Linking Personality and Behaviour Based on the Attribution Theory - Literature review Example

Personality determines behaviour Name Institution [WORDS 2360] Introduction In my experience of working on software projects, I have learnt that project management can be extremely challenging. This is particularly when the projects do not attain their intended objectives because of the project manager’s personality and behaviours. Failure to examine critically the causal factors for project failures may prevent the project managers from learning from their failures. Hossein and Nejad (2011) suggest that most of the times, the success of the projects is contingent on the project manager’s personality traits and behaviours. Still, in spite of preoccupation with the need to achieve project success among the project managers, they have given minimal attention to the manner in which people attribute project failure and success (Turner & Muller, 2005). This paper reasons that the manner in which people attribute failure and success significantly depends on personality and behaviour. In fact, it is based on this premise that this essay argues that personality determines behaviour, which in turn has a clear link to project management. To investigate this further, this paper explores the attribution theory, and how it influences the project management in respect to personality and behaviour. Linking personality and behaviour based on the "Big Five" model Despite a fundamental difference between behaviour and personality, scholarly researchers have provided evidence suggesting that personality determines behaviours. According to Geoghegan and Dulewicz (2008), a project consists of a temporary entity intended to achieve a certain end, normally to create a product or service. While projects will tend to vary significantly in terms of complexity, their success depends on the project manager’s personality and behaviour. Standing et al. (2012) suggests that a fundamental difference exists between behaviour and personality. While personality refers to what individual are, behaviour entails what individuals do. Again, while personality is inherent and may not be changed, the behaviour may be changed. Hence, while working as a project manager to oversee the implementation of customer relationship software for a local retail store, I noticed that although I could change my domineering behaviours to fit into the team, it was impossible to change my personality traits of being “achievement striving” and “dutifulness” due to the change of values and beliefs after I learnt that most of the software developers were introverts, had ambition and loved their work. As explained by Theory X and Theory Y, although most of the human behaviour is the outcome of their beliefs and values, their potential to behave distinctly is much easier than changing what they believe in. This suggests the relevance of human personality and behaviour in determining the project success and failure. Theory X supposed that most individuals would find work distasteful, and would always want to avoid work whenever possible. Theory X suggests that people need to be controlled or given direction, since they lack ambition (Salanova & Kirmanen, 2010). Conversely, Theory Y supposes that mental and physical effort is natural. Hence, the external control of threatening of individuals at workplace is unnecessary (Salanova & Kirmanen, 2010). Hence, I found it unnecessary to exert control over the software developers. Critically, personality determines behaviour. Some personality theorists like Hossein and Nejad (2011) portray the term personality as an organized system in a person that is developing. The system embodies people’s collective actions, such as cognitive, motivational, and emotional. The psychoanalytic theory considers the psychological and social phenomena in determining the human personality (Hosseini & Asghari, 2012). On the other hand, the cognitive theory proposed the cognitive like personal constructs and, self-conceptions in determining individuals’ personality. In the face of these divergent approaches to personality, they fail to show how personality determines behaviour. Rather, they are preoccupied with how personality is determined (Standing et al., 2012). Hence, some psychologists have reached a consensus that personality should be defined based on the five-factor model, commonly known as the "Big Five" model. The model facilitates understanding and predicting people’s behaviours hence determining how personality determines behaviours. The model used adjectives to depict an individual’s personality (Ramirez, 2013). Figure 1: Elements of the Big Five Model (Hosseini & Asghari, 2012). The personality elements and their link to success in project management have formed an interesting subject of study for some scholars during the last two decades. In an earlier study, Ramirez (2013) examined the correlation among the Big Five personality traits, and human behaviours that depict motivation and established that personality determined people’s motivation to ensure their projects succeeded. In a related study by Standing et al. (2012), the researcher based his study on the self-determination theory and the Big Five model to study the role of personality, and how it motivated learning, and established that personality influenced self-determined learning. In yet another research that sought to determine how personality determines behaviour, Hosseini and Asghari (2012) examined the correlation between learning approaches and personality traits, and found positive results. In his conclusion, personality influence students to exhibit behaviours that were favourable to learning and self-efficacy. Linking personality and behaviour based on the Attribution Theory Individual’s personality will tend to determine how they attribute their failures and successes. Hence, personality determines behaviour. The Attribution Theory is, therefore, relevant to this end. The theory refers to the external and internal explanation of what caused people to behave in certain ways. According to Malle (2011), the theory is in most cases perceived to address question regarding “why” and “what” people do during certain events, or judge and act on certain events. Some scholars like Hosseini and Asghari (2012) conceive that the basic process of interpreting and explaining the world is typically pervasive, universal, as well as predictable, despite the existence of certain personal and cultural differences. A survey of literature indicates that in the face of the problems linked to completing projects, there is a paucity of scholarly research on the behavioural and personality impacts on the success and failure of project. One reason for this, as Standing et