Relationship between Personality and Managerial Performance by Thomas and Pandey - Article Example

Student’s Name: Course: Tutor’s Name: Date: Bibliographic Entry: Thomas, Crescentia and Vijay Pandey. Relationship Between Personality and Managerial Performance. N.d. The introduction of the article is bungled up by misspelled words, and phrases that do not quite add up. For example, the introductory paragraph has a few grammatical errors such as “mangers” instead of “managers”, and “are not” instead of “or not”. This gives the reader the impression that the authors were not keen enough to examine their work before publishing it for a wider audience. As (Körner 15) observes, sloppy, colloquial and ungrammatical use of language gives the reader “a much harder time figuring out what [the writers] ...are trying to say” The introduction does not quite inform the reader on what the research seeks to attain. Based on the article title therefore, one reads on expecting that the research would establish the “relationship between personality and managerial performance”. This expectation is however quickly invalidated when the authors introduce the term ‘CTPI’ without even giving the meaning or spelling the term. The confusion in understanding, the exact objective of the research is further compounded by the statements that the authors make in different sections of the article. The quotations below are example of the contradictory statements that the authors made in the article regarding their real purpose in undertaking the research. “This study was conducted with an aim to examine the validity of CTPI, a tool created by Central Test International” (p. 1); “The aim of this research is to identify links between CTPI-Pro scores and managerial performance/success on job” (p. 13); “The aim of this study was to identify personality differences amongst the three types of managerial performers i.e. High, Low, and Average Performers. The researcher wanted to Study what factors differentiate a High Performer from an average and Low Performer” (p. 15). As is evident from these three quotes, the authors were not particular about the real reason why they undertook the research. The consequence of their confused state is evident in the results and conclusion sections since nothing new or significant is offered. If anything, the authors fail to deliver on any of the three objectives, since they do not prove or disapprove CTPI-pro as a research tool. The attempts to link CTPI-pro score to job performance also fails since no explanation is offered regarding the same, and their attempt to link personality traits to job performance is also questionable since they do not clearly articulate the survey results. The introduction also creates an impression in the reader’s mind that the authors do not differentiate between management and leadership. This stems from their use of the terms ‘manager’ and ‘leader’ interchangeably. As (Drucker 16) argues, an executive or manager does not necessarily have to be a leader. In the Methodology section, the authors reveal that the real aim of the research is to “identify links between CTPI-Pro scores and managerial/success on job” (Thomas and Pandey 13). Since the authors do not define what the CTPI-Pro analysis is, a non-professional reader would have to seek the definition for the same elsewhere in literature. A creation of Central Test®, the Central Test Personality Inventory for Professionals (CTPI-Pro) is an as assessment tool used to gauge the association between personality traits and one’s job performance. The psychometric test has a list of 20 personality traits, which are compared against 21 behavioural competencies as a mode of gauging behavioural skills. The authors rightly stated that the entire test would take respondents approximately 25-30 minutes to answer. If indeed the survey produced proof that CTPI-pro was a valid test, which could determine personality traits that contributed to high managerial performance, then the study would have an undeniable impact on organisations. Unfortunately, the conclusion given by the authors is hazy as it does not clearly state whether CTPI-pro was indeed a valid test-tool for linking personality traits and job performance. The research design is well articulated as a combination of qualitative survey, and quantitative study. Although the authors define each of the research method, they do not indicate why they choose to use a combination of the two. Notably however, the authors suggested that there is a hypothesis by stating “In order to bring to fruit to a hypothesis, data is collected and studied in two ways...” Reading the article however, one realises that there is no further mention of a hypothesis. This puts into question just what the authors meant when they used the quoted text in their article. A disconnection is evident in the total number of responses the authors allege to have used in the survey. It is very clear that questionnaires were sent to managers in two different companies. The researchers sent the questionnaire to 116 managers working in Company 1, but only 49 participated in the study. They also sent the questionnaire to Company 2, where only managers took part in the survey. The collective number of respondents would therefore have to 78, which the authors state in the research design section. However, they confuse the reader by stating in the following sentence, “...this study was conducted on a sample of 80 managers” (Thomas and Pandey 14). This appears like a misrepresentation of facts and an apparent contradiction to the figures provided by the same authors earlier. This is further proof that the authors did to read their work in order to verify facts, and avoid misleading the reader. Assuming that the authors were first time writers and therefore could not have mastered the art of perfect writing in their first attempt (Fox 45) suggests, such people can still improve their work through a series of writing, proof-reading, re-writing, and proofreading as many times in order to make the article more precise, concise, accurate and clear. With numerous writing resources that can help researchers present their findings in a better manner, there is no excuse for the writers to have published an unclear article. According to (Taylor) authors need only rely on their own proofreading capabilities, but can also ask friends or colleagues to read their articles and provide constructive criticism about the same. The authors justify their sampling method by arguing that it was purposeful and helped them in attaining a respondent sample that fit well into the criteria established for the research. The authors state that all respondents who participated in the survey were from “two renowned companies of Hyderabad”, and consisted of “individuals who are in a position and authority to delegate tasks, lead teams, establish performance standards, and monitor teams” (Thomas and Pandey 13). The succinct description of their research sample counts among some of the strengths