Impact of Personality on Work Behaviour - Essay Example

Impact of Personality on Work Behaviour Introduction The workforce of organizations is generally composed of employees with diverse backgrounds, beliefs, cultures and individual traits. The diversity at the workplace can encourage cooperation, teamwork and creative thinking, which if the individual differences of the workforce are managed well, can lead to better performance. The differences that the workforce portrays mean that individual employee adopt different approaches to tasks, and how they interact with colleagues, the management function, customers and competitors. Therefore, the different personalities and individual traits of employees imply that workers can be described according to their individual features besides physical attributes such as race, gender and age. The personality of an individual is therefore seen to influence job performance and overall behaviour at the workplace. However, it is important to note that the behaviour of employees is a product of individual personalities only to a certain extent. There are other factors at play in influencing the performance and behaviour of employees at the work place. It is therefore important for managers to have a full understanding of the individual personalities of employees and how they affect their behaviour at work to help in determining what motivates the employees to perform or have certain behaviours. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the personality traits of employees and how they affect organizational behaviour. In addition, on the background of the theoretical discussion of the above a self-assessment of my personality and how it is likely to affect my behaviour at work is done using the Su Self leadership Profiler report and the Trait Development Report. Personality The workforce of organizations is generally composed of employees with diverse backgrounds, beliefs, cultures and individual traits. A person’s entails a set of unique individual characteristics such as thoughts, emotions, values, attitudes, behaviour, interests, and abilities. Warr (2006) goes further to assert that personality is not just a product of social and biological pressures of the moment but rather defines it as the characteristics and tendencies of an individual that play a role in determining the commonalities and differences in thought, action, emotion, and behavioural patterns. In understanding the extent to which personality influences employee behaviour, it is important to put in mind that personality does not just affect the individual, but the social setting of the organization in general. Managers need to recognize and treat employees as individuals and not as groups given the differences in personality traits and attitudes. In as much as it is possible to observe a person’s actions and attempt at understanding how they behave (McKenna, 2006), it is important to acknowledge that personality is dependent of many other factors including the environment, culture, beliefs, and way of life. The attitude of an employee is likely to be expressed in terms of job satisfaction, which may be influenced by such other external factors as stress, frustration at the job, or having a feeling of alienation. Types and Measurement of Personality Different types of personalities at the workplace mean that individuals will react and interact with other employees, clients, the management and business competitors in a particular way. The management function of organizations have the responsibility of measuring personalities in order to make sound hiring decisions, and utilize the competencies of their existing workforce effectively. Personalities can be measured using various different methods including The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and The Big Five Personality Model (Big Five) (Goldberg, 1990). Moreover, managers can also use self-assessment reports by allowing the employees to rate themselves through a survey and evaluating the results. However, the self-assessment method of measuring personality is susceptible to inaccuracies since the employee can give the wrong information, or report what he supposes the management would like to see (Morgeson et al., 2007; Mount et al., 1994). The Myers Briggs Type Indicator is the most popular personality measurement method used by managers and entails a set of questions aimed at determining the reaction and behaviour of individuals in different situations. If the test shows traits of quietness or shyness, then the personality of that person can be broadly described as introversion while a person who is sociable, assertive and outgoing is rated as an extrovert. Intuitiveness refers to a person who is perceptive and has the ability to see the ‘big picture’ while a sensing person portrays focus on details and is often associated with inclination towards orderliness and routine. A feeling type of person tends to rely on emotions and held-beliefs in decision making while a thinking person relies on the use of reason and thought in handling matters. A person with a judging character is one who is often quick to control situations in a direction that suits his desires, and generally likes structured work. The other type of measurement widely used to determine individual personalities is the Big Five Model that consists of five basic dimensions that psychologists identified as essential in distinguishing an individual from others. The five factors that were considered for differentiating one person from the other include Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (Barick and Mount, 1991). Based on the Big Five Model, people who score highly on openness are considered as highly imaginative and are generally easy-going people with a down-to-earth attitude. Such people are considered as curious to new and uncommon ideas, adventurous and hold variety in high regard (Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). They are the best performers in training settings, and usually emerge top in situations that entail acquisition of new skills and innovations. They are flexible and can quickly adjust to new job settings (Lievens et al., 2003). Conscientiousness on the other hand refers to the organization capability of a person. people who score highly in regard to this dimension are generally driven by achievements, are dependable, like punctuality, and are systematic in their operations (Barrick and Mount, 1991). At the work place, employees who are conscientious have higher levels of performance and are easily motivated towards their work. They also register lower levels of absenteeism and higher levels of job satisfaction, and are more likely to have successful careers (Zimmerman, 2008). However, on the other hand, over-conscientious individuals tend to show great attention to detail making them more likely to miss the bigger picture (Judge, Martocchio & Thoresen, 1997; Barick et al., 2002). Extraversion as a personality trait is used to describe people who are outgoing, sociable, assertive and have a down-to-earth character, which makes them able to form quick and strong relationships with others (Bono and Judge, 2004). Such individuals have a high rate of success at tasks that involve