Psychology 238: Organizational Psychology - Personality PDF

PSYCHOLOGY 238: Organizational Psychology Personality Attribution: Perceiving Causes and Motives Attribution is the process by which we assign causes or motives to explain people’s behaviour. – About understanding WHY Dispositional (internal) or situational (external)...

PSYCHOLOGY 238: Organizational Psychology Personality Attribution: Perceiving Causes and Motives Attribution is the process by which we assign causes or motives to explain people’s behaviour. – About understanding WHY Dispositional (internal) or situational (external) factors. – Remember: could be both.  Kelley’s (1973) Attribution Model Kelley’s (1973) Attribution Model Motives judged through: – Distinctiveness Shows different behaviours in different situations. – Consensus Response is the same as others to same situation. – Consistency Responds in the same way over time.  Biases in Attribution Although observers often operate in a rational, logical manner in forming attributions, our attributions are NOT always correct. Three biases in attribution: 1. Fundamental attribution error 2. Actor-observer effect 3. Self-serving bias Personality General Conceptual Model—what causes behaviour? Dispositions, situations, and interactions Personality Theory and Testing Definition, measurement The “Big 5” personality dimensions Born or Made Recent Findings The Big Five Dimensions General Relationships with Outcomes Stability, Complexity Interactionist Approach Situation Strength Theory Trait Activation Theory  The Basic Model Situational Work Environment Approaches Interactionist Approaches Person Behavior/ Thinking/Feeling (Personality) Performance Dispositional Approaches  Terminology: Trait and State Trait State (Situation) Person (“P”) Environment (“E”) Individual Difference Situation Personality Trait x State PxE Interaction Personality General Conceptual Model—what causes behaviour? Dispositions, situations, and interactions Personality Theory and Testing Definition, measurement The “Big 5” personality dimensions Born or Made Recent Findings The Big Five Dimensions General Relationships with Outcomes Stability, Complexity Interactionist Approach Situation Strength Theory Trait Activation Theory  Personality: Defined  The unique organization of characteristics (thoughts, feelings) that define an individual and determine that person’s pattern of interaction with the environment (Allport, 1961)  The relatively stable set of psychological attributes that distinguish one person from another. Why do we care? Turnover Personality Company Deviance Performance Work Performance  Summary of Personality 1. Individual differences (Trait) 2. Relatively stable across: – Time – Situation 3. Predicts behaviour/performance – Characteristic pattern of behaviour or a disposition to feel and act in a certain way – Reactions to people, situations, problems, etc.  How do we Assess Personality? # of sick Concepts Personality days Projective Tests Count the number of Observational sick days taken in 1 Self-Reports year MBTI Astrological Sign Operationalizations  How do we Assess Personality? How should we conceptualize? How Many Dimensions? # of sick Concepts Personality days How do we Projective Tests Count the number of evaluate? Observational sick days taken in 1 Self-Reports year Astrological Sign Operationalizations Mini-Marker Exercise (Saucier, 1994)  The Big Five CANOE 1) Efficient Conscientiousness 2) Factor Analysis Agreeableness 3) Culturally Robust Emotional Stability/Neuroticism Openness to experience 4) Heritability and Extraversion Stability  Where Does Personality Come From? Is personality determined by nature or nurture?  Twin Study Method-Example MZA- 100% genetic material, but 0% environment. Correlation approximates the total effect of genes h2  Heritability Estimates 41% Emotional Stability 49% Extraversion 45% Openness to Experience 35% Agreeableness 38% Conscientiousness Twin Comparison Personality: Nature and Nurture Error Nonshared 20% Environment Shared 35% Environment 5% Genetic 40%  Personality and Neurological Markers DeYoung, Hirsch, Shane, Padademetris, Rajeevan, & Gray (2010) Completed NEO-PI-R and Scan Extraversion Neuroticism Conscientiousness Agreeableness  How Does Personality Influence Outcomes? Thinking/ Genes & Feeling Socialization BEHAVIOR/ TRAITS ATTITUDES Personality General Conceptual Model—what causes behaviour? Dispositions, situations, and interactions Personality Theory and Testing Definition, measurement The “Big 5” personality dimensions Born or Made Recent Findings The Big Five Dimensions General Relationships with Outcomes Stability, Complexity Interactionist Approach Situation Strength Theory Trait Activation Theory  Extraversion The quality of being comfortable with relationships; degree of sociability Status striving and Reward Sensitivity Low: Reserved, quiet, solitary High: Gregarious, assertive, talkative, expressive Zero Acquaintance Situations Extraversion is related to Positive Affectivity (Job Satisfaction  Extraversion =.25) Extraversion and Teamwork (Barry & Stewart, 1997) – 289 graduate students in 4 and 5 person problem solving teams – Extraverts on a team led to more open communication – Too many extraverts Decline in focus on task completion Increase in conflict over who should be the leader – Curvilinear relationship existed between extraversion and performance  Barry and Stewert (Cont) 45 40 35 PERFORMANCE 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% PERCENT