Impact of Individual Personality upon Formal Group Processes - Research Paper Example

? With reference to appropriate theories relating to personality, and providing organisational examples to support, critically analyse the impact of individual personality upon formal group processes. 1. Introduction The personality of employees and leaders can highly affect the organizational environment. In fact, the literature and the empirical research developed on this subject have revealed that the modes of personality developed in the workplace are critical in regard to the organizational growth. However, the ways in which personality affects modern organization are not standardized. Various factors, such as the type of organization, the organizational structure and the conditions in the internal and external organizational environment are likely to influence the interaction between personality and the workplace. The role of personality within contemporary organizations is discussed in this paper. Particular emphasis is given on the potentials of personality to influence the behaviour of groups activating with each organization. At the next level, the existing theories of group processes are presented and analysed, aiming to identify the terms under which these processes interact with personality. It is proved that personality can highly affect group processes in modern organizations, especially in regard to organizations that are highly de-centralized, allowing the development of initiatives by employees at all levels of the organizational hierarchy. 2. Theories of personality – how these theories are relevant in contemporary organizations James & Mazerolle (2002) also claim that in the context of the workplace the characteristics of personality ‘are likely to become clearer compared to other environments’ (James & Mazerolle 2002, p.18). The reason seems to be the fact that in the workplace individuals have to face a series of different behavioural challenges, due to their coexistence with other individuals; as a result of this fact, in modern organizations are expected to develop a high range ‘of cognitive structures (beliefs, values) and cognitive processes (analysis)’ (James & Mazerolle 2002, p.18). Different theories have been developed for explaining the role of personality in daily human activities. The socioanalytic theory, which is based on the views of Freud and Mead, promotes the idea that personality is related to biology, meaning that the behaviour of individuals can be affected by their biological characteristics, as similar to those of their ancestors. However, this theory accepts the influence of the environment on human behaviour, noting that the continuous development of ‘the behaviour of adults is possible’ (Schneider & Smith 2004, p.10), even if it is influenced by ‘the experiences of these individuals during their childhood’ (Schneider & Smith 2004, p.10). According to this theory, when being in the workplace individuals can develop different modes of behaviour; however, the key role of childhood on employees’ behaviour should be highlighted. James & Mazerolle (2002) also claim that in the context of the workplace the characteristics of personality ‘are likely to become clearer compared to other environments’ (James & Mazerolle 2002, p.18). The reason seems to be the fact that in the workplace individuals have to face a series of different behavioural challenges, due to their coexistence with other individuals; as a result of this fact, in modern organizations are expected to develop a high range ‘of cognitive structures (beliefs, values) and cognitive processes (analysis)’ (James & Mazerolle 2002, p.18). Figure 1 - Stage Theory of Early Ego Integration and Object Relations (Christopher et al. 2001, p.693) The theory X and theory Y of McGregor remain the key theoretical frameworks for explaining the behaviour of individuals in modern organizations. The theory X is based on the view that people, by their nature, dislike work (Denhardt 2010). For this reason, in order to secure the high organizational performance, managers need to supervise, as closely as possible, employees, ensuring that failures in the development of organizational tasks are avoided (Denhardt 2010). Theory Y explains human behaviour from a different perspective: according to the above theory, individuals perceive work as a critical activity, as natural as their need for rest (Denhardt 2010). At the next level, the theory Y accepts that in the context of the workplace people can learn the importance of commitment (Denhardt 2010). Theory Y seems to be verified by the Objects Relations Theory of Kernberg, as analysed in the study of Christopher et al. (2001). In fact, Christopher et al. (2001) used the above theory of Kernberg in order to develop an effective model for explaining the development of personality. Their theory has been named as ‘Stage Theory of Early Ego Integration and Object Relations’ (Christopher et al. 2001, p.693). This theory is graphically represented through the graph in Figure 1, above. This graph shows the gradual transformation of personality as genetic characteristics are integrated, gradually, with images and experiences from the external environment, a process that lead to the transformation of human behaviour from childhood up to adulthood. In the context of this theory, employees are likely to alternate their behaviour while working in a particular organization. Another way in which personality can influence the organizational processes is the following one: the leadership style of individuals within organizations is related to certain