tested, battle-hardened guide for any- one starting anything . New York: Penguin Group; Iwata, E. (2008, November 10). Kawasaki doesn’t accept failure; promotes learning through mistakes. USA Today , p. 3B. Retrieved April 2, 2010.

The Interactionist Perspective: The Role of Fit

Individual differences matter in the workplace. Human beings bring in their personality, physical and mental abilities, and other stable traits to work. Imagine that you are interviewing an employee who is proactive, creative, and willing to take risks. Would this person be a good job candidate? What behaviors would you expect this person to demonstrate?

The question posed above is misleading. While human beings bring their traits to work, every organization is different, and every job within the organization is also different. According to the interactionist perspective, behavior is a function of the person and the situation interacting with each other. Think about it. Would a shy person speak up in class? While a shy person may not feel like speaking, if the individual is very interested in the subject, knows the answers to the questions, and feels comfortable within the classroom environment, and if the instructor encourages participation and participation is 30% of the course grade, regardless of the level of shyness, the person may feel inclined to participate. Similarly, the behavior you may expect from someone who is proactive, creative, and willing to take risks will depend on the situation.

When hiring employees, companies are interested in assessing at least two types of fit. Person–organization fit refers to the degree to which a person’s values, personality, goals, and other characteristics match those of the organization. Person–job fit is the degree to which a person’s skill, knowledge, abilities, and other characteristics match the job demands. Thus, someone who is proactive and creative may be a great fit for a company in the high-tech sector that would benefit from risk-taking individuals, but may be a poor fit for a company that rewards routine and predictable behavior, such as accountants. Similarly, this person may be a great fit for a job such as a scientist, but a poor fit for a routine office job. The opening case illustrates one method of assessing person–organization and person–job fit in job applicants.

The first thing many recruiters look at is the person–job fit. This is not surprising, because person–job fit is related to a number of positive work attitudes such as satisfaction with the work environment, identification with the organization, job satisfaction, and work behaviors such as job performance. Companies are often also interested in hiring candidates who will fit into the company culture (those with high person–organization fit). When people fit into their organization, they tend to be more satisfied with their jobs, more committed to their companies, and more influential in their company, and they actually remain longer in their company (Anderson, Spataro, & Flynn, 2008; Cable & DeRue, 2002; Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1990; Chatman, 1991; Judge & Cable, 1997; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991; Saks & Ashforth, 2002). One area of controversy is whether these people perform better. Some studies have found a positive relationship between person–organization fit and job performance, but this finding was not present in all studies, so it seems that fitting with a company’s culture will only sometimes predict job performance (Arthur et al., 2006). It also seems that fit- ting in with the company culture is more important to some people than to others. For example, people who have worked in multiple companies tend to understand the impact of a company’s culture better, and therefore they pay more attention to whether they will fit in with the company when making their decisions (Kristof-Brown, Jansen, & Colbert, 2002). Also, when they build good relationships with their supervisors and the company, being a misfit does not seem to lead to dissatisfaction on the job (Erdogan, Kraimer, & Liden 2004).

Key Takeaway

While personality traits and other individual differences are important, we need to keep in mind that behavior is jointly determined by the person and the situation. Certain situations bring out the best in people, and someone who is a poor performer in one job may turn into a star employee in a different job.

Individual Differences: Values and Personality

Values refer to stable life goals that people have, reflecting what is most important to them. Values are established throughout one’s life as a result of the accumulating life experiences and tend to be relatively stable (Lusk & Oliver, 1974; Rokeach, 1973). The values that are important to people tend to affect the types of decisions they make, how they perceive their environment, and their actual behaviors. More- over, people are more likely to accept job offers when the company possesses the values people care about (Judge & Bretz, 1992; Ravlin & Meglino, 1987). Value attainment is one reason why people stay in a company, and when an organization does not help them attain their values, they are more likely to decide to leave if they are dissatisfied with the job itself (George & Jones, 1996).

What are the values people care about? There are many typologies of values. One of the most established surveys to assess individual values is the Rokeach Value Survey (Rokeach, 1973). This survey lists 18 terminal and 18 instrumental values in alphabetical order. Terminal values refer to end states people desire in life, such as leading a prosperous life and a world at peace. Instrumental values deal with views on acceptable modes of conduct, such as being honest and ethical, and being ambitious.

According to Rokeach, values are arranged in hierarchical fashion. In other words, an accurate way of assessing someone’s values is to ask them to rank the 36 values in order of importance. By comparing these values, people develop a sense of which value can be sacrificed to achieve the other, and the individual priority of each value emerges.

Sample Items From Rokeach (1973) Value Survey:

Where do values come from? Research indicates that they are shaped early in life and show stability over the course of a lifetime. Early family experiences are important influences over the dominant values. (Kasser, Koestner, & Lekes, 2002).

Values of a generation also change and evolve in response to the historical context that the generation grows up in. Research comparing the values of different generations resulted in interesting findings. For example, Generation Xers (those born between the mid-1960s and 1980s) are more individualistic and are interested in working toward organizational goals so long as they coincide with their personal goals. This group, compared to the baby boomers (born between the 1940s and 1960s), is also less likely to see work as central to their life and more likely to desire a quick promotion (Smola & Sutton, 2002).

The values a person holds will affect his or her employment. For example, someone who has an orientation toward strong stimulation may pursue extreme sports and select an occupation that involves fast action and high risk, such as fire fighter, police officer, or emergency medical doctor. Someone who has a drive for achievement may more readily act as an entrepreneur. Moreover, whether individuals will be satisfied at a given job may depend on whether the job provides a way to satisfy their dominant values. Therefore, understanding employees at work requires understanding the value orientations of employees.

Personality

Personality encompasses the relatively stable feelings, thoughts, and behavioral patterns a person has. Our personality differentiates us from other people, and understanding someone’s personality gives us clues about how that person is likely to act and feel in a variety of situations. In order to effectively man- age organizational behavior, an understanding of different employees’ personalities is helpful. Having this knowledge is also useful for placing people in jobs and organizations.

If personality is stable, does this mean that it does not change? You probably remember how you have changed and evolved as a result of your own life experiences, attention you received in early childhood, the style of parenting you were exposed to, successes and failures you had in high school, and other life events. In fact, our personality changes over long periods of time. For example, we tend to become more socially dominant, more conscientious (organized and dependable), and more emotionally stable between the ages of 20 and 40, whereas openness to new experiences may begin to decline during this same time (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006). In other words, even though we treat personality as relatively stable, changes occur. Moreover, even in childhood, our personality shapes who we are and has lasting consequences for us. For example, studies show that part of our career success and job satisfaction later in life can be explained by our childhood personality (Judge & Higgins, 1999; Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986).

Is our behavior in organizations dependent on our personality? To some extent, yes, and to some extent, no. While we will discuss the effects of personality for employee behavior, you must remember that the relationships we describe are modest correlations. For example, having a sociable and outgoing personality may encourage people to seek friends and prefer social situations. This does not mean that their personality will immediately affect their work behavior. At work, we have a job to do and a role to per- form. Therefore, our behavior may be more strongly affected by what is expected of us, as opposed to how we want to behave. When people have a lot of freedom at work, their personality will become a stronger influence over their behavior (Barrick & Mount, 1993).

Big Five Personality Traits

How many personality traits are there? How do we even know? In every language, there are many words describing a person’s personality. In fact, in the English language, more than 15,000 words describing personality have been identified. When researchers analyzed the terms describing personality characteristics, they realized that there were many words that were pointing to each dimension of personality. When these words were grouped, five dimensions seemed to emerge that explain a lot of the variation in our personalities (Goldberg, 1990). Keep in mind that these five are not necessarily the only traits out there. There are other, specific traits that represent dimensions not captured by the Big Five. Still, under- standing the main five traits gives us a good start for describing personality. A summary of the Big Five traits is presented below.

Openness is the degree to which a person is curious, original, intellectual, creative, and open to new ideas. People high in openness seem to thrive in situations that require being flexible and learning new things. They are highly motivated to learn new skills, and they do well in training settings (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Lievens et al., 2003). They also have an advantage when they enter into a new organization. Their open-mindedness leads them to seek a lot of information and feedback about how they are doing and to build relationships, which leads to quicker adjustment to the new job (Wanberg & Kam- meyer-Mueller, 2000). When supported, they tend to be creative (Baer & Oldham, 2006). Open people are highly adaptable to change, and teams that experience unforeseen changes in their tasks do well if they are populated with people high in openness (LePine, 2003). Compared to people low in openness, they are also more likely to start their own business (Zhao & Seibert, 2006).

Conscientiousness refers to the degree to which a person is organized, systematic, punctual, achievement oriented, and dependable. Conscientiousness is the one personality trait that uniformly predicts how high a person’s performance will be, across a variety of occupations and jobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991). In fact, conscientiousness is the trait most desired by recruiters and results in the most success in interviews (Dunn et al., 1995; Tay, Ang, & Van Dyne, 2006). This is not a surprise, because in addition to their high performance, conscientious people have higher levels of motivation to perform, lower levels of turnover, lower levels of absenteeism, and higher levels of safety performance at work (Judge & Ilies, 2002; Judge, Martocchio, & Thoresen, 1997; Wallace & Chen, 2006; Zimmerman, 2008). One’s conscientiousness is related to career success and being satisfied with one’s career over time (Judge & Higgins, 1999). Finally, it seems that conscientiousness is a good trait to have for entrepreneurs. Highly conscientious people are more likely to start their own business compared to those who are not conscientious, and their firms have longer survival rates (Certo & Certo, 2005; Zhao & Seibert, 2006).

Extraversion is the degree to which a person is outgoing, talkative, and sociable, and enjoys being in social situations. One of the established findings is that they tend to be effective in jobs involving sales (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Vinchur et al., 1998). Moreover, they tend to be effective as managers and they demonstrate inspirational leadership behaviors (Bauer et al., 2006; Bono & Judge, 2004). Extraverts do well in social situations, and as a result they tend to be effective in job interviews. Part of their success comes from how they prepare for the job interview, as they are likely to use their social network (Cald- well & Burger, 1998; Tay, Ang, & Van Dyne, 2006). Extraverts have an easier time than introverts when adjusting to a new job. They actively seek information and feedback, and build effective relationships, which helps with their adjustment (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Interestingly, extraverts are also found to be happier at work, which may be because of the relationships they build with the peo- ple around them and their relative ease in adjusting to a new job (Judge et al., 2002). However, they do not necessarily perform well in all jobs, and jobs depriving them of social interaction may be a poor fit. Moreover, they are not necessarily model employees. For example, they tend to have higher levels of absenteeism at work, potentially because they may miss work to hang out with or attend to the needs of their friends (Judge, Martocchio, & Thoresen, 1997).

People who are high in agreeableness are likeable people who get along with others. Not surprisingly, agreeable people help others at work consistently, and this helping behavior is not dependent on being in a good mood (Ilies, Scott, & Judge, 2006). They are also less likely to retaliate when other people treat them unfairly (Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999). This may reflect their ability to show empathy and give people the benefit of the doubt. Agreeable people may be a valuable addition to their teams and may be effective leaders because they create a fair environment when they are in leadership positions (Mayer et al., 2007). At the other end of the spectrum, people low in agreeableness are less likely to show these positive behaviors. Moreover, people who are not agreeable are shown to quit their jobs unexpectedly, perhaps in response to a conflict they engage with a boss or a peer (Zim- merman, 2008). If agreeable people are so nice, does this mean that we should only look for agreeable people when hiring? Some jobs may actually be a better fit for someone with a low level of agreeable- ness. Think about it: When hiring a lawyer, would you prefer a kind and gentle person, or a pit bull? Also, high agreeableness has a downside: Agreeable people are less likely to engage in constructive and change-oriented communication (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). Disagreeing with the status quo may create conflict and agreeable people will likely avoid creating such conflict, missing an opportunity for constructive change.

Neuroticism refers to the degree to which a person is anxious, irritable, aggressive, temperamental, and moody. These people have a tendency to have emotional adjustment problems and experience stress and depression on a habitual basis. People very high in neuroticism experience a number of problems at work. For example, they are less likely to be someone people go to for advice and friendship (Klein et al., 2004). In other words, they may experience relationship difficulties. They tend to be habitually unhappy in their jobs and report high intentions to leave, but they do not necessarily actually leave their jobs (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002; Zimmerman, 2008). Being high in neuroticism seems to be harmful to one’s career, as they have lower levels of career success (measured with income and occupational status achieved in one’s career). Finally, if they achieve managerial jobs, they tend to create an unfair climate at work (Mayer et al., 2007).

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Aside from the Big Five personality traits, perhaps the most well-known and most often used personality assessment is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Unlike the Big Five, which assesses traits, MBTI measures types. Assessments of the Big Five do not classify people as neurotic or extravert: It is all a matter of degrees. MBTI on the other hand, classifies people as one of 16 types (Carlyn, 1977; Myers, 1962). In MBTI, people are grouped using four dimensions. Based on how a person is classified on these four dimensions, it is possible to talk about 16 unique personality types, such as ESTJ and ISTP.

MBTI was developed in 1943 by a mother–daughter team, Isabel Myers and Katherine Cook Briggs. Its objective at the time was to aid World War II veterans in identifying the occupation that would suit their personalities. Since that time, MBTI has become immensely popular, and according to one esti- mate, around 2.5 million people take the test annually. The survey is criticized because it relies on types as opposed to traits, but organizations who use the survey find it very useful for training and team-build- ing purposes. More than 80 of the Fortune 100 companies used Myers-Briggs tests in some form. One distinguishing characteristic of this test is that it is explicitly designed for learning, not for employee selection purposes. In fact, the Myers & Briggs Foundation has strict guidelines against the use of the test for employee selection. Instead, the test is used to provide mutual understanding within the team and to gain a better understanding of the working styles of team members (Leonard & Straus, 1997; Shuit, 2003).

Summary of MBTI Types

Positive and Negative Affectivity

You may have noticed that behavior is also a function of moods. When people are in a good mood, they may be more cooperative, smile more, and act friendly. When these same people are in a bad mood, they may have a tendency to be picky, irritable, and less tolerant of different opinions. Yet, some people seem to be in a good mood most of the time, and others seem to be in a bad mood most of the time regardless of what is actually going on in their lives. This distinction is manifested by positive and negative affectivity traits. Positive affective people experience positive moods more frequently, whereas negative affective people experience negative moods with greater frequency. Negative affective people focus on the “glass half empty” and experience more anxiety and nervousness (Watson & Clark, 1984). Positive affective people tend to be happier at work (Ilies & Judge, 2003), and their happiness spreads to the rest of the work environment. As may be expected, this personality trait sets the tone in the work atmosphere. When a team comprises mostly negative affective people, there tend to be fewer instances of helping and cooperation. Teams dominated by positive affective people experience lower levels of absenteeism (George, 1989). When people with a lot of power are also high in positive affectivity, the work environment is affected in a positive manner and can lead to greater levels of cooperation and finding mutually agreeable solutions to problems (Anderson & Thompson, 2004).

Toolbox: Help, I work with a negative person!

Employees who have high levels of neuroticism or high levels of negative affectivity may act overly negative at work, criticize others, complain about trivial things, or create an overall negative work environment. Here are some tips for how to work with them effectively.

• Understand that you are unlikely to change someone else’s personality . Personality is relatively stable and criticizing someone’s personality will not bring about change. If the behavior is truly disruptive, focus on behavior, not personality.
• Keep an open mind . Just because a person is constantly negative does not mean that they are not sometimes right. Listen to the feedback they are giving you.
• Set a time limit . If you are dealing with someone who constantly complains about things, you may want to limit these conversations to prevent them from consuming your time at work.
• You may also empower them to act on the negatives they mention . The next time an overly negative individual complains about something, ask that person to think of ways to change the situation and get back to you.
• Ask for specifics . If someone has a negative tone in general, you may want to ask for specific examples for what the problem is.

Sources: Adapted from ideas in Ferguson, J. (2006, October 31). Expert’s view…on managing office moaners. Personnel Today , 29; Karcher, C. (2003, September), Working with difficult people. National Public Accountant , 39–40; Mudore, C. F. (2001, February/March). Working with difficult people. Career World , 29 (5), 16–18; How to manage difficult people. (2000, May). Leadership for the Front Lines , 3–4.

Self-Monitoring

Self-monitoring refers to the extent to which a person is capable of monitoring his or her actions and appearance in social situations. In other words, people who are social monitors are social chameleons who understand what the situation demands and act accordingly, while low social monitors tend to act the way they feel (Snyder, 1974; Snyder, 1987). High social monitors are sensitive to the types of behaviors the social environment expects from them. Their greater ability to modify their behavior according to the demands of the situation and to manage their impressions effectively is a great advantage for them (Turnley & Bolino, 2001). In general, they tend to be more successful in their careers. They are more likely to get cross-company promotions, and even when they stay with one company, they are more likely to advance (Day & Schleicher; Kilduff & Day, 1994). Social monitors also become the “go to” person in their company and they enjoy central positions in their social networks (Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001). They are rated as higher performers, and emerge as leaders (Day et al., 2002). While they are effective in influencing other people and get things done by managing their impressions, this personality trait has some challenges that need to be addressed. First, when evaluating the performance of other employees, they tend to be less accurate. It seems that while trying to manage their impressions, they may avoid giving accurate feedback to their subordinates to avoid confrontations (Jawahar, 2001). This tendency may create problems for them if they are managers. Second, high social monitors tend to experience higher levels of stress, probably caused by behaving in ways that conflict with their true feelings. In situations that demand positive emotions, they may act happy although they are not feeling happy, which puts an emotional burden on them. Finally, high social monitors tend to be less committed to their companies. They may see their jobs as a stepping-stone for greater things, which may prevent them from forming strong attachments and loyalty to their current employer (Day et al., 2002).

Proactive Personality

Proactive personality refers to a person’s inclination to fix what is perceived as wrong, change the status quo, and use initiative to solve problems. Instead of waiting to be told what to do, proactive people take action to initiate meaningful change and remove the obstacles they face along the way. In general, having a proactive personality has a number of advantages for these people. For example, they tend to be more successful in their job searches (Brown et al., 2006). They are also more successful over the course of their careers, because they use initiative and acquire greater understanding of the politics within the organization (Seibert, 1999; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). Proactive people are valuable assets to their companies because they may have higher levels of performance (Crant, 1995). They adjust to their new jobs quickly because they understand the political environment better and often make friends more quickly (Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Thompson, 2005). Proactive people are eager to learn and engage in many developmental activities to improve their skills (Major, Turner, & Fletcher, 2006). Despite all their potential, under some circumstances a proactive personality may be a liability for an individual or an organization. Imagine a person who is proactive but is perceived as being too pushy, trying to change things other people are not willing to let go, or using their initiative to make decisions that do not serve a company’s best interests. Research shows that the success of proactive people depends on their understanding of a company’s core values, their ability and skills to perform their jobs, and their ability to assess situational demands correctly (Chan, 2006; Erdogan & Bauer, 2005).

Self-Esteem

Self-esteem is the degree to which a person has overall positive feelings about his or herself. People with high self-esteem view themselves in a positive light, are confident, and respect themselves. On the other hand, people with low self-esteem experience high levels of self-doubt and question their self-worth. High self-esteem is related to higher levels of satisfaction with one’s job and higher levels of performance on the job (Judge & Bono, 2001). People with low self-esteem are attracted to situations in which they will be relatively invisible, such as large companies (Turban & Keon, 1993). Managing employees with low self-esteem may be challenging at times, because negative feedback given with the intention to improve performance may be viewed as a judgment on their worth as an employee. Therefore, effectively managing employees with relatively low self-esteem requires tact and providing lots of positive feedback when discussing performance incidents.

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is a belief that one can perform a specific task successfully. Research shows that the belief that we can do something is a good predictor of whether we can actually do it. Self-efficacy is different from other personality traits in that it is job specific. You may have high self-efficacy in being successful academically, but low self-efficacy in relation to your ability to fix your car. At the same time, people have a certain level of generalized self-efficacy and they have the belief that whatever task or hobby they tackle, they are likely to be successful in it.

Research shows that self-efficacy at work is related to job performance (Bauer et al., 2007; Judge et al., 2007; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). This relationship is probably a result of people with high self-efficacy setting higher goals for themselves and being more committed to these goals, whereas people with low self-efficacy tend to procrastinate (Phillips & Gully, 1997; Steel, 2007; Wofford, Goodwin, & Premack, 1992). Academic self-efficacy is a good predictor of your GPA, whether you persist in your studies, or drop out of college (Robbins et al., 2004).

Is there a way of increasing employees’ self-efficacy? Hiring people who are capable of performing their tasks and training people to increase their self-efficacy may be effective. Some people may also respond well to verbal encouragement. By showing that you believe they can be successful and effectively playing the role of a cheerleader, you may be able to increase self-efficacy. Giving people opportunities to test their skills so that they can see what they are capable of doing (or empowering them) is also a good way of increasing self-efficacy (Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005).

OB Toolbox: Ways to Build Your Self-Confidence

Having high self-efficacy and self-esteem are boons to your career. People who have an overall positive view of themselves and those who have positive attitudes toward their abilities project an aura of confidence. How do you achieve higher self-confidence?

• Take a self-inventory . What are the areas in which you lack confidence? Then consciously tackle these areas. Take part in training programs; seek opportunities to practice these skills. Confront your fears head-on.
• Set manageable goals . Success in challenging goals will breed self-confidence, but do not make your goals impossible to reach. If a task seems daunting, break it apart and set mini goals.
• Find a mentor . A mentor can point out areas in need of improvement, provide accurate feedback, and point to ways of improving yourself.
• Don’t judge yourself by your failures . Everyone fails, and the most successful people have more failures in life. Instead of assessing your self-worth by your failures, learn from mistakes and move on.
• Until you can feel confident, be sure to act confident . Acting confident will influence how others treat you, which will boost your confidence level. Pay attention to how you talk and behave, and act like someone who has high confidence.
• Know when to ignore negative advice . If you receive negative feedback from someone who is usually negative, try to ignore it. Surrounding yourself with naysayers is not good for your self- esteem. This does not mean that you should ignore all negative feedback, but be sure to look at a person’s overall attitude before making serious judgments based on that feedback.

Sources: Adapted from information in Beagrie, S. (2006, September 26). How to…build up self confidence. Personnel Today , p. 31; Beste, F. J., III. (2007, November–December). Are you an entrepreneur? In Business , 29 (6), 22; Goldsmith, B. (2006, October). Building self confidence. PA Times, Education Supplement , p. 30; Kennett, M. (2006, October). The scale of confidence. Management Today , p. 40–45; Parachin, V. M. (March 2003, October). Developing dynamic self-confidence. Supervision , 64 (3), 13–15.

Locus of Control

Locus of control deals with the degree to which people feel accountable for their own behaviors. Individuals with high internal locus of control believe that they control their own destiny and what happens to them is their own doing, while those with high external locus of control feel that things happen to them because of other people, luck, or a powerful being. Internals feel greater control over their own lives and therefore they act in ways that will increase their chances of success. For example, they take the initiative to start mentor-protégé relationships. They are more involved with their jobs. They demonstrate higher levels of motivation and have more positive experiences at work (Ng, Soresen, & Eby, 2006; Reitz & Jewell, 1979; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). Interestingly, internal locus is also related to one’s subjective well-being and happiness in life, while being high in external locus is related to a higher rate of depression (Benassi, Sweeney, & Dufour, 1988; DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). The connection between internal locus of control and health is interesting, but perhaps not surprising. In fact, one study showed that having internal locus of control at the age of 10 was related to a number of health outcomes, such as lower obesity and lower blood pressure later in life (Gale, Batty, & Deary, 2008). It is possible that internals take more responsibility for their health and adopt healthier habits, while externals may see less of a connection between how they live and their health. Internals thrive in contexts in which they have the ability to influence their own behavior. Successful entrepreneurs tend to have high levels of internal locus of control (Certo & Certo, 2005).

Personality Testing in Employee Selection

Personality is a potentially important predictor of work behavior. Matching people to jobs matters, because when people do not fit with their jobs or the company, they are more likely to leave, costing companies as much as a person’s annual salary to replace them. In job interviews, companies try to assess a candidate’s personality and the potential for a good match, but interviews are only as good as the people conducting them. In fact, interviewers are not particularly good at detecting the best trait that predicts performance: conscientiousness (Barrick, Patton, & Haugland, 2000). One method some companies use to improve this match and detect the people who are potentially good job candidates is personality testing. Companies such as Kronos and Hogan Assessment Systems conduct preemployment personality tests. Companies using them believe that these tests improve the effectiveness of their selection and reduce turnover. For example, Overnight Transportation in Atlanta found that using such tests reduced their on-the-job delinquency by 50%–100% (Emmet, 2004; Gale, 2002).

Yet, are these methods good ways of selecting employees? Experts have not yet reached an agreement on this subject and the topic is highly controversial. Some experts believe, based on data, that personality tests predict performance and other important criteria such as job satisfaction. However, we must under- stand that how a personality test is used influences its validity. Imagine filling out a personality test in class. You may be more likely to fill it out as honestly as you can. Then, if your instructor correlates your personality scores with your class performance, we could say that the correlation is meaningful. In employee selection, one complicating factor is that people filling out the survey do not have a strong incentive to be honest. In fact, they have a greater incentive to guess what the job requires and answer the questions to match what they think the company is looking for. As a result, the rankings of the candidates who take the test may be affected by their ability to fake. Some experts believe that this is a serious problem (Morgeson et al., 2007; Morgeson et al., 2007). Others point out that even with faking , the tests remain valid—the scores are still related to job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1996; Ones et al., 2007; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996; Tell & Christiansen, 2007). It is even possible that the ability to fake is related to a personality trait that increases success at work, such as social monitoring. This issue raises potential questions regarding whether personality tests are the most effective way of measuring candidate personality.

Scores are not only distorted because of some candidates faking better than others. Do we even know our own personality? Are we the best person to ask this question? How supervisors, coworkers, and customers see our personality matters more than how we see ourselves. Therefore, using self-report measures of performance may not be the best way of measuring someone’s personality (Mount, Barrick, & Strauss, 1994). We all have areas of limitation. We may also give “aspirational” answers. If you are asked if you are honest, you may think, “Yes, I always have the intention to be honest.” This response says nothing about your actual level of honesty.

There is another problem with using these tests: How good a predictor of performance is personality anyway? Based on research, not a particularly strong one. According to one estimate, personality only explains about 10%–15% of variation in job performance. Our performance at work depends on so many factors, and personality does not seem to be the key factor for performance. In fact, cognitive ability (your overall mental intelligence) is a much more powerful influence on job performance, and instead of personality tests, cognitive ability tests may do a better job of predicting who will be good performers. Personality is a better predictor of job satisfaction and other attitudes, but screening people out on the assumption that they may be unhappy at work is a challenging argument to make in the context of employee selection.

In any case, if you decide to use these tests for selection, you need to be aware of their limitations. Relying only on personality tests for selection of an employee is a bad idea, but if they are used together with other tests such as tests of cognitive abilities, better decisions may be made. The company should ensure that the test fits the job and actually predicts performance. This process is called validating the test. Before giving the test to applicants, the company could give it to existing employees to find out the traits that are most important for success in the particular company and job. Then, in the selection con- text, the company can pay particular attention to those traits. The company should also make sure that the test does not discriminate against people on the basis of sex, race, age, disabilities, and other legally protected characteristics. Rent-A-Center experienced legal difficulties when the test they used was found to be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The test they used for selection, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, was developed to diagnose severe mental illnesses and included items such as “I see things or people around me others do not see.” In effect, the test served the purpose of a clinical evaluation and was discriminating against people with mental illnesses, which is a protected category under ADA (Heller, 2005).

Values and personality traits are two dimensions on which people differ. Values are stable life goals. When seeking jobs, employees are more likely to accept a job that provides opportunities for value attainment, and they are more likely to remain in situations that satisfy their values. Personality comprises the stable feelings, thoughts, and behavioral patterns people have. The Big Five personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) are important traits that seem to be stable and can be generalized to other cultures. Other important traits for work behavior include self-efficacy, self-esteem, social monitoring, proactive personality, positive and negative affectivity, and locus of control. It is important to remember that a person’s behavior depends on the match between the person and the situation. While personality is a strong influence on job attitudes, its relation to job performance is weaker. Some companies use personality testing to screen out candidates. This method has certain limitations, and companies using personality tests are advised to validate their tests and use them as a supplement to other techniques that have greater validity.

5.3 Perception

Our behavior is not only a function of our personality, values, and preferences, but also of the situation. We interpret our environment, formulate responses, and act accordingly. Perception may be defined as the process with which individuals detect and interpret environmental stimuli. What makes human perception so interesting is that we do not solely respond to the stimuli in our environment. We go beyond the information that is present in our environment, pay selective attention to some aspects of the environment, and ignore other elements that may be immediately apparent to other people. Our perception of the environment is not entirely rational. For example, have you ever noticed that while glancing at a newspaper or a news Web site, information that is interesting or important to you jumps out of the page and catches your attention? If you are a sports fan, while scrolling down the pages you may immediately see a news item describing the latest success of your team. If you are the parent of a picky eater, an advice column on toddler feeding may be the first thing you see when looking at the page. So what we see in the environment is a function of what we value, our needs, our fears, and our emotions (Higgins & Bargh, 1987; Keltner, Ellsworth, & Edwards, 1993). In fact, what we see in the environment may be objectively, flat-out wrong because of our personality, values, or emotions. For example, one experiment showed that when people who were afraid of spiders were shown spiders, they inaccurately thought that the spider was moving toward them (Riskin, Moore, & Bowley, 1995). In this section, we will describe some common tendencies we engage in when perceiving objects or other people, and the consequences of such perceptions. Our coverage of biases and tendencies in perception is not exhaustive—there are many other biases and tendencies on our social perception.

