Personality and Socialization - Essay Example

Personality Why are some people quite and passive, while others are loud and aggressive? Are certain personality types better adapted for certain jobs? When we talk of personality, we mean a person who has charm, a positive attitude towards life, a smiling face etc. when psychologists talk of personality; they mean a dynamic concept describing the growth and development of a person’s whole psychological system. The word “Personality” has interesting etymological origins. It can be traced to the Latin word “Personare” which translates as “to speak through”. The Latin term was used to denote the masks worn by actors in ancient Greece & Rome. This Latin meaning is particularly relevant to contemporary analysis of personality. Personality traditionally refers to how people influence others through their external appearances and actions. But for psychologists, personality includes: (i) Eternal appearances and behavior (ii) the inner awareness of self as a permanent organizing force, and (iii) the particular organization of measurable traits, both inner and outer. Personality is an individual difference that lends consistency to a person’s behavior. Personality is defined as a relatively stable set of characteristics that influence an individual’s behavior. As we think that personality as the sum total of ways in which an individual reacts and interacts with others. This is more often described in terms of measurable personality traits that a person exhibits. Personality may be hard to define but we now it when, we see it. He all makes personality judgments about the people we know. A major part of coming to understand ourselves is developing a sense of what our personality characteristics are. We even form impressions about the personalities of people we do not know but have only read about. Some might refer to someone as real personalities, meaning that they are unusual people. Others might use the term personality or to compliment or insult someone, as in “She has lots of [or absolutely no] personality. As we shall see, these everyday uses of the term are quite different from the meaning psychologists give to the term ‘personality’. Though psychologists and social scientists unanimously agree to the importance of personality but they are unable to come up with a unanimous definition. When psychologists define ‘Personality’ they tend to refer to qualities within a person, characteristics of a person’s behavior or both. In a famous definition, Psychologist Gordon Allport (1937) mentioned both, inner qualities and behavior but he emphasized the inner qualities. He defined personality, as “Personality is the dynamic organization with in the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his unique adjustments to his environment” (P. 48.). In a more recent definition psychologist Walter Mischel (1976) mentioned both inner processes and behavior but emphasized behavior. Personality, he wrote consists of “the distinctive patters of behavior (including thoughts and definitions) that characterizes each individual’s adaptation to the situations of his or her life” (P., 2.). No single definition of personality is acceptable to all psychologists. However most agree that personality includes the behavior patterns a person shows across situations or the psychological characteristics of the person that lead to those behavior patterns. Complexity of the concept of personality as such leads to different ways of study of the subjects. Some have developed broad theories to explain the origins and makeup of personality. Others have focused only on one or two issues such as the influence of heredity on personality. The first approach, theory construction, was popular for many years. As a result, we have many broad personality theories. Most of these broad theories can be grouped into four categories: (1) type and trait approach, which focus on people’s characteristics- stubbornness, shyness and so forth and how these characteristics are organized into systems; (ii) dynamic approach, which emphasize on-going interactions among motives, impulses and psychological processes; (iii) learning and behavior approaches, which emphasize the ways habits are acquired through basic conditioning or learning processes; and (iv) humanistic approaches, which emphasize the self and the importance of the individuals subjective view of the world. Now on we will focus on trait theory mainly. Trait theory of personality basically focuses on people’s personal characteristics. However, various trait theorists differ in the ways they use those characteristics to describe people. Efforts to isolate traits have been very long. Years ago, psychologist Gordon Allport counted about 18,000 trait like terms in the English language-terms that designated “distinctive and personal forms of behavior “ (1937, Pp. 303-304). Allport (1961) believed that this rich collection of trait like terms provided a way of capturing the uniqueness of each individual. He believed that this uniqueness could be described well in terms of the individual’s traits or “personal dispositions”, at three levels of generality. Cardinal traits he defined as those, which are so dominant that nearly all individual’s actions can be traced back to them. These broad, highly influential traits are often called by names drawn from key historical figures like Machiavellian or Nixonian. Each term describes a trait so broad and so deep in its impact that it overshadows the influence of other traits in the some individual. Allport believed that most people have no true cardinal traits but that when someone does have