sales and carry out managerial responsibilities better than others carry (Caldwell and Burger, 1998). They generally show great inspirational behaviours in any leadership role and are able to influence others. Moreover, people with an extrovert type of personality register happiness at work, as they are comfortable with the relationships they build and are easy to deal with. People who display agreeable characteristics are compassionate and cooperative especially when dealing with others, even those who are not familiar to them (Ilies, Scott & Judge 2006). Agreeableness refers to personality traits of friendliness, helpfulness, optimism, and a willingness to sacrifice for the good of others that they work with. People who score highly on agreeableness scale are generally likeable, and have the ability to form strong bonds. Such people do not often show the urge or need for retaliation when they feel they are being treated unfairly (Skarlicki, Folger & Tesluk, 1999). Potentially, they can effectively perform leadership roles, and are valuable assets as leaders during team work as they create fair environments and can easily work with others. Neuroticism or emotional stability refers to the emotional situation of a person in terms of levels of temper, irritability, anxiety, and mood (Klein et al., 2004). This personality trait is a measure of an individual’s level of calmness and stability especially when faced with challenging situations, and the ability to deal with stress. Neurotic people are easily irritable, and are more likely to give in to anxiety and depression, and are generally unfair at work environments (Mayer et al., 2007). These traits render such individuals unable to have a clear line of thought, and deal with complicate situations. Individuals who have a higher level of neuroticism are generally low on success as it has a negative impact on accomplishing tasks. According to Judge, Heller & Mount (2002), at the workplace, employees who are high on neuroticism are constantly dissatisfied with their work, and constantly show desires to quit even though they never do so. Impact of Individual Personality at Work The personality trait of an individual, whether innate from child hood or acquired through the influence of environmental, social or other factors at play, has a great impact on the future career, job satisfaction and work behaviour of an individual (Woods and West, 2010; Woods and Hampson, 2010). Research has shown that the behaviour of individuals at the work place are, to a certain extent, the product of their personal traits (Arnold et al., 2004). There are certain personalities that are considered necessary for employee behaviour, and are desired by most organizations and managers for effective and successful running of operations. As demonstrated by the different personality types discussed above, some individuals are more outgoing and friendly, and might therefore have a high preference for work environments that are sociable and more involving. This individual characteristic might not have an immediate effect on behaviour at work, but it has the potential of harming their work psychology in the end (Anderson, Spataro & Flynn, 2008). At the work place, every employee is tasked with a certain job responsibility with a defined set of expectations which are used to determine the effectiveness and competence of an individual worker. Therefore, in such situations, the individual work behaviour is influenced to a greater degree by the expectations compared to the impact individual traits have on the behaviour. On the other hand, individual personalities have a great influence on jobs that require a higher level of autonomy and freedom are (Cohen and Hudecek, 1993). Such job descriptions generally lead to difficult management situations, and the tremendous influence individual personality plays on work behaviour forces managers to carefully design individual job responsibilities. People are motivated differently thus, the existence of different personalities at the work place means that employees will behave differently according to individual traits. People with creative personalities are easily motivated towards work as they regard the work place as an opportunity for experimenting new ideas, achieving diverse solutions or incorporating artistic elements into their given job responsibilities. Others with good communication skills, or who show a higher degree of extroversion tend to be motivated to discussing and debating business decisions. Those who display competitive attributes may view the work place as an opportune place where they can display their abilities by beating other, and are usually motivated towards emerging on top. Although individual employee motivation level may be the result of a mix of several different factors, it is important to note that assigning job responsibilities based on individual strengths and personalities has the potential of boosting motivation, hence better services and higher productivity. Individual personalities also have an impact on the work place behaviour in terms of interpersonal relations. According to the Type A and Type B personality type model, individuals who portray Type A personality are more likely to accomplish tasks fast, are generally hasty, are easily irritable and show hostility towards others. Individuals with Type B personalities on the other hand are usually more relaxed, composed, complete tasks one at a time, and are more likely to express their feelings and emotions (Bauer et al., 2007). According to the authors, newcomers to an organization who have agreeable and sociable personalities adjust easily to the organization and its structures. They are therefore easier to work with and learn easily as compared to those who are introverted. Such employees get along well with existing workers, making job transitions easy hence sustained productivity. According to these personality traits, different people relate differently to work colleagues and their managers. It is often common that individuals interact with those who portray similar personality traits. Personality differences therefore play a major role in influencing interpersonal relations as Type A persons might seem overbearing to Type B persons leading to friction in the work place. Type B personalities might appear too emotional according to Type A, which might lead them to limit their interactions in order to avoid friction (Podsakoff, LePine & LePine, 2007). Individual personality traits also have an impact on the work ethic of employees in the organization. For example, an employee who is a freewheeler and fun loving may find difficulties in buckling down, meeting strict deadlines, or negotiating when discussing contracts. Such employees are therefore more likely to make decisions that might hurt the organization in the long-run given their tendency to please others. Managers should therefore carefully institute strong guidelines on work ethic in the work place so that business decisions are not affected by personalities at play. Self-Assessment: Personal Profile Self-assessment is a valuable tool in the work place as it helps an individual to properly know their personalities, set goals, and identify areas that might