Behavioral and Personality Models in Psychometrics and Psychometric Testing - Essay Example

?Order 515595 Topic: Development of character typology theory and the four principal style theories that result from it. In today’s competitive world, organisations are always on the lookout for methods and ways to further improve their efficiency. The purpose of this essay is to critically analyse the development of character typology theory and the four principal style typologies that result from it. This paper will present research on the effects of personality theory to the information systems used in organisations. Furthermore, the way decisions are made and how these can lead to the principal decision-making paradoxes will be investigated before concluding. Behavioural and personality models are widely used in organisations, especially in psychometrics and psychometric testing (personality assessments and tests). Behavioural and personality models have also been used by philosophers, leaders and managers for many years as an aid to understanding, explaining, and managing communications and relationships. Properly used, psychometrics and personality tests can be hugely beneficial in improving knowledge of oneself and other people - motivations, strengths, weaknesses, preferred thinking and working styles, and also strengths and preferred styles for communications, learning, management, being managed, and team-working. Understanding personality - of yourself and others - is central to motivation. Different people have different strengths and needs that must be satisfied to be properly motivated. The more you understand about personality, the better able you are to judge what motivates people - and yourself. The more you understand about your own personality and that of other people, the better able you are to realise how others perceive you, and how they react to your own personality and style. Also, knowing how to adapt your working style with others, how you communicate, provide information and learning, how you identify and agree tasks, are the main factors in successfully managing and motivating others - and yourself. Developing understanding of personality typology, personality traits, thinking styles and learning styles theories is also very useful in improving your knowledge of motivation and behavior of self and others in the workplace and beyond. “Understanding personality types are helpful for appreciating that while people are different, everyone has a value and special strengths and qualities and that everyone should be treated with care and respect. The relevance of love and spirituality – especially at work – is easier to see and explain when we understand that differences in people are usually personality-based” (Chapman). “Different types handle information in different ways. Different types make decisions in different ways. Different types resolve conflicts in different ways. And different types have different power” (UBI mod. 2) The development of character typology theory involves different phases such as forming, storming, norming and performing. United Business Institute’s Information Systems under volume 4 states the following character development phases: “Forming phase - the character is unwilling to undertake the work and unable to do so. Lack of knowledge and lack of skills. Tend to focus on themselves rather than the team. Storming – willing to attempt the work but still unable to do it as skills still missing. High conflict potential as team members present and challenge ideas. Norming – unwillingness returns, possibly due to a lack of confidence in new skills but they are able to do the work. Focus tends to be on rules, processes and the “how” of the work. And performing – willing and able to do the work and to act as an effective team. Focus changes to delivering the objectives.” It's important to realise that no-one fully understands the extent to which personality is determined by genetics and hereditary factors, compared to the effects of up-bringing, culture, environment and experience. Nature versus nurture, no-one knows. Most studies seem to indicate that it's a bit of each, roughly half and half, although obviously it varies person-to-person. Given that perhaps half of our personality is determined by influences acting upon us after we are conceived and born, it's interesting and significant also that no-one actually knows the extent to which personality changes over time. Childhood is highly influential in forming personality. Major trauma at any stage of life can change a person's personality quite fundamentally. Also, many people mature emotionally with age and experience. But beyond these sort of generalisations, it's difficult to be precise about how and when - and if - personality actually changes. We can, however, identify general personality styles, aptitudes, sensitivities, traits, etc., in people and in ourselves, especially when we understand something of how to define and measure types and styles. And this level of awareness is far better than having none at all. The process of decision-making at times, occurs naturally and spontaneously. At other times, it may be intricately planned with much forethought. Factors that contribute to the process include personality attributes, temperaments, past experiences and external factors. Decision-making is the most complex human behavior. Decision-makers should understand and be aware of their own preferential decision making behaviours versus those of others. In the context of decision making “know myself” is about becoming more conscious about how one makes decisions. It helps one to find a model that can closely describe the decision maker’s behavior. By knowing the processes of decision making and their types, one can get closer to ‘know thy decision making behaviour’ (Malakooti 2010). Most changes in organizations take place after a decision has been made. Obviously small firms are no exception to this, ‘but how this decision-making process looks like is still an uncharted area of research’ (Jong). Decision-making involves a series of steps that require the input of information at different stages of the process, as well as a process for feedback. It is made up of a composite of information, data, facts