cardinal traits it shows itself in virtually all of that person’s behavior. For most people, who are without cardinal traits, central trait becomes crucial. Central traits he described as characterizing an individual’s behavior to some extent but not in such a complete way as cardinal traits. Allport described central traits as those that might be mentioned in a careful letter of recommendation or checked off on a rating scale where the rater is asked to select the outstanding characteristics of an individual. It would be rare, he wrote for an individual to have more than 10 or 12 such central trait. Finally, the least generalized characteristics of the person; he labeled ‘Secondary traits’. These are traits such as “like’s chocolates” or “prefer foreign cars”- traits that are influential but only within narrow range of situations. Allport recommends that cardinal, central and secondary traits be used to assemble what he called and psychological life histories and that information about these traits comes from material produced by the individual themselves-material such as letters, diaries or personal journals. In recommending that people be described in terms of traits that capture their uniqueness. Allport also subscribing to the idiographic approach involves the psychological study of the individual case; it entails efforts to understand, explain and sometimes predict an individual’s behavior in various situations. A contrasting approach, which Allport also valued, is called Nomothetic or Dimensional approach, aimed to discover the personality principles that apply to people in general. The idiographic approach involves a search for consistencies within particular individuals; the dimensional approach involves a search for consistencies and general principles that apply across individuals. Trait approaches to personality are close enough to our everyday way of thinking about people as to have a certain ring of truth. Yet truth can be elusive, especially when our query is as complex as the human personality. Although trait theories have enhanced our understanding of human behaviour, critics have questioned whether these approaches give us a complete and accurate picture of personality. Their concerns have fallen into two broad areas: questions about methodology and a philosophical question. One of the most basic questions about methodology concerns reliability. Generally reliability in the form of agreement among observers is not a major problem, provided the observers are given careful training for judging traits. Problems of interjudge reliability do arise however, when the procedures for inferring traits are not clear or very subjective judgments are involved. A second question concerns the validity of trait assessment is, whether the assessments mean what they are supposed to mean. The third methodological question concerns trait consistency. Traits are generally thought of as sources of stability in our behaviour that leads us to behave in consistent ways across different situations. Behaviour is more a product of the particular situation. One question about trait theory is that, is it really adequate to think of our personality as the sum of our trait or as the particular type we fit? Some argue that personality is much more as a set of processes by which people cope with life. Socialization is the process through which individuals acquires the values, attitudes, norms, knowledge and skills needed to exist in a given society (Merton, 1957). Some theorists have defined socialization as the interaction between the individual psyche and the social organization (Goffman, 1959,67; Mead, 1934). As a process, socialization is ongoing, although it occurs most clearly when new recruits enter the organization. For new members, organizational socialization is “the process of learning the ropes”, the process of being trained, the process of being taught what is important in an organization (Schein, 1968, P.2) and yet as a process, the organizations members are always involved in socialization. A new leader, for example, enters the institution with a significantly different vision, attitudes and values and those in the organization may have different and so both may have to reframe socializations purpose is two-fold. On one hand,” One of the important functions of socialization is to build commitment and loyalty to the organization (Schein, 1968, P.7). On the other hand, since an organization’s culture is interpretive and dynamic, as new members enter the institution it is resocialized. Socialization begins prior to an individual first day of employment. The individual learns what it means to be a member of a profession and discipline during one’s training, and this learning may be at odds with what he or she ultimately finds. Now once a person inducted in the organization, the new comer will experience socialization processes, which affirm the individual qualities brought to the organization. On the other hand, if the value, beliefs and norms brought by a newcomer are seen as inconsistent with the institution then socialization experience will be more transformative in nature. Socialization is a highly charged process, where different individuals and groups come together to define organizational beliefs and attitudes. The term ‘Socialization’ has to be understood properly so that a person could be molded/guided to learn the standard behavioral norms of the society. Similarly an employee’s behaviour could be socialize systematically so that, it moves the employee closer to the desired response. Normally at an organizational level socialization can be done by positive