Visual Perception

Our visual perception definitely goes beyond the physical information available to us. First of all, we extrapolate from the information available to us. Take a look at the following figure. The white triangle you see in the middle is not really there, but we extrapolate from the information available to us and see it there (Kellman & Shipley, 1991).

Our visual perception goes beyond the information physically available. In this figure, we see the white triangle in the middle even though it is not really there.

Which of the circles in the middle is bigger? At first glance, the one on the left may appear bigger, but they are in fact the same size. We compare the middle circle on the left to its surrounding circles, whereas the middle circle on the right is compared to the bigger circles surrounding it.

Our visual perception is often biased because we do not perceive objects in isolation. The contrast between our focus of attention and the remainder of the environment may make an object appear bigger or smaller. This principle is illustrated in the figure with circles. Which of the middle circles is bigger? To most people, the one on the left appears bigger, but this is because it is surrounded by smaller circles. The contrast between the focal object and the objects surrounding it may make an object bigger or smaller to our eye.

How do these tendencies influence behavior in organizations? You may have realized that the fact that our visual perception is faulty may make witness testimony faulty and biased. How do we know whether the employee you judge to be hardworking, fast, and neat is really like that? Is it really true, or are we comparing this person to other people in the immediate environment? Or let’s say that you do not like one of your peers and you think that this person is constantly surfing the Web during work hours. Are you sure? Have you really seen this person surf unrelated Web sites, or is it possible that the person was surfing the Web for work-related purposes? Our biased visual perception may lead to the wrong inferences about the people around us.

Self-Perception

Human beings are prone to errors and biases when perceiving themselves. Moreover, the type of bias people have depends on their personality. Many people suffer from self-enhancement bias . This is the tendency to overestimate our performance and capabilities and see ourselves in a more positive light than others see us. People who have a narcissistic personality are particularly subject to this bias, but many others are still prone to overestimating their abilities (John & Robins, 1994). At the same time, other people have the opposing extreme, which may be labeled as self-effacement bias . This is the tendency for people to underestimate their performance, undervalue capabilities, and see events in a way that puts them in a more negative light. We may expect that people with low self-esteem may be particularly prone to making this error. These tendencies have real consequences for behavior in organizations. For example, people who suffer from extreme levels of self-enhancement tendencies may not understand why they are not getting promoted or rewarded, while those who have a tendency to self-efface may project low confidence and take more blame for their failures than necessary.

When perceiving themselves, human beings are also subject to the false consensus error . Simply put, we overestimate how similar we are to other people (Fields & Schuman, 1976; Ross, Greene, & House, 1977). We assume that whatever quirks we have are shared by a larger number of people than in reality. People who take office supplies home, tell white lies to their boss or colleagues, or take credit for other people’s work to get ahead may genuinely feel that these behaviors are more common than they really are. The problem for behavior in organizations is that, when people believe that a behavior is common and normal, they may repeat the behavior more freely. Under some circumstances this may lead to a high level of unethical or even illegal behaviors.

Social Perception

How we perceive other people in our environment is also shaped by our values, emotions, feelings, and personality. Moreover, how we perceive others will shape our behavior, which in turn will shape the behavior of the person we are interacting with.

One of the factors biasing our perception is stereotypes . Stereotypes are generalizations based on group characteristics. Stereotypes may be positive, negative, or neutral. Human beings have a natural tendency to categorize the information around them to make sense of their environment. What makes stereotypes potentially discriminatory and a perceptual bias is the tendency to generalize from a group to a particular individual. If the belief that one group has a greater skill leads to choosing a person over an equally (or potentially more) qualified candidate from another area for a position, the decision will be biased, potentially illegal, and unfair.

Stereotypes often create a situation called a self-fulfilling prophecy . This cycle occurs when people automatically behave as if an established stereotype is accurate, which leads to reactive behavior from the other party that confirms the stereotype (Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977).

Stereotypes persist because of a process called selective perception. Selective perception simply means that we pay selective attention to parts of the environment while ignoring other parts. When we observe our environment, we see what we want to see and ignore information that may seem out of place. Here is an interesting example of how selective perception leads our perception to be shaped by the context: As part of a social experiment, in 2007 the Washington Post newspaper arranged Joshua Bell, the inter- nationally acclaimed violin virtuoso, to perform in a corner of the Metro station in Washington DC. The violin he was playing was worth $3.5 million, and tickets for Bell’s concerts usually cost around $100. During the rush hour in which he played for 45 minutes, only one person recognized him, only a few realized that they were hearing extraordinary music, and he made only $32 in tips. When you see some- one playing at the metro station, would you expect them to be extraordinary? (Weingarten, 2007)

Our background, expectations, and beliefs will shape which events we notice and which events we ignore. For example, the functional background of executives affects the changes they perceive in their environment (Waller, Huber, & Glick, 1995). Executives with a background in sales and marketing see the changes in the demand for their product, while executives with a background in information technology may more readily perceive the changes in the technology the company is using. Selective perception may perpetuate stereotypes, because we are less likely to notice events that go against our beliefs. A per- son who believes that men drive better than women may be more likely to notice women driving poorly than men driving poorly. As a result, a stereotype is maintained because information to the contrary may not reach our brain.

Let’s say we noticed information that goes against our beliefs. What then? Unfortunately, this is no guarantee that we will modify our beliefs and prejudices. First, when we see examples that go against our stereotypes, we tend to come up with subcategories. For example, when people who believe that women are more cooperative see a female who is assertive, they may classify this person as a “career woman.” Therefore, the example to the contrary does not violate the stereotype, and instead is explained as an exception to the rule (Higgins & Bargh, 1987). Second, we may simply discount the information. In one study, people who were either in favor of or opposed to the death penalty were shown two studies, one showing benefits from the death penalty and the other discounting any benefits. People rejected the study that went against their belief as methodologically inferior and actually reinforced the belief in their original position even more (Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979). In other words, trying to debunk people’s beliefs or previously established opinions with data may not necessarily help.

One other perceptual tendency that may affect work behavior is that of first impressions . The first impressions we form about people tend to have a lasting impact. In fact, first impressions, once formed, are surprisingly resilient to contrary information. Even if people are told that the first impressions were caused by inaccurate information, people hold onto them to a certain degree. The reason is that, once we form first impressions, they become independent of the evidence that created them (Ross, Lepper, & Hubbard, 1975). Any information we receive to the contrary does not serve the purpose of altering the original impression. Imagine the first day you met your colleague Anne. She treated you in a rude manner and when you asked for her help, she brushed you off. You may form the belief that she is a rude and unhelpful person. Later, you may hear that her mother is very sick and she is very stressed. In reality she may have been unusually stressed on the day you met her. If you had met her on a different day, you could have thought that she is a really nice person who is unusually stressed these days. But chances are your impression that she is rude and unhelpful will not change even when you hear about her mother. Instead, this new piece of information will be added to the first one: She is rude, unhelpful, and her mother is sick. Being aware of this tendency and consciously opening your mind to new information may protect you against some of the downsides of this bias. Also, it would be to your advantage to pay careful attention to the first impressions you create, particularly during job interviews.

Toolbox: How Can I Make a Great First Impression in the Job Interview?

A job interview is your first step to getting the job of your dreams. It is also a social interaction in which your actions during the first 5 minutes will determine the impression you make. Here are some tips to help you create a positive first impression.

• Your first opportunity to make a great impression starts even before the interview, the moment you send your résumé . Be sure that you send your résumé to the correct people, and spell the name of the contact person correctly! Make sure that your résumé looks professional and is free from typos and grammar problems. Have someone else read it before you hit the send button or mail it.
• Be prepared for the interview . Many interviews have some standard questions such as “tell me about yourself” or “why do you want to work here?” Be ready to answer these questions. Prepare answers highlighting your skills and accomplishments, and practice your message. Better yet, practice an interview with a friend. Practicing your answers will prevent you from regretting your answers or finding a better answer after the interview is over!
• Research the company . If you know a lot about the company and the job in question, you will come out as someone who is really interested in the job. If you ask basic questions such as “what does this company do?” you will not be taken as a serious candidate. Visit the company’s Web site as well as others, and learn as much about the company and the job as you can. Your dress is a big part of the impression you make. Dress properly for the job and company in question. In many jobs, wearing professional clothes, such as a suit, is expected. In some information technology jobs, it may be more proper to wear clean and neat business casual clothes (such as khakis and a pressed shirt) as opposed to dressing formally. Do some investigation about what is suitable. Whatever the norm is, make sure that your clothes fit well and are clean and neat.
• Be on time to the interview . Being late will show that you either don’t care about the interview or you are not very reliable. While waiting for the interview, don’t forget that your interview has already started. As soon as you enter the company’s parking lot, every person you see on the way or talk to may be a potential influence over the decision maker. Act professionally and treat everyone nicely.
• During the interview, be polite . Use correct grammar, show eagerness and enthusiasm, and watch your body language. From your handshake to your posture, your body is communicating whether you are the right person for the job!

Sources: Adapted from ideas in Bruce, C. (2007, October). Business Etiquette 101: Making a good first impression. Black Collegian , 38(1), 78–80; Evenson, R. (2007, May). Making a great first impression. Techniques , 14–17; Mather, J., & Watson, M. (2008, May 23). Perfect candidate. The Times Educational Supplement , 4789 , 24–26; Messmer, M. (2007, July). 10 minutes to impress. Journal of Accountancy , 204 (1), 13; Reece, T. (2006, November–December). How to wow! Career World , 35 , 16–18.

Attributions

Your colleague Peter failed to meet the deadline. What do you do? Do you help him finish up his work? Do you give him the benefit of the doubt and place the blame on the difficulty of the project? Or do you think that he is irresponsible? Our behavior is a function of our perceptions. More specifically, when we observe others behave in a certain way, we ask ourselves a fundamental question: Why? Why did he fail to meet the deadline? Why did Mary get the promotion? Why did Mark help you when you needed help? The answer we give is the key to understanding our subsequent behavior. If you believe that Mark helped you because he is a nice person, your action will be different from your response if you think that Mark helped you because your boss pressured him to.

An attribution is the causal explanation we give for an observed behavior. If you believe that a behavior is due to the internal characteristics of an actor, you are making an internal attribution . For example, let’s say your classmate Erin complained a lot when completing a finance assignment. If you think that she complained because she is a negative person, you are making an internal attribution. An external attribution is explaining someone’s behavior by referring to the situation. If you believe that Erin complained because finance homework was difficult, you are making an external attribution.

When do we make internal or external attributions? Research shows that three factors are the key to understanding what kind of attributions we make.

• Consensus : Do other people behave the same way?
• Distinctiveness : Does this person behave the same way across different situations?
• Consistency : Does this person behave this way in different occasions in the same situation?

Let’s assume that in addition to Erin, other people in the same class also complained (high consensus). Erin does not usually complain in other classes (high distinctiveness). Erin usually does not complain in finance class (low consistency). In this situation, you are likely to make an external attribution, such as thinking that finance homework is difficult. On the other hand, let’s assume that Erin is the only person complaining (low consensus). Erin complains in a variety of situations (low distinctiveness), and every time she is in finance, she complains (high consistency). In this situation, you are likely to make an internal attribution such as thinking that Erin is a negative person (Kelley, 1967; Kelley, 1973).

Interestingly though, our attributions do not always depend on the consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency we observe in a given situation. In other words, when making attributions, we do not always look at the situation objectively. For example, our overall relationship is a factor. When a manager likes a subordinate, the attributions made would be more favorable (successes are attributed to internal causes, while failures are attributed to external causes) (Heneman, Greenberger, & Anonyou, 1989). Moreover, when interpreting our own behavior, we suffer from self-serving bias . This is the tendency to attribute our failures to the situation while attributing our successes to internal causes (Malle, 2006).

Consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency determine the type of attribution we make in a given situation.

How we react to other people’s behavior would depend on the type of attributions we make. When faced with poor performance, such as missing a deadline, we are more likely to punish the person if an internal attribution is made (such as “the person being unreliable”). In the same situation, if we make an external attribution (such as “the timeline was unreasonable”), instead of punishing the person we might extend the deadline or assign more help to the person. If we feel that someone’s failure is due to external causes, we may feel empathy toward the person and even offer help (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). On the other hand, if someone succeeds and we make an internal attribution (he worked hard), we are more likely to reward the person, whereas an external attribution (the project was easy) is less likely to yield rewards for the person in question. Therefore, understanding attributions is important to predicting subsequent behavior.

Perception is how we make sense of our environment in response to environmental stimuli. While perceiving our surroundings, we go beyond the objective information available to us, and our perception is affected by our values, needs, and emotions. There are many biases that affect human perception of objects, self, and others. When perceiving the physical environment, we fill in gaps and extrapolate from the available information. We also contrast physical objects to their surroundings and may perceive something as bigger, smaller, slower, or faster than it really is. In self-perception, we may commit the self-enhancement or self-effacement bias, depending on our personality. We also overestimate how much we are like other people. When perceiving others, stereotypes infect our behavior. Stereotypes may lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. Stereotypes are perpetuated because of our tendency to pay selective attention to aspects of the environment and ignore information inconsistent with our beliefs. When perceiving others, the attributions we make will determine how we respond to the situation. Understanding the perception process gives us clues to understand human behavior.

5.4 The Role of Ethics and National Culture

Individual differences and ethics.

Our values and personality influence how ethical we behave. Situational factors, rewards, and punishments following unethical choices as well as a company’s culture are extremely important, but the role of personality and personal values should not be ignored. Research reveals that people who have an eco- nomic value orientation, that is, those who value acquiring money and wealth, tend to make more unethical choices. In terms of personality, employees with external locus of control were found to make more unethical choices (Hegarty & Sims, 1978; Hegarty & Sims, 1979; Trevino & Youngblood, 1990).

Our perceptual processes are clear influences on whether or not we behave ethically and how we respond to other people’s unethical behaviors. It seems that self-enhancement bias operates for our ethical decisions as well: We tend to overestimate how ethical we are in general. Our self-ratings of ethics tend to be higher than how other people rate us. This belief can create a glaring problem: If we think that we are more ethical than we are, we will have little motivation to improve. Therefore, understanding how other people perceive our actions is important to getting a better understanding of ourselves.

How we respond to unethical behavior of others will, to a large extent, depend on the attributions we make. If we attribute responsibility to the person in question, we are more likely to punish that person. In a study on sexual harassment that occurred after a workplace romance turned sour, results showed that if we attribute responsibility to the victim, we are less likely to punish the harasser (Pierce et al., 2004). Therefore, how we make attributions in a given situation will determine how we respond to others’ actions, including their unethical behaviors.

Individual Differences Around the Globe

Values that people care about vary around the world. In fact, when we refer to a country’s culture, we are referring to values that distinguish one nation from others. In other words, there is systematic variance in individuals’ personality and work values around the world, and this variance explains people’s behavior, attitudes, preferences, and the transferability of management practices to other cultures.

When we refer to a country’s values, this does not mean that everyone in a given country shares the same values. People differ within and across nations. There will always be people who care more about money and others who care more about relationships within each culture. Yet there are also national differences in the percentage of people holding each value. A researcher from Holland, Geert Hofstede, conducted a landmark study covering over 60 countries and found that countries differ in four dimensions: the extent to which they put individuals or groups first (individualism), whether the society subscribes to equality or hierarchy among people (power distance), the degree to which the society fears change (uncertainty avoidance), and the extent to which the culture emphasizes acquiring money and being successful (masculinity) (Hofstede, 2001). Knowing about the values held in a society will tell us what type of a work- place would satisfy and motivate employees.

Are personality traits universal? Researchers found that personality traits identified in Western cultures translate well to other cultures. For example, the five-factor model of personality is universal in that it explains how people differ from each other in over 79 countries. At the same time, there is variation among cultures in the dominant personality traits. In some countries, extraverts seem to be the majority, and in some countries the dominant trait is low emotional stability. There are many factors explaining why some personality traits are dominant in some cultures. For example, the presence of democratic values is related to extraversion. Because democracy usually protects freedom of speech, people may feel more comfortable socializing with strangers as well as with friends, partly explaining the larger number of extraverts in democratic nations. Research also shows that in regions of the world that historically suffered from infectious diseases, extraversion and openness to experience was less dominant. Infectious diseases led people to limit social contact with strangers, explaining higher levels of introversion. Plus, to cope with infectious diseases, people developed strict habits for hygiene and the amount of spice to use in food, and deviating from these standards was bad for survival. This explains the lower levels of openness to experience in regions that experienced infectious diseases (McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae et al., 2005; Schaller & Murray, 2008).

Is basic human perception universal? It seems that there is variation around the globe in how we perceive other people as well as ourselves. (Masuda et al., 2008).

There seems to be some variation in the perceptual biases we commit as well. For example, human beings have a tendency to self-enhance. We see ourselves in a more positive light than others do. Yet, the traits in which we self-enhance are culturally dependent (Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003; Sedikides, Gaertner, & Vevea, 2005).  Given the variation in individual differences around the globe, being sensitive to these differences will increase our managerial effectiveness when managing a diverse group of people.

Personality Around the Globe

Which nations have the highest average self-esteem? Researchers asked this question by surveying almost 17,000 individuals across 53 nations, in 28 languages.

Based on this survey, these are the top 10 nations in terms of self-reported self-esteem.

• United States

The 10 nations with the lowest self-reported self-esteem are the following:

• South Korea
• Switzerland
• Czech Republic

Source: Adapted from information in Denissen, J. J. A., Penke, L., & Schmitt, D. P. (2008, July). Self-esteem reactions to social interactions: Evidence for sociometer mechanisms across days, people, and nations.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,  95 , 181–196; Hitti, M. (2005). Who’s no. 1 in self-esteem? Serbia is tops, Japan ranks lowest, U.S. is no. 6 in global survey. WebMD. Retrieved November 14, 2008, from  http://www.webmd.com/skin-beauty/news/20050927/whos-number-1-in-self-esteem ; Schmitt, D. P., & Allik, J. (2005). The simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale in 53 nationals: Culture-specific features of global self-esteem.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,  89 , 623–642.

There is a connection between how ethically we behave and our individual values, personality, and perception. Possessing values emphasizing economic well-being predicts unethical behavior. Having an external locus of control is also related to unethical decision making. We are also likely to overestimate how ethical we are, which can be a barrier against behaving ethically. Culture seems to be an influence over our values, personality traits, perceptions, attitudes, and work behaviors. Therefore, understanding individual differences requires paying careful attention to the cultural context.

5.5 Conclusion

In conclusion, in this chapter we have reviewed major individual differences that affect employee attitudes and behaviors. Our values and personality explain our preferences and the situations we feel comfortable with. Personality may influence our behavior, but the importance of the context in which behavior occurs should not be neglected. Many organizations use personality tests in employee selection, but the use of such tests is controversial because of problems such as faking and low predictive value of personality for job performance. Perception is how we interpret our environment. It is a major influence over our behavior, but many systematic biases color our perception and lead to misunderstandings.

Adapted from: Organizational Behavior

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LIBRARIES PUBLISHING EDITION, 2017. THIS EDITION ADAPTED FROM A WORK ORIGINALLY PRODUCED IN 2010 BY A PUBLISHER WHO HAS REQUESTED THAT IT NOT RECEIVE ATTRIBUTION.

MINNEAPOLIS, MN

Using Teams to Facilitate Organizational Development Copyright © 2021 by Dr. Kim Godwin; Dr. Mike Boyle; and Meredith Anne Higgs is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Employee Success Platform Improve engagement, inspire performance, and build a magnetic culture.
• Engagement Survey
• Lifecycle Surveys
• Pulse Surveys
• Action Planning
• Talent Reviews
• Performance Reviews
• Succession Planning
• Recognition
• Expert-Informed AI
• Seamless Integrations
• Award-Winning Service
• Robust Analytics
• Scale Employee Success with AI
• Drive Employee Retention
• Identify and Develop Top Talent
• Build High Performing Teams
• Increase Strategic Alignment
• Manage Remote Teams
• Improve Employee Engagement
• Customer Success Stories
• Customer Experience
• Customer Advisory Board
• Not Another Employee Engagement Trends Report
• Everyone Owns Employee Success
• Employee Success ROI Calculator
• Employee Retention Quiz
• Ebooks & Templates
• Leadership Team
• Partnerships
• Best Places to Work
• Request a Demo

Managing Individual Differences in the Workplace

Dan Harris, Ph.D.

July 30, 2018 | 3 minute read

And organizational identities like the industry they work in, the size of their organization, and their own tenure, department, or position level.

These barely scratch the surface of how many individual differences a person may have or express at any given time, and that’s not even taking into account things like preferences, biases, and opinions.

With as many factors as the above lists suggest, it boggles my mind when “one size fits all” engagement strategies are discussed or, worse still, considered as legitimate courses of action within organizations. Different employees need different things to be engaged, and painting people with large brush strokes does not create organizational or team environments that maximize engagement. Instead, organizations must prioritize accepting and managing individual differences.

Using data from Quantum Workplace’s annual Employee Engagement Trends Report , I want to present a few examples of individual differences between employee groups. For each demographic, a breakout of 2-5 drivers of engagement will be shown.

The above graph shows that professional growth and career development opportunities becomes a weaker driver of engagement as employees become more tenured. Conversely, believing leaders value people as their most important resource generally becomes a stronger driver of engagement as employees become more tenured.

This suggests that less-tenured employees may feel more engaged when growth opportunities are clearly visible to them, whereas more-tenured employees may feel more engaged when they believe leadership values them .

This isn’t to say that more-tenured employees don’t value professional and career developmental, or that less-tenured employees don’t appreciate a leader's recognition. Rather, these results indicate that individual differences determine what actions will engage employees.

For another analysis of tenure, see research I conducted exploring the tenure curve .   

When examining employees by pay type, four out of the five top drivers of engagement are similar. However, the main difference is arguably a large one: being recognized is a stronger driver of engagement for hourly employees than salaried . This indicates that even an individual difference like pay type is important to accept and manage.

The above graph suggests that seeing professional growth and career development opportunities becomes a weaker driver of engagement as employees age.

This, when coupled with the results from tenure, makes intuitive sense; as employees age and become more tenured and experienced, they  get closer to their natural career ceiling — a senior leadership position, retirement, being satisfied with what they’ve achieved, etc.

Conversely, believing the organization will be successful in the future only strengthens as a driver of engagement as employees age. Older employees having a higher probability of being more tenured, suggesting that they may also feel more invested in the success of the organization , or that organizational success goes hand-in-hand with how strongly connected they feel to the organization.

Education Level

In this final example, although there isn’t a perfectly clean upward or downward line, we can see that perceived leadership integrity is a stronger driver of engagement for employees with less education (high school diploma or less), and is a weaker driver for employees with mid-level education (Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees).

Likewise, finding one’s job interesting and challenging is a weaker driver of engagement for all education levels except those with Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees.

One takeaway from this graph is that employees without high school diplomas likely feel more engaged when they can trust and respect their leaders , whereas employees with Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees likely feel more engaged when they have jobs that are interesting and challenging .

There may be a certain level of irony in this post; in the beginning I indicated that employees shouldn’t be generalized by large groupings, yet I used relatively large groupings as examples.

My intent was not to offer highly individualized examples, but instead to showcase high-level differences that can guide managers and organizations toward greater individualization .

It’s not that a team member is just a female, or just has 1-2 years tenure, or is just a salaried employee, all in isolation of one another. Rather, she’s a female employee who has 1-2 years tenure and is salaried, among the dozens and dozens more identities, opinions, and preferences that are of varying relevance to her work.

Bottom line? Managers must strive to know employees at a personal and professional level, allowing them to understand, accept, and manage individual differences. This, then, can pave to way for performance excellence and high employee engagement.  

Learn about more employee populations and individual differences — download our annual Employee Engagement Trends Report today!

Published July 30, 2018 | Written By Dan Harris, Ph.D.

Related Content

14 One on One Meeting Topics You Should Be Discussing With Employees

Quick links, subscribe to our blog.

View more resources on Employee Engagement

How to Be a Better Manager by Individualizing Your Approach

2 minute read

Keeping Tenured Employees Engaged: How Tenure Impacts Engagement

6 minute read

3 Ways Managers Can Bridge the Employee Development Gap

• All Resources
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Terms of Service

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

3.3 Individual Differences: Values and Personality

Learning objectives.

• Understand what values are.
• Describe the link between values and individual behavior.
• Identify the major personality traits that are relevant to organizational behavior.
• Explain the link between personality, work behavior, and work attitudes.
• Explain the potential pitfalls of personality testing.

Values refer to stable life goals that people have, reflecting what is most important to them. Values are established throughout one’s life as a result of the accumulating life experiences and tend to be relatively stable (Lusk & Oliver, 1974; Rokeach, 1973). The values that are important to people tend to affect the types of decisions they make, how they perceive their environment, and their actual behaviors. Moreover, people are more likely to accept job offers when the company possesses the values people care about (Judge & Bretz, 1992; Ravlin & Meglino, 1987). Value attainment is one reason why people stay in a company, and when an organization does not help them attain their values, they are more likely to decide to leave if they are dissatisfied with the job itself (George & Jones, 1996).

What are the values people care about? There are many typologies of values. One of the most established surveys to assess individual values is the Rokeach Value Survey (Rokeach, 1973). This survey lists 18 terminal and 18 instrumental values in alphabetical order. Terminal values refer to end states people desire in life, such as leading a prosperous life and a world at peace. Instrumental values deal with views on acceptable modes of conduct, such as being honest and ethical, and being ambitious.

According to Rokeach, values are arranged in hierarchical fashion. In other words, an accurate way of assessing someone’s values is to ask them to rank the 36 values in order of importance. By comparing these values, people develop a sense of which value can be sacrificed to achieve the other, and the individual priority of each value emerges.

Figure 3.2 Sample Items From Rokeach (1973) Value Survey

Where do values come from? Research indicates that they are shaped early in life and show stability over the course of a lifetime. Early family experiences are important influences over the dominant values. People who were raised in families with low socioeconomic status and those who experienced restrictive parenting often display conformity values when they are adults, while those who were raised by parents who were cold toward their children would likely value and desire security (Kasser, Koestner, & Lekes, 2002).

Values of a generation also change and evolve in response to the historical context that the generation grows up in. Research comparing the values of different generations resulted in interesting findings. For example, Generation Xers (those born between the mid-1960s and 1980s) are more individualistic and are interested in working toward organizational goals so long as they coincide with their personal goals. This group, compared to the baby boomers (born between the 1940s and 1960s), is also less likely to see work as central to their life and more likely to desire a quick promotion (Smola & Sutton, 2002).

Values will affect the choices people make. For example, someone who has a strong stimulation orientation may pursue extreme sports and be drawn to risky business ventures with a high potential for payoff.

G B – CCK – ‘Gunks’ – CC BY-ND 2.0.

The values a person holds will affect his or her employment. For example, someone who has an orientation toward strong stimulation may pursue extreme sports and select an occupation that involves fast action and high risk, such as fire fighter, police officer, or emergency medical doctor. Someone who has a drive for achievement may more readily act as an entrepreneur. Moreover, whether individuals will be satisfied at a given job may depend on whether the job provides a way to satisfy their dominant values. Therefore, understanding employees at work requires understanding the value orientations of employees.

Personality

Personality encompasses the relatively stable feelings, thoughts, and behavioral patterns a person has. Our personality differentiates us from other people, and understanding someone’s personality gives us clues about how that person is likely to act and feel in a variety of situations. In order to effectively manage organizational behavior, an understanding of different employees’ personalities is helpful. Having this knowledge is also useful for placing people in jobs and organizations.

If personality is stable, does this mean that it does not change? You probably remember how you have changed and evolved as a result of your own life experiences, attention you received in early childhood, the style of parenting you were exposed to, successes and failures you had in high school, and other life events. In fact, our personality changes over long periods of time. For example, we tend to become more socially dominant, more conscientious (organized and dependable), and more emotionally stable between the ages of 20 and 40, whereas openness to new experiences may begin to decline during this same time (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006). In other words, even though we treat personality as relatively stable, changes occur. Moreover, even in childhood, our personality shapes who we are and has lasting consequences for us. For example, studies show that part of our career success and job satisfaction later in life can be explained by our childhood personality (Judge & Higgins, 1999; Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986).

Is our behavior in organizations dependent on our personality? To some extent, yes, and to some extent, no. While we will discuss the effects of personality for employee behavior, you must remember that the relationships we describe are modest correlations. For example, having a sociable and outgoing personality may encourage people to seek friends and prefer social situations. This does not mean that their personality will immediately affect their work behavior. At work, we have a job to do and a role to perform. Therefore, our behavior may be more strongly affected by what is expected of us, as opposed to how we want to behave. When people have a lot of freedom at work, their personality will become a stronger influence over their behavior (Barrick & Mount, 1993).