and belief. The data by itself does not constitute useful information unless it is analysed and processes. Ideal decision-making process was enumerated in Baker et al in their 2001 study as follows: “First, define the problem. Determine the requirements that the solution to the problem must meet. Establish goals that solving the problem should accomplish. Identify alternatives that will solve the problem. Develop valuation criteria based on the goals. Select a decision-making tool. Apply the tool to select a preferred alternative and lastly, check the answer to make sure it solves the problem.” For reality check, organizations must check if the problem really exists. Sometimes problems are often the symptom and not the true problem. Most of the time, development of valuation criteria and selecting a decision-making tool are either forgotten, avoided or simply ignored. “The levels of decision making are strategic, wherein it has long term objectives, resources and policies, management control wherein the use of resources and performance are monitored, knowledge level where the potential of a person is evaluated and operational which carry-out specific day-to-day tasks” (Info. Mgt & Decision Making). Information systems that claim to support managers cannot be built unless one understands what managers do and how they do it. The classical model of what managers do, espoused by writers in the 1920's, such as Henry Fayol, whilst intuitively attractive in itself, is of limited value as an aid to information system design. The classical model identifies the following 5 functions as the parameters of what managers do: Planning, Organising, Coordinating, Deciding and Controlling “Such a model emphasises what managers do, but not how they do it, or why. More recently, the stress has been placed upon the behavioural aspects of management decision making. Behavioural models are based on empirical evidence showing that managers are less systematic, less reflective, more reactive and less well organised than the classical model projects managers to be. For instance, behavioural models describe 6 managerial characteristics: High volume, high speed work,variety, fragmentation, brevity, Issue preference current, specific, Complex web of interactions, contacts and strong preference for verbal media” (FAQ Corporate doc.). Such behavioural models stress that managers work at an unrelenting pace and at a high level of intensity. This is just as true for managers operating in the developing world as in the developed world. The nature of the pressures may be different but there is no evidence that they are any less intense. The model also emphasises that the activities of managers is characterised by variety, fragmentation and brevity. There is simply not enough time for managers to get deeply involved in a wide range of issues. The attention of managers increase rapidly from one issue to another, with very little pattern. A problem occurs and all other matters must be dropped until it is solved. Research suggests that a manager's day is characterised by a large number of tasks with only small periods of time devoted to each individual task. “Paradoxically, the more choices you have the tougher life can be. This is because greater choice comes at a price: potentially more time, demands on your cognitive abilities, confusion and paralysis resulting from indecision. Decision making is central to business success and generating new ideas, yet it is littered with hazards. Understanding the pitfalls is half the story, trusting yourself is the other” (Qais). In practice, the way people think, both as individuals and collectively, affects the decisions that they make, in ways that are far from obvious and rarely understood. John Hammond, Ralph Keeney and Howard Raiffa writing in the Harvard Business Review recognised the following traps in decision making : “The anchoring trap is where we give disproportionate weight to the first piece of information we receive. The initial impact of the first information, our immediate reaction to it, is so significant that it outweighs everything else, ‘drowning’ our ability to evaluate a situation. It is where we give disproportionate weight to the first piece of information we receive. The initial impact of the first information, our immediate reaction to it, is so significant that it outweighs everything else, ‘drowning’ our ability to evaluate a situation. The status quo trap biases us towards maintaining the current situation – even when better alternatives exist – due to inertia or the potential loss of face if the current position was to change. The sunk-cost trap inclines us to perpetuate the mistakes of the past, because the investment involved makes abandonment of previous decisions unthinkable. The confirming evidence trap (confirmation bias) is when we seek information to support an existing predilection, to discount opposing information, to justify past decisions and to support the continuation of the current favoured strategy. The over-confidence trap makes us overestimate the accuracy of our forecasts. Linked to confirming evidence, it occurs when a decision maker has an exaggerated belief in their ability to understand situations and predict the future. The framing trap is when a problem or situation is incorrectly stated, undermining the decision making process. This is often unintentional, but not always. How an issue or situation is seen is important in providing the basis for developing an effective strategy or decision” (Hammond et al 1998). The Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument is a “conflict style inventory which is a tool developed to measure an individual’s response to conflict situations. It uses 2 axes (assertiveness and cooperativeness). It identify 5 different styles of conflict – avoiding, forcing, collaborating, accommodating, and compromising” (Blake 1964). However, Ron Kraybill has this to say regarding Thomas’ instrument: “Thomas Kilmann instrument is an effective tool to introduce people to basic notions of conflict resolution. It was quick to administer and could be interpreted in as little as 20 minutes in its basic. But I gradually wearied of it. It has no awareness of cultural diversity and assumes a similar