OF EXTRAVERTS ON TEAM Extraversion and Reward Sensitivity  Extraversion and Reward (cont) Stewart (1996)- Journal of Applied Psychology NEW SALES RENEWAL EXTRAVERSION EXTRAVERSION  Basic Model: Stewart Paper Situational Work Environment Approaches (Rewards) Interactionist Approaches Person Sensitive to Job (Extraversion) Rewards Performance Dispositional Approaches  Agreeableness The ability to get along with others; degree of courtesy, trust, cooperation, and tolerance that a person exhibits. – Low: Focused on own needs, less need to be liked by others, irritable, suspicious, inflexible – High: Forgiving, good natured, cooperative, warm, trusting Agreeableness  Agreeableness Antisocial and Prosocial behaviour Prosocial Antisocial Behavior Behavior Agreeableness Agreeableness Agreeableness: Overriding Personal Interest Schaumberg & Flynn (2017)  Agreeableness: Overriding Personal Interest Schaumberg & Flynn (2017) Sample: 229 working adults Measures: Agreeableness, job satisfaction, and absenteeism Result  Agreeableness Judge, Livingston, & Hurst (2012: JPSP) 42, 113 90,241 Salary Salary 70,774 31, 259 42, 093 32,283 Agreeableness Agreeableness Neuroticism (Emotional Stability)  Emotional Stability (Neuroticism) Ability to handle stress; an indicator of psychological adjustment vs. neuroticism – Low: Anxious, insecure, sensitive, angry, depressed – High: Calm, self-confident, secure, content about themselves and their place in the world – Emotional Stability and Negative Affectivity. Emotional stability  Job satisfaction =.29. – Stress: differential exposure and differential reactivity  Neuroticism and Stress Liu, Wang, Zhan, & Shi (2009) Number of Drinks Low Stress High Stress  Conscientiousness The degree of organization, dependability, thoroughness, and achievement oriented activities that a person exhibits; a measure of reliability. – Berkeley Intergenerational Study – Low: Unreliable, unorganized, unpredictable – High: Perseverance, responsible, organized, diligent, dependable  Why do College Entrance Exams Underpredict Female Performance? Keiser, Sackett, Kuncel, & Brothen (2016) Problem: Predictive Bias. Ability tests under predict female college GPA. Why? Answer: Omitted Variable – College performance is determined by more than ability.  Conscientiousness and Life Time Unemployment Egan, Daly, Delaney, Boyce, & Wood (2017) Conscientiousness and Well-Being Following Unemployment Boyce, Wood, & Brown (2010)  Why? Motivational Conscientiousness Work performance  Openness to Experience The capacity to entertain new ideas and to change as a result of new information; creative, original, open-minded Low: Cautious, narrow-minded High: Curious, imaginative, playful, artistic Job Performance? Creativity? Positively related to training proficiency Personality General Conceptual Model—what causes behaviour? Dispositions, situations, and interactions Personality Theory and Testing Definition, measurement The “Big 5” personality dimensions Born or Made Recent Findings The Big Five Dimensions General Relationships with Outcomes Stability, Complexity Interactionist Approach Situation Strength Theory Trait Activation Theory  How do we Assess Personality? Work Performance Safety Leadership Satisfaction Concepts Big Five Outcomes Self-report Self-rating Observation Other rating Trait based Objective Behavioural Measure Operationalizations  Personality and Work Performance Task Performance: Behaviours involved in the transformation of organizational resources into goods and services (e.g., job ad) Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Voluntary employee activities that may or may not be rewarded, but contribute to the organization by improving the quality of the setting. Chiaburu et al. (2011) Summary: Personality Predicts Performance? Conscientiousness (broadly promising) Valid across almost all occupational groups; r =.16 -.31 Emotional stability (promising) Valid for many groups especially sales, management, & teaching, r =.14 Extraversion (some promise) Most valid for salespeople Openness to experience (virtually no predictive ability) Agreeableness (virtually no predictive ability) Beus, Dhanani & McCord (2015): Safety Meta-Analysis Five-Factor Personality & Leadership (Judge et al., 2002) Extraversion.31 Conscientiousness.28.24 Openness Leadership -.24 Neuroticism.08 Agreeableness Personality and Job Satisfaction Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002 Personality General Conceptual Model—what causes behaviour? Dispositions, situations, and interactions Personality Theory and Testing Definition, measurement The “Big 5” personality dimensions Born or Made Recent Findings The Big Five Dimensions General Relationships with Outcomes Stability, Complexity Interactionist Approach Situation Strength Theory Trait Activation Theory  How Stable ? From Colquitt et al., 2008  The Complexity of Personality: Nonlinear Nonlinear effects – The Ambivert Advantage Just Right Not Assertive, Too uncomfortable with people Assertive Grant, 2013  The Complexity of Personality: Interactions Interactions amongst dimensions – Agreeableness and Conscientiousness Interpersonally competent, cooperative etc Interpersonally incompetent, uncooperative etc Witt, Burke, Barrick, & Mount, 2002 The Complexity of Personality: Interactions Big five and Self-monitoring Executive MBA students Barrick, Parks, & Mount, 2005 Personality General Conceptual Model—what causes behaviour? Dispositions, situations, and