reinforcements, negative enforcement, punishment and extinction. In the process of socialization persons acquire different values and attitudes. Values represent basic convictions that “a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end state of existence (Rokeach, 1973). They contain a judgemental element in that they carry an individual’s idea as to what is right, good or desirable. Once it is internalized, it becomes consciously or unconsciously, a standard or criterion for guiding action for developing and maintaining attitude toward relevant objects and situation, for justifying one’s own and other’s actions and attitudes for morally judging oneself and others, and for comparing oneself with others. Values are important to the study of organizational behaviour because they lay the foundation for the understanding of attitudes and motivation and because they influence our perceptions. Individuals enter an organization with preconceived notions of what “ought” and what “ought not” to be. Of course these notions are not value free. Values generally influence attitudes and behaviours (Connor & Becker, 1994). Suppose anyone enters an organization with the view that allocating pay on the basis of performance is right where as allocating pay on the seniority is wrong and finds the pay allocation on seniority disappoint and can lead to job dissatisfaction. A significant portion of values generate in our early life. Values are relatively stable and enduring but they are learned too. The process of questioning our values may result in a change. We may decide that these underlying convictions are no longer acceptable. An understanding that individual’s value differ but tend to reflect the societal values of the period in which they grew up can be a valuable aid in explaining and predicting behaviour. Values differ across cultures and an understanding of these differences should be helpful in explaining and predicting behaviour of employees from different countries. An American is taught early the values of individuality and uniqueness but Japanese are indoctrinated to be “team players” to work within the group and to conform. Similarly another concept attitudes are basically evaluative statements either favourable or unfavourable connecting people, objects or events. They reflect how one feels about something Attitudes are not the same as values, but the two are interrelated. Attitudes is defined as a more or less stable set of predisposition of opinion, interest or purpose involving expectancy of a certain kind of experience and readiness with an appropriate response. Attitudes are also known as “frames of reference”. They provide the background against which facts and events are viewed. It becomes necessary to know the attitudes of members of an organization because they have to perceive specific aspects like pay, hours of work, promotion etc. of their job life in the wider context of their generalized attitudes. An attitude is also a cognitive element; it always remains inside a person. In business organizations, employers have attitudes relating to working environment, job security etc. The individual attitudes towards these factors are indicative of his apathy or enthusiasm towards the activities and objectives of the organization. People at work place have attitudes about lots of topics that are related to them. These attitudes are firmly embedded in a complex psychological structure of beliefs. Attitudes are different from values. Values are the ideas, whereas attitudes are narrow, they are our feeling, thoughts and behavioral tendencies towards a specific object or situation. Managers in work organizations need to know and understand employees’ attitudes in order to manage effectively. Attitudes do influence behavior of people and their performance in organization. Attitudes are acquired from parents, teachers and peer group members. People also initial the attitudes of popular individuals and those they admire and respect. Attitudes are an integral part of the world of work. It is important for managers to understand the antecedents to attitudes as well as their consequences. Attitudes are learned. Individual acquire attitudes from several sources but the point to be stressed is that the attitudes are acquired but not inherited. The two major influences on attitudes are direct experience and social learning. A manager can change an employee’s attitude if that employee sees him as believable, knowledgeable and unbiased. Successful attitude changes is enhanced when views / agreements put clearly and persuasively. Attitudes that are public are more difficult to change because it requires one to admit he / she made a mistake. Oral persuasion is the most effective when we use a positive, tactful tone; present strong evidence to support the position; tailor our agreements to the listener; use logic and support, our evidence by appealing to the employees’ fears, frustrations and other emotions. Another important concept, which plays an all-important role to shape our personalities, is our perceptions. Perception involves the way we view the world around us. Perception is the primary vehicle through which we come to understand our surroundings and ourselves. Perception can be defined as a process by which individuals organize and interpret their sensory impressions in order to give meaning to their environment. People’s behavior is based on their perception of what reality is not on reality itself. Virtually all management activities rely on perception. In appraising performance, managers use their perceptions of an employee’s behavior as a basis for evaluation. One work