cultural background among all users” (Kraybill 2005). “The types of personal typology are the Jungian theory from1921 and Myers Briggs. In the Myers it include mother (Katherine Cook Briggs) and daughter (Isabel Briggs Myers) team, others developed a similar version and Hogan and champagne” (UBI mod. 2). Carl Jung’s psychological theory strengthens most popular and high regarded personality systems today. Modern psychometrics has benefited directly from the analytical models that Jung developed for psycho-analysis. Jung accordingly developed his concepts of 'psychological types' in order to improve understanding of ourselves as people. The fact that Carl Jung's 'psychological types' structure continue to provide the basis of many of the leading psychometrics systems and instruments in use today, including Myers Briggs and Keirsey, is testimony to the enduring relevance and value of Jung's work. Jung's ideas about the conscious and the unconscious asserted that ‘a person's psychological make-up is always working on two levels: the conscious and the unconscious. According to Jung, a person's 'psyche' (a person's 'whole being') is represented by their conscious and unconscious parts. Moreover, a person's conscious and unconscious states are in a way 'self-balancing’’ (Miller 1991). If a person's conscious side (or 'attitude') becomes dominant or extreme, then the unconscious will surface or manifest in some way to rectify the balance. This might be in dreams or internal images, or via more physical externally visible illness or emotional disturbance. Jung also stressed that at times in people the unconscious can surface and 'project' (be directed at) the outside world, particularly other people. Jung divided psychic energy into two basic 'general attitude types' as Introverted and Extraverted. These are effectively two 'type' behaviours that combine with others to create Jung's psychological types. Moreover Jung's Introvert and Extravert 'general attitude types' feature strongly as two opposite characteristics within very many modern personality systems, including Myers Briggs and Keirsey. The 1923 translation of Jung's 1921 book Psychological Types uses the words Introverted and Extraverted. Some interpretations of Jung's ideas use the alternative words Introvert and Introversion, and Extravert and Extraversion to describe Jung's types. In his 1921 book Psychological Types, Jung described the introverted and extraverted general attitude types as being introvert is "the state of or tendency toward being wholly or predominantly concerned with and interested in one's own mental life." Introverts tend to be quiet, low-key, deliberate, and relatively non-engaged in social situations. They take pleasure in solitary activities such as reading, writing, watching movies, inventing and designing. An introverted person is likely to enjoy time spent alone and find less reward in time spent with large groups of people (although they may enjoy one-to-one or one-to-few interactions with close friends). Extraversion is "the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self." Extraverts tend to enjoy human interactions and to be enthusiastic, talkative, assertive and gregarious. They take pleasure in activities that involve large social gatherings, such as parties, community activities, public demonstrations, and business or political groups. An extraverted person is likely to enjoy time spent with people and find less reward in time spent alone. Both attitudes - extraversion and introversion - are present in every person, in different degrees. No one is pure extravert or pure introvert, and more recent studies indicate that a big majority of people are actually a reasonably well-balanced mixture of the two types. Not black and white - instead shades of grey. The words introvert and extravert have become part of everyday speech, often confused with ideas like shyness and sociability, partially because introverts tend to be shy and extraverts tend to be sociable. But Jung intended for them to refer more to whether the individual more often faced outward through the persona toward the physical world, or inward toward the collective unconscious and its archetypes. In that sense, the introvert is somewhat more mature than the extravert. Our culture, of course, values the extravert much more. And Jung warned that we all tend to value our own type most. ‘By the use of a Bilateral Meter, a form of dual psychogalvanometer which measures and compares arousal of each of the brain hemispheres, it is possible to make a Hemispheric Assessment. By this method the subject's left or right dominance and flexibility of hemispheric arousal are determined, and his degree of introversion/extraversion. People have habitual responses and styles of cognition that relate to certain personality types as specified by Jung. Although Jung was primarily interested in psychopathology, he recognized that these factors could be influenced by exercise and tailored case handling, and with the use of a Bilateral Meter, this is a task that we are now in a position to undertake’ (Michell) Jung published 'Psychological Types' in which the concepts of introverted and extroverted personality types are introduced - habitual outlooks which determine a person's experience of life. He refined these ideas according to four functions of the mind: thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition, and considered that, in each person, one or more of these functions predominate, and that the others require development through application if that person is to become whole. Jung put it like this: "For complete orientation all four functions should contribute equally." Jung accordingly arranged his four functional types as two pairs of opposites, thinking or feeling (the rational 'judging' pairing), and sensation or intuition (the irrational 'perceiving' pairing), which are often shown as four points (like North South East West) on a compass. Jung said that each person has a main natural conscious orientation towards one of the four functions (their 'superior' or most 'differentiated' function), in which case the opposite function (the 'inferior' or unconscious function) would be represented and compensated within the person's