need self-improvement. According to the trait development report, I have a moderate level of conscientiousness and openness, which often cross each other’s paths. However, there is need to put extra emphasis on being focused and practical in order to utilize well my openness to experience and remain achievement-oriented. Having a higher level of extraversion is essential in being a successful leader, however, it has the potential of adding a lot of stress since expectations are also high. based on the self-assessment report, my personality means that I prefer to work independently or in small groups, although I portray a significant ability to influence others. In this regard, in order to improve my leadership abilities, there is need to push myself towards developing my leadership as I seek management roles and desire to have a greater impact on others. Moreover, it is important for me to work on managing my agreeableness by pursuing affiliations and warmth. In the same breath, it is necessary for me to be more tolerating so as to improve my emotional stability in regard to susceptibility to stress. Although I have moderate levels of optimism, there is need focus on developing confidence when dealing with unfamiliar situations. Therefore, in order to be more achievement-oriented, there is further need to increase the level of assertiveness, which would help in driving my focus towards set goals. taking on the role of leading a team bestows upon me responsibilities towards the people I lead as well as the organization. In this regard, it is important to be target-oriented as far as setting of goals is concerned. Personally, being assertive ensures that direct communication with other employees and company clients is successfully retained. This enhances client trust and leads to the development of good interpersonal relations with other employees in the organization. This trait is therefore essential when thinking of successfully managing and running an organization. The trait is also important as it improves the clients’ faith in the organizations ability to render services, and the team’s confidence in my abilities to lead. My score on achievement indicator also shows that I am reasonably ambitious and tend to appreciate competition albeit with the knowledge that excessive competition may be hurtful to development. Given that I show relative orderliness means that there is a tendency to follow plans and carry out duties methodically. It also shows a greater preference for clear objectives although there is need to set clear rules and structures when dealing with ambiguous situations in order to ensure comfort and enhance productivity. In terms of industriousness, the score shows that there is a level of procrastination as a personal trait. To achieve the following and in order to ensure successful learning, it is important to take into consideration my learning behaviours so that I develop an effective action plan that would enhance my performance and improve my individual behaviour at the work place. According to the Su Leadership Profiler report, utilizing my goal-directed learning behaviour will be helpful in achieving my goals as I show a high level of commitment towards this. This can be achieved through prioritizing the activities necessary to do this and having a clear differentiation of the goal-directed from the non-goal directed learning behaviour. Conclusion The presence of a diverse workforce is beneficial to every organization as it brings about a mix of employees having different personalities and competencies. In addition, differences in individualities help in promoting dynamism in an organization, an element that is very healthy and essential for overall productivity and performance of the organization. The existence of a diverse workforce also brings about a variety of personalities, which have to be managed in an efficient way. In as much as work behaviour is influenced by different other factors in play, individual personalities of employees also play a significant role on influencing how people behave at the work place. The different personalities have the potential of having an impact on work place behaviour especially in terms of motivation, interpersonal relations, work ethic and job satisfaction. Thus, to effectively run an organization, it is important for managers and team leaders to have a thorough understanding of the different personalities comprising the overall employee psychology. References Anderson, C., Spataro, S. E., & Flynn, F. J. (2008). Personality and organizational culture as determinants of influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 702–710. Arnold J, Silvester J, Patterson F, Robertson IT, Cooper CL & Burnes B (2004), Work Psychology: Understanding Human Behaviour in the Workplace, Harlow: Pearson. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 707–721. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901–910. Caldwell, D. F., & Burger, J. M. (1998). Personality characteristics of job applicants and success in screening interviews. Personnel Psychology, 51, 119–136 Cohen, A., & Hudecek, N. (1993). Organizational commitment—turnover relationship across occupational groups: A meta-analysis. Group & Organization Management, 18, 188–213 Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229. Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 561–575. Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J, & Thoresen, C. J. (1997). Five-factor model of personality and employee absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 745–755 Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541 Klein, K. J., Beng-Chong, L., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 952–963. Lievens, F., Harris, M. M., Van Keer, E., & Bisqueret, C. (2003). Predicting cross-cultural training performance: The validity of personality, cognitive ability, and dimensions measured by an assessment center and a behavior description interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 476–489. McKenna, E. (2006) Business Psychology and Organizational Behaviour. London, Psychology Press. Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B., & Goldstein, H. (2007). The precursors and products of justice climates: Group leader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences. Personnel Psychology, 60, 929–963. Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60, 683–729. Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, J. P. (1994). Validity of observer ratings of the big five personality factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 272–280. Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 438–454. Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 100–108. Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 373–385. Warr P (2002), Psychology at Work, 4th Edition, London: Penguin. Woods, S. A., & Hampson, S. E. (2010).Predicting adult occupational environments from gender and childhood personality traits.Journal of applied psychology, 95(6), 1045. Woods, S. A. & West, M. A. (2010) The Psychology of Work and Organizations, Hampshire, Cengage. Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions: A meta-analytic path model. Personnel Psychology, 61, 309–348. Read More