Big Five Personality Traits

How many personality traits are there? How do we even know? In every language, there are many words describing a person’s personality. In fact, in the English language, more than 15,000 words describing personality have been identified. When researchers analyzed the terms describing personality characteristics, they realized that there were many words that were pointing to each dimension of personality. When these words were grouped, five dimensions seemed to emerge that explain a lot of the variation in our personalities (Goldberg, 1990). Keep in mind that these five are not necessarily the only traits out there. There are other, specific traits that represent dimensions not captured by the Big Five. Still, understanding the main five traits gives us a good start for describing personality. A summary of the Big Five traits is presented in Figure 3.4 “Big Five Personality Traits” .

Figure 3.4 Big Five Personality Traits

Openness is the degree to which a person is curious, original, intellectual, creative, and open to new ideas. People high in openness seem to thrive in situations that require being flexible and learning new things. They are highly motivated to learn new skills, and they do well in training settings (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Lievens et al., 2003). They also have an advantage when they enter into a new organization. Their open-mindedness leads them to seek a lot of information and feedback about how they are doing and to build relationships, which leads to quicker adjustment to the new job (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). When supported, they tend to be creative (Baer & Oldham, 2006). Open people are highly adaptable to change, and teams that experience unforeseen changes in their tasks do well if they are populated with people high in openness (LePine, 2003). Compared to people low in openness, they are also more likely to start their own business (Zhao & Seibert, 2006).

Conscientiousness refers to the degree to which a person is organized, systematic, punctual, achievement oriented, and dependable. Conscientiousness is the one personality trait that uniformly predicts how high a person’s performance will be, across a variety of occupations and jobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991). In fact, conscientiousness is the trait most desired by recruiters and results in the most success in interviews (Dunn et al., 1995; Tay, Ang, & Van Dyne, 2006). This is not a surprise, because in addition to their high performance, conscientious people have higher levels of motivation to perform, lower levels of turnover, lower levels of absenteeism, and higher levels of safety performance at work (Judge & Ilies, 2002; Judge, Martocchio, & Thoresen, 1997; Wallace & Chen, 2006; Zimmerman, 2008). One’s conscientiousness is related to career success and being satisfied with one’s career over time (Judge & Higgins, 1999). Finally, it seems that conscientiousness is a good trait to have for entrepreneurs. Highly conscientious people are more likely to start their own business compared to those who are not conscientious, and their firms have longer survival rates (Certo & Certo, 2005; Zhao & Seibert, 2006).

Extraversion is the degree to which a person is outgoing, talkative, and sociable, and enjoys being in social situations. One of the established findings is that they tend to be effective in jobs involving sales (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Vinchur et al., 1998). Moreover, they tend to be effective as managers and they demonstrate inspirational leadership behaviors (Bauer et al., 2006; Bono & Judge, 2004). Extraverts do well in social situations, and as a result they tend to be effective in job interviews. Part of their success comes from how they prepare for the job interview, as they are likely to use their social network (Caldwell & Burger, 1998; Tay, Ang, & Van Dyne, 2006). Extraverts have an easier time than introverts when adjusting to a new job. They actively seek information and feedback, and build effective relationships, which helps with their adjustment (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Interestingly, extraverts are also found to be happier at work, which may be because of the relationships they build with the people around them and their relative ease in adjusting to a new job (Judge et al., 2002). However, they do not necessarily perform well in all jobs, and jobs depriving them of social interaction may be a poor fit. Moreover, they are not necessarily model employees. For example, they tend to have higher levels of absenteeism at work, potentially because they may miss work to hang out with or attend to the needs of their friends (Judge, Martocchio, & Thoresen, 1997).

Studies show that there is a relationship between being extraverted and effectiveness as a salesperson.

realtor – CC BY 2.0.

Agreeableness is the degree to which a person is nice, tolerant, sensitive, trusting, kind, and warm. In other words, people who are high in agreeableness are likeable people who get along with others. Not surprisingly, agreeable people help others at work consistently, and this helping behavior is not dependent on being in a good mood (Ilies, Scott, & Judge, 2006). They are also less likely to retaliate when other people treat them unfairly (Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999). This may reflect their ability to show empathy and give people the benefit of the doubt. Agreeable people may be a valuable addition to their teams and may be effective leaders because they create a fair environment when they are in leadership positions (Mayer et al., 2007). At the other end of the spectrum, people low in agreeableness are less likely to show these positive behaviors. Moreover, people who are not agreeable are shown to quit their jobs unexpectedly, perhaps in response to a conflict they engage with a boss or a peer (Zimmerman, 2008). If agreeable people are so nice, does this mean that we should only look for agreeable people when hiring? Some jobs may actually be a better fit for someone with a low level of agreeableness. Think about it: When hiring a lawyer, would you prefer a kind and gentle person, or a pit bull? Also, high agreeableness has a downside: Agreeable people are less likely to engage in constructive and change-oriented communication (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). Disagreeing with the status quo may create conflict and agreeable people will likely avoid creating such conflict, missing an opportunity for constructive change.

How Accurately Can You Describe Your Big Five Personality Factors?

Go to http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/ to see how you score on these factors.

Neuroticism refers to the degree to which a person is anxious, irritable, aggressive, temperamental, and moody. These people have a tendency to have emotional adjustment problems and experience stress and depression on a habitual basis. People very high in neuroticism experience a number of problems at work. For example, they are less likely to be someone people go to for advice and friendship (Klein et al., 2004). In other words, they may experience relationship difficulties. They tend to be habitually unhappy in their jobs and report high intentions to leave, but they do not necessarily actually leave their jobs (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002; Zimmerman, 2008). Being high in neuroticism seems to be harmful to one’s career, as they have lower levels of career success (measured with income and occupational status achieved in one’s career). Finally, if they achieve managerial jobs, they tend to create an unfair climate at work (Mayer et al., 2007).

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Aside from the Big Five personality traits, perhaps the most well-known and most often used personality assessment is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Unlike the Big Five, which assesses traits, MBTI measures types. Assessments of the Big Five do not classify people as neurotic or extravert: It is all a matter of degrees. MBTI on the other hand, classifies people as one of 16 types (Carlyn, 1977; Myers, 1962). In MBTI, people are grouped using four dimensions. Based on how a person is classified on these four dimensions, it is possible to talk about 16 unique personality types, such as ESTJ and ISTP.

MBTI was developed in 1943 by a mother–daughter team, Isabel Myers and Katherine Cook Briggs. Its objective at the time was to aid World War II veterans in identifying the occupation that would suit their personalities. Since that time, MBTI has become immensely popular, and according to one estimate, around 2.5 million people take the test annually. The survey is criticized because it relies on types as opposed to traits, but organizations who use the survey find it very useful for training and team-building purposes. More than 80 of the Fortune 100 companies used Myers-Briggs tests in some form. One distinguishing characteristic of this test is that it is explicitly designed for learning, not for employee selection purposes. In fact, the Myers & Briggs Foundation has strict guidelines against the use of the test for employee selection. Instead, the test is used to provide mutual understanding within the team and to gain a better understanding of the working styles of team members (Leonard & Straus, 1997; Shuit, 2003).

Figure 3.6 Summary of MBTI Types

Positive and Negative Affectivity

You may have noticed that behavior is also a function of moods. When people are in a good mood, they may be more cooperative, smile more, and act friendly. When these same people are in a bad mood, they may have a tendency to be picky, irritable, and less tolerant of different opinions. Yet, some people seem to be in a good mood most of the time, and others seem to be in a bad mood most of the time regardless of what is actually going on in their lives. This distinction is manifested by positive and negative affectivity traits. Positive affective people experience positive moods more frequently, whereas negative affective people experience negative moods with greater frequency. Negative affective people focus on the “glass half empty” and experience more anxiety and nervousness (Watson & Clark, 1984). Positive affective people tend to be happier at work (Ilies & Judge, 2003), and their happiness spreads to the rest of the work environment. As may be expected, this personality trait sets the tone in the work atmosphere. When a team comprises mostly negative affective people, there tend to be fewer instances of helping and cooperation. Teams dominated by positive affective people experience lower levels of absenteeism (George, 1989). When people with a lot of power are also high in positive affectivity, the work environment is affected in a positive manner and can lead to greater levels of cooperation and finding mutually agreeable solutions to problems (Anderson & Thompson, 2004).

OB Toolbox: Help, I work with a negative person!

Employees who have high levels of neuroticism or high levels of negative affectivity may act overly negative at work, criticize others, complain about trivial things, or create an overall negative work environment. Here are some tips for how to work with them effectively.

• Understand that you are unlikely to change someone else’s personality . Personality is relatively stable and criticizing someone’s personality will not bring about change. If the behavior is truly disruptive, focus on behavior, not personality.
• Keep an open mind . Just because a person is constantly negative does not mean that they are not sometimes right. Listen to the feedback they are giving you.
• Set a time limit . If you are dealing with someone who constantly complains about things, you may want to limit these conversations to prevent them from consuming your time at work.
• You may also empower them to act on the negatives they mention . The next time an overly negative individual complains about something, ask that person to think of ways to change the situation and get back to you.
• Ask for specifics . If someone has a negative tone in general, you may want to ask for specific examples for what the problem is.

Sources: Adapted from ideas in Ferguson, J. (2006, October 31). Expert’s view…on managing office moaners. Personnel Today , 29; Karcher, C. (2003, September), Working with difficult people. National Public Accountant , 39–40; Mudore, C. F. (2001, February/March). Working with difficult people. Career World , 29 (5), 16–18; How to manage difficult people. (2000, May). Leadership for the Front Lines , 3–4.

Self-Monitoring

Self-monitoring refers to the extent to which a person is capable of monitoring his or her actions and appearance in social situations. In other words, people who are social monitors are social chameleons who understand what the situation demands and act accordingly, while low social monitors tend to act the way they feel (Snyder, 1974; Snyder, 1987). High social monitors are sensitive to the types of behaviors the social environment expects from them. Their greater ability to modify their behavior according to the demands of the situation and to manage their impressions effectively is a great advantage for them (Turnley & Bolino, 2001). In general, they tend to be more successful in their careers. They are more likely to get cross-company promotions, and even when they stay with one company, they are more likely to advance (Day & Schleicher; Kilduff & Day, 1994). Social monitors also become the “go to” person in their company and they enjoy central positions in their social networks (Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001). They are rated as higher performers, and emerge as leaders (Day et al., 2002). While they are effective in influencing other people and get things done by managing their impressions, this personality trait has some challenges that need to be addressed. First, when evaluating the performance of other employees, they tend to be less accurate. It seems that while trying to manage their impressions, they may avoid giving accurate feedback to their subordinates to avoid confrontations (Jawahar, 2001). This tendency may create problems for them if they are managers. Second, high social monitors tend to experience higher levels of stress, probably caused by behaving in ways that conflict with their true feelings. In situations that demand positive emotions, they may act happy although they are not feeling happy, which puts an emotional burden on them. Finally, high social monitors tend to be less committed to their companies. They may see their jobs as a stepping-stone for greater things, which may prevent them from forming strong attachments and loyalty to their current employer (Day et al., 2002).

Proactive Personality

Proactive personality refers to a person’s inclination to fix what is perceived as wrong, change the status quo, and use initiative to solve problems. Instead of waiting to be told what to do, proactive people take action to initiate meaningful change and remove the obstacles they face along the way. In general, having a proactive personality has a number of advantages for these people. For example, they tend to be more successful in their job searches (Brown et al., 2006). They are also more successful over the course of their careers, because they use initiative and acquire greater understanding of the politics within the organization (Seibert, 1999; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). Proactive people are valuable assets to their companies because they may have higher levels of performance (Crant, 1995). They adjust to their new jobs quickly because they understand the political environment better and often make friends more quickly (Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Thompson, 2005). Proactive people are eager to learn and engage in many developmental activities to improve their skills (Major, Turner, & Fletcher, 2006). Despite all their potential, under some circumstances a proactive personality may be a liability for an individual or an organization. Imagine a person who is proactive but is perceived as being too pushy, trying to change things other people are not willing to let go, or using their initiative to make decisions that do not serve a company’s best interests. Research shows that the success of proactive people depends on their understanding of a company’s core values, their ability and skills to perform their jobs, and their ability to assess situational demands correctly (Chan, 2006; Erdogan & Bauer, 2005).

Self-Esteem

Self-esteem is the degree to which a person has overall positive feelings about his or herself. People with high self-esteem view themselves in a positive light, are confident, and respect themselves. On the other hand, people with low self-esteem experience high levels of self-doubt and question their self-worth. High self-esteem is related to higher levels of satisfaction with one’s job and higher levels of performance on the job (Judge & Bono, 2001). People with low self-esteem are attracted to situations in which they will be relatively invisible, such as large companies (Turban & Keon, 1993). Managing employees with low self-esteem may be challenging at times, because negative feedback given with the intention to improve performance may be viewed as a judgment on their worth as an employee. Therefore, effectively managing employees with relatively low self-esteem requires tact and providing lots of positive feedback when discussing performance incidents.

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is a belief that one can perform a specific task successfully. Research shows that the belief that we can do something is a good predictor of whether we can actually do it. Self-efficacy is different from other personality traits in that it is job specific. You may have high self-efficacy in being successful academically, but low self-efficacy in relation to your ability to fix your car. At the same time, people have a certain level of generalized self-efficacy and they have the belief that whatever task or hobby they tackle, they are likely to be successful in it.

Research shows that self-efficacy at work is related to job performance (Bauer et al., 2007; Judge et al., 2007; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). This relationship is probably a result of people with high self-efficacy setting higher goals for themselves and being more committed to these goals, whereas people with low self-efficacy tend to procrastinate (Phillips & Gully, 1997; Steel, 2007; Wofford, Goodwin, & Premack, 1992). Academic self-efficacy is a good predictor of your GPA, whether you persist in your studies, or drop out of college (Robbins et al., 2004).

Is there a way of increasing employees’ self-efficacy? Hiring people who are capable of performing their tasks and training people to increase their self-efficacy may be effective. Some people may also respond well to verbal encouragement. By showing that you believe they can be successful and effectively playing the role of a cheerleader, you may be able to increase self-efficacy. Giving people opportunities to test their skills so that they can see what they are capable of doing (or empowering them) is also a good way of increasing self-efficacy (Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005).

OB Toolbox: Ways to Build Your Self-Confidence

Having high self-efficacy and self-esteem are boons to your career. People who have an overall positive view of themselves and those who have positive attitudes toward their abilities project an aura of confidence. How do you achieve higher self-confidence?

• Take a self-inventory . What are the areas in which you lack confidence? Then consciously tackle these areas. Take part in training programs; seek opportunities to practice these skills. Confront your fears head-on.
• Set manageable goals . Success in challenging goals will breed self-confidence, but do not make your goals impossible to reach. If a task seems daunting, break it apart and set mini goals.
• Find a mentor . A mentor can point out areas in need of improvement, provide accurate feedback, and point to ways of improving yourself.
• Don’t judge yourself by your failures . Everyone fails, and the most successful people have more failures in life. Instead of assessing your self-worth by your failures, learn from mistakes and move on.
• Until you can feel confident, be sure to act confident . Acting confident will influence how others treat you, which will boost your confidence level. Pay attention to how you talk and behave, and act like someone who has high confidence.
• Know when to ignore negative advice . If you receive negative feedback from someone who is usually negative, try to ignore it. Surrounding yourself with naysayers is not good for your self-esteem. This does not mean that you should ignore all negative feedback, but be sure to look at a person’s overall attitude before making serious judgments based on that feedback.

Sources: Adapted from information in Beagrie, S. (2006, September 26). How to…build up self confidence. Personnel Today , p. 31; Beste, F. J., III. (2007, November–December). Are you an entrepreneur? In Business , 29 (6), 22; Goldsmith, B. (2006, October). Building self confidence. PA Times, Education Supplement , p. 30; Kennett, M. (2006, October). The scale of confidence. Management Today , p. 40–45; Parachin, V. M. (March 2003, October). Developing dynamic self-confidence. Supervision , 64 (3), 13–15.

Locus of Control

Locus of control deals with the degree to which people feel accountable for their own behaviors. Individuals with high internal locus of control believe that they control their own destiny and what happens to them is their own doing, while those with high external locus of control feel that things happen to them because of other people, luck, or a powerful being. Internals feel greater control over their own lives and therefore they act in ways that will increase their chances of success. For example, they take the initiative to start mentor-protégé relationships. They are more involved with their jobs. They demonstrate higher levels of motivation and have more positive experiences at work (Ng, Soresen, & Eby, 2006; Reitz & Jewell, 1979; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). Interestingly, internal locus is also related to one’s subjective well-being and happiness in life, while being high in external locus is related to a higher rate of depression (Benassi, Sweeney, & Dufour, 1988; DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). The connection between internal locus of control and health is interesting, but perhaps not surprising. In fact, one study showed that having internal locus of control at the age of 10 was related to a number of health outcomes, such as lower obesity and lower blood pressure later in life (Gale, Batty, & Deary, 2008). It is possible that internals take more responsibility for their health and adopt healthier habits, while externals may see less of a connection between how they live and their health. Internals thrive in contexts in which they have the ability to influence their own behavior. Successful entrepreneurs tend to have high levels of internal locus of control (Certo & Certo, 2005).

Understand Your Locus of Control by Taking a Survey at the Following Web Site:

http://discoveryhealth.queendom.com/questions/lc_short_1.html

Personality Testing in Employee Selection

Personality is a potentially important predictor of work behavior. Matching people to jobs matters, because when people do not fit with their jobs or the company, they are more likely to leave, costing companies as much as a person’s annual salary to replace them. In job interviews, companies try to assess a candidate’s personality and the potential for a good match, but interviews are only as good as the people conducting them. In fact, interviewers are not particularly good at detecting the best trait that predicts performance: conscientiousness (Barrick, Patton, & Haugland, 2000). One method some companies use to improve this match and detect the people who are potentially good job candidates is personality testing. Companies such as Kronos and Hogan Assessment Systems conduct preemployment personality tests. Companies using them believe that these tests improve the effectiveness of their selection and reduce turnover. For example, Overnight Transportation in Atlanta found that using such tests reduced their on-the-job delinquency by 50%–100% (Emmet, 2004; Gale, 2002).

Yet, are these methods good ways of selecting employees? Experts have not yet reached an agreement on this subject and the topic is highly controversial. Some experts believe, based on data, that personality tests predict performance and other important criteria such as job satisfaction. However, we must understand that how a personality test is used influences its validity. Imagine filling out a personality test in class. You may be more likely to fill it out as honestly as you can. Then, if your instructor correlates your personality scores with your class performance, we could say that the correlation is meaningful. In employee selection, one complicating factor is that people filling out the survey do not have a strong incentive to be honest. In fact, they have a greater incentive to guess what the job requires and answer the questions to match what they think the company is looking for. As a result, the rankings of the candidates who take the test may be affected by their ability to fake. Some experts believe that this is a serious problem (Morgeson et al., 2007; Morgeson et al., 2007). Others point out that even with faking , the tests remain valid—the scores are still related to job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1996; Ones et al., 2007; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996; Tell & Christiansen, 2007). It is even possible that the ability to fake is related to a personality trait that increases success at work, such as social monitoring. This issue raises potential questions regarding whether personality tests are the most effective way of measuring candidate personality.

Scores are not only distorted because of some candidates faking better than others. Do we even know our own personality? Are we the best person to ask this question? How supervisors, coworkers, and customers see our personality matters more than how we see ourselves. Therefore, using self-report measures of performance may not be the best way of measuring someone’s personality (Mount, Barrick, & Strauss, 1994). We all have blind areas. We may also give “aspirational” answers. If you are asked if you are honest, you may think, “Yes, I always have the intention to be honest.” This response says nothing about your actual level of honesty.

There is another problem with using these tests: How good a predictor of performance is personality anyway? Based on research, not a particularly strong one. According to one estimate, personality only explains about 10%–15% of variation in job performance. Our performance at work depends on so many factors, and personality does not seem to be the key factor for performance. In fact, cognitive ability (your overall mental intelligence) is a much more powerful influence on job performance, and instead of personality tests, cognitive ability tests may do a better job of predicting who will be good performers. Personality is a better predictor of job satisfaction and other attitudes, but screening people out on the assumption that they may be unhappy at work is a challenging argument to make in the context of employee selection.

In any case, if you decide to use these tests for selection, you need to be aware of their limitations. Relying only on personality tests for selection of an employee is a bad idea, but if they are used together with other tests such as tests of cognitive abilities, better decisions may be made. The company should ensure that the test fits the job and actually predicts performance. This process is called validating the test. Before giving the test to applicants, the company could give it to existing employees to find out the traits that are most important for success in the particular company and job. Then, in the selection context, the company can pay particular attention to those traits. The company should also make sure that the test does not discriminate against people on the basis of sex, race, age, disabilities, and other legally protected characteristics. Rent-A-Center experienced legal difficulties when the test they used was found to be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The test they used for selection, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, was developed to diagnose severe mental illnesses and included items such as “I see things or people around me others do not see.” In effect, the test served the purpose of a clinical evaluation and was discriminating against people with mental illnesses, which is a protected category under ADA (Heller, 2005).

Key Takeaway

Values and personality traits are two dimensions on which people differ. Values are stable life goals. When seeking jobs, employees are more likely to accept a job that provides opportunities for value attainment, and they are more likely to remain in situations that satisfy their values. Personality comprises the stable feelings, thoughts, and behavioral patterns people have. The Big Five personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) are important traits that seem to be stable and can be generalized to other cultures. Other important traits for work behavior include self-efficacy, self-esteem, social monitoring, proactive personality, positive and negative affectivity, and locus of control. It is important to remember that a person’s behavior depends on the match between the person and the situation. While personality is a strong influence on job attitudes, its relation to job performance is weaker. Some companies use personality testing to screen out candidates. This method has certain limitations, and companies using personality tests are advised to validate their tests and use them as a supplement to other techniques that have greater validity.

• Think about the personality traits covered in this section. Can you think of jobs or occupations that seem particularly suited to each trait? Which traits would be universally desirable across all jobs?
• What are the unique challenges of managing employees who have low self-efficacy and low self-esteem? How would you deal with this situation?
• What are some methods that companies can use to assess employee personality?
• Have you ever held a job where your personality did not match the demands of the job? How did you react to this situation? How were your attitudes and behaviors affected?
• Can you think of any limitations of developing an “ideal employee” profile and looking for employees who fit that profile while hiring?

Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 , 945–955.

Anderson, C., & Thompson, L. L. (2004). Affect from the top down: How powerful individuals’ positive affect shapes negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 95 , 125–139.

Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 963–970.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 78 , 111–118.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology , 44 , 1–26.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology , 81 , 261–272.

Barrick, M. R., Patton, G. K., & Haugland, S. N. (2000). Accuracy of interviewer judgments of job applicant personality traits. Personnel Psychology , 53 , 925–951.

Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 , 707–721.

Bauer, T. N., Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Wayne, S. J. (2006). A longitudinal study of the moderating role of extraversion: Leader-member exchange, performance, and turnover during new executive development. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 298–310.

Benassi, V. A., Sweeney, P. D., & Dufour, C. L. (1988). Is there a relation between locus of control orientation and depression? Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 97 , 357–367.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 , 901–910.

Brown, D. J., Cober, R. T., Kane, K., Levy, P. E., & Shalhoop, J. (2006). Proactive personality and the successful job search: A field investigation with college graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 717–726.

Caldwell, D. F., & Burger, J. M. (1998). Personality characteristics of job applicants and success in screening interviews. Personnel Psychology , 51 , 119–136.

Carlyn, M. (1977). An assessment of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment , 41 , 461–473.

Certo, S. T., & Certo, S. C. (2005). Spotlight on entrepreneurship. Business Horizons , 48 , 271–274.

Chan, D. (2006). Interactive effects of situational judgment effectiveness and proactive personality on work perceptions and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 475–481.

Crant, M. J. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology , 80 , 532–537.

Day, D. V., & Schleicher, D. J. Self-monitoring at work: A motive-based perspective. Journal of Personality , 74, 685-714.

Day, D. V., Schleicher, D. J., Unckless, A. L., & Hiller, N. J. (2002). Self-monitoring personality at work: A meta-analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 , 390–401.

DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin , 124 , 197–229.

Dunn, W. S., Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Relative importance of personality and general mental ability in managers’ judgments of applicant qualifications. Journal of Applied Psychology , 80 , 500–509.

Emmett, A. (2004). Snake oil or science? That’s the raging debate on personality testing. Workforce Management , 83 , 90–92.

Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2005). Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive personality: The role of fit with jobs and organizations. Personnel Psychology , 58 , 859–891.

Gale, C. R., Batty, G. D., & Deary, I. J. (2008). Locus of control at age 10 years and health outcomes and behaviors at age 30 years: The 1970 British Cohort Study. Psychosomatic Medicine , 70 , 397–403.

Gale, S. F. (2002). Three companies cut turnover with tests. Workforce , 81 (4), 66–69.

George, J. M. (1989). Mood and absence. Journal of Applied Psychology , 74 , 317–324.

George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1996). The experience of work and turnover intentions: Interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood. Journal of Applied Psychology , 81 , 318–325.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology , 59 , 1216–1229.

Heller, M. (2005). Court ruling that employer’s integrity test violated ADA could open door to litigation. Workforce Management , 84 (9), 74–77.

Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). On the heritability of job satisfaction: The mediating role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 , 750–759

Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal , 49 , 561–575.

Jawahar, I. M. (2001). Attitudes, self-monitoring, and appraisal behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , 875–883.

Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology , 77 , 261–271.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self esteem, generalized self efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , 80–92.

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 , 530–541.

Judge, T. A., & Higgins, C. A. (1999). The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology , 52 , 621–652.

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87, 797–807.

Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 , 107–127.

Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. (1997). Five-factor model of personality and employee absence. Journal of Applied Psychology , 82 , 745–755.

Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping the organizational entry process: Disentangling multiple antecedents and their pathways to adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 , 779–794.

Kasser, T., Koestner, R., & Lekes, N. (2002). Early family experiences and adult values: A 26-year prospective longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 28 , 826–835.

Kilduff, M., & Day, D. V. (1994). Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring on managerial careers. Academy of Management Journal , 37 , 1047–1060.

Klein, K. J., Beng-Chong, L., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal , 47 , 952–963.

Leonard, D., & Straus, S. (1997). Identifying how we think: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument. Harvard Business Review , 75 (4), 114–115.

LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and postchange performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 , 27–39.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , 326–336.

Lievens, F., Harris, M. M., Van Keer, E., & Bisqueret, C. (2003). Predicting cross-cultural training performance: The validity of personality, cognitive ability, and dimensions measured by an assessment center and a behavior description interview. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 , 476–489.

Lusk, E. J., & Oliver, B. L. (1974). Research Notes. American manager’s personal value systems-revisited. Academy of Management Journal , 17 (3), 549–554.

Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the Big Five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 927–935.

Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B., & Goldstein, H. (2007). The precursors and products of justice climates: Group leader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences. Personnel Psychology , 60 , 929–963.

Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly , 46 , 121–146.

Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Are we getting fooled again? Coming to terms with limitations in the use of personality tests for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology , 60 , 1029–1049.

Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology , 60 , 683–729.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, J. P. (1994). Validity of observer ratings of the Big Five personality factors. Journal of Applied Psychology , 79 , 272–280.

Myers, I. B. (1962). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Ng, T. W. H., Soresen, K. L., & Eby, L. T. (2006). Locus of control at work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 27 , 1057–1087.

Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology , 60 , 995–1027.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection. Journal of Applied Psychology , 81 , 660–679.

Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology , 82 , 792–802.

Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1987). Effect of values on perception and decision making: A study of alternative work values measures. Journal of Applied Psychology , 72 , 666–673.

Reitz, H. J., & Jewell, L. N. (1979). Sex, locus of control, and job involvement: A six-country investigation. Academy of Management Journal , 22 , 72–80.

Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin , 130 , 261–288.

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin , 132 , 1–25.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values . New York: Free Press.

Seibert, S. E. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology , 84 , 416–427.

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, M. J. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology , 54 , 845–874.

Shuit, D. P. (2003). At 60, Myers-Briggs is still sorting out and identifying people’s types. Workforce Management , 82 (13), 72–74.

Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal , 42 , 100–108.

Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 23 , 363–382.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 30 , 526–537.

Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances/public realities: The psychology of self-monitoring . New York: Freeman.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin , 124 , 240–261.

Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly , 31 , 56–77.

Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin , 133 , 65–94.

Tay, C., Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2006). Personality, biographical characteristics, and job interview success: A longitudinal study of the mediating effects of interviewing self-efficacy and the moderating effects of internal locus of control. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 446–454.

Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2007). Personality tests at the crossroads: A response to Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt (2007). Personnel Psychology , 60 , 967–993.

Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 , 1011–1017.

Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Role of protégé personality in receipt of mentoring and career success. Academy of Management Journal , 37 , 688–702.

Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology , 78 , 184–193.

Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, M. C. (2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , 351–360.

Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., & Roth, P. L. (1998). A meta-analytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology , 83 , 586–597.

Wallace, C., & Chen, G. (2006). A multilevel integration of personality, climate, self-regulation, and performance. Personnel Psychology , 59 , 529–557.

Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process. Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 , 373–385.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin , 96 , 465–490.

Wofford, J. C., Goodwin, V. L., & Premack, S. (1992). Meta-analysis of the antecedents of personal goal level and of the antecedents and consequences of goal commitment. Journal of Management , 18 , 595–615.

Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 259–271.

Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions: A meta-analytic path model. Personnel Psychology , 61 , 309–348.

Organizational Behavior Copyright © 2017 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

5 Individual Differences: Challenging Our Assumptions

Ann Marie Ryan, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University.