unconscious. Of the other two functions, either one could be next dominant, depending on the person, or generally would 'serve' as an auxiliary function in support of the person's 'superior' function. ‘Again just to complicate matters Jung said that in some cases both of these functions could serve as auxiliary functions, but generally the interpretation is that one auxiliary function would be more prevalent than the other. The point here is that the auxiliary functions are not as polarised - into conscious-unconscious - as the superior and inferior functions, which are more strongly polarised into conscious-unconscious’ (Chapman). So, a personality would generally be represented by a conscious dominant function from each opposite pair: one of these dominant functions being dominant overall ('superior') and the other dominant function being the supporting ('auxiliary') function. In the example above, the superior function is Thinking. The opposite Feeling function would largely or entirely be a compensatory unconscious element within the whole person. Depending on the person either the Sensation or Intuition function would be the prevalent auxiliary function, causing its opposite partner to reside to an appropriate extent in the unconscious, so again balancing the whole person. While Jung's theories are used widely in psychometrics and personality testing, his original purpose and focus was clinical, in pursuit of better understanding and treatment of mental illness, and improving the quality of human existence. As such Jung placed greater emphasis on the unconscious than is represented within modern psychometrics and 'commercialised' personality theories. Significantly Jung for instance observed that improving our awareness and acceptance of the four functions within ourselves - whether as conscious or unconscious elements - is important for developing a healthy existence, and “life-balance”. Repression of any of the functions, by oneself or by another person or pressure, is unhelpful and unhealthy, and leads to problems surfacing sooner or later, one way or another. We see this when parents condition or force certain behaviour on their children, or when adults inhibit their feelings, or deny themselves sensation of reality. We also see evidence of people's unconscious mind reverting from unconscious to conscious behaviour when they are under the influence of alcohol or significant stress. The aim of studying and learning about these ideas brings us back to Jung's own purposes and the fact that Jungian theory recommends that all people should strive to develop any neglected or suppressed functions, and to embrace all four functions as being part of the whole person. Personality tests hold a big fascination for most people - it's human nature to want to learn and discover things that we don't know about ourselves, and to have our strengths confirmed, and to have our weaknesses and vulnerabilities gently queried or explored. Tests can do all of these things. Personality tests can therefore introduce great interest and also stimulate lots of discussion when used in a light-hearted way in meetings, seminars and workshops, etc., but you do need to ensure that you position and explain your purpose - and the limitations of the test - carefully, so that delegates understand and feel comfortable. ‘People with strong (Jungian/Myers Briggs) 'sensing' and 'thinking' personalities (engineers, adminstrators, accountants for example) will be less comfortable with vague and approximate tests than people who have strong intuitive and empathic mindsets. Think about your type of audience before you decide on a use and an explanation. Ensure it's acceptable and suitable for the delegates’ (Chapman 2005). To sum it up, behavioral and personality models are used in today’s psychometrics and psychometric testing (personality assessments and test.) They are also used by philosophers, leaders and managers as an aid to understanding, explaining, and managing communications and relationships. Properly used, psychometrics and personality tests are beneficial to improving knowledge of oneself and other people – motivations, strengths, weaknesses, preferred thinking and working styles. Understanding these things could help organizations in maximizing the potentials of their employees. The organizations can also identify the personality styles, aptitudes, and sensitivities of their people, thereby, enabling them in their decision making and avoid decision-making paradoxes. Works Cited Blake, Robert & Mouton, Jane. “The Managerial Grid”. 1964. Chapman, Alan. “Personality Theories, Types & Tests”. Businessball.com. Web. March 2011. ECON.UBA. “Information Management and Decision-Making”. Web. March 2011. FAQ corporate doc.repository. “Marketing Information Systems”. Web. March 2011. Fordhan, Fried. “An Introduction to Jung’s Psychology”. 1953. Hammond, John, Keeney, Ralph & Raiffa, Howard. “The Hidden Traps in Decision-Making”. Harvard Business Review. Sept-Oct 1998. Hyde, Maggie. “Introduction to Jung”. 1992. Jong, Jeroem, Gibcus, Petra, Vermeulen, Patrick. “Strategic Decision-Making in Small Firms: Towards a Typology of Entrepreneural Decision”. Jung, Carl. “Psychological Types”. 1921. Kraybill, Ron. “Style Matters: The Kraybill Style Inventory”. Riverhouse ePress. 2005. Malakooti, Behnam. “Decision-Making Process: Typology, Intelligence and Optimization”. 2010. Marston Moulton, William. “Emotions of Normal People”. 1928. Miller, Allen. “Personality Types: A Modern Synthesis”. Calgary. University of Calgary Press. 1991. Mitchell, Gregory. “Carl Jung & Jungian Analytical Psychology”. Trans4mind. Web. March Springer Science-Business Media. Web. March 2011. PJNMCU. “Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument”. Web. March 2011. Qais, Innovate, develop, discover. “Decision Making and the Paradox of Choice”. Web. March 2011. UBI. “Information Systems: Behavioral Psychology & Collaborative Working”. Mod. 3. Web. UBI. “Information Systems: Behavioral Psychology, Understanding Self and Others”. Mod. 2. Web. UBI. “Information Systems: Introduction to Development Theory”. Mod. 4. Web. Volkova, Elena, Heller, Donna. “Character Typology in Russian & US Literature and Culture”. Moscow. Moscow State University. Read More