The Relationship Between Personality Traits and Employee Performance - Assignment Example

What is the relationship between personality traits and employee performance? How do personality traits translate into individual’s professional careers? 1. Introduction Employee management involves the balancing of numerous differentiating personal characteristics which make them unique. Understanding these variances in individual traits and personality is vital to effective employee motivation and performance. Various assessment tools and theories-based on human nature provide perspectives in understanding individual performance in the workplace. The focus of this analysis is to critically evaluate the relationship between personality traits and employee performance and further consider how employee performance and motivation is clearly interrelated to an individual’s personality profile. Moreover, the interrelationship between employee performance, personality traits and professional careers is further intertwined with various organisational theory models, which will be considered contextually. 2. Relationship between employee personality and performance. The learning organisation is an evolving notion which has become increasingly incorporated into the modern company and multinational philosophy. In its simplest form, Richard Karash propounds the ideology underlying the learning organisation: “A learning organisation is one which people at all levels, individuals and collectively are continually increasing their capacity to produce results they really care about” (Karash, R. 1995). The ideological underlying principle behind the learning organisation is that it produces a flexible workforce with a shared vision, which in turn ensures internal stability within an organisation. Mike Wills defines the learning organisation as a “group of people who work together” (Wills, M. 1998). He further defines it as a “company, corporation, firm, enterprise or institution, or part thereof, whether incorporated or not, public or private, that has its own functions and administration. For organisations with more than one operating unit, a single operating unity may be defined as an organisation” (1998). Pedler, Burgoyne and Boydell define the learning organisation as “an organisation that facilitates the learning of all its members and continuously transforms itself to achieve superior competitive performance” (1991). The concept traces its origins to the early writings on management trends in the 1930s and Schumpeter’s creative destruction theory (Pedler, Burgoyne & Boydell, 1991). This was further developed by neo-human writers such as Chris Argyris with his proposition of the “double-loop learning”, which reacted to the studies of corporate excellence undertaken by Peters and Waterman, identifying organisational behavioural trends (Argyris, C 1999). Within the contemporary business framework, personnel management theory highlights the importance of efficient employee relations and collective employee morale in achieving specific goals (Argyris, C 1999). As such, Pedler argues that the learning organisation theory is central to this (Pedler, M & Aspinwall, K., 1998). Garvin further asserts that organisational learning involves three stages. Firstly is the notion of “cognition”, which is the learning of new concepts, development of skills, which relates to employee performance (Garvin, D. 2000). This is further demonstrated in Figure 1 below, which illustrates Garvin’s model of the learning organisation: Figure 1 GARVIN’S MODEL OF THE LEARNING ORGANISATION (David A. Garvin 2000), “Learning in Action” Harvard Business Press). With regard to the skills stage of Garvin’s learning organisation model, it is imperative for individuals at all levels within the organisation’s hierarchy to have problem solving capabilities, thereby highlighting the interdependency of employee performance on optimum organisational performance (Garvin, D.A. 2000). Pedler further argues that an individual must firstly improve self development, which can then be distinguished between actual and desired situations in problem solving scenarios (Pedler, M., & Aspinwall, K., 1998). As part of the learning organisation, team co-ordination is vital and careful consideration must be given to the selection of team members. As such Tompkins submits that commitment to success, complementary personalities, skills and necessary talents are vital to accomplish organisational goals (Tompkins, 2002, p. 28). As such, the effective co-ordination between employee personality and performance is vital to optimum team performance (Tompkins, 2002). Additionally motivation and commitment are essential characteristics that team members must portray in order for the team to achieve its goals (Hill & Ingala, 2001). Tompkins further postulates that “there is no such thing as a part-time team player. Team players are committed to the team and dedicated to mutual success and co-operation” (2002, p.30). Another common factor in effective employee performance within the teamwork model is the recruitment of individuals with similar behaviours