situation that highlights the importance of perception is the selection interview. Perception also culturally determined. Based on our backgrounds, we tend to perceive things in certain ways. Perception is the process by which organisms interpret and organize sensation to produce a meaningful experience of the world. Social perception is the process of interfering information about another person. Social perception is directly concerned with how one individual perceives other individuals. Perception is our sensory experience of the world around us and involves both the recognition of environmental stimuli and actions in response to these stimuli. Perception is a three-phase process of selecting, organization and interpreting information. The Gestalt school of Psychology interprets perception phenomena as organized wholes rather than as aggregates of distinct parts, moistening that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Perception is influenced by various factors / variety of factors including the intensity and physical dimensions of the stimulus; and motivation and emotional state of the subject. Stimulus elements in visual organization form perceived patterns according to their nearness to each other, their similarity, the tendency for the subject to perceive complete figures and the ability of the subject to distinguish important figures from background. Perceptual constancy is the tendency of a subject to interpret one object in the same manner, regardless of such variations as distance, angle of sight or brightness. There are number of factors which could influence perception such as attitudes of perceiver, moods, motives, self-concept, interest, cognitive structure and expectations. Perceivers above mentioned factors always make a difference in perceiving the same situation differently. People in the organizations are always judging each other. The more obvious applications of perceptions in organization could be seen in different areas. Employment interviews are one of the areas where evidence indicates that interviewers often make inaccurate perceptual judgments. Interviews generally draw early impressions that become very quickly entrenched. The employment interview is an important input into the hiring decision and a manager must recognize that perceptual factors influence, who is hired. There fore, eventually the quality of an organizations labor force depends on the perception of the interviewers. An employee’s performance appraisal very much depends on the perceptual process. The evaluator forms a general impression of an employees work. What the evaluator perceives to be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ employee characteristics will significantly influence the appraisal system. Managers’ expectations of an individual affect both the managers’ behavior towards the individual and the individuals’ response. An impressive amount of evidence demonstrates that people will attempt to validate their perceptions of reality, even when these perceptions are faulty. This is particularly relevant when we consider performance expectations of the job. Another important judgment that managers make about employee is whether they are loyal to the organization or not. The assessment of employee’s loyalty or commitment is highly judgmental. What is perceived as loyally by one may be seen as excessive by another. An employee who questions a top management decisions may be seen as disloyal. Some employees-called whistle blowers-who report unethical practices by their employer to authorities inside or outside the organization, typically act out of loyalty to their organization but are perceived by management as trouble makers. Individual decision making, therefore is an important part of organizational behavior. But how individual in organization make decisions and the quality of their final choices are largely influenced by their perceptions. One-person problems are another person’s satisfactory state of affairs. So the awareness that a problem exists and that a decision needs to be made is a perceptional issue. Moreover, every decision requires interpretation and evaluation of data and information. Data are typically received from multiple sources and they need to be screened, processed and interpreted. Which data, for instance, are relevant in taking decision solely depends on the perceptions of a decision maker. So clearly individual decision making and final out comes largely depends on the perceptions of the decision maker. ********************************************************************* References: 1. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of Human Values, New York, The Free Press. P.5. 2. Connor, P. E. & Becker, B.W. (1994), Personal values and management: What do we know and why don’t we know more”?, Journal of management Inquiry, March. P.68. 3. Goffman, E. (1959), The presentation of the self in everyday life, garden city, New York: Double Day Anchor Books. 4. Goffman, E. (1967), Interaction Ritual, New York: Pantheon. 5. Mead, G. H. (1934), Mind, Self and Society: Chicago, University of Chicago Press. 6. Merton, R. K. (1957), Social Theory and Social Structure, Glencoe. III. The Free Press. 7. Schein, E.H. (1968). Organizational socialization, Industrial Management Review 9(2): 1.16. 8. Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. New York: Henry Holt & company. 9. Allport, G.W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality: New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 10. Mischel, W. (1976). Introduction to Personality (2nd ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Read More