Module 4
Personality and Values
Personality
Personality encompasses a person’s relatively stable feelings, thoughts, and behavioral patterns. Each of us has a
unique personality that differentiates us from other people, and understanding someone’s personality gives us clues
about how that person is likely to act and feel in a variety of situations. To lead effectively, it is helpful to understand
the personalities of different employees. Having this knowledge is also useful for placing people into jobs and
organizations.
If personality is stable, does this mean that it does not change?
You probably remember how you have changed and evolved as a result of your own life experiences, parenting style
and attention you have received in early childhood, successes and failures you experienced over the course of your
life, and other life events. In fact, personality does change over long periods of time. For example, we tend to
become more socially dominant, more conscientious (organized and dependable), and more emotionally stable
between the ages of 20 and 40, whereas openness to new experiences tends to decline as we age (Roberts, 2006). In
other words, even though we treat personality as relatively stable, change occurs. Moreover, even in childhood, our
personality matters, and it has lasting consequences for us. For example, studies show that part of our career success
and job satisfaction later in life can be explained by our childhood personality (Judge & Higgins, 1999; Staw et al.,
1986).
Is our behavior in organizations dependent on our personality?
To some extent, yes, and to some extent, no. While we will discuss the effects of personality for employee behavior,
you must remember that the relationships we describe are modest correlations. For example, having a sociable and
outgoing personality may encourage people to seek friends and prefer social situations. This does not mean that
their personality will immediately affect their work behavior. At work, we have a job to do and a role to perform.
Therefore, our behavior may be more strongly affected by what is expected of us, as opposed to how we want to
behave. Especially in jobs that involve a lot of autonomy, or freedom, personality tends to exert a strong influence on
work behavior (Barrick & Mount, 1993), something to consider when engaging in organizing activities such as job
design or enrichment.
These five are not necessarily the only traits out there. There are other, specific traits that represent other
Trait Description
Openness Curious, original, intellectual, creative, and open to new ideas.
Conscientiousness Organized, systematic, punctual, achievement . dependable
Extraversion Outgoing, talkative, sociable, and enjoys being in social situations.
Agreeableness Affable, tolerant, sensitive, trusting, kind and warm.
Neuroticism Anxious, irritable, temperamental, and moody.
dimensions not captured by the Big Five. Still, understanding them gives us a good start for describing personality.
As you can see, the Big Five dimensions are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and
Neuroticism—if you put the initials together, you get the acronym OCEAN. Everyone has some degree of each of
these traits; it is the unique configuration of how high a person rates on some traits and how low on others that
produces the individual quality we call personality.
Openness is the degree to which a person is curious, original, intellectual, creative, and open to new ideas. People
high in openness seem to thrive in situations that require flexibility and learning new things. They are highly
motivated to learn new skills, and they do well in training settings (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Lievens et al., 2003). They
also have an advantage when they enter into a new organization. Their open-mindedness leads them to seek a lot of
information and feedback about how they are doing and to build relationships, which leads to quicker adjustment to
the new job (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). When given support, they tend to be creative (Baer & Oldham,
2006). Open people are highly adaptable to change, and teams that experience unforeseen changes in their tasks do
well if they are populated with people high in openness (LePine, 2003). Compared with people with low in openness,
they are also more likely to start their own business (Zhao & Seibert, 2006). The potential downside is that they may
also be prone to becoming more easily bored or impatient with routine.
Conscientiousness refers to the degree to which a person is organized, systematic, punctual, achievement-oriented,
and dependable. Conscientiousness is the one personality trait that uniformly predicts how high a person’s
performance will be across a variety of occupations and jobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991). In fact, conscientiousness is
the trait most desired by recruiters, and highly conscientious applicants tend to succeed in interviews (Dunn et al.,
1995; Tay et al., 2006). Once they are hired, conscientious people not only tend to perform well, but they also have
higher levels of motivation to perform, lower levels of turnover, lower levels of absenteeism, and higher levels of
safety performance at work (Judge & Ilies, 2002; Judge et al., 1997; Wallace & Chen, 2006; Zimmerman, 2008). One’s
conscientiousness is related to career success and career satisfaction over time (Judge & Higgins, 1999). Finally, it
seems that conscientiousness is a valuable trait for entrepreneurs. Highly conscientious people are more likely to
start their own business compared to those who are not conscientious, and their firms have longer survival rates
(Certo & Certo, 2005; Zhao & Seibert, 2006). A potential downside is that highly conscientious individuals can be
detail-oriented rather than see the big picture.