interactions Personality Theory and Testing Definition, measurement The “Big 5” personality dimensions Born or Made Recent Findings The Big Five Dimensions General Relationships with Outcomes Stability, Complexity Interactionist Approach Situation Strength Theory Trait Activation Theory Systematic Situational Influence at Work Person-Situation Debate in OB Interactionist Approach Situation Strength Theory Trait Activation Theory  The Basic Model Situational Work Environment Approaches Interactionist Approaches Person Behavior/ Thinking/Feeling (Personality) Performance Dispositional Approaches  Turnover Personality Company Deviance Performance Work Performance  Person-Situation Debate in OB So what really determines behaviour at work? Person – Individuals are predisposed to behave in certain ways Situation – Characteristics Work of the organizational setting rewards influence people’sNeed such asEnvironment to attitudes understand and behaviour. situational Person influence (Dispositions) systematically! Why an Interactionist Approach might be important. Why an Interactionist Approach might be important. Five-Factor Personality & Leadership (Judge et al., 2002) Extraversion.31 Conscientiousness.28.24 Openness Leadership -.24 Neuroticism.08 Agreeableness Why an Interactionist Approach might be important. Five-Factor Personality & Job Satisfaction (Judge et al., 2002) Why an Interactionist Approach might be important. Murphy and Dziewezynski (2005)  Interactionist Approach To predict organizational behaviour, we need to know about an individual’s personality and the work setting, together ‒ Situation Strength Theory ‒ Trait Activation Theory  Situation Strength “the degree to which situational constraints are present in the environment for what to do and how to do it” (Caspi & Moffitt, 1993) Weak vs. Strong situation (Judge & Zapata, 2015) 1. Impact of decisions on coworkers/results 2. Consequences of error Outcome 3. Responsibility for health/safety of others 4. Unstructured (vs. Structured) work Process 5. Freedom to make decision 6. Variety of skills Judge and Zapata (2015)  Situation Strength In weak situations, roles are loosely defined, there are few rules and weak reinforcement and punishment contingencies Personality has the strongest effect in weak situations In strong situations, the roles, rules, and contingencies are more defined Personality has less of an impact in strong situations The theory predicts validities of individual differences IN GENERAL  Recent meta-analytic findings: O*Net rating as indices for situational strength and trait activation 50-105 studies and >9000 people surveyed per big-five trait RESULTS: All big five traits are more predictive of job performance in weak situations Judge and Zapata (2015)  Job Performance High High Autonomy Low Autonomy Low Low High Conscientiousness Barrick & Mount, 1993 The underlying mechanism: An example from conscientiousness  Trait Activation “the process by which individuals express their traits when presented with trait-relevant situational cues.” (Tett & Burnett, 2003) Specific contexts: 1. Independence in completing work 2. Attention to detail requirement 3. Social skills requirement 4. Level of competition requirement 5. Innovation /creativity requirement 6. Dealing with unpleasant or angry people Some contexts make certain SPECIFIC trait expressions more important Judge and Zapata (2015) Most recent meta-analytic findings: High independence in completing work Conscientiousness and openness were more important to job performance Strong social skills requirements Emotional stability, agreeableness, and extraversion were more predictive of job performance High levels of competition Agreeableness was more negatively, and extraversion was more positively, related to job performance Strong creativity requirements Openness was more predictive of job performance Jobs involved dealing with unpleasant or angry people Extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability were more predictive of job performance Judge and Zapata (2015) An Example: Can Introverts Lead? Why an Interactionist Approach might be important. Five-Factor Personality & Leadership (Judge et al., 2002) Extraversion.31 Conscientiousness.28.24 Openness Leadership -.24 Neuroticism.08 Agreeableness Revisiting the Extraverted Leadership Advantage (Grant, Gino, Hofmann, 2011)  Revisiting the Extraverted Leadership Advantage (Grant, Gino, Hofmann, 2011) High Extraversion Low Extraversion “Scientific research now shows “Scientific research now shows that that behaving in an extraverted behaving in an introverted manner is manner is the key to success as a the key to success as a leader. Like leader. Like John F. Kennedy, Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, and Socrates, great leaders are Martin Luther King, Jr., and Jack introverted: their behavior is quiet, Welch, great leaders are shy, and reserved. This enables them extraverted: their behavior is to empower their people to deliver bold, talkative, and assertive. results.” This enables them to communicate a strong, dominant vision that inspires followers to deliver results” Revisiting the Extraverted Leadership Advantage (Grant, Gino, Hofmann, 2011) Leader Followers Leader Followers Revisiting the Extraverted Leadership Advantage (Grant, Gino, Hofmann, 2011) Study 2: Results for Group Performance 200 190 180 170 Low Extraversion T-Shirts Folded 160 High Extraversion 150 140 130 120 Passive Followers Proactive Followers