Paul R. Sackett, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

• Published: 18 September 2012
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Organizational psychologists often make assumptions regarding the variability and stability of individual differences (e.g., ability, personality, interests). In this chapter, we discuss the evidence regarding interindividual variability in individual differences in workplace contexts, intraindividual stability in individual differences across adult working years, and intraindividual variability across attributes (e.g., variability across a profile of ability or personality characteristics). We highlight the ways in which mistaken assumptions may affect conclusions regarding the predictive and explanatory power of individual differences, and we provide suggestions for research to enhance understanding of the variability and stability of commonly assessed individual differences.

Individuals vary in ways that enable us to describe, predict, and understand their behavior and attitudes. Ackerman and Humphreys ( 1990 ) distinguished three varieties of individual differences: interindividual differences (differences between individuals), intraindividual differences in a given characteristic over time (e.g., trait stability), and intraindividual differences between attributes (e.g., profiles). They noted that examination of these individual differences is fundamental to many areas of organizational psychology: selection focuses on interindividual differences; training focuses on intraindividual differences over time; and classification, coaching and development of employees relates to intraindividual differences across attributes. In this chapter, we build upon their discussion of individual differences to point to progress and needed research.

We deliberately avoid a summary review of types of individual differences typically studied by organizational psychologists and their usefulness in predicting and understanding behavior—much has been written already to summarize this research. Our focus instead is on challenging the assumptions underlying approaches to research on individual differences in organizational settings. In this chapter, we argue that when researchers examine the role of individual differences such as abilities, personality traits, or interests in organizational psychology, they make assumptions regarding the variability and stability of those differences in the work context that are not always viable. Specifically, organizational psychology researchers often assume that there is interindividual variability in differences in a work setting when assessing the usefulness of those differences for prediction or for explanation, without questioning that assumption. Second, researchers assume that the differences examined are relatively stable over time and situations within individuals, without any evidence regarding the tenability of that assumption. Third, assumptions that are made regarding covariability, or lack thereof, of individual differences in specific contexts also should be examined. Our aim in this chapter is to call the reader's attention to these assumptions and to push researchers and practitioners to question them each time that conclusions are made about the predictive or explanatory value of individual differences in a domain of study. That is, before generic statements are made that “characteristic X” would or would not be useful in selection, should be considered or can be ignored in training program design, contributes or does not contribute to leader or team effectiveness, or detracts from or contributes to the usefulness of workplace motivational interventions, responsible organizational psychologists should address the viability of these assumptions in the particular context under study.

In this chapter, we will review literature on whether there is support for assumptions of interindividual variability, intraindividual stability over time, intraindividual stability over situations, and intraindividual differences across characteristics. We will discuss the ways that these assumptions are typically addressed in organizational psychology, and we conclude with a research agenda regarding what we see as critical areas for advancing our understanding of the role of individual differences in the workplace.

Assumptions of Interindividual Variability

A fundamental assumption of differential psychology is that there is sufficient variability across people in a given individual difference variable to be of potential interest in predicting and understanding behavior. That is, the traditional focus of differential psychology is differences among persons (Nesselroade, 2002 ). One concern in research on individual differences in the workplace is that we do not always investigate or clearly specify the extent of variability of an attribute with respect to a population of interest. That is, we can point to examples in which researchers and practitioners have assumed greater between-individual variability than is present, as well as cases in which erroneous assumptions with regard to range restriction led to mistaken conclusions about the explanatory power of an individual difference.

As a primary example, there has been considerable debate over time in the extensiveness of range restriction in selected applicant and incumbent samples on individual differences relative to the general population (for a recent debate example, see Schmidt, Le, Oh, & Shaffer, 2007 ; Schmitt, 2007 ). The general question is: To what extent are those working or applying to work at an organization less variable in a particular individual difference than the general working population? The answer to this question affects our conclusions regarding the value of individual differences in explaining behavior and attitudes at work. As another example of the importance of careful consideration of range restriction, typical effect sizes found for dichotomous moderators are quite small (Aguinis, Beaty, Boik, & Pierce, 2005 ). While most individual differences are continuous variables, some have suggested that range restriction is the reason that there is often a failure to find strong effects for hypothesized moderators (Schneider, 2001 ). Knowing the extent of range restriction operating in a given context has consequences for interpreting the accuracy of effect sizes for individual difference moderators.

We want to emphasize that there are two major reasons that the people who join an organization may be more homogeneous than the workforce as a whole. The first is decisions by individuals, such as whether to enter a given occupation or to apply for a given job; the second is decisions by organizations, such as the imposition of test cutoffs that must be exceeded as a prerequisite to organizational entry. Both restrict the range of individuals found within a given organization. We return to this distinction after discussing three streams of research, which are pertinent to the question of how much interindividual variability exists in the workplace, on key individual difference constructs: the gravitational hypothesis, the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model, and range restriction corrections in selection contexts.

First, there is research showing that there is some gravitation toward certain jobs of individuals with certain interests and skills, and therefore less variability in those aspects among jobholders than in the general population (Furnham, 2001 ). Wilk, Desmarais, and Sackett ( 1995 ) found support for this hypothesis in that those whose cognitive ability was greater than the cognitive complexity of their current job tended to move into jobs with higher cognitive requirements, while those whose ability was lower than the cognitive complexity of their current job tended to move to jobs requiring less cognitive ability over a five-year period. They also found that longer tenure groups were more homogenous in cognitive ability than those with less experience, although differences were small. Wilk and Sackett ( 1996 ) extended this work with a longitudinal study.

With regard to gravitation and interests, there is considerable research to suggest that interests affect occupational choice. Indeed, Holland's ( 1997 ) popular vocational model (RIASEC) is based on the existence of mean differences in interests across occupations. However, the amount of resulting restriction in levels of interest within occupational groupings is less well documented. Further, Laing, Swaney, and Prediger ( 1984 ) noted that across many studies, expressed choice is a better predictor of occupation than measured interests, presumably because one's choice of career is based on factors beyond interests, such as abilities, job availability, and social influences. This suggests that variability in interests within occupation may still be substantial. Finally, Deng, Armstrong, and Rounds ( 2007 ) noted that the restriction in the occupations that were used to develop Holland's ( 1997 ) model (e.g., less variability in prestige than is present in the U.S. workforce) may have led to a limited view of the structure of interests. Studies of the role of interests in the workplace may be less informative if there is restriction in the occupations included. In sum, research on gravitation suggests that there is less interindividual variability in ability and interests within occupations relative to the general working population.

Second, Schneider's ( 1987 ) ASA theory suggests that over time, homogeneity in personality characteristics occurs in organizations because of the attraction of people possessing certain characteristics, the selection of people possessing those characteristics, and the attrition of those who do not fit. Several studies have found evidence of organizational mean differences in the personality characteristics of managers (Schaubroeck, Ganster, & Jones, 1998 ; Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor, 1998 ). Schneider, Goldstein, and Smith ( 1995 ) summarized evidence of personality homogeneity in organizations and concluded that indirect research on person-environment fit (e.g., Judge & Bretz, 1992 ), lab studies of paper organizations (e.g., Turban & Keon, 1993 ), and a few field studies (e.g., Jordan, Herriott, & Chalmers, 1991 ) suggested support for the ASA model, although the extent of variability reduction is unclear.

Further, when looking at how a construct manifests itself at different levels (such as personality at the individual and organizational unit level), one needs to clarify what type of emergence leads to the higher level variable (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000 ). Ployhart, Weekley, and Baughman ( 2006 ) clarified that the ASA model of personality emergence suggests a consensus model , or similarity within units, as represented by the mean level of personality of a unit. That is, personality of a unit is defined as the mean level of a characteristic in that unit. This has been the focus of previous ASA research (Jordan et al., 1991 ; Schaubroeck et al., 1998 ; Schneider et al., 1998 ). However, there are other aspects of personality clustering that should be considered. Ployhart et al. ( 2006 ) note that one can also look at a compilation model and examine the variance in a unit rather than or in addition to looking at consensus. They suggest that this conceptualization of homogeneity would be more meaningful in understanding the positive and negative consequences of homogeneity over time than the examination of mean differences, as is typically undertaken. Also, Ployhart et al. ( 2006 ) found that these ASA processes operate in a hierarchical manner such that effects are stronger at the job than the organizational level. Indeed, Satterwhite, Fleenor, Braddy, Feldman, and Hoopes ( 2009 ) found incumbents to be more similar within occupations than within organizations. Similarly, Schaubroeck et al. ( 1998 ) noted the importance of distinguishing levels, as their findings suggested that attraction and selection effects at the occupational level may compensate or may be in opposition to effects at the organizational level.

In sum then, there is some research evidence, albeit primarily indirect, to suggest mean differences in personality levels across organizations, and this is often taken as evidence of less personality variability within organizations than in the general working population. However, the variance in personality of units is typically not explicitly examined, the size of effects is unclear, and careful attention has not been given to effects at different levels (i.e., restriction at organizational and occupational levels).

The need to consider levels at which restriction occurs can also be seen in work on individual differences and teams. While range restriction of individual differences at the team level has not been a focus of research, the variability and level of individual differences in groups has been linked to group effectiveness. For example, teams with higher levels of cognitive ability adapt to unforeseen change better (LePine, 2003 , 2005 ), learn more (Ellis et al., 2003 ), and perform better (LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, & Hedlund, 1997 ). A meta-analysis found that teams with higher levels of and less variability in agreeableness and conscientiousness perform better (Peeters, Van Tuijl, Rutte, & Reymen, 2006 ). For example, Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, and Mount ( 1998 ) found that the score of the team member lowest on conscientiousness and agreeableness was related to team performance. Thus, there is research to suggest that restrictions in individual difference variability are related to team effectiveness; whether teams that are more variable become poorer performers and are thus less likely to continue to exist (i.e., poor performing teams disband, are reconstituted, etc.) is unclear.

The third research stream that sheds light on how much interindividual variability there is in the workplace is on range restriction corrections when estimating the validity of various individual difference measures in selection contexts. Sackett and Yang ( 2000 ) noted that because range restriction can result in major differences between population and restricted sample correlations, it is imperative that attention be paid to the appropriate use of corrections. For example, Schmidt, Oh, and Le ( 2006 ) demonstrated that correcting for direct range restriction when indirect restriction is occurring (i.e., on another individual difference) has led to underestimates of relationships in many areas.

While this research clearly demonstrates that one would be remiss to ignore range restriction, other research shows that intuitive assumptions regarding the levels of range restriction typically occurring due to self-selection may be off base. For example, Sackett and Ostgaard ( 1994 ) noted that while many believe applicant pools for particular jobs are less variable in ability than the workforce as a whole due to the gravitation hypothesis and ASA processes, differences between occupation-specific applicant pools and national samples are not particularly large. They found that standard deviations for ability tests were 3% smaller for occupation-specific pools than national norms and 10% smaller for jobs of greater complexity. These findings suggest that assumptions regarding less interindividual variability in cognitive ability among applicants than among the population as a whole are correct but should be tempered.

Similar concerns have been raised regarding whether the level of range restriction that occurs for personality measures is less than the level that traditionally has been assumed to occur when comparing applicant-specific pools versus population norms (e.g., Anderson & Ones, 2003 ). While Ones and Viswesvaran ( 2003 ) did find that job-specific applicant pools were less variable than population norms would suggest (from 2–9% less, depending on the dimension examined), they also concluded that job applicant pools are not drastically homogeneous.

Sackett and Ostgaard ( 1994 ) did note that there may be situations that do have greater range restriction, a point illustrated by Kuncel and Klieger ( 2007 ), who found school-specific applicant standard deviations to be 23% smaller than population estimates in a law school admissions context where scores and acceptance rates are known by individuals prior to application. Hence, our understanding of likely levels of interindividual variability needs to be informed by frameworks of what factors lead to range restriction and assessment of their operation in specific contexts.

Returning to our earlier point about reductions in interindividual variability due to both self-selection and organizational selection, we offer the general proposition that while self-selection clearly does take place (e.g., gravitational processes), the evidence reviewed above shows that the reduction in variance on individual difference measures due to these processes is relatively modest. In contrast, organizational selection has the potential to reduce variance far more substantially. An organization with a large applicant pool and a very favorable selection ratio could screen in, say, the top 1% on some individual difference measure, thus effectively reducing variance on that characteristic to near zero. We are not persuaded that self-selection processes reduce variability on individual difference variables of interest to an extent that negates the value of using individual difference variables in selection systems.

In addition, while organizational selection on variables correlated with individual differences does reduce variance on the individual difference measure, we believe that it is common to overestimate the degree of this reduction. For example, it is not uncommon to hear assertions that since a college degree is a requirement for job, that requirement restricts the range of cognitive ability to such an extent that there is no value in attempting to further screen using ability. Berry, Gruys, and Sackett ( 2006 ) document a correlation of .63 between cognitive ability and educational attainment in a nationally representative sample: using the formula for the standard error of estimate in using educational attainment to estimate ability, we find that in z-score terms an ability SD of 1.0 in an unscreened sample would be reduced to .78 in a sample screened on educational attainment. Substantial ability variance clearly remains.

In sum, the study of individual differences in the workplace assumes that individuals differ. Entry into the workplace leads to restrictions in this variability. The research reviewed above indicates that there is reduced interindividual variability at several levels in occupations, in specific jobs, in organizations, and possibly in work groups relative to the general population in abilities and personality characteristics due to self-selection. However, it is also clear that these reductions in variability may not be large (Sackett & Ostgaard, 1994 ; Ones & Viswesvaran, 2003 ). Further, restrictions due to organizational selection processes could, in theory, be much more substantial, depending on selection ratios, tools used, and so on. Hence, correcting for range restriction in estimating the validity of individual difference predictors is essential. Many studies involving individual differences are not focused on the validity of predictors, take place outside selection contexts, and draw samples from a single organization or single job category. It is important that the effects of range restriction on the conclusions of these studies also be considered—in some cases, restrictions in interindividual variability may be negligible, but in others they may be quite substantial. Thus, assumptions regarding interindividual variability in individual differences should be tested rather than taken for granted.

Assumptions of Intraindividual Stability Over Time

A second assumption underlying individual difference research in the workplace is that there is some stability within people over time and across situations in their standing on the variable of interest. There are two kinds of differences that have received attention in assessing this assumption: intraindividual change , or trait changes over time due to processes such as maturation and learning (i.e., changing intraindividual mean), and intraindividual variability, or state variation , which relates to rapid and reversible changes around the intraindividual mean (Hamaker, Nesselroade, & Molenaar, 2006 ). We discuss the first in this section and the latter in the next.

While there has been considerable investigation of stability of individual differences from childhood to adulthood (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000 ; Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006 ), organizational psychologists are interested in stability over the prototypical working years (i.e., 16–65) and across prototypical work situations (i.e., not family or leisure settings). A historical interest in intraindividual change over time (e.g., Cattell, 1963 ) has been supplemented in recent decades by advancements in longitudinal modeling techniques, such as latent growth curve modeling and time series analyses, that allow for examining this stability (see Nesselroade, 2002 , for an overview).

Investigation of individual difference stability over time can take several forms (Lockenhoff et al., 2008 ). First, and most common, is examining rank-order consistency (test-retest reliability estimates). Second, changes in group mean levels over time can be examined. Third, some researchers have looked at ipsative stability or the consistency of an individual's trait profile over time. Fourth, measurement invariance over time may be examined. Finally, some researchers have created indices to examine individual-level stability (e.g., when there is no change at the group level but individuals are moving in different directions).

What do we know about the stability over time of individual differences? With regard to abilities , Ackerman and Humphreys ( 1990 ) summarized findings on training and learning and noted that while there is evidence of plasticity in lower order abilities (e.g., short term memory capacity, reading), there is also evidence of limitations in intraindividual changes in task performance that can be gained from training. During early working years, one might expect some changes in cognitive abilities; fluid intelligence appears to peak at about age 22 and crystallized intelligence at about age 36 (McArdle, Ferrer-Caja, Hamagami, & Woodcock, 2002 ). After that, research suggests relative stability in cognitive abilities until declines in some abilities in later adulthood (i.e., over 65; Caskie, Schaie, & Willis, 1999 ; Finkel, Reynolds, McArdle, Gatz, & Pedersen, 2003 ). However, domain-specific knowledge can increase into late adulthood (see Reeve & Hakel, 2000 , for a review). Also, research suggests increasing dispersion or within-person variability across cognitive tasks with advancing age (Hilborn, Strauss, Hultsch, & Hunter, 2009 ).

In sum, while cognitive abilities are relatively stable across one's working years, there should not be an assumption of no change over time. Increases in early adulthood and declines in later adulthood should be factored into our theories regarding cognitive ability and performance, as well as into our estimates of effects of various training and development interventions that presume a certain consistency in levels of cognitive ability.

With regard to personality , Blonigen, Carlson, Hicks, Krueger, and Iacono ( 2008 ) summarized and replicated the research that suggests there is moderate to strong rank-order stability from late adolescence across the lifespan for almost all personality traits (e.g., Donnellan, Conger, & Burzette, 2007 ; Roberts, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2001 ). There are also different individual-level change patterns such that those who are most mature in late adolescence show less change than those who are less well-adjusted ( Donnellan et al., 2007 ; Roberts et al., 2001 ). However, Roberts and Mroczek ( 2008 ) recently noted that there has been a reevaluation of statements regarding the level of stability of personality in adulthood, with researchers now concluding that personality continues to change throughout adulthood. In particular, individuals tend to increase in agreeableness, emotional stability, and conscientiousness from young adulthood to middle age, and show declines in openness in old age, with most change occurring between the ages of 20 and 40 (Roberts & Mroczek, 2008 ). Further, Jackson et al. ( 2009 ) showed that while studies suggest conscientiousness increases a full standard deviation from young adulthood through old age, these changes are not uniform across facets of conscientiousness (e.g., orderliness does not change, industriousness increases from young to middle adulthood only). They also demonstrated that self-reports of personality reflect changes in young adulthood that are not reflected in observer evaluations of personality until older age (i.e., people report that they have changed before others notice that they have changed).

Thus, for most working adults, we can expect that their standing on personality traits is likely to be stable, but there will be movement toward what is generally described as social maturity (Wood & Roberts, 2006 ). Further, some evidence exists that work experiences are associated with changes in personality (Roberts, 1997 ; Roberts, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2003 ) such that those experiencing more success and satisfaction in careers increase more in emotional stability and conscientiousness in young adulthood.

What are the implications of research on personality stability over time for understanding behavior and attitudes in the workplace? For one, we should investigate how early socialization and success experiences at work may lead toward positive changes in personality. For example, Jackson et al., ( 2009 ) suggest that increasing expectations in work and family roles in early adulthood lead one to realize that being impulsive and unreliable has costs in career and family roles. For those assessing personality in certain work contexts that involve large numbers of young adults (e.g., service jobs, campus recruitment studies), a consideration of both normative and individual changes may need to be better factored into our conclusions. We should consider what intraindividual stability findings mean for working across generational cohorts and how to foster the social maturity of young workers through appropriate developmental workplace experiences. Findings that work experiences influence personality trait levels suggest a shift from thinking of individual differences solely as predictors of work behavior, but also as outcomes of work experiences.

With regard to interests , Low, Yoon, Roberts, and Rounds ( 2005 ) noted that the widely held assumptions are that interests become stable between ages 25 and 30 and change very little thereafter. Supporting these assumptions, they found vocational interests to be highly stable past the college years, exhibiting even greater stability than personality from early adolescence until age 40. Hence, the assumption of intraindividual stability in interests over the working years is probably a safe one.

Before leaving our discussion of intraindividual stability, we would like to note how erroneous assumptions affect our interpretation of environment versus person changes. For example, researchers have examined and interpreted simplex patterns found in examining correlations of predictors with performance over time (Deadrick & Madigan, 1990 ; Farrell & McDaniel, 2001 ; Hulin, Henry, & Noon, 1990 ); that is, correlations decline as a function of temporal distance. The interpretation of these patterns is often that the job or the criterion is changing, but such findings can be reflective of changes in interindividual standing on individual differences due to intraindividual changes (Ackerman & Humphreys, 1990 ). One should provide evidence to back assumptions of personal stability, rather than assuming that change of relationships over time is a result only of a changing environment.

Also, Roberts and colleagues (Roberts & Caspi, 2003 ) have discussed how the environment relates to trait continuity. They note that there is an iterative process of greater fit as individuals select environments to fit their identity and change environments to suit one's preference (e.g., job crafting; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001 ). Thus, processes such as gravitation and ASA do not just affect interindividual variability in organizations; they also affect intraindividual stability (i.e., you don't need to change if the environment fits).

We also should note that beliefs regarding the stability and malleability of individual differences are themselves an individual difference. Dweck ( 1999 ) has established that some people implicitly hold entity theories, and see characteristics as relatively fixed traits, whereas others endorse an incremental theory and see characteristics as malleable through effort and education. Whether self-theories regarding malleability of personal attributes actually influence one's level of intraindividual stability is an interesting question, and there is some evidence to suggest this to be true (Dweck, 2008 ). Further, given that there is evidence that individuals can be taught to hold a more malleable theory and that reinforcement can also create such beliefs (Blackwell, Trzesniewski & Dweck, 2007 ; Mueller & Dweck, 1998 ), organizational psychologists should further consider how changing worker beliefs about the stability of individual differences may change their behavior at work. Interestingly, in terms of typical characteristics examined by organizational psychologists, Maurer and Lippstreu ( 2008 ) found that the general working population tended to believe that it is possible to change almost any knowledge, skill, or ability with effort (although experts were much less optimistic). They noted the downside to these optimistic beliefs regarding malleability (e.g., individuals’ pursuit of positions for which they are not qualified, on the assumption that they can develop qualities; support of workplace training with little evidence of effectiveness). Hence, individual beliefs regarding the stability of individual differences are as important to consider as actual levels of stability.

Assumptions of Intraindividual Stability Across Situations

Fleeson and Leicht ( 2006 ) summarize research that suggests that in the area of intraindividual personality differences, one typically finds that there is large within-person variability across situations (see also Mischel, 2004 ). The last decade has seen a strong interest in theories of intraindividual personality coherence (Shoda, Mischel, & Wright, 1994 ), or a focus on predicting intraindividual variability across situations (i.e., when a person shows conscientious behavior and when they do not). Fleeson's work on density distributions (Fleeson, 2001 ; Fleeson & Leicht, 2006 ; Fleeson, Malanos, & Achille, 2002 ) shows that intraindividual variability is a stable individual difference (see also Baird, Le, & Lucas, 2006 ).

For some specific individual differences, there has been considerable work investigating the situational contingencies that may explain variability within individuals. As one example, Crocker and Wolfe ( 2001 ) reviewed the large body of evidence regarding contingencies of self-esteem (i.e., what situational factors lead an individual to hold a more positive or negative view of self-worth; see also Kernis, 2005 ). They argued that behavior is more influenced by fluctuations in self-esteem than by one's typical level of trait self-esteem, so understanding how contingencies are acquired and how they change is critical to really understanding the effects of self-esteem. This argument can be extrapolated to many other individual differences of interest to organizational psychologists—understanding situational contingencies is a critical step in understanding the importance of individual differences at work.

We discuss two streams of workplace research that focus on this issue of cross-situational variability in manifestations of individual differences: research on frame-of-reference (FOR) effects in selection testing and research on situational moderators of individual difference to performance links.

With regard to the former, researchers and practitioners have examined how the contextualization of personality measures (i.e., to refer to work contexts) affects their psychometric properties and hence value in selection (Hunthausen, Truxillo, Bauer, & Hammer, 2003 ; Lievens, De Corte, & Schollaert, 2008 ; Robie, Schmit, Ryan, & Zickar, 2000 ; Schmit, Ryan, Stierwalt, & Powell, 1995 ). Lievens et al. ( 2008 ) noted that the contextualization of items results in reducing within-person inconsistency, not that use of a frame of reference reduces between-person variability. They advocate that using a frame of reference that is conceptually relevant to the criterion is key to increasing validity. While studies to date on FOR effects in testing mirror social psychology findings on personality variability across roles (e.g., work and family; Donahue & Harary, 1998 ; Wood & Roberts, 2006 ), variability across types of work settings has not been explored. That is, the research on FOR effects has not yet taken the next step of contextualizing personality assessments according to key psychological features of workplace situations (e.g., high v. low autonomy, cooperative v. competitive). Such measurement approaches would be premised on the work of Fleeson and others that shows individual differences in intraindividual variability across situations can be reliably assessed.

Second, researchers have considered how the situation moderates the link of individual differences to performance. The most well-established relation is that job complexity moderates the relationship of cognitive ability to performance (Hunter & Hunter, 1984 ). In terms of personality, Barrick and Mount ( 1993 ) found that trait-performance relationships are strongest in situations that provide high worker autonomy (see also Gellatly & Irving, 2001 ). Stewart and Barrick ( 2004 ) suggest that the cooperative or competitive nature of situations would be a potential key psychological feature of situations. Mount, Barrick, and Stewart ( 1998 ) found that whether situations were dyadic or involved groups and teamwork affected the relationship of personality traits to performance. Thus, while there has been study of situational features in relation to individual differences, the focus has largely been on how those affect the role of interindividual differences in the workplace, rather than on intraindividual differences across situations. Once again, the next evolution for assessment of personality as a predictor of workplace behavior is to build in consideration of situation.

The challenge suggested by both of these research areas is to determine key psychological features of work situations to examine. Research from a social-cognitive theory perspective (Shoda & Mischel, 1993 ; Shoda et al., 1994 ) has worked on identifying shared psychological features of situations to determine patterns of individual behavior. Hattrup and Jackson ( 1996 ) suggested considering information, task, and physical and social attributes of situations as starting points for conceptualization. Some of the situational features examined as moderators in the research noted above (autonomy, interdependence) may be important here as well.

Assumptions Regarding Intraindividual Differences

One last assumption regarding individual differences that we wish to note is the level of covariances among them and whether that is important in a given context. Schneider ( 1996 ) suggests that researchers seldom focus on profiles of attributes and tend to study one dimension at a time, rather than looking at configurations of individual differences. We can point to some solid research streams on the interrelationships of individual differences with an interindividual focus. For example, researchers have investigated the relationships of cognitive ability and personality, suggesting near zero correlations for conscientiousness and cognitive ability (Schmitt, Rogers, Chan, Sheppard, & Jennings, 1997 ), negative relations of ability to neuroticism, and positive relations of extraversion to abilities (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997 ). Research has focused on how interest types relate to personality traits (e.g., Barrick, Mount, & Gupta, 2003 ; Mount, Barrick, Scullen, & Rounds, 2005 ) and to cognitive ability (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997 ) and their incremental validity in predicting work-related outcomes (e.g., deFruyt & Mervielde, 1999 ).

However, Schneider's ( 1996 ) point is that we need to consider interactive effects and profiles of differences. For example, researchers have looked at the interactive effects of conscientiousness and cognitive ability (Mount, Barrick, & Strauss, 1999 ) and of conscientiousness and agreeableness (Witt, Burke, Barrick, & Mount, 2002 ). Ackerman and Heggestad ( 1997 ) found several trait complexes (i.e., combinations of ability, personality, and interest characteristics) emerging from their meta-analysis and suggest that greater consideration of individual differences in tandem occur.

Assumptions regarding interindividual variability have sometimes led to erroneous conclusions regarding intraindividual variability across traits and abilities. For example, Berry, Sackett, and Landers ( 2007 ) demonstrated that more accurate considerations of range restriction led to different conclusions regarding the magnitude of relationships between interview scores and cognitive ability test scores. While interviews may measure many different things, one can extrapolate from their work that our conclusions about the intercorrelations of traits are affected by whether we are making correct assumptions about interindividual variability. Further, faulty assumptions regarding covariance levels for traits and abilities can lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the predictive value of individual differences. Sackett, Lievens, Berry, and Landers ( 2007 ) demonstrated that when examining intercorrelations of individual differences, indirect range restriction can be important and that underestimates of intercorrelations can lead to overestimates of relations to outcomes.

Understanding how individual differences covary should not be limited to just the individual level. Examining the configuration of traits in an organization can be important from an ASA perspective. Schaubroeck et al. ( 1998 ) argue that organizations may become more homogeneous on certain traits through ASA processes while remaining diverse on others. That is, the configurations at the organizational level may change.

Further, Hamaker et al. ( 2006 ) noted that relationships between variables may differ at the intradividual and interindividual level. That is, the way in which states covary within a person may not be the same as the way in which traits covary in the population. They note that relationships can have local homogeneity or identical relationships at both these levels, or they can differ between the intraindividual and interindividual level, exhibiting local heterogeneity. Testing these assumptions is important in order to ensure that inappropriate inferences are not made.

Table 5.1 provides a summary of the issues we have raised regarding assumptions of the stability and variability of individual differences, our conclusions regarding the state of organizational psychology literature with regard to these assumptions, and our recommendations for researchers and practitioners regarding better consideration of these assumptions.