and abilities, which highlights the importance of individual behavioural traits in workplace performance. Indeed, Hill and Ingala assert: “today’s tight job market, the right fit is a critical success factor for any position in the team” (2001, p.38). The importance of employee personality in performance is further evidenced by the different requirements of a particular job role. As such, Hill and Ingala argue that case files are important in reviewing histories and individual profiles (2001). For example, some jobs require analytical skills and it has been argued that extroverted personality types are perfect for jobs requiring travelling (Tompkins, 2001). However, this needs to be confined within specified goals to ensure optimum efficiency. As such, the Myer-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is often utilised to determine the best personality for the right job and highlights that what motivates an individual directly links to the person’s “personality traits”, which then impacts employee performance and long-term career development (Carlyn, 1977). McShane and Von Glinow further highlight how “personality and values are the most stable characteristics” in individuals and are vital to continued success (2005). McShane and Von Glinow further argued that employee motivation and persistence determines if the tasks are completed on time. As such, McShane and Von Glinow’s observations highlight the importance of considering employee personality in recruitment and how teams must possess similar personality traits and values in order for them to accomplish the jobs (McShane & Von Glinow, 2005). It is therefore arguable that the personality preference and MBTI assessment model is an important yardstick against which to monitor employee suitability for position. 3. The MBTI Model The MBTI model further highlights the interrelationship between employee personality and performance and Bringhurst further comments that the “MBTI is primarily concerned with valuable differences in people that result from where they like to focus their attention, the way they like to take in information, the way they like to decide and the kind of lifestyle they adopt” (Bringhurst, 2001). The MBTI creators developed questions and based on the responses determined the following categories: 1) whether the individuals are extroverted-introverted (E-I), 2) sensing-intuitive (S-N), 3) thinking-feeling (T-F) and 4) judging-perceiving (J-P). The personality indicator provides insight into how individuals may act alone and in a team setting (Bringhurst, 2001). 3. 1 E vs. I. Within this category, Bringhust observes that an extroverted person will receive energy from others in the workplace, is goal-oriented in problem-solving and comfortable interacting with peers (Bringhurst, 2001). Conversely, the introvert prefers to be alone and often observes (Hermann, 1997). The dichotomy between the two types highlights different strengths and suitability for different roles within a workplace, further supporting the importance of the relationship between individual behavioural traits and employee performance. 3.2. The Sensing Individual In contrast, the MBTI model posits that the sensing individual utilises their five senses to absorb information and identify the appropriate details, while intuitive people seek to find explanations, possibilities and relationships linked to the information being received (Bringhurst, 2001). A contextual example of the sensing team member in Bringhurst’s case study highlights the utility of the sensing member as having excellent observation skills during follow-up visits for rehab patients (2001). This further highlights the importance of understanding employee personality vis-à-vis the nature of the exact job position. 3.3 Ts v F Under the MBTI model, Carlyn argues that “Thinking types rely on logical structures to clarify order into a particular situation: they are skilled at objectively organising material, weighing the facts and impersonally judging whether something is true or false” (Carlyn, 1977, p.461). Feeling people on the other hand arguably go further and comprehend other individuals’ feelings, formulating their judgments on their personal values (Carlyn, 1977). 3.4. The Judging Individual Bringhurst argues that the judging individual is very “decisive, wants to effect closure sooner rather than later, is impatient to “get on with it” and proceed to the next task” (Bringhurst, 2001). This type of personality in a team setting maintains a focused path continuing towards their goals. Alternatively, the perceiving type is observed to“prefer to keep their options open, being able to live with a high level of uncertainty in their lives, waiting until the last moment to decide” (Bringhurst, 2001). 4. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Motivation Whilst, the MBTI model is undoubtedly useful in highlighting the direct correlation between employee personality and employee performance, the categorisation is arguably too narrow in covering the wide range of subjective personality traits. Moreover, the MBTI model focuses on employee traits within a limited framework and ignores the background motivational factors that undoubtedly shape individual behavioural patterns. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory explains the understanding of motivation-based on five human needs. To this end, Halepota (2005) asserted that “a person’s needs are the main motivator that drives a human” (p.15). According to Maslow’s hierarchy model, once these needs are satisfied, the particular motivator expires and the individual then progresses to the next level (Cook, 2001), p.63). Maslow further categorised these needs in the following levels: physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs, and self-actualisation needs. The physiological level is argued to be the lowest need level, servicing the innate need for survival. The safety level completes a person’s needs to be free of physical and emotional threat and once the physiological and safety needs are met, the individual can then progress to the need associated with social interaction. The esteem needs category is categorised into two parts, internal and external. The internal esteem needs are those related to self-esteem such as self-respect and achievement and the external esteem needs are social status and recognition (Cook, 2001). The highest level in the needs hierarchy pyramid is self-actualisation and Halepota comments that “a person who has had all of his or her lower level needs fulfilled, and is looking to meet higher level needs, may go back to the lowest level needs if there is a sudden reversal in the environment” (2005, p.15). Moreover, Halepota postulates that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory has significant implications for recruitment and monitoring employee performance. Haletopa further argues that if a team leader can determine at what level of the needs hierarchy each employee has reached, suitable choices can be made for the individual in terms of long term career development (Halepota, 2005). The above analysis demonstrates the unequivocal importance of the relationship between employee personality and performance. Moreover, the organisational theory of the “learning organisation” further highlights the business growth and innovation is intrinsically co-dependant on effective employee performance. As such, the MBTI model and Maslow theory are clearly important aids to understanding personality traits when considering recruitment needs and personnel management. However, whilst Maslow’s theory is clearly important in evaluating employee motivation which in turn impacts employee performance, these needs are rooted in presumptions of innate human needs and appear to ignore the individual personality traits that are just as significant in considering employee performance. Conversely, whilst the MBTI model provides helpful categorisation of personality types, its main flaw is the failure to consider motivational factors. As such, it is submitted that consideration must be given to the interrelationship between the MBTI model and Maslow’s theory in considering the relationship between employee personality and performance, particularly in maintaining optimum personnel management. BIBLIOGRAPHY Argyris, C. On Organisational Learning. Blackwell Publishing, 1999 Bringhurst, N. C. How assessing personality type can benefit you and your practice. Journal of Financial Planning, 14(1)104, 2001. Boydell T, Pedler M. Management Self-Development: Concepts and Practices: Great Britain. Gower Publishing Company Ltd, 1981 Brinkerhoff, R.O. & Gill, S.J. The Learning Alliance: USA. Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994 Buhalis, D., & Costa, C. Tourism Business Frontiers: Consumers, products and Industry. Butterworth-Heinman, 2005 Carlyn, M. An assessment of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41(5) 461, 1977. Cook, C. W. Guidelines for managing motivation. Business Horizons, 23(2) 61, 1980 Foster, R. & Kaplan, S. Creative Destruction: Why Companies that are Built to Last Under-perform the Market – And how to successfully transform them. Currency publisher. 2001 Garvin, D.A. “Learning in Action” Harvard Business Press, 2000. Hermann, N. Identifying how we think: The Myers-Briggs type. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 114-116, 1997. Hill, K. & Ingala, J. Build a dream team. Nursing Management, 2(4), 37, 2001. Ivanchevich, J.M, & Matteson, M.T. Organisational Behaviour and Management. USA: IRWIN, 1996 Karash, R. Why a learning organisation? Available at www.richardkarash.com, 1995 Kreitner, R, & Kinicki, A. Organisational Behaviour. USA: IRWIN, 1995, McShane & Von Glinow. Organisational behaviour: emerging realities for the workplace revolution. 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005. Nolan, R., & Croson, D.C. Creative Destruction: A Six Stage Process for Transforming the Organisation. Harvard Business School Press, 1995. Pedler, M., & Aspinwall, K. A concise guide to the Learning Organisation. Lemos & Crane, 1998. Tompkins, J.A. Successful organisations recognise the need for continuous improvement. Plant Engineering, 56(9) 28, 2002. Read More