evident in the article. As (Körner 46) observes, by stating the material and methods used in a study, authors give other researchers the information needed to reproduce the test or experiment with the same as a mean of testing the findings. The referencing style used in the article is inconsistent in some parts. For example, the authors state the page numbers in some works, while others are left without a pinpoint to the pages. Page 7 of the article is a clear example of such mix-up. Largely, the authors have used APA referencing, which demands authors to cite page numbers only when quoting direct phrases from original works. As such, the page numbers provided in by (Thomas and Pandey 7) do not match the APA writing guidelines. The reference page contains a mix of different referencing styles, thereby confusing a keen reader about just what style the authors intended to use. As (Fox xvii) observe every reader expects authors of an article to have “sound communication skills”. In academic articles especially, readers’ expectations for clarity, fluency and writing command are a notch higher compared to the expectations placed on ordinary articles, since readers of the former expect the authors to be experts in their field of writing. Seeing that writing and most especially academic writing has its own challenges, (Slade and Morgan 3-5) observe that writers need to put the subject of their writing into context first. Putting the subject into context would have helped the authors of the article under critique to reflect on the topic they were writing about and address specific issues in the identified topics. Additionally, the authors could have benefited from learning about academic communication. As (Slade and Morgan 4) aptly state, “academic communication has rules that need to be observed if successful results are to be obtained”. The literature review is extensive, but some sources date back to the 1970s. Considering the subject at hand however, even the not-so-recent sources were still relevant. The quality of the literature review is however lowered by the grammatical errors and referencing errors. For example, the authors reference one of the work consulted as “Dave and Rastogi, (2004)...” instead of “Dave and Rastogi (2004), ...” Overall, the survey, and the article look amateurish at best. It is clear that the authors never took the time to research how to go about interpreting and presenting their findings. Although the validity of the research is not in question, the lack of a clear objective means that the authors were equally confused on just what they were seeking through the research. Their writing is poor, and the article appears as a first draft at best. As (Lertzman 86) notes, every writer should take the time to perfect his or her work by reading and re-writing the first draft in order to correct any syntax, punctuation and other grammatical errors that may compromise the quality of the article. Regardless of how good and valuable research findings are, they do not make much contribution to organisational behaviour if the authors fail to effectively communicate them to the wider audience. In the critiqued article’s case, it is not just a matter of poor writing skills; it is a reflection that the authors did not fully comprehend how to write an academic paper, how to present an academic argument and how to structure the same. For example, while it is common for academic writers to identify the issue their research was trying to address, explain how they sought to achieve specific objectives, and even state the implication of research on a specific industry, the authors of the critiqued article failed to do so. The authors also failed to identify the limitations, challenges or otherwise that they may have faced during the research. Yet, it is evident that the response rate was very low especially in Company 1, where apart from having sent 116 questionnaires, only 49 managers took part in the survey. Translated, these statics show that 57.8 percent of managers in Company 1 failed to respond. Such high non-response rates could be an indication that either the managers deemed the questionnaire too time consuming, or they did not think their personality traits had any effect on their performance at work. Still, (and this depends on whether the researchers were clear about their objectives in the study), the respondents could have decided that they did not want to participate in a study that sought to proof or disapprove CTPI-pro as a valid study tool. Although the authors conclude by stating that the research shows that “foresighted, optimistic, and action oriented” managers are high performers, it is rather questionable how they arrived at this conclusion considering their irresolute discussion of the survey findings. Although this cannot be independently verified, the article could be part of what (Ioannidis 0696) terms as “false positive findings”. The likelihood of such a thing being true increases when one considers that the authors have relied heavily (even when discussing the survey results) on findings by other authors. (Ioannidis 0697) identifies research bias and study power as two variables that may affect the true or false nature of a study. Further, (Ioannidis 0696) argues, “a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser pre-selection of tested relationships...” In conclusion, it is worth noting that the article under critique would most possibly not have withstood the scrutiny of referees were it to be submitted to a peer review panel. It is however worth noting that Central Test International has copyrighted the article thus suggesting that the article has significance for the company. Works Cited Central Test®. “The Art of Assessment- Leader in Online Psychometric Testing.” N.d. . 09 Jun. 2011. Drucker, Peter F. “What Makes an Effective Executive” Harvard Business Review. (June 2004): 16-21. Fox, Hellen. Listening to the World: Cultural Issues in Academic Writing. Illinios: National Council of Teachers of English, 1994. Print Ioannidis, John P.A. “Why Most Published Research Findings are False.” PLOS Med Journal. 2.8 (2005): 0696-0701. Körner, Ann M. Guide to Publishing a Scientific Paper. New York: Routledge, 2008. Print. Lertzman, Ken. “Notes on Writing Papers and Theses.” Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 76.2 (Jun. 1995): 86-90. Slade, Malcom, and Morgan, Douglas L. “Accommodating Philosophical Perspectives: An Imperative for Indigenous Higher Education.” In the proceedings of the Third Pacific Rim Conference: Strategies for Success in Transition Years. Auckland, New Zealand. 1998. Print Taylor, David. “Writing-Up Research Results as a Critical Component of the Research Process: a Participatory Workshop Aimed at Developing Research Writing Skills.” 23 Mar. 2010. . 09 Jun. 2011. Thomas, Crescentia and Vijay Pandey. “Relationship Between Personality and Managerial Performance.” N.d. < www.centraltest.com/ct_fr/.../CTPI_Criterion_Validity_study.pdf > 9 Jun. 2011. Read More