Other Critiques of the Individual Difference Tradition in Organizational Psychology

Consideration of individual differences has been part of I/O psychology from its inception, as one can point to the work of Hugo Munsterberg, Louis Thurstone, Walter Bingham, and the U.S. Army in considering individual differences in the selection of employees in the early 1900s (Zickar & Gibby, 2007 ). Early leadership research focused on individual differences as predictors of leader emergence and effectiveness (Stogdill, 1948 ). Indeed, differential psychology, which holds as its premise that individual variation is not error but a focal point of study, is considered a core influence on the development of I/O psychology (Zickar & Gibby, 2007 ). In 1996, Murphy edited a volume that summarized decades of workplace research in four individual difference domains: cognitive ability, personality, values and interests, and affect. Despite this long-standing role for individual differences, the field has been self-critical regarding their treatment, and we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge these concerns as well: amount and nature of focus on taxonomies of individual differences, minimization of environmental effects, and focus on individual level and ignorance of higher level constructs.

Lack of Taxonomies

One criticism is that there is a lack of careful attention to the taxonomic structure of individual difference variables and the confounding of constructs into heterogeneous categories (Hough, 2001 ; Hough & Schneider, 1996 ; Smith & Schneider, 2004 ). There has been a focus on general categories (e.g., conscientiousness) and a tendency to consider distinct facets (e.g., achievement orientation, order) as interchangeable. While this criticism has largely been directed toward personality-related research, the dismissal of the role of specific abilities in the workplace has also been noted (Mount, Oh, & Burns, 2008 ). It is interesting to note the difference in the pattern of findings in the ability domain versus the personality domain. In the ability domain, the issue tends to be framed in terms of the increment in criterion-related validity of specific abilities over general cognitive ability, with a general finding of quite small increments. In the personality domain, recent work has shifted focus from the broad dimension level to the facet level, with clear evidence that facets are not interchangeable. Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, and Cortina ( 2006 ) illustrate this in the domain of conscientiousness. While overall conscientiousness measures typically reflect some combination of the subfacets of achievement, dependability, order, and cautiousness, these authors show that the power of conscientiousness for predicting job performance and other criteria is driven largely by two of these four facets, namely, achievement and dependability. This illustrates the continuing tension between the parsimony offered by the use of broad measures and the value of understanding the role of various subfacets of broad individual differences. Clearly, an inference that the validity findings obtained using broad conscientiousness measures can be generalized to measures of single facets is misguided, and consideration should be given to the appropriateness of the specificity level for the question at hand.

With this caution in mind, there are disadvantages in placing too strong a focus on the taxonomic structure of individual differences. While a description of basic tendencies is certainly useful for developing theories of individual differences, it is insufficient by itself. Cervone ( 2005 ) noted that a classification construct (such as a “Big Five” personality trait) describes but does not necessarily explain. For organizational psychology, a focus on the predictive capacity of individual differences sometimes leads to a lack of sufficient attention to theory-building to explain why those relationships occur (Hattrup & Jackson, 1996 ). Indeed, one of Mischel's ( 1973 ) original critiques of personality psychology was that simply describing a taxonomy of between-person differences does not allow for an understanding of behavior because it does not connect those individual differences to the basic cognitive and affective processes underlying behavior. In thinking about workplace behavior, the challenge is the same—how do those oft-studied individual differences that we examine in predicting behavior at work enable us to explain behavior at work? That said, we also do not want to devalue the clear applied usefulness of information about predictive relationships, even if we lack clear understanding of the conceptual basis for these empirical relationships. Understanding individual behavior in organization and applied prediction are two distinct issues, and it would be a mistake to discount consistent evidence of predictive relationships just because a clear understanding of the conceptual underpinnings of these relationships is not yet fully developed.

De-emphasis of Environmental Factors

Schneider ( 2001 ) notes that the focus on individual differences leads to seeing environmental variables as moderators of person-outcome relations, but that an interaction goes both ways in that the individual differences moderate the relation between environmental attributes and outcomes. For example, cognitive ability and personality characteristics predict performance, but those relationships are enhanced by job autonomy (Barrick & Mount, 1993 ; Morgeson, Delaney-Klinger, & Hemingway, 2005 ). Whereas the typical recommendations for enhancing performance from an individual difference perspective are to select for high levels of those characteristics, one could also take the levels of individual differences in a population as a given and focus instead on designing jobs with the best levels of autonomy for that population. Thus, the question is whether the adopters of an individual difference perspective focus too narrowly in drawing implications and making suggestions for practice.

Inattention to Higher Level Constructs

Another point raised by Schneider ( 2001 ) is that an individual difference focus may lead to a tendency to focus on individual level outcomes (e.g., performance, satisfaction). Yet, environmental and higher level outcomes may also be affected by individual differences in terms of aggregates of those characteristics. Our sense is that there has been a substantial shift in our field's research emphasis, with a long tradition of studying outcomes at the individual level now augmented by a substantial body of work that shifts the unit of analysis to higher levels. Also, a growing trend is the use of individual difference variables as the bases for new constructs at higher levels of analyses, such as attempts to create group-level indices of ability or personality (e.g., Barrick et al., 1998 ; LePine, 2003 , 2005 ; Mohammed & Angell, 2003 ), raising intriguing issues about alternate ways of characterizing aggregates (e.g., groups) in terms of individual differences. Alternatives include the mean level of the variable in the group, the variance within the group, the highest level found in the group, and the lowest level found in the group, among others. Theoretical and empirical work is emerging to examine the conditions under which each is appropriate. As these new variables exist at the aggregate level, they are not, of course, individual difference variables per se. Nonetheless, they are composed of individual difference variables and are, we believe, appropriately included in discussions of the role of individual differences in organizational settings.

Research Directions

While we can think of a multitude of research questions on specific individual difference variables and their role in theories of workplace behavior and work attitudes, there are several “big picture” issues that we see as important directions for further research.

First, as noted throughout the chapter, there is a need for better estimates of interindividual variability and intraindividual stability over time and situations for key individual difference variables. This research needs to be conducted at multiple levels of analysis (e.g., for interindividual variability at the job, work group, organizational, and occupational levels) and cumulative effects across levels need to be better understood. It needs to inform our understanding of covariances among individual differences at different levels as well. Accomplishing this calls for: (a) large-scale, longitudinal efforts whereby individual difference measures are collected pre-employment and at multiple intervals throughout an individual's working life; (b) multi-organizational data collections to examine individual difference variability within occupations, organizations, and other levels of aggregation; and (c) within-individual, over time examinations of intraindividual stability, such as event sampling studies. All of these are high-investment research efforts requiring considerable collaborative relationships and funding resources, which may explain why they are not undertaken. However, we can visualize the rich contributions to knowledge that might come from such undertakings, and encourage their pursuit.

Second, a better understanding of key psychological features of situations is needed. While Fleeson ( 2007 ) has looked at the task orientation, friendliness, and anonymity of a situation as key to intraindividual variability patterns, research specifically focused on features most relevant to the workplace is needed. For example, Ten Berge and De Raad ( 1999 ) reviewed nine different taxonomies of situations that could be considered in determining such features/dimensions (e.g., autonomous, rewarding, ambiguous, competitive). Recent efforts to examine intraindividual variability hold much promise. For example, Huang and Ryan ( 2011 ) have used experience-sampling methodology to examine the moment-to-moment influence of situational characteristics on personality states (i.e., situational contingencies) during social interactions in customer service employees over 10 days at work. At the within-individual level, state conscientiousness was associated with the immediacy of the task, whereas state extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness were associated with the friendliness of the other party in the interaction. Similar efforts can increase our understanding of what contingencies exist, how they are acquired, and how they might be changed, leading to better utility of individual difference measures in prediction of workplace behavior, as well as in explanation of worker attitudes and behaviors.

Third, attention to time is needed. Over a decade ago, Hattrup and Jackson ( 1996 ) noted that individual difference theorizing needed to adopt a dynamic perspective, recognizing that persons influence and are influenced by situations, and that experience with situations can influence perceptions of them. A true understanding of intraindividual stability and processes of homogenization, such as gravitation and ASA, requires longitudinal data and dynamic models. Addressing these types of research questions will require that organizational psychologists be trained in methodological tools more common to developmental psychology. Such methods are becoming more common in the organizational psychology literature (e.g., Lang & Bliese, 2009 , present an application of discontinuous growth modeling techniques).

Fourth, the study of group differences in individual differences should continue. A long-standing area of focus for organizational psychology with regard to interindividual differences has been on demographic group differences in individual differences (e.g., research on ethnic differences in abilities, Roth, Bevier, Bobko, Switzer, & Tyler, 2001 ; research in gender differences in abilities and personality, Hough, Oswald, & Ployhart, 2001 ). Much of this research has derived from practical goals related to reducing subgroup differences on selection tools; however, better theory as to why interindividual differences occur has been a grappling point for psychology in general (e.g., debate on reasons for black/white score gaps, Sackett, Schmitt, Ellingson, & Kabin, 2001 ; debates on reasons for male/female differences in math performance, Halpern et al., 2007 ). Further, Roth, Van Iddekinge, Huffcutt, Eidson, and Bobko ( 2002 ) demonstrated that our field has adopted some inaccurate estimates regarding the size of subgroup differences on certain predictors because of a lack of appropriate consideration of the sources and size of range restriction—another example of how a lack of close examination of assumptions is problematic. In addition, Schneider ( 1996 ) suggested that we study individual differences concurrently with the way they are grouped, but not just in the traditional categories of differential psychology (i.e., demographics). He suggests looking at interindividual differences with subgroups formed by organizational characteristics such as mechanistic versus organic organizational design, size, and so on.

Fifth, a long-standing focus in psychology is on aptitude-treatment interactions (ATIs), which more generally refer to any individual difference that predisposes individuals to be more ready for an intervention and hence to benefit more from it. While early conclusions were that ATIs are fairly elusive, the potential to take advantage of them (should reliable ATIs be identified) increases as our ability to customize training and other interventions increases due to technological advances. For example, one can customize learner environments in online training to match regulatory focus or learning style (DeRouin, Fritzsche, & Salas, 2005 ), or one can target recruitment materials toward different groups of individuals to enhance attraction (Avery & McKay, 2006 ). Snow ( 1991 ) notes that one can manipulate conditions of situations to capitalize on strengths and compensate for weaknesses (e.g., training might be designed to compensate for likely anxiety effects or to capitalize on achievement motivation). Hence, as customization currently is increasing in practice, we need to heighten our scrutiny of the assumptions regarding individual differences that underlie these practices.

Finally, as we noted earlier, development of composition and compilation models that enable us to better understand how individual differences play a role in higher level outcomes is needed (Ployhart et al., 2006 ). For example, Stewart, Fulmer, and Barrick ( 2005 ) examined both composition and compilation processes to understand how personality traits of team members affect team outcomes. To date, studies of work group composition in terms of personality and ability (e.g., Barrick et al., 1998 ) tend to be more comparisons of the effectiveness of groups varying in composition rather than of examining processes whereby a group evolves to a certain composition. Multilevel conceptualizations of the role of individual differences in work behavior and attitudes may lead to greater understanding of the importance of individual differences in the workplace.

Final Thoughts

Much has been made of how changes in the workplace—such as globalization, changing technology, shift from manufacturing to a service and information focus, and focus on team-based work structures—have influenced the focus of our field (Howard, 1995 ). As we conclude this chapter, we want to note how these changes in the workplace should make us more rather than less concerned about individual differences. That is, some in our field decry a focus on selection and other areas heavily based on individual difference considerations because of rapidly changing environments. However, the changing nature of the workplace and the requirements regarding adaptability (Zaccaro & Banks, 2004 ) suggest that now, more than ever, we need to increase our understanding of the stability and malleability of individual differences. Further, we have echoed a point of others that individuals may revise their jobs to fit their person, values, and interest (Kohn & Schooler, 1982 ). The changing nature of the workplace suggests that it is important to consider both how the individual adapts the environment as well as how the environment changes the individual.

This does not mean that there is not a danger in unwarranted focus on individual differences. Ackerman and Humphreys ( 1990 ) pointed out that gathering information about individual differences that are irrelevant or of marginal diagnosticity can have negative effects on decision quality, as needless attention is paid to such information. In both research and practice today, the capacity to easily collect more information, fueled by technological advances, may be leading us too often to devote resources to tracking individual differences with little theoretical or practical value in a context simply because it is easy to do so.

Fleeson and Leicht ( 2006 ) note that those coming from an individual difference perspective tend to focus on differences between people, whereas those with a situation perspective tend to focus on explaining the processes of perceiving, interpreting, and adapting to situations. As we noted at the beginning of the chapter, the individual difference approach in our field has been criticized because of this lack of a focus on process. We hope that this chapter elucidates the many ways in which individual difference researchers are moving toward providing explanations by focusing on intraindividual as well as interindividual differences.

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. ( 1997 ). Intelligence, personality and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits.   Psychological Bulletin , 121 , 219–245.

Ackerman, P. L., & Humphreys, L. G. ( 1990 ). Individual differences theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 223–282). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. ( 2005 ). Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: A 30-year review.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 (1), 94–107.

Anderson, N., & Ones, D. S. ( 2003 ). The construct validity of three entry level personality inventories used in the UK: Cautionary findings from a multiple-inventory investigation.   European Journal of Personality , 17 , S39-S66.

Avery, D. R., & McKay, P. F. ( 2006 ). Target practice: An organizational impression management approach to attracting minority and female job applicants.   Personnel Psychology , 59 (1), 157–187.

Baird, B. M., Le, K., & Lucas, R. E. ( 2006 ). On the nature of intraindividual personality variability: Reliability, validity, and associations with well-being.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 90 , 512–527.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. ( 1993 ). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 78 , 111–118.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Gupta, R. ( 2003 ). Meta-analysis of the relationship between the five-factor model of personality and Holland's occupational types.   Personnel Psychology , 58 , 45–74.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. ( 1998 ). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 83 , 377–391.

Berry, C. M., Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. ( 2006 ). Educational attainment as a proxy for cognitive ability in selection: Effects on levels of cognitive ability and adverse impact.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 696–705.

Berry, C. W., Sackett, P. R., & Landers, R. N. ( 2007 ). Revisiting interview-cognitive ability relationships: Attending to specific range restriction mechanisms in meta-analysis.   Personnel Psychology , 60 , 837–874.

Blackwell, O. L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. S. ( 2007 ). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention.   Child Development , 78 , 246–263.

Blonigen, D. M., Carlson, M. D., Hicks, B. M., Krueger, R. F., & Iacono, W. G. ( 2008 ). Stability and change in personality traits from late adolescence to early adulthood: A longitudinal twin study.   Journal of Personality , 76 , 229–266.

Caskie, G. I., Schaie, K. W., & Willis, S. L. ( 1999 ). Individual differences in the rate of change in cognitive abilities during adulthood.   Gerontologist , 39 , 398.

Cattell, R. B. ( 1963 ). The interaction of hereditary and environmental influences.   British Journal of Statistical Psychology , 16 , 191–210.

Cervone, D. ( 2005 ). Personality architecture: Within-person structures and processes.   Annual Review of Psychology , 56 , 423–452.

Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. ( 2001 ). Contingencies of self-worth.   Psychological Review , 108 , 593–623.

Deadrick, D. L., & Madigan, R. M. ( 1990 ). Dynamic criteria revisited: A longitudinal study of performance stability and predictive validity.   Personnel Psychology , 43 , 717–744.

deFruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. ( 1999 ). RIASEC types and big five traits as predictors of employment status and nature of employment.   Personnel Psychology , 52 , 701–727.

Deng, C., Armstrong, P. I., & Rounds, J. ( 2007 ). The fit of Holland's RIASEC model to U.S. occupations.   Journal of Vocational Behavior , 71 , 1–22.

DeRouin, R. E., Fritzsche, B. A., & Salas, E. ( 2005 ). Learner control and workplace e-learning: Design, person, and organizational issues. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 24, pp. 181–214). Greenwich, CT JAI Press.

Donahue, E. M., & Harary, K. ( 1998 ). The patterned inconsistency of traits: Mapping the differential effects of social roles on self-perceptions of the Big Five.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 24 , 610.

Donnellan, M. B., Conger, R. D., & Burzette, R. G. ( 2007 ). Personality development from late adolescence to young adulthood: Differential stability, normative maturity, and evidence for the maturity-stability hypothesis.   Journal of Personality , 75 , 237–263.

Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M. ( 2006 ). A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 40–57.

Dweck, C. S. ( 1999 ). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development . Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis/Psychology Press.

Dweck, C. S. ( 2008 ). Can personality be changed? The role of beliefs in personality and change.   Current Directions in Psychological Science , 17 , 391–394.

Ellis, A. P. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Porter, C. O. L. H., West, B. J., & Moon, H. ( 2003 ). Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 (5), 821–835.

Farrell, J. N., & McDaniel, M. A. ( 2001 ). The stability of validity coefficients over time: Ackerman's (1988) model and the General Aptitude Test Battery.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , 60–79.

Finkel, D., Reynolds, C. A., McArdle, J. J., Gatz, M., & Pedersen, N. L. ( 2003 ). Latent growth curve analyses of accelerating decline in cognitive abilities in late adulthood.   Developmental Psychology , 39 (3), 535–550.

Fleeson, W. ( 2001 ). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 80 , 1011–1027.

Fleeson, W. ( 2007 ). Situation-based contingencies underlying trait-content manifestation in behavior.   Journal of Personality , 75 , 825–862.

Fleeson, W., & Leicht, C. ( 2006 ). On delineating and integrating the study of variability and stability in personality psychology: Interpersonal trust as illustration.   Journal of Research in Personality , 40 , 5–20.

Fleeson, W., Malanos, A. B., & Achille, N. M. ( 2002 ). An intraindividual process approach to the relationship between extraversion and positive affect: Is acting extraverted as “good” as being extraverted?   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 83 , 1409–1422.

Furnham, A. ( 2001 ). Personality and individual differences in the workplace: Person-organization-outcome fit. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 223–252). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gellatly, I. R., & Irving, P. G. ( 2001 ). Personality, autonomy, and contextual performance of managers.   Human Performance , 14 , 231–245.

Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbache, M. A. ( 2007 ). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics.   Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 8 (1), 1–51.

Hamaker, E. L., Nesselroade, J. R., & Molenaar, P. C. M. ( 2006 ). The integrated trait-state model.   Journal of Research in Personality , 41 , 295–315.

Hattrup, K. , & Jackson, S. E. ( 1996 ). Learning about individual differences by taking situations seriously. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 507–547). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hilborn, J. V., Strauss, E., Hultsch, D. F., & Hunter, M. A. ( 2009 ). Intraindividual variability across cognitive domains: Investigation of dispersion levels and performance profiles in older adults.   Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology , 31 , 412–424.

Holland, J. L. ( 1997 ). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Hough, L. M. ( 2001 ). IOwes its advances to personality. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 19–44). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. ( 2001 ). Determinants, detection and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence and lessons learned.   International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 9 (1–2), 152–194.

Hough, L. M., & Schneider, R. J. ( 1996 ). Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in organizations. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 31–88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Howard, A. (Ed.). ( 1995 ). The changing nature of work . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Huang, J. L., & Ryan, A. M. ( 2011 ). Beyond personality traits: A study of personality states and situational contingencies in customer service jobs.   Personnel Psychology , 64 (2), 451–488.

Hulin, C. L., Henry, R. A., & Noon, S. L. ( 1990 ). Adding a dimension: Time as a factor in the generalizability of predictive relationships.   Psychological Bulletin , 107 , 328–340.

Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. ( 1984 ). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance.   Psychological Bulletin , 96 , 72–98.

Hunthausen, J. M., Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., & Hammer, L. B. ( 2003 ). A field study of frame-of-reference effects on personality test validity.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 (3), 545–551.

Jackson, J. J., Bogg, T., Walton, K. E., Wood, D., Harms, P. D., Lodi-Smith, J., Edmonds, G. W., & Roberts, B. W. ( 2009 ). Not all conscientiousness scales change alike: A multi-method, multi-sample study of age differences in the facets of conscientiousness.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 96 , 446–459.

Jordan, M., Herriott, P., & Chalmers, C. ( 1991 ). Testing Schneider's ASA theory.   Applied Psychology: An International Review , 40 , 47–54.

Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. ( 1992 ). Effects of work values on job choice decisions.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 77 , 261–271.

Kernis, M. H. ( 2005 ). Measuring self-esteem in context: The importance of stability of self-esteem in psychological functioning.   Journal of Personality , 73 , 1569–1605.

Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. ( 1982 ). Job conditions and personality: A longitudinal assessment of their reciprocal effects.   American Journal of Sociology , 87 , 1257–1286.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. ( 2000 ). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kuncel, N. R., & Klieger, D. M. ( 2007 ). Application patterns when applicants know the odds: Implications for selection research and practice.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 , 586–593.

Laing, J., Swaney, K., & Prediger, D. J. ( 1984 ). Integrating vocational interest inventory results and expressed choices.   Journal of Vocational Behavior , 25 (3), 304–315.

Lang, J. W. B., & Bliese, P. D. ( 2009 ). General mental ability and two types of adaptation to unforeseen change: Applying discontinuous growth models to the task-change paradigm.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 94 , 411–428.

LePine, J. A. ( 2003 ). Team adaptation and postchange performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 (1), 27–39.

LePine, J. A. ( 2005 ). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 (6), 1153–1167.

LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Hedlund, J. ( 1997 ). Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 82 (5), 803–811.

Lievens, F., De Corte, W., & Schollaert, E. ( 2008 ). A closer look at the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores and validity.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 93 (2), 268–279.

Lockenhoff, C. E., Terracciano, A., Bienvenu, O. J., Patriciu, N. S., Nestadt, G., McCrae, R. R., et al. ( 2008 ). Ethnicity, education, and the temporal stability of personality traits in the East Baltimore Epidemiologic Catchment Area study.   Journal of Research in Personality , 42 , 577–598.

Low, K. S. D., Yoon, M., Roberts, B. W., & Rounds, J. ( 2005 ). The stability of vocational interests from early adolescence to middle adulthood: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies.   Psychological Bulletin , 131 , 713–737.

Maurer, T. J., & Lippstreu, M. ( 2008 ). Expert vs. general working sample differences in KSAO ‘improvability’ ratings and relationships with measures relevant to occupational and organizational psychology.   Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 81 , 813–829.

McArdle, J. J., Ferrer-Caja, E., Hamagami, F., & Woodcock, R. W. ( 2002 ). Comparative longitudinal structural analyses of the growth and decline of multiple intellectual abilities over the life span.   Developmental Psychology , 38 (1), 115–142.

Mischel, W. ( 1973 ). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality.   Psychological Review , 80 , 252–283.

Mischel, W. ( 2004 ). Toward an integrative science of the person.   Annual Review of Psychology , 55 , 1–22.

Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. ( 2003 ). Personality heterogeneity in teams: Which differences make a difference for team performance?   Small Group Research , 34 (6), 651–677.

Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K., & Hemingway, M. A. ( 2005 ). The importance of job autonomy, cognitive ability, and job-related skill for predicting role breadth and job performance.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 (2), 399–406.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. ( 2005 ). Higher-order dimensions of the big five personality traits and the big six vocational interest types.   Personnel Psychology , 58 , 447–478.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. ( 1998 ). Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions.   Human Performance , 11 , 145–165.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, J. ( 1999 ). The joint relationship of conscientiousness and ability with performance: Test of the interaction hypothesis.   Journal of Management , 25 , 707–721.

Mount, M. K., Oh, I., & Burns, M. ( 2008 ). Incremental validity of perceptual speed and accuracy over general mental ability.   Personnel Psychology , 61 (1), 113–139.

Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. ( 1998 ). Intelligence praise can undermine motivation and performance.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 75 , 33–52.

Murphy, K. R. ( 1996 ). Individual differences and behavior in organizations : Much more than g. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 3–30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nesselroade, J. R. ( 2002 ). Elaborating the differential in differential psychology.   Multivariate Behavioral Research , 37 , 543–561.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. ( 2003 ). Job-specific applicant pools and national norms for personality scales: Implications for range-restriction corrections in validation research.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 , 570–577.

Peeters, M. A. G., Van Tuijl, H. F. J. M., Rutte, C. G., & Reymen, I. M. M. J. ( 2006 ). Personality and team performance: A meta-analysis.   European Journal of Personality , 20 (5), 377–396.

Ployhart, R. E., Weekley, J. A., & Baughman, K. ( 2006 ). The structure and function of human capital emergence: A multilevel examination of the attraction-selection-attrition model.   Academy of Management Journal , 49 , 661–678.

Reeve, C. L., & Hakel, M. D. ( 2000 ). Toward an understanding of adult intellectual development: Investigating within-individual convergence of interest and knowledge profiles.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 , 897–908.

Roberts, B. W. ( 1997 ). Plaster or plasticity: Are work experiences associated with personality change in women?   Journal of Personality , 65 , 205–232.

Roberts. B. W., & Caspi. A. ( 2003 ). The cumulative continuity model of personality development: Striking a balance between continuity and change in personality traits across the life course. In R. M. Staudinger & U. Lindenberger (Eds.), Understanding human development: Lifespan psychology in exchange with other disciplines (pp. 183–214). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. ( 2001 ). The kids are alright: Growth and stability in personality development from adolescence to adulthood.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 81 , 670–683.

Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. ( 2003 ). Work experiences and personality development in young adulthood.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 84 , 582–593.

Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. ( 2000 ). The rank-order consistency of personality from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies.   Psychological Bulletin , 126 , 3–25.

Roberts, B. W., & Mroczek, D. ( 2008 ). Personality trait change in adulthood.   Current Directions in Psychological Science , 17 , 31–35.

Roberts, B. W., Walton, I., & Viechtbauer, W. ( 2006 ). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.   Psychological Bulletin , 132 , 1–25.

Robie, C., Schmit, M. J., Ryan, A. M., & Zickar, M. J. ( 2000 ). Effects of item context specificity on the measurement equivalence of a personality inventory.   Organizational Research Methods , 3 , 348–365.

Roth, P. L., Bevier, C. A., Bobko, P., Switzer, F. S., III., & Tyler, P. ( 2001 ). Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A meta-analysis.   Personnel Psychology , 54 (2), 297–330.

Roth, P. L., Van Iddekinge, C. H., Huffcutt, A. I., Eidson, C. E., & Bobko, P. ( 2002 ). Corrections for range restriction in structured interview ethnic group differences: The values may be larger than researchers thought.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 , 369–376.

Sackett, P. R., Lievens, F., Berry, C. M., & Landers, R. N. ( 2007 ). A cautionary note on the effects of range restriction on predictor intercorrelations.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 , 538–544.

Sackett, P. R., & Ostgaard, D. J. ( 1994 ). Job-specific applicant pools and national norms for cognitive ability tests: Implications for range restriction corrections in validation research.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 79 , 680–684.

Sackett, P. R., Schmitt, N., Ellingson, J. E., & Kabin, M. B. ( 2001 ). High-stakes testing in employment, credentialing, and higher education: Prospects in a post-affirmative-action world.   American Psychologist , 56 (4), 302–318.

Sackett, P. R., & Yang, H. ( 2000 ). Correction for range restriction: An expanded typology.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 , 112–118.

Satterwhite, R. C., Fleenor, J. W., Braddy, P. W., Feldman, J., & Hoopes, L. ( 2009 ). A case for homogeneity of personality at the occupational level.   International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 17 , 154–164.

Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D. C., & Jones, J. R. ( 1998 ). Organization and occupation influences in the attraction-selection-attrition process.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 83 , 869–891.

Schmidt, F. L., Le, H., Oh, I., & Shaffer, J. ( 2007 ). General mental ability, job performance, and red herrings: Responses to Osterman, Hauser, and Schmitt. Academy of Management Perspectives , 21, 64–76.

Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I., & Le, H. ( 2006 ). Increasing the accuracy of corrections for range restriction: Implications for selection procedure validities and other research results.   Personnel Psychology , 59 , 281–305.

Schmit, M. J., Ryan, A. M., Stierwalt, S. L., & Powell, A. B. ( 1995 ). Frame-of-reference effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 80 , 607–620.

Schmitt, N. ( 2007 ). The value of personnel selection: Reflections on some remarkable claims.   Academy of Management Perspectives , 21, 19–23.

Schmitt, N., Rogers, W., Chan, D., Sheppard, L., & Jennings, D. ( 1997 ). Adverse impact and predictive efficiency of various predictor combinations.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 82 , 719–730.

Schneider, B. ( 1996 ). When individual differences aren't. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 548–572). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schneider, B. ( 1987 ). The people make the place.   Personnel Psychology , 40 , 437–453.

Schneider, B. ( 2001 ). Fits about fit.   Applied Psychology: An International Review , 50 , 141–152.

Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. ( 1995 ). The ASA framework: An update.   Personnel Psychology , 48 , 747–775.

Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. ( 1998 ). Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 83 , 462–470.

Shoda, Y., & Mischel, W. ( 1993 ). Cognitive social approach to dispositional influences: What if the perceiver is a cognitive social theorist?   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 19 , 574–585.

Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J. C. ( 1994 ). Intraindividual stability in the organization and patterning of behavior: Incorporating psychological situations into the idiographic analysis of personality.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 67 , 674–687.

Smith, D. B. , & Schneider, B. ( 2004 ). Where we've been and where we're going: Some conclusions regarding personality and organizations. In B. Schneider & D. B. Smith (Eds.), Personality and organizations (pp. 387–404). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Snow, R. E. ( 1991 ). Aptitude-treatment interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in psychotherapy.   Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 59 , 205–216.

Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. ( 2004 ). Four lessons learned from the person-situation debate: A review and research agenda. In B. Schneider & D. B. Smith (Eds.), Personality and organizations (pp. 61–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stewart, G. L., Fulmer, I. S., & Barrick, M. R. ( 2005 ). An exploration of member roles as a multilevel linking mechanism for individual traits and team outcomes.   Personnel Psychology , 58 , 343–365.