genetic characteristics (Bertocci 2009). The trait theories of leadership are based on the perception that successful leaders have particular characteristics, ‘physical or mental’ (Bertocci 2009, p.20). According to Bertocci (2009) the traits that influence the behaviour of leaders, are related to one of these categories: ‘Intelligence, Personality, Ability’ (Bertocci 2009, p.21). It should be noted though that the traits theories on leadership do not reject the influence of environment on leaders’ decisions. However, in the context of these theories this influence is considered as limited, compared to the personal characteristics of leaders that mostly affect his decisions. Figure 2 – ‘Four quadrants of an individual’ (Esbjorn-Hargens 2009, p.5) – Integral theory According to the theories presented above, personality is affected, more or less, from the individual’s environment. This fact is highlighted in the cognitive and the learning theories on personality. The cognitive theory on personality is based on the idea that the personality of individuals is gradually developed during the lifetime of each individual (Champoux 2010, p.109). From a similar perspective, the learning theories on personality note that individuals can learn how to respond to their environment (Champoux 2010, p.109). The difference between the cognitive theory and the learning theories on personality is that the former do not exclude the potential influence of individuals’ behaviour by their past experiences; in opposition, the learning theories of personality, do not accept that such influence can exist. The learning theories of personality would be particularly valuable in the workplace, encouraging employees to invest on the training and development of their employees, under the terms that employees’ behaviour would be developed by scratch, at least in regard to their tasks in the workplace. The role of personality in the workplace is clearly explained in the study of Wilson (2001). According to the above researcher, the gender of individuals tends to influence their communication in the workplace (Wilson 2001). It is further explained that gender identity is an indispensable part of personality (Wilson 2001). Therefore, personality affects the behaviour of employees, as individuals but also as members of groups. The above study verifies the relationship between personality and group processes, which is analysed in section 4 below. In any case, the potential co-existence of different factors that can influence the behaviour of individuals, either within or outside the organization, cannot be rejected. This issue is highlighted in the Integral theory, presented above, which is based on the perception that the behaviour of each individual has four different dimensions. 3. Analysis of theories and concepts of group processes Groups are closely related to the daily life of humans. In fact, as Thomas-Hunt (2005), people tend to be, most of their lives, ‘members of groups, either small, for example, friends, or extended, such as communities’ (Thomas-Hunt 2005, p.315). Group processes are therefore relevant to all aspects of human life, including work. Moreover, Corey (2011) notes that the development of groups within contemporary organizations is inevitable since many organizational tasks need to be developed collectively, i.e. with the cooperation of many employees. However, it is explained that assigning tasks to groups can be risky, due to the increased chances for failures in communication and cooperation (Corey 2011). Leader is responsible for giving to the members of the group the necessary directions in order to respond to the needs of a shared task (Corey 2011). Witte & Davis (1996) explain the overall framework of group processes by referring to the structure of groups and their interaction. According to the above researchers, groups ‘are usually embedded into larger social systems and they consist of smaller units and individuals’ (Witte & Davis 1996, p.150). The interaction between ‘groups and their super systems and sub-systems’ (Witte & Davis 1996, p.150) is developed through a series of processes, also known as group processes. Different approaches and theories have been employed for explaining the elements and the structure of group processes, as part of modern organizations. At a first level, it has been noted that information is critical for the success of groups; however, a distinction needs to be made between the shared and non-shared information, as used by the members of each group when developing a particular organizational task. Most researchers who studied the particular issue came to the conclusion that ‘shared information has a stronger influence on group performance compared to the non-shared information’ (Larson et al. 1994, Gigone & Hastic 1993, quoted by Hogg & Tindale 2008, p.2). In many cases, the following dilemma appears: are all groups within a particular organization equally powerful, or they are groups that can influence more organizational processes? Stacks & Salwen (2008) refer to the Bona Fide Perspective, which defines a group as ‘a social system linked to its context, shaped by fluid boundaries, and altering its environment’ (Stacks & Salwen 2008, p.358). In any case, a group cannot support the organizational growth unless it is appropriately organized; this means not just that tasks should be equally distributed among its members but also that conflicts must be effectively controlled. Two different theories have been developed for resolving the above problem: the theory of socialization promotes the idea that conflicts within