al. (2012) explain, is due to the intricate nature of the project’s environment, where a person becomes part of a team that has own social dynamics. Hence, to explore how personality determines behaviours in project management, I used an individual differences variable based on attributional style. A person’s style shows the manner in which he explains own successes and failures depending on an event. Accordingly, Malle (2011) asserts that the attributional style potentially reveals if a person will experience job satisfaction within a work context or tend to be less productive in the long-term. The basis of the attribution theory is traced to Fritz Heider’s (1958) works called naïve psychology and social learning theory that was suggested by Julian Rotter’s (1966). Standing et al. (2012) explains that naïve psychology is the principles used to develop a perception of the social environment that guides people’s response to it. On the other hand, the social learning theory suggests the concept of locus of control, which is rooted on how individuals perceive they have control over their destiny. Attributional theory, as Bernard Weiner (1972) explains, influences the attributions on behaviour. By drawing from naïve psychology and social learning theory, Weiner rooted the original attributional perspective in the achievement motivation based on the supposition that people assign the causes of failure and success to four critical elements, namely effort, ability, luck and task difficultly. Weiner drew the causal elements from Heider (1958) and connected them to Rotter’s (1966) two causal dimensions of stability and locus of control. Then, Weiner introduced the element of stability to embody the causes he viewed to vary over time, such as task, effort, or luck. Therefore, the Attribution theory addresses how people interpret events, as well as how this relates to their behaviours and thoughts they display. It assumes that individuals seek to determine why other people do what they do. While overseeing implementation of CRM as a project manager, I noticed that the software developers attributed the causes of the behaviours as well as successes and failures to certain internal or external factors. For instance, once developer attributed his failure to conform to deadlines to the slow computers used at the retail store. Another attributed his success to external influences by his parents who often pressured him to stay focused. In project management, the Attribution Theory seeks to provide a description and explain the communicative and mental processes that take place while handling the project. Manusov and Spitzberg (2008) suggested the concept of “focus of correspondence” to explain that an action in the context of project management can be explained in terms of being a product of certain group of characteristics. Here, when the attributions explain the project member’s personality, they are viewed to be “correspondent.” For instance, while running the CRM software implementation project, I noticed that one software developers was relationally aggressive. He tended to attribute his failures to conform to the requirement implementation standards to things that were external to him, such as bad software vendors in who used outdates codes. Standing et al. (2012) suggest that such attributions reflect people’s thinking and predict their behaviours, rather than what triggered their behavior. Manusov and Spitzberg (2008) further suggests that concept of ‘Focus on Covariation’ to explain that attributions are linked to many other things other than just dispositions. Manusov and Spitzberg (2008) propose the normative model to explain that incidents are attributed to causes with which they co-vary. Hence, the causes of behaviour are attributed to existing factors whenever an event is observed and inexistent whenever the effect is absent. For instance, when as a project manager I found that the relationships in the software development team was getting increasingly complicated and that the possibility of dissolving the team increased whenever some developers attempt to communicate, I quickly attributed the state of communication to be the main cause of the problem. Indeed, most software developers I worked with had poor communication skills (Standing et al., 2012). Manusov and Spitzberg (2008) also suggests the concept of ‘Focus on Responsibility’ to explain that not all attributions are concerned with the causes of an action. While attempting to make sense of things, Manusov and Spitzberg (2008) argue that individuals will tend to focus on whom or what was responsible for the behaviour. Some scholarly researches that have examined this reasoning investigated the likely outcomes of responsibility attributions. In a study by Badahdah and Alkhder (2006), the researchers concluded that individuals are more likely to feel sympathetic for a victim of circumstances, when they know he is not responsible for his misfortune. In the same case, as project manager of the CRM implementation project, I noticed that my behaviours could be determined based on this conception. The project was failing as it was an under-funded project. Besides, the retail store used slow computers that had a problem relating to the CRM software. As a project manager, I felt sympathetic for the software developers and pleaded with the executive management to invest in more advanced machines, since it had sufficient capital resources to do so. Hence, the attributions of responsibility potentially lead to considerable repercussions. Manusov and Spitzberg (2008) also proposed the concept of “Focus on Bias” to explain that while people tend to make comparatively reasonable assessments of the causes and responsibilities, some systematic biases in how they make attributions often exists. An example of this is the “fundamental attribution bias,” which explains the human tendency to make internal attributions rather than external attributions for other people’s behaviors. Still, other biases also exist. For instance, Canary and Spitzberg (1990) suggested a self-serving bias during cases of conflict, and established that the individuals engaged in a conflict tended to perceive their behaviours to be substantially more appropriate compared to that of their counterparts. Their study further established that more significant conflict behaviours like anger was more linked to self-perceptions. What this shows is that due to the biases, personality determines behaviour. Ultimately, it has been determined that personality determines behaviour. Based on attribution theory, it is clear that attribution embodies the explanations that individuals give for their successes or failures. Individuals make causal judgments in varied circumstances whenever an event