Stogdill, R. M. ( 1948 ). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of literature.   Journal of Personality , 25 , 35–71.

Ten Barge, M. A., & De Raad, B. ( 1999 ). Taxonomies of situations from a trait psychological perspective: A review.   European Journal of Personality , 13 , 337–360.

Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. ( 1993 ). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist perspective.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 78 , 184–193.

Wilk, S. L., Desmarais, L. B., & Sackett, P. R. ( 1995 ). Gravitation to jobs commensurate with ability: Longitudinal and cross-sectional tests.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 80 , 79–85.

Wilk, S. L., & Sackett, P. R. ( 1996 ). Longitudinal analysis of ability-job complexity fit and job change.   Personnel Psychology , 49 , 937–968.

Witt, L. A., Burke, L. A., Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. ( 2002 ). The interactive effects of conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 , 164–169.

Wood, D., & Roberts B. W. ( 2006 ). Cross-sectional and longitudinal tests of the Personality and Role Identity Structural Model (PRISM).   Journal of Personality , 74 , 779–810.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. ( 2001 ). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work.   Academy of Management Review , 26 (2), 179–201.

Zaccaro, S. J., & Banks, D. ( 2004 ). Leader visioning and adaptability: Bridging the gap between research and practice on developing the ability to manage change.   Human Resource Management , 43 , 367–380.

Zickar, M. J., & Gibby, R. E. ( 2007 ). Four persistent themes throughout the history of I-O psychology in the United States. In L. L. Koppes (Ed.), Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 61–80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology
• Personality
• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Individual differences at work.

• Adrian Furnham Adrian Furnham Department of Psychology, University College London
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.560
• Published online: 22 January 2021

There is a great deal of research on whether personality, ability, and motivation correlate with behavior in the workplace. This is of great importance to all managers who know the benefits of able, engaged, and motivated staff compared to staff who are alienated and disenchanted.

The research is an area of applied psychology that is at the interface of work, personality, and social psychology. Predominantly, the research aims to identify measurable characteristics (i.e., personality traits) of an individual that are systematically related to work output and to explain the mechanism and process involved.

Research on the relationship among personality and organizational level, promotion level, and salary, all of which are related, is difficult because in order to validate the findings, it is important to get representative and comprehensive measures of work output, which few organizations can provide. The results suggest that personality plays an important part in all the outcomes and that three traits are consistently implicated. The higher people score on trait Conscientiousness and Extraversion and the lower they score on trait Neuroticism, the better they do at work. Similarly, intelligence plays an important role, particularly in more complex jobs.

Recent literature has looked at management derailment and failure, with the idea that studying failure can illuminate success, as well as prevent a number of systematic selection errors. This approach is based on “dark-side” traits and the paradoxical finding that some subclinical personality disorders correlate with management success.

• personality
• bright side
• high-flyers

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 05 June 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.147.128.134]
• 185.147.128.134

Character limit 500 /500

Individual Diversity and Organizational Behavior Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Understanding individual diversity is a difficult and challenging task. It has led to many researches, studies, arguments, and dialogues between philosophers and intellectuals. Unfortunately, an induced definition or understanding of individual diversity has not been presented and is still warranted.

The demographic variations in the workforce, alterations in organizational structures, and competitive business landscape have all contributed to the element of diversity (both inherent and acquired) in the workforce and has made it customary in contemporary organizations.

This paper is aimed to discuss the magnitude of individual diversity and how it has a direct impact on the organizational behavior by providing different examples. Moreover, after presenting a thorough understanding of diversity various organizational practices have been discussed, which could help to enhance business operations and organizational behavior.

Individual diversity can be explained as the distinctiveness or the presence of characteristics that are different from each other. In any organizational setup, diversity is witnessed at every level from task groups / junior employees to board of directors. It is argued that individual diversity in any organizational setup affects the outcomes of organizations; it reduces employee turnover and increases the performance.

Outlining the approach through which the distinctive orientation of individuals both in minority and majority affects groups’ working and operational outcome of companies. This activates the relational identity distinctiveness and can result in eithers benefits or disadvantages based on the management of issues (Kinicki, 2008).

At times individuals encounter issues and challenges in group settings. Communication is an important aspect of managing diversity, which generates negative outcomes in case of poor communication within organizations. Individuals belonging to different cultures often encounter issues of language barriers and lack of interaction with their team members.

Some of the issues related to communication diversity include differences in individual perspectives, cultural backgrounds and understanding, knowledge, and designation levels. All these issues are countered in a diversified organization (Tosi & Pilati, 2011).

To deal with the issue of diversity, effective management is very essential. Some individuals add to inherent diversity, while others have acquired diversity. Factors such as age, ethnicity, race, sex and capabilities fall under inherent diversity, while on the other hand, location, income, education, seniority and marital statuses fall under acquired diversity.

In order to diminish the issues of communication managers and leaders should hold different interactive sessions for the workforce so that they get to know each other and communicate with each other. The leaders should directly communicate and sort out issues of members, which will increase productivity and boost employees’ morale (Kinicki, 2008).

It depends on managers and executives how they handle diversity and how they formulate effective strategies, which can yield positivity out of the diversity.

In almost every organization, executives and team members have diverse background either inherent or acquired. However, individual identities, which are commonly observed, are mainly from differences in race and gender, while differences in physical capabilities and designations contribute to another form of diversity, which is witnessed at large in present organizations.

The differences in background and gender help in generation of knowledge, ideas, and better solutions to problems, however, differences in seniority in the workforce often have negative consequences on team members. In this regard, senior employees should work with the team, and they should encourage other members and treat them equally to overcome differences (Weiss, 2001).

Organizations at present are becoming more diverse. This is because of the growing competition and globalization. Many MNCs, which operate across borders, hire individuals, who are culturally diverse, which generates both inherent and acquired diversity. Moreover, organizations are increasingly adopting diversity because of its enormous benefits, which overcome problems.

Individual diversity offers many opportunities and is very beneficial for both employees and organizations. Its benefits include increased productivity, better understanding and approach towards problems, better decision making, interactions, effective marketing and many more.

It allows companies to compete in the international market (Kinicki, 2008). Keeping these in view companies like Microsoft and many others are employee highly diverse workforce (Tosi & Pilati, 2011).

In order to avoid the shortfalls of individual diversity, managers and executives should understand and handle diversity on a broader context. They can make teams by putting together diverse individuals so that they interact more and share ideas.

The teams should be small so that they can do the subtasks more efficiently. Ignoring the stereotype, individuals should be allowed to adopt roles and they should be observed and monitored by managers (Weiss, 2001).

Another practice is the diversity training of employees through which the organization can manage diversity. Such trainings are conducted to increase awareness among the workforce regarding differences in cultural backgrounds, skills and knowledge. Moreover, such trainings also decrease chances of violating each other rights on the basis of race, gender or different backgrounds or levels (Kinicki, 2008).

Thus, individual diversity has more benefits and advantages which can overcome its disadvantages, and definitely provides a productive, potential, and competitive edge to the organization. The need is to understand diversity thoroughly and to efficiently manage it through effective approaches and strategies so that better outcomes such as increased productivity and healthy working environment are guaranteed.

Reference List

Kinicki, A. (2008). Organizational Behavior: Key Concepts, Skills & Best Practices. Columbus: McGraw-Hill Learning Solutions.

Tosi, H. L., & Pilati, M. (2011). Managing Organizational Behavior: Individuals, Teams, Organization and Management. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Weiss, J. W. (2001). Organizational behavior and change: managing diversity, cross-cultural dynamics, and ethics. Boston: South-Western College Pub.

• Organizational Virtue: An Empirical Study of Customers and Employees
• Modality in Descartes's Philosophy by Alan Nelson
• Focusing on the Leadership Challenge
• Sustaining a Culture in Multinational Corporations
• Managing a Culturally Diverse Human Resource
• Performance Management in a Diverse Workplace
• Diversity Management in IBM
• Importance of Diversity at the Workplace
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, June 13). Individual Diversity and Organizational Behavior. https://ivypanda.com/essays/individual-diversity-and-organizational-behavior/

"Individual Diversity and Organizational Behavior." IvyPanda , 13 June 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/individual-diversity-and-organizational-behavior/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Individual Diversity and Organizational Behavior'. 13 June.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Individual Diversity and Organizational Behavior." June 13, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/individual-diversity-and-organizational-behavior/.

1. IvyPanda . "Individual Diversity and Organizational Behavior." June 13, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/individual-diversity-and-organizational-behavior/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Individual Diversity and Organizational Behavior." June 13, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/individual-diversity-and-organizational-behavior/.

This is “Understanding People at Work: Individual Differences and Perception”, chapter 3 from the book An Introduction to Organizational Behavior (v. 1.1). For details on it (including licensing), click here .

This book is licensed under a Creative Commons by-nc-sa 3.0 license. See the license for more details, but that basically means you can share this book as long as you credit the author (but see below), don't make money from it, and do make it available to everyone else under the same terms.

This content was accessible as of December 29, 2012, and it was downloaded then by Andy Schmitz in an effort to preserve the availability of this book.

Normally, the author and publisher would be credited here. However, the publisher has asked for the customary Creative Commons attribution to the original publisher, authors, title, and book URI to be removed. Additionally, per the publisher's request, their name has been removed in some passages. More information is available on this project's attribution page .

For more information on the source of this book, or why it is available for free, please see the project's home page . You can browse or download additional books there. To download a .zip file containing this book to use offline, simply click here .

Chapter 3 Understanding People at Work: Individual Differences and Perception

Learning objectives.

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

• Define personality and describe how it affects work behaviors.
• Understand the role of values in determining work behaviors.
• Explain the process of perception and how it affects work behaviors.
• Understand how individual differences affect ethics.
• Understand cross-cultural influences on individual differences and perception.

Individuals bring a number of differences to work, such as unique personalities, values, emotions, and moods. When new employees enter organizations, their stable or transient characteristics affect how they behave and perform. Moreover, companies hire people with the expectation that those individuals have certain skills, abilities, personalities, and values. Therefore, it is important to understand individual characteristics that matter for employee behaviors at work.

3.1 Advice for Hiring Successful Employees: The Case of Guy Kawasaki

When people think about entrepreneurship, they often think of Guy Kawasaki ( http://www.guykawasaki.com ), who is a Silicon Valley venture capitalist and the author of nine books as of 2010, including The Art of the Start and The Macintosh Way . Beyond being a best-selling author, he has been successful in a variety of areas, including earning degrees from Stanford University and UCLA; being an integral part of Apple’s first computer; writing columns for Forbes and Entrepreneur Magazine ; and taking on entrepreneurial ventures such as cofounding Alltop, an aggregate news site, and becoming managing director of Garage Technology Ventures. Kawasaki is a believer in the power of individual differences. He believes that successful companies include people from many walks of life, with different backgrounds and with different strengths and different weaknesses. Establishing an effective team requires a certain amount of self-monitoring on the part of the manager. Kawasaki maintains that most individuals have personalities that can easily get in the way of this objective. He explains, “The most important thing is to hire people who complement you and are better than you in specific areas. Good people hire people that are better than themselves.” He also believes that mediocre employees hire less-talented employees in order to feel better about themselves. Finally, he believes that the role of a leader is to produce more leaders, not to produce followers, and to be able to achieve this, a leader should compensate for their weaknesses by hiring individuals who compensate for their shortcomings.

Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Guy_Kawasaki,_2006.jpg by Dave Sifry.

In today’s competitive business environment, individuals want to think of themselves as indispensable to the success of an organization. Because an individual’s perception that he or she is the most important person on a team can get in the way, Kawasaki maintains that many people would rather see a company fail than thrive without them. He advises that we must begin to move past this and to see the value that different perceptions and values can bring to a company, and the goal of any individual should be to make the organization that one works for stronger and more dynamic. Under this type of thinking, leaving a company in better shape than one found it becomes a source of pride. Kawasaki has had many different roles in his professional career and as a result realized that while different perceptions and attitudes might make the implementation of new protocol difficult, this same diversity is what makes an organization more valuable. Some managers fear diversity and the possible complexities that it brings, and they make the mistake of hiring similar individuals without any sort of differences. When it comes to hiring, Kawasaki believes that the initial round of interviews for new hires should be held over the phone. Because first impressions are so important, this ensures that external influences, negative or positive, are not part of the decision-making process.

Many people come out of business school believing that if they have a solid financial understanding, then they will be a successful and appropriate leader and manager. Kawasaki has learned that mathematics and finance are the “easy” part of any job. He observes that the true challenge comes in trying to effectively manage people. With the benefit of hindsight, Kawasaki regrets the choices he made in college, saying, “I should have taken organizational behavior and social psychology” to be better prepared for the individual nuances of people. He also believes that working hard is a key to success and that individuals who learn how to learn are the most effective over time.

If nothing else, Guy Kawasaki provides simple words of wisdom to remember when starting off on a new career path: do not become blindsided by your mistakes, but rather take them as a lesson of what not to do. And most important, pursue joy and challenge your personal assumptions.

Case written by Carlene Reynolds, Talya Bauer, and Berrin Erdogan to accompany Bauer, T., & Erdogan, B. (2009). Organizational behavior (1st ed.). New York: Flat World Knowledge. Based on information from Bryant, A. (2010, March 19). Just give him 5 sentences, not “War and Peace.” New York Times . Retrieved March 26, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/business/21corner.html?emc=eta1 ; Kawasaki, G. (2004). The art of the start: The time-tested, battle-hardened guide for anyone starting anything . New York: Penguin Group; Iwata, E. (2008, November 10). Kawasaki doesn’t accept failure; promotes learning through mistakes. USA Today , p. 3B. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://academic.lexisnexis.com/ .

Discussion Questions

• Describe how self-perception can positively or negatively affect a work environment?
• What advice would you give a recent college graduate after reading about Guy Kawasaki’s advice?
• What do you think about Kawasaki’s hiring strategy?
• How would Kawasaki describe a “perfect” boss?
• How would you describe a “perfect” boss?

3.2 The Interactionist Perspective: The Role of Fit

• Differentiate between person–organization and person–job fit.
• Understand the relationship between person–job fit and work behaviors.
• Understand the relationship between person–organization fit and work behaviors.

Individual differences matter in the workplace. Human beings bring in their personality, physical and mental abilities, and other stable traits to work. Imagine that you are interviewing an employee who is proactive, creative, and willing to take risks. Would this person be a good job candidate? What behaviors would you expect this person to demonstrate?

The question posed above is misleading. While human beings bring their traits to work, every organization is different, and every job within the organization is also different. According to the interactionist perspective, behavior is a function of the person and the situation interacting with each other. Think about it. Would a shy person speak up in class? While a shy person may not feel like speaking, if the individual is very interested in the subject, knows the answers to the questions, and feels comfortable within the classroom environment, and if the instructor encourages participation and participation is 30% of the course grade, regardless of the level of shyness, the person may feel inclined to participate. Similarly, the behavior you may expect from someone who is proactive, creative, and willing to take risks will depend on the situation.

When hiring employees, companies are interested in assessing at least two types of fit. Person–organization fit The degree to which a person’s values, personality, goals, and other characteristics match those of the organization. refers to the degree to which a person’s values, personality, goals, and other characteristics match those of the organization. Person–job fit The degree to which a person’s skill, knowledge, abilities, and other characteristics match the job demands. is the degree to which a person’s skill, knowledge, abilities, and other characteristics match the job demands. Thus, someone who is proactive and creative may be a great fit for a company in the high-tech sector that would benefit from risk-taking individuals, but may be a poor fit for a company that rewards routine and predictable behavior, such as accountants. Similarly, this person may be a great fit for a job such as a scientist, but a poor fit for a routine office job. The opening case illustrates one method of assessing person–organization and person–job fit in job applicants.

The first thing many recruiters look at is the person–job fit. This is not surprising, because person–job fit is related to a number of positive work attitudes such as satisfaction with the work environment, identification with the organization, job satisfaction, and work behaviors such as job performance. Companies are often also interested in hiring candidates who will fit into the company culture (those with high person–organization fit). When people fit into their organization, they tend to be more satisfied with their jobs, more committed to their companies, and more influential in their company, and they actually remain longer in their company. Anderson, C., Spataro, S. E., & Flynn, F. J. (2008). Personality and organizational culture as determinants of influence. Journal of Applied Psychology , 93 , 702–710; Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 , 875–884; Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1990). Measuring person–job fit with a profile comparison process. Journal of Applied Psychology , 75 , 648–657; Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly , 36, 459–484; Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology , 50, 359–394; Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology , 58, 281–342; O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person–organization fit. Academy of Management Journal , 34 , 487–516; Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2002). Is job search related to employment quality? It all depends on the fit. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 , 646–654. One area of controversy is whether these people perform better. Some studies have found a positive relationship between person–organization fit and job performance, but this finding was not present in all studies, so it seems that fitting with a company’s culture will only sometimes predict job performance. Arthur, W., Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., & Doverspike, D. (2006). The use of person–organization fit in employment decision making: An assessment of its criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 786–801. It also seems that fitting in with the company culture is more important to some people than to others. For example, people who have worked in multiple companies tend to understand the impact of a company’s culture better, and therefore they pay more attention to whether they will fit in with the company when making their decisions. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Jansen, K. J., & Colbert, A. E. (2002). A policy-capturing study of the simultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups, and organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 , 985–993. Also, when they build good relationships with their supervisors and the company, being a misfit does not seem to lead to dissatisfaction on the job. Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2004). Work value congruence and intrinsic career success. Personnel Psychology , 57 , 305–332.

Key Takeaway

While personality traits and other individual differences are important, we need to keep in mind that behavior is jointly determined by the person and the situation. Certain situations bring out the best in people, and someone who is a poor performer in one job may turn into a star employee in a different job.

• How can a company assess person–job fit before hiring employees? What are the methods you think would be helpful?
• How can a company determine person–organization fit before hiring employees? Which methods do you think would be helpful?
• What can organizations do to increase person–job and person–organization fit after they hire employees?

3.3 Individual Differences: Values and Personality

• Understand what values are.
• Describe the link between values and individual behavior.
• Identify the major personality traits that are relevant to organizational behavior.
• Explain the link between personality, work behavior, and work attitudes.
• Explain the potential pitfalls of personality testing.

Values Stable life goals people have, reflecting what is most important to them. refer to stable life goals that people have, reflecting what is most important to them. Values are established throughout one’s life as a result of the accumulating life experiences and tend to be relatively stable. Lusk, E. J., & Oliver, B. L. (1974). Research Notes. American manager’s personal value systems-revisited. Academy of Management Journal , 17 (3), 549–554; Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values . New York: Free Press. The values that are important to people tend to affect the types of decisions they make, how they perceive their environment, and their actual behaviors. Moreover, people are more likely to accept job offers when the company possesses the values people care about. Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology , 77 , 261–271; Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1987). Effect of values on perception and decision making: A study of alternative work values measures. Journal of Applied Psychology , 72 , 666–673. Value attainment is one reason why people stay in a company, and when an organization does not help them attain their values, they are more likely to decide to leave if they are dissatisfied with the job itself. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1996). The experience of work and turnover intentions: Interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood. Journal of Applied Psychology , 81 , 318–325.

What are the values people care about? There are many typologies of values. One of the most established surveys to assess individual values is the Rokeach Value Survey. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press. This survey lists 18 terminal and 18 instrumental values in alphabetical order. Terminal values End states people desire in life, such as leading a prosperous life and a world at peace. refer to end states people desire in life, such as leading a prosperous life and a world at peace. Instrumental values Views on acceptable modes of conduct, such as being honest and ethical, and being ambitious. deal with views on acceptable modes of conduct, such as being honest and ethical, and being ambitious.

According to Rokeach, values are arranged in hierarchical fashion. In other words, an accurate way of assessing someone’s values is to ask them to rank the 36 values in order of importance. By comparing these values, people develop a sense of which value can be sacrificed to achieve the other, and the individual priority of each value emerges.

Figure 3.2 Sample Items From Rokeach (1973) Value Survey

Where do values come from? Research indicates that they are shaped early in life and show stability over the course of a lifetime. Early family experiences are important influences over the dominant values. People who were raised in families with low socioeconomic status and those who experienced restrictive parenting often display conformity values when they are adults, while those who were raised by parents who were cold toward their children would likely value and desire security. Kasser, T., Koestner, R., & Lekes, N. (2002). Early family experiences and adult values: A 26-year prospective longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 28 , 826–835.

Values of a generation also change and evolve in response to the historical context that the generation grows up in. Research comparing the values of different generations resulted in interesting findings. For example, Generation Xers (those born between the mid-1960s and 1980s) are more individualistic and are interested in working toward organizational goals so long as they coincide with their personal goals. This group, compared to the baby boomers (born between the 1940s and 1960s), is also less likely to see work as central to their life and more likely to desire a quick promotion. Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 23 , 363–382.

Values will affect the choices people make. For example, someone who has a strong stimulation orientation may pursue extreme sports and be drawn to risky business ventures with a high potential for payoff.

© 2010 Jupiterimages Corporation

The values a person holds will affect his or her employment. For example, someone who has an orientation toward strong stimulation may pursue extreme sports and select an occupation that involves fast action and high risk, such as fire fighter, police officer, or emergency medical doctor. Someone who has a drive for achievement may more readily act as an entrepreneur. Moreover, whether individuals will be satisfied at a given job may depend on whether the job provides a way to satisfy their dominant values. Therefore, understanding employees at work requires understanding the value orientations of employees.

Personality

Personality The relatively stable feelings, thoughts, and behavioral patterns a person has. encompasses the relatively stable feelings, thoughts, and behavioral patterns a person has. Our personality differentiates us from other people, and understanding someone’s personality gives us clues about how that person is likely to act and feel in a variety of situations. In order to effectively manage organizational behavior, an understanding of different employees’ personalities is helpful. Having this knowledge is also useful for placing people in jobs and organizations.

If personality is stable, does this mean that it does not change? You probably remember how you have changed and evolved as a result of your own life experiences, attention you received in early childhood, the style of parenting you were exposed to, successes and failures you had in high school, and other life events. In fact, our personality changes over long periods of time. For example, we tend to become more socially dominant, more conscientious (organized and dependable), and more emotionally stable between the ages of 20 and 40, whereas openness to new experiences may begin to decline during this same time. Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin , 132 , 1–25. In other words, even though we treat personality as relatively stable, changes occur. Moreover, even in childhood, our personality shapes who we are and has lasting consequences for us. For example, studies show that part of our career success and job satisfaction later in life can be explained by our childhood personality. Judge, T. A., & Higgins, C. A. (1999). The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology , 52 , 621–652; Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly , 31 , 56–77.

Is our behavior in organizations dependent on our personality? To some extent, yes, and to some extent, no. While we will discuss the effects of personality for employee behavior, you must remember that the relationships we describe are modest correlations. For example, having a sociable and outgoing personality may encourage people to seek friends and prefer social situations. This does not mean that their personality will immediately affect their work behavior. At work, we have a job to do and a role to perform. Therefore, our behavior may be more strongly affected by what is expected of us, as opposed to how we want to behave. When people have a lot of freedom at work, their personality will become a stronger influence over their behavior. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 78 , 111–118.

Big Five Personality Traits

How many personality traits are there? How do we even know? In every language, there are many words describing a person’s personality. In fact, in the English language, more than 15,000 words describing personality have been identified. When researchers analyzed the terms describing personality characteristics, they realized that there were many words that were pointing to each dimension of personality. When these words were grouped, five dimensions seemed to emerge that explain a lot of the variation in our personalities. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology , 59 , 1216–1229. Keep in mind that these five are not necessarily the only traits out there. There are other, specific traits that represent dimensions not captured by the Big Five. Still, understanding the main five traits gives us a good start for describing personality. A summary of the Big Five traits is presented in Figure 3.4 "Big Five Personality Traits" .

Figure 3.4 Big Five Personality Traits

Openness The degree to which a person is curious, original, intellectual, creative, and open to new ideas. is the degree to which a person is curious, original, intellectual, creative, and open to new ideas. People high in openness seem to thrive in situations that require being flexible and learning new things. They are highly motivated to learn new skills, and they do well in training settings. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology , 44 , 1–26; Lievens, F., Harris, M. M., Van Keer, E., & Bisqueret, C. (2003). Predicting cross-cultural training performance: The validity of personality, cognitive ability, and dimensions measured by an assessment center and a behavior description interview. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 , 476–489. They also have an advantage when they enter into a new organization. Their open-mindedness leads them to seek a lot of information and feedback about how they are doing and to build relationships, which leads to quicker adjustment to the new job. Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process. Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 , 373–385. When supported, they tend to be creative. Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 963–970. Open people are highly adaptable to change, and teams that experience unforeseen changes in their tasks do well if they are populated with people high in openness. LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and postchange performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 , 27–39. Compared to people low in openness, they are also more likely to start their own business. Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 259–271.

Conscientiousness The degree to which a person is organized, systematic, punctual, achievement oriented, and dependable. refers to the degree to which a person is organized, systematic, punctual, achievement oriented, and dependable. Conscientiousness is the one personality trait that uniformly predicts how high a person’s performance will be, across a variety of occupations and jobs. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology , 44 , 1–26. In fact, conscientiousness is the trait most desired by recruiters and results in the most success in interviews. Dunn, W. S., Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Relative importance of personality and general mental ability in managers’ judgments of applicant qualifications. Journal of Applied Psychology , 80 , 500–509; Tay, C., Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2006). Personality, biographical characteristics, and job interview success: A longitudinal study of the mediating effects of interviewing self-efficacy and the moderating effects of internal locus of control. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 446–454. This is not a surprise, because in addition to their high performance, conscientious people have higher levels of motivation to perform, lower levels of turnover, lower levels of absenteeism, and higher levels of safety performance at work. Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87, 797–807; Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. (1997). Five-factor model of personality and employee absence. Journal of Applied Psychology , 82 , 745–755; Wallace, C., & Chen, G. (2006). A multilevel integration of personality, climate, self-regulation, and performance. Personnel Psychology , 59 , 529–557; Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions: A meta-analytic path model. Personnel Psychology , 61 , 309–348. One’s conscientiousness is related to career success and being satisfied with one’s career over time. Judge, T. A., & Higgins, C. A. (1999). The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology , 52 , 621–652. Finally, it seems that conscientiousness is a good trait to have for entrepreneurs. Highly conscientious people are more likely to start their own business compared to those who are not conscientious, and their firms have longer survival rates. Certo, S. T., & Certo, S. C. (2005). Spotlight on entrepreneurship. Business Horizons , 48 , 271–274; Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 259–271.

Extraversion The degree to which a person is outgoing, talkative, sociable, and enjoys being in social situations. is the degree to which a person is outgoing, talkative, and sociable, and enjoys being in social situations. One of the established findings is that they tend to be effective in jobs involving sales. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology , 44 , 1–26; Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., & Roth, P. L. (1998). A meta-analytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology , 83 , 586–597. Moreover, they tend to be effective as managers and they demonstrate inspirational leadership behaviors. Bauer, T. N., Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Wayne, S. J. (2006). A longitudinal study of the moderating role of extraversion: Leader-member exchange, performance, and turnover during new executive development. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 298–310; Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 , 901–910. Extraverts do well in social situations, and as a result they tend to be effective in job interviews. Part of their success comes from how they prepare for the job interview, as they are likely to use their social network. Caldwell, D. F., & Burger, J. M. (1998). Personality characteristics of job applicants and success in screening interviews. Personnel Psychology , 51 , 119–136; Tay, C., Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2006). Personality, biographical characteristics, and job interview success: A longitudinal study of the mediating effects of interviewing self-efficacy and the moderating effects of internal locus of control. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 446–454. Extraverts have an easier time than introverts when adjusting to a new job. They actively seek information and feedback, and build effective relationships, which helps with their adjustment. Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process. Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 , 373–385. Interestingly, extraverts are also found to be happier at work, which may be because of the relationships they build with the people around them and their relative ease in adjusting to a new job. Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 , 530–541. However, they do not necessarily perform well in all jobs, and jobs depriving them of social interaction may be a poor fit. Moreover, they are not necessarily model employees. For example, they tend to have higher levels of absenteeism at work, potentially because they may miss work to hang out with or attend to the needs of their friends. Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. (1997). Five-factor model of personality and employee absence. Journal of Applied Psychology , 82 , 745–755.

Studies show that there is a relationship between being extraverted and effectiveness as a salesperson.

Agreeableness The degree to which a person is nice, tolerant, sensitive, trusting, kind, and warm. is the degree to which a person is nice, tolerant, sensitive, trusting, kind, and warm. In other words, people who are high in agreeableness are likeable people who get along with others. Not surprisingly, agreeable people help others at work consistently, and this helping behavior is not dependent on being in a good mood. Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal , 49 , 561–575. They are also less likely to retaliate when other people treat them unfairly. Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal , 42 , 100–108. This may reflect their ability to show empathy and give people the benefit of the doubt. Agreeable people may be a valuable addition to their teams and may be effective leaders because they create a fair environment when they are in leadership positions. Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B., & Goldstein, H. (2007). The precursors and products of justice climates: Group leader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences. Personnel Psychology , 60 , 929–963. At the other end of the spectrum, people low in agreeableness are less likely to show these positive behaviors. Moreover, people who are not agreeable are shown to quit their jobs unexpectedly, perhaps in response to a conflict they engage with a boss or a peer. Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions: A meta-analytic path model. Personnel Psychology , 61 , 309–348. If agreeable people are so nice, does this mean that we should only look for agreeable people when hiring? Some jobs may actually be a better fit for someone with a low level of agreeableness. Think about it: When hiring a lawyer, would you prefer a kind and gentle person, or a pit bull? Also, high agreeableness has a downside: Agreeable people are less likely to engage in constructive and change-oriented communication. LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , 326–336. Disagreeing with the status quo may create conflict and agreeable people will likely avoid creating such conflict, missing an opportunity for constructive change.