groups can be avoided if the ‘needs of the members are aligned with the group’s needs’ (Carter 2011, p.169); at the same time, the social control theory, when applying in groups, promotes the idea that the group need ‘to shape the behaviour of its members’ (Carter 2011, p.169); in this way it is expected that conflicts are avoided, or, at least, are significantly reduced. Also, Bills (1995) claims that individuals, as members of a group, should perform well in regard to both of their roles, as individual units and as members of a group; otherwise, they have not many chances to respond to the challenges of their role in the long term (Bills 1995). Figure 3 – Interaction between Top Management Teams, Group processes and Strategic Consensus, through three different approaches (Knight et al. 1999, p.449) The role of groups and group processes within organizations is analytically presented in the study of Knight et al. (1999). According to the above researchers, group processes, top management teams and strategic consensus can be related; their interaction may have three different modes, presented above as the direct effects model, the partially Mediated model, and the Fully Mediated Model (Figure 3); the first of these models suggests the direct interaction between the top management teams and the strategic consensus; while the second and the third model require the intermediation of group processes, meaning that the level of interaction between the first and the third part of the node, i.e. the top management teams and the strategic consensus is depended on the level of demographic diversity within the top management team (Knight et al. 1999, p.450). Figure 4 – ‘Five person Network patterns’ (Katz et al. 2004, p.319) At this point, the following fact should be noted: the structure of groups and the modes of communication between their members are not standardized. In any case, it has been proved that the members of groups tend to develop communication networks, which can include two or more communication channels (Bavelas, 1950, Shaw, 1954, Guetzkow & Simon, 1955, Downs et al. 1988); the potential form of such networks is presented in graph in Figure 4, above. It is implied that the forms of group processes are highly affected by the mode of communication developed between the members of the group involved. 4. Evaluation of the impact of individual personality upon group processes within organisations. Personality can highly affect group processes. The theories developed in this field reveal that the interaction between personality and group processes can have different forms, under the influence of certain factors. For example, Schneider & Smith (2004) suggest that the effects of personality on group processes can have three different modes: a) universal; the effects of this type are based on the view that ‘there are certain traits that guarantee the team success’ (Schneider & Smith 2004, p.317), b) contingent; it means that ‘there are certain traits that can help to predict the team performance’ (Schneider & Smith 2004, p.317); finally, c) configurational; is based on the view that ‘team performance is based on the level of integration of traits of group’s members’ (Schneider & Smith 2004, p.317). In any case, the effects of personality on group processes are not standardized. In fact, it seems that the level at which personality can impact the performance of groups is likely to change continuously under the influence of various factors. For example, the study of Barrick & Ryan (2003) revealed that the changes in the personality of a member of a group can affect the group performance but the relevant effects may not be clear immediately, but they can take a long time before they appear (Barrick & Ryan). Personality can help to support group performance. Hellriegel & Slocum (2007) notes that personality helps to identify the common characteristics of people, in terms of their behaviour. In the context of the group of people, if the personality of each member of the group is identified, it is easier to retrieve strategies for improving the group performance; for example, members with similar behavioural characteristics could share tasks, so that the risks for failures in daily organizational activities is significantly reduced. West (1997) developed a research aiming to understand a particular aspect of group processes: ‘the relationship between group composition and group performance’ (West 1997, quoted by Graversen & Johansson 1998, p.329). His research led to the conclusion that the above relationship could not be made clear, mostly because of the intervention of personality, the effects of which on group performance are significant (Graversen & Johansson 1998). On the other hand, London (2001) notes that group composition has been proved as being able to affect the perceptions of individuals; in this way, group composition affects the cognitive processes, as parts of personality, in the context described above. A similar view is presented in the study of Thye & Lawler (2011). As noted in the above study, the influence of teams on individuals is verified through the following fact: the intentions of individuals who are members of a group are usually aligned with their environment, meaning primarily the other members of the group (Latour 2005, quoted by Thy & Lawler 2011, p.62). On the other hand, the personality of each member of a group is also expected to influence the group performance, even if the relevant effects are not clear immediately, as noted in the study of Barrick & Ryan (2003). Moreover, this influence can be developed in different phases of group processes, i.e. during the decision-making phase or when executing the task assigned to the group (Thy & Lawler 2011). 