happens. Such judgments are concerned with the manner in which other individuals behaved or acted, which caused noteworthy outcomes. Linking personality influence on behaviour to project management Since it has been determined that personality determines behaviour, it is crucial to determine whether it links to project management. While the project managers have distinctive traits showed in research literature, there is a paucity of research on how personality determines behaviour, and how it is linked to project management (Turner & Muller, 2005). Still, more studies have looked at the personalities and behaviours of project managers, and how they determine the project success. Ramirez (2013) noticed a similar gap in research and examined the link between project management styles and project managers’ behaviours and personality. Ramirez’s (2013) study later found a clear relationship between personality and project success, despite project managers’ competence not being a success factor. Kerzner (2001) also examined previous studies that ignored the personality of project managers and their effect on project success and later concluded that a close dependency exists between the success of the project and the personality of the project managers. Another extensive research was done by Hossein and Nejad (2011) to examine the project types, and the personality of the project managers, and project success. The three groups of projects examined included derivative, platform, as well as high-tech. The study established that project managers tended to select projects that were close to their personality. A case in point is where, the project managers, who are “perceiving and intuitive,” preferred to participate in high-tech projects. On the other hand, Dvir et al. (2006) found that the project managers who have “avoidance attachment style” and “rebellious dreamer” personality tended to opt to manage platform or derivative. Geoghegan and Dulewicz (2008) also found that the project manager’s personality would determine their behaviour in determining the kinds of project they prefer, as well as affect the success of the projects. Few studies have attempted to investigate the impacts of personality traits and behaviours in the performance of the project managers. One particular research that centred on project managers’ behaviours, personality and project success was by Dvir et al. (2006). The researchers suggested that when the disciplines of project management and personality psychology are combined, based on the theory of person-organization fit, the managers’ tendency to select certain projects can be determined. Some meta-analyses have also confirmed that manager’s personality influences project intentions, performance, as well as project success. Rauch and Frese’s (2007), undertook a comprehensive analysis of manager’s personality traits and noted that they determined the behaviours of the managers, including passion and tenacity for work. They later argued that traits related to the tasks of the project produced higher success rates of the projects. Conclusion Personality determines behaviour, which in turn has a clear link to project management. Based on the Attribution Theory and the Big Five model, it is established that the manner in which project managers attribute failure and success significantly depends on their personality and behaviour. These in turn determines the success of the project. Here, attribution theory embodies the explanations that the project managers and project team give for their successes or failures. Again, despite a fundamental difference between behaviour and personality, personality determines behaviours. Ultimately, project managers make causal judgments in varied circumstances whenever an event happens. Such judgments reflect on the manner in which the team members or other project managers acted or behaved. In addition, the project managers tend to select projects that were close to their personality. For instance, project managers who are “perceiving and intuitive” prefer engaging in high-tech projects. Personality also influences project intentions, performance, as well as project success. References Badahdah, A., & Alkhder, O. (2006). Helping a friend with AIDS: A test of Weiner’s attributional theory in Kuwait. Illness, Crisis, & Loss, 14, 43–54 Canary, D. & Spitzberg, B. (1990). Attribution biases and associations between conflict strategies and competence outcomes. Communication Monographs, 57, 139–151. Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1990). Attribution biases and associations between conflict strategies and competence outcomes. Communication Monographs, 57, 139–151. Dvir, D., Sadeh, A. & Malach-Pines, A. Projects And Project Managers: The Relationship Between Project Managers’ Personality, Project Types, And Project Success. Project Management Journal, 37(5), Geoghegan, L. & Dulewicz, V. (2008). Do Project Managers’ Leadership Competencies Contribute to Project Success? Project Management Journal, 39(4), 58–67 Hossein, A. & Nejad, S. (2011). Impact of Project Managers’ Personalities on Project Success in Four Types of Project. 2011 2nd International Conference on Construction and Project Management 15(1), 181-186 Hosseini, A. & Asghari, A. (2012). Attribution Theory, Personality Traits, and Gender Differences among EFL Learners. International Journal of Education 4(2), 181-201 Kerzner, H. (2001). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. New York: John Wiley & Sons Malle, B. (2011). Attribution Theories: How people make sense of behaviour. In Chadee, D. (Ed), Theories in Social Psychology (pp.72-95). New York: Wiley-Blackwell Manusov, V. & Spitzberg, B. (2008). Attribution Theory: Finding Good Cause in the Search for Theory. Retrieved: Ramirez, A. (2013). Project manager's characteristics influence in the entrepreneurial process: A project-based entrepreneurship model. Paper to be presented at the DRUID Academy 2013 on DRUID Academy 2013 at Comwell Rebild Bakker, Rebild/Aalborg Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let ’ s put the person back into entrepreneurship research : A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners ' personality traits , business creation , and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353–385 Salanova, A. & Kirmanen, S. (2010). Employee Satisfaction and Work Motivation. Mikkelu University of Applied Sciences Standing, C. , Kordt, E., & Standing, O. (2012). The Relevance of Attribution Theory to IT Project Management. Proceedings of IADIS International Conference. (pp. 3-10). Perth: Null Publisher Turner, R. & Muller, R. (2005). The Project Manager’s Leadership Style As A Success Factor On Projects: A Literature. Project Management Journal 36(1), 49-61 Read More