How Accurately Can You Describe Your Big Five Personality Factors?

Go to http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/ to see how you score on these factors.

Neuroticism The degree to which a person is anxious, irritable, aggressive, temperamental, and moody. refers to the degree to which a person is anxious, irritable, aggressive, temperamental, and moody. These people have a tendency to have emotional adjustment problems and experience stress and depression on a habitual basis. People very high in neuroticism experience a number of problems at work. For example, they are less likely to be someone people go to for advice and friendship. Klein, K. J., Beng-Chong, L., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal , 47 , 952–963. In other words, they may experience relationship difficulties. They tend to be habitually unhappy in their jobs and report high intentions to leave, but they do not necessarily actually leave their jobs. Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 , 530–541; Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions: A meta-analytic path model. Personnel Psychology , 61 , 309–348. Being high in neuroticism seems to be harmful to one’s career, as they have lower levels of career success (measured with income and occupational status achieved in one’s career). Finally, if they achieve managerial jobs, they tend to create an unfair climate at work. Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B., & Goldstein, H. (2007). The precursors and products of justice climates: Group leader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences. Personnel Psychology , 60 , 929–963.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Aside from the Big Five personality traits, perhaps the most well-known and most often used personality assessment is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Unlike the Big Five, which assesses traits, MBTI measures types. Assessments of the Big Five do not classify people as neurotic or extravert: It is all a matter of degrees. MBTI on the other hand, classifies people as one of 16 types. Carlyn, M. (1977). An assessment of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment , 41 , 461–473; Myers, I. B. (1962). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. In MBTI, people are grouped using four dimensions. Based on how a person is classified on these four dimensions, it is possible to talk about 16 unique personality types, such as ESTJ and ISTP.

MBTI was developed in 1943 by a mother–daughter team, Isabel Myers and Katherine Cook Briggs. Its objective at the time was to aid World War II veterans in identifying the occupation that would suit their personalities. Since that time, MBTI has become immensely popular, and according to one estimate, around 2.5 million people take the test annually. The survey is criticized because it relies on types as opposed to traits, but organizations who use the survey find it very useful for training and team-building purposes. More than 80 of the Fortune 100 companies used Myers-Briggs tests in some form. One distinguishing characteristic of this test is that it is explicitly designed for learning, not for employee selection purposes. In fact, the Myers & Briggs Foundation has strict guidelines against the use of the test for employee selection. Instead, the test is used to provide mutual understanding within the team and to gain a better understanding of the working styles of team members. Leonard, D., & Straus, S. (1997). Identifying how we think: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument. Harvard Business Review , 75 (4), 114–115; Shuit, D. P. (2003). At 60, Myers-Briggs is still sorting out and identifying people’s types. Workforce Management , 82 (13), 72–74.

Figure 3.6 Summary of MBTI Types

Positive and Negative Affectivity

You may have noticed that behavior is also a function of moods. When people are in a good mood, they may be more cooperative, smile more, and act friendly. When these same people are in a bad mood, they may have a tendency to be picky, irritable, and less tolerant of different opinions. Yet, some people seem to be in a good mood most of the time, and others seem to be in a bad mood most of the time regardless of what is actually going on in their lives. This distinction is manifested by positive and negative affectivity traits. Positive affective people People who experience positive moods more frequently and tend to be happier at work. experience positive moods more frequently, whereas negative affective people People who experience negative moods with greater frequency, focus on the “glass half empty,” and experience more anxiety and nervousness. experience negative moods with greater frequency. Negative affective people focus on the “glass half empty” and experience more anxiety and nervousness. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin , 96 , 465–490. Positive affective people tend to be happier at work, Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). On the heritability of job satisfaction: The mediating role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 , 750–759. and their happiness spreads to the rest of the work environment. As may be expected, this personality trait sets the tone in the work atmosphere. When a team comprises mostly negative affective people, there tend to be fewer instances of helping and cooperation. Teams dominated by positive affective people experience lower levels of absenteeism. George, J. M. (1989). Mood and absence. Journal of Applied Psychology , 74 , 317–324. When people with a lot of power are also high in positive affectivity, the work environment is affected in a positive manner and can lead to greater levels of cooperation and finding mutually agreeable solutions to problems. Anderson, C., & Thompson, L. L. (2004). Affect from the top down: How powerful individuals’ positive affect shapes negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 95 , 125–139.

OB Toolbox: Help, I work with a negative person!

Employees who have high levels of neuroticism or high levels of negative affectivity may act overly negative at work, criticize others, complain about trivial things, or create an overall negative work environment. Here are some tips for how to work with them effectively.

• Understand that you are unlikely to change someone else’s personality . Personality is relatively stable and criticizing someone’s personality will not bring about change. If the behavior is truly disruptive, focus on behavior, not personality.
• Keep an open mind . Just because a person is constantly negative does not mean that they are not sometimes right. Listen to the feedback they are giving you.
• Set a time limit . If you are dealing with someone who constantly complains about things, you may want to limit these conversations to prevent them from consuming your time at work.
• You may also empower them to act on the negatives they mention . The next time an overly negative individual complains about something, ask that person to think of ways to change the situation and get back to you.
• Ask for specifics . If someone has a negative tone in general, you may want to ask for specific examples for what the problem is.

Sources: Adapted from ideas in Ferguson, J. (2006, October 31). Expert’s view…on managing office moaners. Personnel Today , 29; Karcher, C. (2003, September), Working with difficult people. National Public Accountant , 39–40; Mudore, C. F. (2001, February/March). Working with difficult people. Career World , 29 (5), 16–18; How to manage difficult people. (2000, May). Leadership for the Front Lines , 3–4.

Self-Monitoring

Self-monitoring The extent to which people are capable of monitoring their actions and appearance in social situations. refers to the extent to which a person is capable of monitoring his or her actions and appearance in social situations. In other words, people who are social monitors are social chameleons who understand what the situation demands and act accordingly, while low social monitors tend to act the way they feel. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 30 , 526–537; Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances/public realities: The psychology of self-monitoring . New York: Freeman. High social monitors are sensitive to the types of behaviors the social environment expects from them. Their greater ability to modify their behavior according to the demands of the situation and to manage their impressions effectively is a great advantage for them. Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, M. C. (2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , 351–360. In general, they tend to be more successful in their careers. They are more likely to get cross-company promotions, and even when they stay with one company, they are more likely to advance. Day, D. V., & Schleicher, D. J. Self-monitoring at work: A motive-based perspective. Journal of Personality , 74, 685-714; Kilduff, M., & Day, D. V. (1994). Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring on managerial careers. Academy of Management Journal , 37 , 1047–1060. Social monitors also become the “go to” person in their company and they enjoy central positions in their social networks. Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly , 46 , 121–146. They are rated as higher performers, and emerge as leaders. Day, D. V., Schleicher, D. J., Unckless, A. L., & Hiller, N. J. (2002). Self-monitoring personality at work: A meta-analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 , 390–401. While they are effective in influencing other people and get things done by managing their impressions, this personality trait has some challenges that need to be addressed. First, when evaluating the performance of other employees, they tend to be less accurate. It seems that while trying to manage their impressions, they may avoid giving accurate feedback to their subordinates to avoid confrontations. Jawahar, I. M. (2001). Attitudes, self-monitoring, and appraisal behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , 875–883. This tendency may create problems for them if they are managers. Second, high social monitors tend to experience higher levels of stress, probably caused by behaving in ways that conflict with their true feelings. In situations that demand positive emotions, they may act happy although they are not feeling happy, which puts an emotional burden on them. Finally, high social monitors tend to be less committed to their companies. They may see their jobs as a stepping-stone for greater things, which may prevent them from forming strong attachments and loyalty to their current employer. Day, D. V., Schleicher, D. J., Unckless, A. L., & Hiller, N. J. (2002). Self-monitoring personality at work: A meta-analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 , 390–401.

Proactive Personality

Proactive personality A person’s inclination to fix what is perceived to be wrong, change the status quo, and use initiative to solve problems. refers to a person’s inclination to fix what is perceived as wrong, change the status quo, and use initiative to solve problems. Instead of waiting to be told what to do, proactive people take action to initiate meaningful change and remove the obstacles they face along the way. In general, having a proactive personality has a number of advantages for these people. For example, they tend to be more successful in their job searches. Brown, D. J., Cober, R. T., Kane, K., Levy, P. E., & Shalhoop, J. (2006). Proactive personality and the successful job search: A field investigation with college graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 717–726. They are also more successful over the course of their careers, because they use initiative and acquire greater understanding of the politics within the organization. Seibert, S. E. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology , 84 , 416–427; Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, M. J. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology , 54 , 845–874. Proactive people are valuable assets to their companies because they may have higher levels of performance. Crant, M. J. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology , 80 , 532–537. They adjust to their new jobs quickly because they understand the political environment better and often make friends more quickly. Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping the organizational entry process: Disentangling multiple antecedents and their pathways to adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 , 779–794; Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 , 1011–1017. Proactive people are eager to learn and engage in many developmental activities to improve their skills. Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the Big Five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 927–935. Despite all their potential, under some circumstances a proactive personality may be a liability for an individual or an organization. Imagine a person who is proactive but is perceived as being too pushy, trying to change things other people are not willing to let go, or using their initiative to make decisions that do not serve a company’s best interests. Research shows that the success of proactive people depends on their understanding of a company’s core values, their ability and skills to perform their jobs, and their ability to assess situational demands correctly. Chan, D. (2006). Interactive effects of situational judgment effectiveness and proactive personality on work perceptions and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 475–481; Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2005). Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive personality: The role of fit with jobs and organizations. Personnel Psychology , 58 , 859–891.

Self-Esteem

Self-esteem The degree to which a person has overall positive feelings about oneself. is the degree to which a person has overall positive feelings about his or herself. People with high self-esteem view themselves in a positive light, are confident, and respect themselves. On the other hand, people with low self-esteem experience high levels of self-doubt and question their self-worth. High self-esteem is related to higher levels of satisfaction with one’s job and higher levels of performance on the job. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self esteem, generalized self efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , 80–92. People with low self-esteem are attracted to situations in which they will be relatively invisible, such as large companies. Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology , 78 , 184–193. Managing employees with low self-esteem may be challenging at times, because negative feedback given with the intention to improve performance may be viewed as a judgment on their worth as an employee. Therefore, effectively managing employees with relatively low self-esteem requires tact and providing lots of positive feedback when discussing performance incidents.

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy A belief that one can perform a specific task successfully. is a belief that one can perform a specific task successfully. Research shows that the belief that we can do something is a good predictor of whether we can actually do it. Self-efficacy is different from other personality traits in that it is job specific. You may have high self-efficacy in being successful academically, but low self-efficacy in relation to your ability to fix your car. At the same time, people have a certain level of generalized self-efficacy and they have the belief that whatever task or hobby they tackle, they are likely to be successful in it.

Research shows that self-efficacy at work is related to job performance. Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 , 707–721; Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 , 107–127; Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin , 124 , 240–261. This relationship is probably a result of people with high self-efficacy setting higher goals for themselves and being more committed to these goals, whereas people with low self-efficacy tend to procrastinate. Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology , 82 , 792–802; Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin , 133 , 65–94; Wofford, J. C., Goodwin, V. L., & Premack, S. (1992). Meta-analysis of the antecedents of personal goal level and of the antecedents and consequences of goal commitment. Journal of Management , 18 , 595–615. Academic self-efficacy is a good predictor of your GPA, whether you persist in your studies, or drop out of college. Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin , 130 , 261–288.

Is there a way of increasing employees’ self-efficacy? Hiring people who are capable of performing their tasks and training people to increase their self-efficacy may be effective. Some people may also respond well to verbal encouragement. By showing that you believe they can be successful and effectively playing the role of a cheerleader, you may be able to increase self-efficacy. Giving people opportunities to test their skills so that they can see what they are capable of doing (or empowering them) is also a good way of increasing self-efficacy. Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 , 945–955.

OB Toolbox: Ways to Build Your Self-Confidence

Having high self-efficacy and self-esteem are boons to your career. People who have an overall positive view of themselves and those who have positive attitudes toward their abilities project an aura of confidence. How do you achieve higher self-confidence?

• Take a self-inventory . What are the areas in which you lack confidence? Then consciously tackle these areas. Take part in training programs; seek opportunities to practice these skills. Confront your fears head-on.
• Set manageable goals . Success in challenging goals will breed self-confidence, but do not make your goals impossible to reach. If a task seems daunting, break it apart and set mini goals.
• Find a mentor . A mentor can point out areas in need of improvement, provide accurate feedback, and point to ways of improving yourself.
• Don’t judge yourself by your failures . Everyone fails, and the most successful people have more failures in life. Instead of assessing your self-worth by your failures, learn from mistakes and move on.
• Until you can feel confident, be sure to act confident . Acting confident will influence how others treat you, which will boost your confidence level. Pay attention to how you talk and behave, and act like someone who has high confidence.
• Know when to ignore negative advice . If you receive negative feedback from someone who is usually negative, try to ignore it. Surrounding yourself with naysayers is not good for your self-esteem. This does not mean that you should ignore all negative feedback, but be sure to look at a person’s overall attitude before making serious judgments based on that feedback.

Sources: Adapted from information in Beagrie, S. (2006, September 26). How to…build up self confidence. Personnel Today , p. 31; Beste, F. J., III. (2007, November–December). Are you an entrepreneur? In Business , 29 (6), 22; Goldsmith, B. (2006, October). Building self confidence. PA Times, Education Supplement , p. 30; Kennett, M. (2006, October). The scale of confidence. Management Today , p. 40–45; Parachin, V. M. (March 2003, October). Developing dynamic self-confidence. Supervision , 64 (3), 13–15.

Locus of Control

Locus of control deals with the degree to which people feel accountable for their own behaviors. Individuals with high internal locus of control The belief that a person controls their own destiny and what happens to them is their own doing. believe that they control their own destiny and what happens to them is their own doing, while those with high external locus of control The belief that things happen because of other people, luck, or a powerful being. feel that things happen to them because of other people, luck, or a powerful being. Internals feel greater control over their own lives and therefore they act in ways that will increase their chances of success. For example, they take the initiative to start mentor-protégé relationships. They are more involved with their jobs. They demonstrate higher levels of motivation and have more positive experiences at work. Ng, T. W. H., Soresen, K. L., & Eby, L. T. (2006). Locus of control at work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 27 , 1057–1087; Reitz, H. J., & Jewell, L. N. (1979). Sex, locus of control, and job involvement: A six-country investigation. Academy of Management Journal , 22 , 72–80; Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Role of protégé personality in receipt of mentoring and career success. Academy of Management Journal , 37 , 688–702. Interestingly, internal locus is also related to one’s subjective well-being and happiness in life, while being high in external locus is related to a higher rate of depression. Benassi, V. A., Sweeney, P. D., & Dufour, C. L. (1988). Is there a relation between locus of control orientation and depression? Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 97 , 357–367; DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin , 124 , 197–229. The connection between internal locus of control and health is interesting, but perhaps not surprising. In fact, one study showed that having internal locus of control at the age of 10 was related to a number of health outcomes, such as lower obesity and lower blood pressure later in life. Gale, C. R., Batty, G. D., & Deary, I. J. (2008). Locus of control at age 10 years and health outcomes and behaviors at age 30 years: The 1970 British Cohort Study. Psychosomatic Medicine , 70 , 397–403. It is possible that internals take more responsibility for their health and adopt healthier habits, while externals may see less of a connection between how they live and their health. Internals thrive in contexts in which they have the ability to influence their own behavior. Successful entrepreneurs tend to have high levels of internal locus of control. Certo, S. T., & Certo, S. C. (2005). Spotlight on entrepreneurship. Business Horizons , 48 , 271–274.

Understand Your Locus of Control by Taking a Survey at the Following Web Site:

http://discoveryhealth.queendom.com/questions/lc_short_1.html

Personality Testing in Employee Selection

Personality is a potentially important predictor of work behavior. Matching people to jobs matters, because when people do not fit with their jobs or the company, they are more likely to leave, costing companies as much as a person’s annual salary to replace them. In job interviews, companies try to assess a candidate’s personality and the potential for a good match, but interviews are only as good as the people conducting them. In fact, interviewers are not particularly good at detecting the best trait that predicts performance: conscientiousness. Barrick, M. R., Patton, G. K., & Haugland, S. N. (2000). Accuracy of interviewer judgments of job applicant personality traits. Personnel Psychology , 53 , 925–951. One method some companies use to improve this match and detect the people who are potentially good job candidates is personality testing. Companies such as Kronos and Hogan Assessment Systems conduct preemployment personality tests. Companies using them believe that these tests improve the effectiveness of their selection and reduce turnover. For example, Overnight Transportation in Atlanta found that using such tests reduced their on-the-job delinquency by 50%–100%. Emmett, A. (2004). Snake oil or science? That’s the raging debate on personality testing. Workforce Management , 83 , 90–92; Gale, S. F. (2002). Three companies cut turnover with tests. Workforce , 81 (4), 66–69.

Yet, are these methods good ways of selecting employees? Experts have not yet reached an agreement on this subject and the topic is highly controversial. Some experts believe, based on data, that personality tests predict performance and other important criteria such as job satisfaction. However, we must understand that how a personality test is used influences its validity. Imagine filling out a personality test in class. You may be more likely to fill it out as honestly as you can. Then, if your instructor correlates your personality scores with your class performance, we could say that the correlation is meaningful. In employee selection, one complicating factor is that people filling out the survey do not have a strong incentive to be honest. In fact, they have a greater incentive to guess what the job requires and answer the questions to match what they think the company is looking for. As a result, the rankings of the candidates who take the test may be affected by their ability to fake. Some experts believe that this is a serious problem. Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology , 60 , 683–729; Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Are we getting fooled again? Coming to terms with limitations in the use of personality tests for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology , 60 , 1029–1049. Others point out that even with faking The practice of answering questions in a way one thinks the company is looking for. , the tests remain valid—the scores are still related to job performance. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology , 81 , 261–272; Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology , 60 , 995–1027; Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection. Journal of Applied Psychology , 81 , 660–679; Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2007). Personality tests at the crossroads: A response to Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt (2007). Personnel Psychology , 60 , 967–993. It is even possible that the ability to fake is related to a personality trait that increases success at work, such as social monitoring. This issue raises potential questions regarding whether personality tests are the most effective way of measuring candidate personality.

Scores are not only distorted because of some candidates faking better than others. Do we even know our own personality? Are we the best person to ask this question? How supervisors, coworkers, and customers see our personality matters more than how we see ourselves. Therefore, using self-report measures of performance may not be the best way of measuring someone’s personality. Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, J. P. (1994). Validity of observer ratings of the Big Five personality factors. Journal of Applied Psychology , 79 , 272–280. We all have blind areas. We may also give “aspirational” answers. If you are asked if you are honest, you may think, “Yes, I always have the intention to be honest.” This response says nothing about your actual level of honesty.

There is another problem with using these tests: How good a predictor of performance is personality anyway? Based on research, not a particularly strong one. According to one estimate, personality only explains about 10%–15% of variation in job performance. Our performance at work depends on so many factors, and personality does not seem to be the key factor for performance. In fact, cognitive ability (your overall mental intelligence) is a much more powerful influence on job performance, and instead of personality tests, cognitive ability tests may do a better job of predicting who will be good performers. Personality is a better predictor of job satisfaction and other attitudes, but screening people out on the assumption that they may be unhappy at work is a challenging argument to make in the context of employee selection.

In any case, if you decide to use these tests for selection, you need to be aware of their limitations. Relying only on personality tests for selection of an employee is a bad idea, but if they are used together with other tests such as tests of cognitive abilities, better decisions may be made. The company should ensure that the test fits the job and actually predicts performance. This process is called validating the test. Before giving the test to applicants, the company could give it to existing employees to find out the traits that are most important for success in the particular company and job. Then, in the selection context, the company can pay particular attention to those traits. The company should also make sure that the test does not discriminate against people on the basis of sex, race, age, disabilities, and other legally protected characteristics. Rent-A-Center experienced legal difficulties when the test they used was found to be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The test they used for selection, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, was developed to diagnose severe mental illnesses and included items such as “I see things or people around me others do not see.” In effect, the test served the purpose of a clinical evaluation and was discriminating against people with mental illnesses, which is a protected category under ADA. Heller, M. (2005). Court ruling that employer’s integrity test violated ADA could open door to litigation. Workforce Management , 84 (9), 74–77.

Values and personality traits are two dimensions on which people differ. Values are stable life goals. When seeking jobs, employees are more likely to accept a job that provides opportunities for value attainment, and they are more likely to remain in situations that satisfy their values. Personality comprises the stable feelings, thoughts, and behavioral patterns people have. The Big Five personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) are important traits that seem to be stable and can be generalized to other cultures. Other important traits for work behavior include self-efficacy, self-esteem, social monitoring, proactive personality, positive and negative affectivity, and locus of control. It is important to remember that a person’s behavior depends on the match between the person and the situation. While personality is a strong influence on job attitudes, its relation to job performance is weaker. Some companies use personality testing to screen out candidates. This method has certain limitations, and companies using personality tests are advised to validate their tests and use them as a supplement to other techniques that have greater validity.

• Think about the personality traits covered in this section. Can you think of jobs or occupations that seem particularly suited to each trait? Which traits would be universally desirable across all jobs?
• What are the unique challenges of managing employees who have low self-efficacy and low self-esteem? How would you deal with this situation?
• What are some methods that companies can use to assess employee personality?
• Have you ever held a job where your personality did not match the demands of the job? How did you react to this situation? How were your attitudes and behaviors affected?
• Can you think of any limitations of developing an “ideal employee” profile and looking for employees who fit that profile while hiring?

3.4 Perception

• Understand the influence of self in the process of perception.
• Describe how we perceive visual objects and how these tendencies may affect our behavior.
• Describe the biases of self-perception.
• Describe the biases inherent in perception of other people.
• Explain what attributions mean, how we form attributions, and their consequences for organizational behavior.

Our behavior is not only a function of our personality, values, and preferences, but also of the situation. We interpret our environment, formulate responses, and act accordingly. Perception The process with which individuals detect and interpret environmental stimuli. may be defined as the process with which individuals detect and interpret environmental stimuli. What makes human perception so interesting is that we do not solely respond to the stimuli in our environment. We go beyond the information that is present in our environment, pay selective attention to some aspects of the environment, and ignore other elements that may be immediately apparent to other people. Our perception of the environment is not entirely rational. For example, have you ever noticed that while glancing at a newspaper or a news Web site, information that is interesting or important to you jumps out of the page and catches your eye? If you are a sports fan, while scrolling down the pages you may immediately see a news item describing the latest success of your team. If you are the parent of a picky eater, an advice column on toddler feeding may be the first thing you see when looking at the page. So what we see in the environment is a function of what we value, our needs, our fears, and our emotions. Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. A. (1987). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology , 38 , 369–425; Keltner, D., Ellsworth, P. C., & Edwards, K. (1993). Beyond simple pessimism: Effects of sadness and anger on social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 64 , 740–752. In fact, what we see in the environment may be objectively, flat-out wrong because of our personality, values, or emotions. For example, one experiment showed that when people who were afraid of spiders were shown spiders, they inaccurately thought that the spider was moving toward them. Riskind, J. H., Moore, R., & Bowley, L. (1995). The looming of spiders: The fearful perceptual distortion of movement and menace. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 33 , 171. In this section, we will describe some common tendencies we engage in when perceiving objects or other people, and the consequences of such perceptions. Our coverage of biases and tendencies in perception is not exhaustive—there are many other biases and tendencies on our social perception.

Visual Perception

Our visual perception definitely goes beyond the physical information available to us. First of all, we extrapolate from the information available to us. Take a look at the following figure. The white triangle you see in the middle is not really there, but we extrapolate from the information available to us and see it there. Kellman, P. J., & Shipley, T. F. (1991). A theory of visual interpolation in object perception. Cognitive Psychology , 23 , 141–221.

Our visual perception goes beyond the information physically available. In this figure, we see the white triangle in the middle even though it is not really there.

Which of the circles in the middle is bigger? At first glance, the one on the left may appear bigger, but they are in fact the same size. We compare the middle circle on the left to its surrounding circles, whereas the middle circle on the right is compared to the bigger circles surrounding it.

Our visual perception is often biased because we do not perceive objects in isolation. The contrast between our focus of attention and the remainder of the environment may make an object appear bigger or smaller. This principle is illustrated in the figure with circles. Which of the middle circles is bigger? To most people, the one on the left appears bigger, but this is because it is surrounded by smaller circles. The contrast between the focal object and the objects surrounding it may make an object bigger or smaller to our eye.

How do these tendencies influence behavior in organizations? You may have realized that the fact that our visual perception is faulty may make witness testimony faulty and biased. How do we know whether the employee you judge to be hardworking, fast, and neat is really like that? Is it really true, or are we comparing this person to other people in the immediate environment? Or let’s say that you do not like one of your peers and you think that this person is constantly surfing the Web during work hours. Are you sure? Have you really seen this person surf unrelated Web sites, or is it possible that the person was surfing the Web for work-related purposes? Our biased visual perception may lead to the wrong inferences about the people around us.

Self-Perception

Human beings are prone to errors and biases when perceiving themselves. Moreover, the type of bias people have depends on their personality. Many people suffer from self-enhancement bias The tendency to overestimate our performance and capabilities and to see ourselves in a more positive light than others see us. . This is the tendency to overestimate our performance and capabilities and see ourselves in a more positive light than others see us. People who have a narcissistic personality are particularly subject to this bias, but many others are still prone to overestimating their abilities. John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 66 , 206–219. At the same time, other people have the opposing extreme, which may be labeled as self-effacement bias The tendency to underestimate our performance and capabilities, and to see events in a way that puts ourselves in a more negative light. . This is the tendency for people to underestimate their performance, undervalue capabilities, and see events in a way that puts them in a more negative light. We may expect that people with low self-esteem may be particularly prone to making this error. These tendencies have real consequences for behavior in organizations. For example, people who suffer from extreme levels of self-enhancement tendencies may not understand why they are not getting promoted or rewarded, while those who have a tendency to self-efface may project low confidence and take more blame for their failures than necessary.

When perceiving themselves, human beings are also subject to the false consensus error How we as human beings overestimate how similar we are to other people. . Simply put, we overestimate how similar we are to other people. Fields, J. M., & Schuman, H. (1976). Public beliefs about the beliefs of the public. Public Opinion Quarterly , 40 (4), 427–448; Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 13 , 279–301. We assume that whatever quirks we have are shared by a larger number of people than in reality. People who take office supplies home, tell white lies to their boss or colleagues, or take credit for other people’s work to get ahead may genuinely feel that these behaviors are more common than they really are. The problem for behavior in organizations is that, when people believe that a behavior is common and normal, they may repeat the behavior more freely. Under some circumstances this may lead to a high level of unethical or even illegal behaviors.

Social Perception

How we perceive other people in our environment is also shaped by our values, emotions, feelings, and personality. Moreover, how we perceive others will shape our behavior, which in turn will shape the behavior of the person we are interacting with.

One of the factors biasing our perception is stereotypes Generalizations based on a perceived group characteristic. . Stereotypes are generalizations based on group characteristics. For example, believing that women are more cooperative than men, or men are more assertive than women, is a stereotype. Stereotypes may be positive, negative, or neutral. Human beings have a natural tendency to categorize the information around them to make sense of their environment. What makes stereotypes potentially discriminatory and a perceptual bias is the tendency to generalize from a group to a particular individual. If the belief that men are more assertive than women leads to choosing a man over an equally (or potentially more) qualified female candidate for a position, the decision will be biased, potentially illegal, and unfair.

Stereotypes often create a situation called a self-fulfilling prophecy This happens when an established stereotype causes one to behave in a certain way, which leads the other party to behave in a way that makes the stereotype come true. . This cycle occurs when people automatically behave as if an established stereotype is accurate, which leads to reactive behavior from the other party that confirms the stereotype. Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 35 , 656–666. If you have a stereotype such as “Asians are friendly,” you are more likely to be friendly toward an Asian yourself. Because you are treating the other person better, the response you get may also be better, confirming your original belief that Asians are friendly. Of course, just the opposite is also true. Suppose you believe that “young employees are slackers.” You are less likely to give a young employee high levels of responsibility or interesting and challenging assignments. The result may be that the young employee reporting to you may become increasingly bored at work and start goofing off, confirming your suspicions that young people are slackers!

Stereotypes persist because of a process called selective perception. Selective perception When we pay selective attention to parts of the environment while ignoring other parts. simply means that we pay selective attention to parts of the environment while ignoring other parts. When we observe our environment, we see what we want to see and ignore information that may seem out of place. Here is an interesting example of how selective perception leads our perception to be shaped by the context: As part of a social experiment, in 2007 the Washington Post newspaper arranged Joshua Bell, the internationally acclaimed violin virtuoso, to perform in a corner of the Metro station in Washington DC. The violin he was playing was worth $3.5 million, and tickets for Bell’s concerts usually cost around $100. During the rush hour in which he played for 45 minutes, only one person recognized him, only a few realized that they were hearing extraordinary music, and he made only $32 in tips. When you see someone playing at the metro station, would you expect them to be extraordinary? Weingarten, G. (2007, April 8). Pearls before breakfast. Washington Post . Retrieved January 29, 2009, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html .