5. Conclusion The identification of a theory that fully describes the role of personality in the workplace is a challenging task. In fact, it seems that such target would be impossible to be achieved since personality has many different aspects, being quite difficult to be precisely explained (Ryckman 2007). However, the power of personality to highly affect organizational processes cannot be denied. Most studies developed in this area, as indicatively presented above, verify the relationship between personality and groups; in fact, it is made clear that personality affects group processes in different ways, depending on the personal characteristics of individuals, the group structure, the mode of communication between the members of the group, and the group environment. At this point, the following issue should be highlighted: the potentials of personality to influence group processes are difficult to be precisely measured, mostly due to the complexity of personality; this means that the appearance of new modes of interaction between personality and group processes is always possible, especially in organizations which emphasize on the value of communication and cooperation as key tools for achieving the organizational goals. References Barrick, M., & Ryan, A. (2003) Personality and Work: Reconsidering the Role of Personality in Organizations. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Bertocci, D. (2009) Leadership in Organizations: There Is a Difference Between Leaders and Managers. Lanham: University Press of America. Bills, D. (1995) The New Modern Times: Factors Reshaping the World of Work. New York: SUNY Press. Carter, I. (2011) Human Behavior in the Social Environment: A Social Systems Approach. New Jersey: Aldine Transaction. Champoux, J. (2010) Organizational Behavior: Integrating Individuals, Groups, and Organizations. Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Corey, G. (2011) Theory and Practice of Group Counseling. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Christopher, J., Bickhard, M., & Lambeth, G. (2001) Otto Kernberg’s Object Relations Theory. Theory and Psychology, 11(5): 687-711 Denhardt, R. (2010) Theories of Public Organization. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Esbjorn-Hargens (2009) AN OVERVIEW OF INTEGRAL THEORY. An All-Inclusive Framework for the 21st Century. Integral Institute, Resource Paper No. 1, March 2009, pp. 1–24 Graversen, G., & Johansson, J. (1998) The Individual and The Organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7(3): 257-264 Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. (2007) Organizational behavior. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Hogg, M., & Tindale, S. (2008) Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. James, L., & Mazerolle, M. (2002) Personality in Work Organizations. London: SAGE. Katz, N., Lazer, D., & Arrow, H. (2004) Network Theory and small groups. Small Group Research, 35(3): 307-332 Knight, D., Pearce, C., Smith, K., Olian, J., & Flood, P. (1999) Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 445-465 Lester, D. (1995) Theories of Personality: A Systems Approach. Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Locke, E., & Latham, G. (2004) What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review, 29(3): 388-403 London, M. (2001) How People Evaluate Others in Organizations. London: Routledge. Nagel, R. (2006) Organizational Behavior and Organizational Change. Culture & Personality. Lehigh University. CSE & Enterprise Systems Center. Available at http://www.cse.lehigh.edu/~rnn0/bio/emba/EMBA02.pdf Ryckman, R. (2007) Theories of Personality. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Schneider, B., & Smith, B. (2004) Personality and organizations. London: Routledge. Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J. (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(4): 674-687 Stacks, D., & Salwen, M. (2008) An Integrated Approach To Communication Theory and Research. Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Thomas-Hunt, M. (2005) Status And Groups. Oxford: Emerald Group Publishing. Thoresen, C., Bradley, J., Bliese, P., & Thoresen, J. (2004) The Big Five Personality Traits and Individual Job Performance Growth. Trajectories in Maintenance and Transitional Job Stages. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5): 835–853 Thye, S., & Lawler, E. (2011) Advances in Group Processes. Oxford: Emerald Group Publishing. Wilson, E. (2001) Organizational Behaviour Reassessed: The Impact of Gender. London: SAGE. Witte, E., & Davis, J. (1996) Understanding Group Behavior: Small group processes and interpersonal relations. London: Routledge. Bibliography Anderson, C., Spataro, S., & Flynn, F. (2008) Personality and Organizational Culture as Determinants of Influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3): 702–710 Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Ed.),Handbook of personality (2nd ed., pp. 154-196). New York: Guilford Publications. (Reprinted in D. Cervone & Y. Shoda [Eds.], The coherence of personality. New York: Guilford Press.) Knights, D., & Willmott, H. (2007) Introducing Organizational Behaviour and Management. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Rahim, A. (2010) Managing Conflict in Organizations. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Turner, F. (2011) Social Work Treatment: Interlocking Theoretical Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More