Our background, expectations, and beliefs will shape which events we notice and which events we ignore. For example, the functional background of executives affects the changes they perceive in their environment. Waller, M. J., Huber, G. P., & Glick, W. H. (1995). Functional background as a determinant of executives’ selective perception. Academy of Management Journal , 38 , 943–974. Executives with a background in sales and marketing see the changes in the demand for their product, while executives with a background in information technology may more readily perceive the changes in the technology the company is using. Selective perception may perpetuate stereotypes, because we are less likely to notice events that go against our beliefs. A person who believes that men drive better than women may be more likely to notice women driving poorly than men driving poorly. As a result, a stereotype is maintained because information to the contrary may not reach our brain.

First impressions are lasting. A job interview is one situation in which first impressions formed during the first few minutes may have consequences for your relationship with your future boss or colleagues.

Let’s say we noticed information that goes against our beliefs. What then? Unfortunately, this is no guarantee that we will modify our beliefs and prejudices. First, when we see examples that go against our stereotypes, we tend to come up with subcategories. For example, when people who believe that women are more cooperative see a female who is assertive, they may classify this person as a “career woman.” Therefore, the example to the contrary does not violate the stereotype, and instead is explained as an exception to the rule. Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. A. (1987). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology , 38 , 369–425. Second, we may simply discount the information. In one study, people who were either in favor of or opposed to the death penalty were shown two studies, one showing benefits from the death penalty and the other discounting any benefits. People rejected the study that went against their belief as methodologically inferior and actually reinforced the belief in their original position even more. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 37 , 2098–2109. In other words, trying to debunk people’s beliefs or previously established opinions with data may not necessarily help.

One other perceptual tendency that may affect work behavior is that of first impressions Initial thoughts and perceptions we form about people, which tend to be stable and resilient to contrary information. . The first impressions we form about people tend to have a lasting impact. In fact, first impressions, once formed, are surprisingly resilient to contrary information. Even if people are told that the first impressions were caused by inaccurate information, people hold onto them to a certain degree. The reason is that, once we form first impressions, they become independent of the evidence that created them. Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: Biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 32 , 880–892. Any information we receive to the contrary does not serve the purpose of altering the original impression. Imagine the first day you met your colleague Anne. She treated you in a rude manner and when you asked for her help, she brushed you off. You may form the belief that she is a rude and unhelpful person. Later, you may hear that her mother is very sick and she is very stressed. In reality she may have been unusually stressed on the day you met her. If you had met her on a different day, you could have thought that she is a really nice person who is unusually stressed these days. But chances are your impression that she is rude and unhelpful will not change even when you hear about her mother. Instead, this new piece of information will be added to the first one: She is rude, unhelpful, and her mother is sick. Being aware of this tendency and consciously opening your mind to new information may protect you against some of the downsides of this bias. Also, it would be to your advantage to pay careful attention to the first impressions you create, particularly during job interviews.

OB Toolbox: How Can I Make a Great First Impression in the Job Interview?

A job interview is your first step to getting the job of your dreams. It is also a social interaction in which your actions during the first 5 minutes will determine the impression you make. Here are some tips to help you create a positive first impression.

• Your first opportunity to make a great impression starts even before the interview, the moment you send your résumé . Be sure that you send your résumé to the correct people, and spell the name of the contact person correctly! Make sure that your résumé looks professional and is free from typos and grammar problems. Have someone else read it before you hit the send button or mail it.
• Be prepared for the interview . Many interviews have some standard questions such as “tell me about yourself” or “why do you want to work here?” Be ready to answer these questions. Prepare answers highlighting your skills and accomplishments, and practice your message. Better yet, practice an interview with a friend. Practicing your answers will prevent you from regretting your answers or finding a better answer after the interview is over!
• Research the company . If you know a lot about the company and the job in question, you will come out as someone who is really interested in the job. If you ask basic questions such as “what does this company do?” you will not be taken as a serious candidate. Visit the company’s Web site as well as others, and learn as much about the company and the job as you can.
• When you are invited for an office interview, be sure to dress properly . Like it or not, the manner you dress is a big part of the impression you make. Dress properly for the job and company in question. In many jobs, wearing professional clothes, such as a suit, is expected. In some information technology jobs, it may be more proper to wear clean and neat business casual clothes (such as khakis and a pressed shirt) as opposed to dressing formally. Do some investigation about what is suitable. Whatever the norm is, make sure that your clothes fit well and are clean and neat.
• Be on time to the interview . Being late will show that you either don’t care about the interview or you are not very reliable. While waiting for the interview, don’t forget that your interview has already started. As soon as you enter the company’s parking lot, every person you see on the way or talk to may be a potential influence over the decision maker. Act professionally and treat everyone nicely.
• During the interview, be polite . Use correct grammar, show eagerness and enthusiasm, and watch your body language. From your handshake to your posture, your body is communicating whether you are the right person for the job!

Sources: Adapted from ideas in Bruce, C. (2007, October). Business Etiquette 101: Making a good first impression. Black Collegian , 38(1), 78–80; Evenson, R. (2007, May). Making a great first impression. Techniques , 14–17; Mather, J., & Watson, M. (2008, May 23). Perfect candidate. The Times Educational Supplement , 4789 , 24–26; Messmer, M. (2007, July). 10 minutes to impress. Journal of Accountancy , 204 (1), 13; Reece, T. (2006, November–December). How to wow! Career World , 35 , 16–18.

Attributions

Your colleague Peter failed to meet the deadline. What do you do? Do you help him finish up his work? Do you give him the benefit of the doubt and place the blame on the difficulty of the project? Or do you think that he is irresponsible? Our behavior is a function of our perceptions. More specifically, when we observe others behave in a certain way, we ask ourselves a fundamental question: Why? Why did he fail to meet the deadline? Why did Mary get the promotion? Why did Mark help you when you needed help? The answer we give is the key to understanding our subsequent behavior. If you believe that Mark helped you because he is a nice person, your action will be different from your response if you think that Mark helped you because your boss pressured him to.

An attribution The causal explanation we give for an observed behavior. is the causal explanation we give for an observed behavior. If you believe that a behavior is due to the internal characteristics of an actor, you are making an internal attribution Explaining someone’s behavior using the internal characteristics of the actor. . For example, let’s say your classmate Erin complained a lot when completing a finance assignment. If you think that she complained because she is a negative person, you are making an internal attribution. An external attribution Explaining someone’s behavior by referring to the situation. is explaining someone’s behavior by referring to the situation. If you believe that Erin complained because finance homework was difficult, you are making an external attribution.

When do we make internal or external attributions? Research shows that three factors are the key to understanding what kind of attributions we make.

Consensus The degree to which other people behave the same way as the actor. : Do other people behave the same way?

Distinctiveness The degree to which the actor behaves the same way across different situations. : Does this person behave the same way across different situations?

Consistency The degree to which the actor behaves the same way on different occasions in the same situation. : Does this person behave this way in different occasions in the same situation?

Let’s assume that in addition to Erin, other people in the same class also complained (high consensus). Erin does not usually complain in other classes (high distinctiveness). Erin usually does not complain in finance class (low consistency). In this situation, you are likely to make an external attribution, such as thinking that finance homework is difficult. On the other hand, let’s assume that Erin is the only person complaining (low consensus). Erin complains in a variety of situations (low distinctiveness), and every time she is in finance, she complains (high consistency). In this situation, you are likely to make an internal attribution such as thinking that Erin is a negative person. Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation , 15 , 192–238; Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist , 28 , 107–128.

Interestingly though, our attributions do not always depend on the consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency we observe in a given situation. In other words, when making attributions, we do not always look at the situation objectively. For example, our overall relationship is a factor. When a manager likes a subordinate, the attributions made would be more favorable (successes are attributed to internal causes, while failures are attributed to external causes). Heneman, R. L., Greenberger, D. B., & Anonyou, C. (1989). Attributions and exchanges: The effects of interpersonal factors on the diagnosis of employee performance. Academy of Management Journal , 32 , 466–476. Moreover, when interpreting our own behavior, we suffer from self-serving bias The tendency to attribute our failures to the situation while attributing our successes to internal causes. . This is the tendency to attribute our failures to the situation while attributing our successes to internal causes. Malle, B. F. (2006). The actor-observer asymmetry in attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin , 132 , 895–919.

Table 3.1 Consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency determine the type of attribution we make in a given situation.

How we react to other people’s behavior would depend on the type of attributions we make. When faced with poor performance, such as missing a deadline, we are more likely to punish the person if an internal attribution is made (such as “the person being unreliable”). In the same situation, if we make an external attribution (such as “the timeline was unreasonable”), instead of punishing the person we might extend the deadline or assign more help to the person. If we feel that someone’s failure is due to external causes, we may feel empathy toward the person and even offer help. LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Peer responses to low performers: An attributional model of helping in the context of groups. Academy of Management Review , 26 , 67–84. On the other hand, if someone succeeds and we make an internal attribution (he worked hard), we are more likely to reward the person, whereas an external attribution (the project was easy) is less likely to yield rewards for the person in question. Therefore, understanding attributions is important to predicting subsequent behavior.

Perception is how we make sense of our environment in response to environmental stimuli. While perceiving our surroundings, we go beyond the objective information available to us, and our perception is affected by our values, needs, and emotions. There are many biases that affect human perception of objects, self, and others. When perceiving the physical environment, we fill in gaps and extrapolate from the available information. We also contrast physical objects to their surroundings and may perceive something as bigger, smaller, slower, or faster than it really is. In self-perception, we may commit the self-enhancement or self-effacement bias, depending on our personality. We also overestimate how much we are like other people. When perceiving others, stereotypes infect our behavior. Stereotypes may lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. Stereotypes are perpetuated because of our tendency to pay selective attention to aspects of the environment and ignore information inconsistent with our beliefs. When perceiving others, the attributions we make will determine how we respond to the situation. Understanding the perception process gives us clues to understand human behavior.

• What are the implications of contrast error for interpersonal interactions? Does this error occur only when we observe physical objects? Or have you encountered this error when perceiving behavior of others?
• What are the problems of false consensus error? How can managers deal with this tendency?
• Is there such a thing as a “good” stereotype? Is a “good” stereotype useful or still problematic?
• How do we manage the fact that human beings develop stereotypes? How would you prevent stereotypes from creating unfairness in decision making?
• Is it possible to manage the attributions other people make about our behavior? Let’s assume that you have completed a project successfully. How would you maximize the chances that your manager will make an internal attribution? How would you increase the chances of an external attribution when you fail in a task?

3.5 The Role of Ethics and National Culture

• Consider the role of individual differences for ethical behavior.
• Consider the role of national culture on individual differences.

Individual Differences and Ethics

Our values and personality influence how ethical we behave. Situational factors, rewards, and punishments following unethical choices as well as a company’s culture are extremely important, but the role of personality and personal values should not be ignored. Research reveals that people who have an economic value orientation, that is, those who value acquiring money and wealth, tend to make more unethical choices. In terms of personality, employees with external locus of control were found to make more unethical choices. Hegarty, W. H., & Sims, H. P. (1978). Some determinants of unethical decision behavior: An experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 63 , 451–457; Hegarty, W. H., & Sims, H. P. (1979). Organizational philosophy, policies, and objectives related to unethical decision behavior: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 64 , 331–338; Trevino, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology , 75 , 378–385.

Our perceptual processes are clear influences on whether or not we behave ethically and how we respond to other people’s unethical behaviors. It seems that self-enhancement bias operates for our ethical decisions as well: We tend to overestimate how ethical we are in general. Our self-ratings of ethics tend to be higher than how other people rate us. This belief can create a glaring problem: If we think that we are more ethical than we are, we will have little motivation to improve. Therefore, understanding how other people perceive our actions is important to getting a better understanding of ourselves.

How we respond to unethical behavior of others will, to a large extent, depend on the attributions we make. If we attribute responsibility to the person in question, we are more likely to punish that person. In a study on sexual harassment that occurred after a workplace romance turned sour, results showed that if we attribute responsibility to the victim, we are less likely to punish the harasser. Pierce, C. A., Broberg, B. J., McClure, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2004). Responding to sexual harassment complaints: Effects of a dissolved workplace romance on decision-making standards. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 95 , 66–82. Therefore, how we make attributions in a given situation will determine how we respond to others’ actions, including their unethical behaviors.

Individual Differences Around the Globe

Values that people care about vary around the world. In fact, when we refer to a country’s culture, we are referring to values that distinguish one nation from others. In other words, there is systematic variance in individuals’ personality and work values around the world, and this variance explains people’s behavior, attitudes, preferences, and the transferability of management practices to other cultures.

When we refer to a country’s values, this does not mean that everyone in a given country shares the same values. People differ within and across nations. There will always be people who care more about money and others who care more about relationships within each culture. Yet there are also national differences in the percentage of people holding each value. A researcher from Holland, Geert Hofstede, conducted a landmark study covering over 60 countries and found that countries differ in four dimensions: the extent to which they put individuals or groups first (individualism), whether the society subscribes to equality or hierarchy among people (power distance), the degree to which the society fears change (uncertainty avoidance), and the extent to which the culture emphasizes acquiring money and being successful (masculinity). Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values , behaviors , institutions and organizations across nations . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Knowing about the values held in a society will tell us what type of a workplace would satisfy and motivate employees.

Are personality traits universal? Researchers found that personality traits identified in Western cultures translate well to other cultures. For example, the five-factor model of personality is universal in that it explains how people differ from each other in over 79 countries. At the same time, there is variation among cultures in the dominant personality traits. In some countries, extraverts seem to be the majority, and in some countries the dominant trait is low emotional stability. For example, people from Europe and the United States are characterized by higher levels of extraversion compared to those from Asia and Africa. There are many factors explaining why some personality traits are dominant in some cultures. For example, the presence of democratic values is related to extraversion. Because democracy usually protects freedom of speech, people may feel more comfortable socializing with strangers as well as with friends, partly explaining the larger number of extraverts in democratic nations. Research also shows that in regions of the world that historically suffered from infectious diseases, extraversion and openness to experience was less dominant. Infectious diseases led people to limit social contact with strangers, explaining higher levels of introversion. Plus, to cope with infectious diseases, people developed strict habits for hygiene and the amount of spice to use in food, and deviating from these standards was bad for survival. This explains the lower levels of openness to experience in regions that experienced infectious diseases. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist , 52 , 509–516; McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & 79 members of the personality profiles of cultures project (2005). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 89 , 407–425; Schaller, M., & Murray, D. R. (2008). Pathogens, personality, and culture: Disease prevalence predicts worldwide variability in sociosexuality, extraversion, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 95 , 212–221.

Is basic human perception universal? It seems that there is variation around the globe in how we perceive other people as well as ourselves. One difference is the importance of the context. Studies show that when perceiving people or objects, Westerners pay more attention to the individual, while Asians pay more attention to the context. For example, in one study, when judging the emotion felt by the person, the Americans mainly looked at the face of the person in question, while the Japanese also considered the emotions of the people surrounding the focal person. In other words, the Asian subjects of the experiment derived meaning from the context as well as by looking at the person. Masuda, T., Ellsworth, P. C., Mesquita, B., Leu, J., Tanida, S., & Van de Veerdonk, E. (2008). Placing the face in context: Cultural differences in the perception of facial emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 94 , 365–381.

There seems to be some variation in the perceptual biases we commit as well. For example, human beings have a tendency to self-enhance. We see ourselves in a more positive light than others do. Yet, the traits in which we self-enhance are culturally dependent. In Western cultures, people may overestimate how independent and self-reliant they are. In Asian cultures, such traits are not necessarily desirable, so they may not embellish their degree of independence. Yet, they may overestimate how cooperative and loyal to the group they are because these traits are more desirable in collectivistic cultures. Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 84 , 60–79; Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Vevea, J. L. (2005). Pancultural self-enhancement reloaded: A meta-analytic reply to Heine (2005). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 89 , 539–551.

Given the variation in individual differences around the globe, being sensitive to these differences will increase our managerial effectiveness when managing a diverse group of people.

Personality Around the Globe

Which nations have the highest average self-esteem? Researchers asked this question by surveying almost 17,000 individuals across 53 nations, in 28 languages.

Based on this survey, these are the top 10 nations in terms of self-reported self-esteem.

• United States

The 10 nations with the lowest self-reported self-esteem are the following:

• South Korea
• Switzerland
• Czech Republic

Source: Adapted from information in Denissen, J. J. A., Penke, L., & Schmitt, D. P. (2008, July). Self-esteem reactions to social interactions: Evidence for sociometer mechanisms across days, people, and nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 95 , 181–196; Hitti, M. (2005). Who’s no. 1 in self-esteem? Serbia is tops, Japan ranks lowest, U.S. is no. 6 in global survey. WebMD. Retrieved November 14, 2008, from http://www.webmd.com/skin-beauty/news/20050927/whos-number-1-in-self-esteem ; Schmitt, D. P., & Allik, J. (2005). The simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale in 53 nationals: Culture-specific features of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 89 , 623–642.

There is a connection between how ethically we behave and our individual values, personality, and perception. Possessing values emphasizing economic well-being predicts unethical behavior. Having an external locus of control is also related to unethical decision making. We are also likely to overestimate how ethical we are, which can be a barrier against behaving ethically. Culture seems to be an influence over our values, personality traits, perceptions, attitudes, and work behaviors. Therefore, understanding individual differences requires paying careful attention to the cultural context.

• If ethical decision making depends partially on personality, what can organizations do to increase the frequency of ethical behaviors?
• Do you think personality tests used in Western cultures in employee selection can be used in other cultures?

3.6 Using Science to Match Candidates to Jobs: The Case of Kronos

Figure 3.10

Source: Kensavage.

You are interviewing a candidate for a position as a cashier in a supermarket. You need someone polite, courteous, patient, and dependable. The candidate you are talking to seems nice. But how do you know who is the right person for the job? Will the job candidate like the job or get bored? Will they have a lot of accidents on the job or be fired for misconduct? Don’t you wish you knew before hiring? One company approaches this problem scientifically, saving companies time and money on hiring hourly wage employees.

Retail employers do a lot of hiring, given their growth and high turnover rate. According to one estimate, replacing an employee who leaves in retail costs companies around $4,000. High turnover also endangers customer service. Therefore, retail employers have an incentive to screen people carefully so that they hire people with the best chance of being successful and happy on the job. Unicru, an employee selection company, developed software that quickly became a market leader in screening hourly workers. The company was acquired by Massachusetts-based Kronos Inc. (NASDAQ: KRON) in 2006 and is currently owned by a private equity firm.

The idea behind the software is simple: If you have a lot of employees and keep track of your data over time, you have access to an enormous resource. By analyzing this data, you can specify the profile of the “ideal” employee. The software captures the profile of the potential high performers, and applicants are screened to assess their fit with this particular profile. More important, the profile is continually updated as new employees are hired. As the database gets larger, the software does a better job of identifying the right people for the job.

If you applied for a job in retail, you may have already been a part of this database: the users of this system include giants such as Universal Studios, Costco Wholesale Corporation, Burger King, and other retailers and chain restaurants. In companies such as Albertsons or Blockbuster, applicants use a kiosk in the store to answer a list of questions and to enter their background, salary history, and other information. In other companies, such as some in the trucking industry, candidates enter the data through the Web site of the company they are applying to. The software screens people on basic criteria such as availability in scheduling as well as personality traits.

Candidates are asked to agree or disagree with statements such as “I often make last-minute plans” or “I work best when I am on a team.” After the candidates complete the questions, hiring managers are sent a report complete with a color-coded suggested course of action. Red means the candidate does not fit the job, yellow means proceed with caution, and green means the candidate can be hired on the spot. Interestingly, the company contends that faking answers to the questions of the software is not easy because it is difficult for candidates to predict the desired profile. For example, according to their research, being a successful salesman has less to do with being an extraverted and sociable person and more to do with a passion for the company’s product.

Matching candidates to jobs has long been viewed as a key way of ensuring high performance and low turnover in the workplace, and advances in computer technology are making it easier and more efficient to assess candidate–job fit. Companies using such technology are cutting down the time it takes to hire people, and it is estimated that using such technologies lowers their turnover by 10%–30%.

Case written by Berrin Erdogan and Talya Bauer to accompany Bauer, T., & Erdogan, B. (2009). Organizational behavior (1st ed.). New York: Flat World Knowledge. Based on information from Berta, D. (2002, February 25). Industry increases applicant screening amid labor surplus, security concerns. Nation’s Restaurant News, 36 (8), 4; Frauenheim, E. (2006, March 13). Unicru beefs up data in latest screening tool. Workforce Management, 85 (5), 9–10; Frazier, M. (2005, April). Help wanted. Chain Store Age, 81 (4), 37–39; Haaland, D. E. (2006, April 17). Safety first: Hire conscientious employees to cut down on costly workplace accidents. Nation’s Restaurant News, 40 (16), 22–24; Overholt, A. (2002, February). True or false? You’re hiring the right people. Fast Company, 55 , 108–109; Rafter, M. V. (2005, May). Unicru breaks through in the science of “smart hiring.” Workforce Management, 84 (5), 76–78.

• Why is it so expensive for companies to replace workers?
• In modern times it is possible that an employee could have a number of different jobs in a short amount of time. Do you think this frequent job changing could skew results for this type of “ideal” employee selection? Do you think potential candidates can use these screening mechanisms to their advantage by making themselves seem like perfect candidates when in fact they are not?
• What personality traits may not seem like a good fit based on an initial screening but in fact would make a good employee?
• Do you feel that hard work and dedication could overcome a person-job mismatch?

3.7 Conclusion

In conclusion, in this chapter we have reviewed major individual differences that affect employee attitudes and behaviors. Our values and personality explain our preferences and the situations we feel comfortable with. Personality may influence our behavior, but the importance of the context in which behavior occurs should not be neglected. Many organizations use personality tests in employee selection, but the use of such tests is controversial because of problems such as faking and low predictive value of personality for job performance. Perception is how we interpret our environment. It is a major influence over our behavior, but many systematic biases color our perception and lead to misunderstandings.

3.8 Exercises

Ethical dilemma.

You are applying for the job of sales associate. You have just found out that you will be given a personality assessment as part of the application process. You feel that this job requires someone who is very high in extraversion, and someone who can handle stress well. You are relatively sociable and can cope with some stress but honestly you are not very high in either trait. The job pays well and it is a great stepping-stone to better jobs. How are you going to respond when completing the personality questions? Are you going to make an effort to represent yourself as how you truly are? If so, there is a chance that you may not get the job. How about answering the questions to fit the salesperson profile? Isn’t everyone doing this to some extent anyway?

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of completing the questions honestly?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of completing the questions in a way you think the company is looking for?
• What would you really do in a situation like this?

Individual Exercise

Changing Others’ Perceptions of You

How do other people perceive you? Identify one element of how others perceive you that you are interested in changing. It could be a positive perception (maybe they think you are more helpful than you really are) or a negative perception (maybe they think you don’t take your studies seriously).

• What are the reasons why they formed this perception? Think about the underlying reasons.
• What have you done to contribute to the development of this perception?
• Do you think there are perceptual errors that contribute to this perception? Are they stereotyping? Are they engaging in selective perception?
• Are you sure that your perception is the accurate one? What information do you have that makes your perceptions more valid than theirs?
• Create an action plan about how you can change this perception.

Group Exercise

Selecting an Expatriate Using Personality Tests

Your department has over 50 expatriates working around the globe. One of the problems you encounter is that the people you send to other cultures for long-term (2- to 5-year) assignments have a high failure rate. They either want to return home before their assignment is complete, or they are not very successful in building relationships with the local employees. You suspect that this is because you have been sending people overseas solely because of their technical skills, which does not seem to be effective in predicting whether these people will make a successful adjustment to the local culture. Now you have decided that when selecting people to go on these assignments, personality traits should be given some weight.

• Identify the personality traits you think might be relevant to being successful in an expatriate assignment.
• Develop a personality test aimed at measuring these dimensions. Make sure that each dimension you want to measure is captured by at least 10 questions.
• Exchange the test you have developed with a different team in class. Have them fill out the survey and make sure that you fill out theirs. What problems have you encountered? How would you feel if you were a candidate taking this test?
• Do you think that prospective employees would fill out this questionnaire honestly? If not, how would you ensure that the results you get would be honest and truly reflect their personality?
• How would you validate such a test? Describe the steps you would take.

Individual Differences in the Workplace

Introduction, personality characteristics, personality and attitudes at work, job performance, comparison of results with external opinion.

Effective organizations are cornerstones of healthy societies where individuals strive to achieve what is best for themselves and the community. However, there are implications of continuously keeping workplace efficacy at high levels. Stress, miscommunication, differences in personalities can contribute to lower performance and unfavorable mental health outcomes. Therefore, it is essential to be aware of one’s personality characteristics to be able to make informed decisions. This paper will explore what my personality features are and how they may affect my job performance.

According to the personality test, I am an imaginative, conscientious, outgoing, hard-headed, and resilient individual. I scored 61% in “Openness to experience” and 79% in “Extraversion.” I also have high scores in “Work ethic,” which means I am an organized person that has enough discipline to complete work-related tasks in an efficient and timely manner. A strong sense of duty contributes to my willingness to achieve favorable performance results. I like communicating with other people, and I am always open to new suggestions regarding work or personal matters. However, according to the test, it is not easy to convince me because I am skeptical and proud. The score for “Natural reactions” was only 3%, indicating that I do not become anxious quickly and have the capacity to withstand external pressure without any issues.

Work attitudes are shaped significantly by personality characteristics, and therefore, it is essential to consider these features when assessing performance. For instance, the conscientiousness of a person determines whether or not they are inclined toward self-organization and discipline. While flexibility in the workplace is beneficial, a lack of discipline will make unfavorable contributions to projects and the overall operations. The test score suggests that I have a positive attitude toward work and a strong sense of duty. Extraversion will positively affect my willingness to work with other people, improve the workplace atmosphere, and motivate me to work. I am ready to accept any challenge because of my openness to experiences and resilience to stress factors.

It has been established that motivation is the determining factor of job performance. Work engagement ensures that employees are focused on organizational objectives and dedicate themselves to achieving company goals (Tisu et al., 2020). Therefore, human resources departments all over the world have been struggling to devise incentive packages suitable for increasing the willingness of employees to improve performance. However, recent studies suggest that monetary incentives may not be sufficient for continually increasing job performance as the latter is often connected to personality traits (Tisu et al., 2020). For example, a conservative person is unlikely to be open to new opportunities for growth.

Without constant individual and professional improvement, it is not possible to deliver quality outcomes continuously. My test results suggest that I can provide high performance because of my open-mindedness, discipline, efficiency, resilience, and outgoing personality. The first element is required for exploratory activities in search of new possibilities, while the rest are essential for completing tasks through teamwork and self-organization. Researchers also note that reducing the stress factor and teaching employees to cope with pressure and tension positively affect job performance (Tisu et al., 2020). Mental health is a variable element that can deteriorate or improve. Developing a workplace environment that provides employees with engagement in activities can have a positive impact on mental health (Tisu et al., 2020). However, individuals who are more inclined toward adverse emotional reactions and anxiety can developmental conditions more quickly. In other words, people that become easily upset cannot achieve high performance due to their vulnerable mental health. In this context, my resilience to external events is pertinent.

My co-workers describe me as a selfless person who is ready to help others at any time. While the word “selfless” may seem as if it is an attribute of a weak individual, in reality, selfless people are the ones who have the strength to overcome their egos in favor of others. This description does not have sharp contradictions to my test results. Friendliness and assertiveness are often attributed to people with supportive personality traits. I believe that my extraversion and selflessness comprise the emotional intelligence that helps me build positive relationships aimed at organizational performance and teamwork. From the feedback of my co-workers, I can assume that the personality test provided an accurate description of my characteristics.

Job performance has a strong connection to personality characteristics and mental health. Therefore, it is crucial to assess individuals to identify their traits and develop specific strategies to address potential concerns. According to the test, I am an outgoing and communicative person who favors discipline over flexibility and imagination over conservatism. These traits allow me to demonstrate favorable performance results in the workplace. According to my colleagues opinions, I am a selfless person who prioritizes team performance over individual accolades. This information is enough to conclude that I am an emotionally intelligent person who has the capacity for strong job performance.

Tisu, L., Lupșa, D., Vîrgă, D., & Rusu, A. (2020). Personality characteristics, job performance and mental health: The mediating role of work engagement. Personality and Individual Differences , 153 , 1-6.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, January 17). Individual Differences in the Workplace. https://studycorgi.com/individual-differences-in-the-workplace/

"Individual Differences in the Workplace." StudyCorgi , 17 Jan. 2022, studycorgi.com/individual-differences-in-the-workplace/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Individual Differences in the Workplace'. 17 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Individual Differences in the Workplace." January 17, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/individual-differences-in-the-workplace/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Individual Differences in the Workplace." January 17, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/individual-differences-in-the-workplace/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "Individual Differences in the Workplace." January 17, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/individual-differences-in-the-workplace/.

This paper, “Individual Differences in the Workplace”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: March 3, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.