Extraversion is the degree to which a person is outgoing, talkative, sociable, and enjoys socializing. One of the
established findings is that they tend to be effective in jobs involving sales (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Vinchur et al.,
1998). Moreover, they tend to be effective as managers and they demonstrate inspirational leadership behaviors
(Bauer et al., 2006; Bono & Judge, 2004). Extraverts do well in social situations, and, as a result, they tend to be
effective in job interviews. Part of this success comes from preparation, as they are likely to use their social network
to prepare for the interview (Caldwell & Burger, 1998; Tay et al., 2006). Extraverts have an easier time than introverts
do when adjusting to a new job. They actively seek information and feedback and build effective relationships, which
helps them adjust (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). However, they do not necessarily perform well in all jobs;
jobs depriving them of social interaction may be a poor fit. Moreover, they are not necessarily model employees. For
example, they tend to have higher levels of absenteeism at work, potentially because they may miss work to hang
out with or attend to the needs of their friends (Judge et al., 1997)
Agreeableness is the degree to which a person is affable, tolerant, sensitive, trusting, kind, and warm. In other
words, people who are high in agreeableness are likable people who get along with others. Not surprisingly,
agreeable people help others at work consistently; this helping behavior does not depend on their good mood (Ilies
et al., 2006). They are also less likely to retaliate when other people treat them unfairly (Skarlicki et al., 1999). This
may reflect their ability to show empathy and to give people the benefit of the doubt. Agreeable people may be a
valuable addition to their teams and may be effective leaders because they create a fair environment when they are
in leadership positions (Mayer et al., 2007). At the other end of the spectrum, people low in agreeableness are less
likely to show these positive behaviors. Moreover, people who are disagreeable are shown to quit their jobs
unexpectedly, perhaps in response to a conflict with a boss or a peer (Zimmerman, 2008). If agreeable people are so
nice, does this mean that we should only look for agreeable people when hiring? You might expect some jobs to
require a low level of agreeableness. Think about it: When hiring a lawyer, would you prefer a kind and gentle person
or someone who can stand up to an opponent? People high in agreeableness are also less likely to engage in
constructive and change-oriented communication (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). Disagreeing with the status quo may
create conflict, and agreeable people may avoid creating such conflict, missing an opportunity for constructive
change.
Neuroticism refers to the degree to which a person is anxious, irritable, temperamental, and moody. It is perhaps the
only Big Five dimension in which scoring high is undesirable. Neurotic people have a tendency to have emotional
adjustment problems and habitually experience stress and depression. People with very high neuroticism experience
a number of problems at work. For example, they have trouble forming and maintaining relationships and are less
likely to be someone people go to for advice and friendship (Klein et al., 2004). They tend to be habitually unhappy in
their jobs and report high intentions to leave, but they do not necessarily actually leave their jobs (Judge et al., 2002;
Zimmerman, 2008). Being high in neuroticism seems to be harmful to one’s career, as these employees have lower
levels of career success (measured with income and occupational status achieved in one’s career). Finally, if they
achieve managerial jobs, they tend to create an unfair climate at work (Mayer et al., 2007).
In contrast, people who are low on neuroticism—those who have a positive affective disposition—tend to experience
positive moods more often than negative moods. They tend to be more satisfied with their jobs and more committed
to their companies (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Throresen et al., 2003). This is not surprising, as people who
habitually see the glass as half full will notice the good things in their work environment while those with the
opposite character will find more things to complain about. Whether these people are more successful in finding jobs
and companies that will make them happy, build better relationships at work that increase their satisfaction and
commitment, or simply see their environment as more positive, it seems that low neuroticism is a strong advantage
in the workplace.
Go to The Big Five Project Personality Test to see how you score on these factors.
[Link]
Other Personality Dimensions
In addition to the Big Five, researchers have proposed various other dimensions, or traits, of personality. These
include self-monitoring, proactive personality, self-esteem, and self-efficacy.
Self-monitoring refers to the extent to which a person is capable of monitoring his or her actions and appearance in
social situations. People who are social monitors are social chameleons who understand what the situation demands
and act accordingly, while low social monitors tend to act the way they feel (Snyder, 1974; Snyder, 1987). High social
monitors are sensitive to the types of behaviors the social environment expects from them. Their ability to modify
their behavior according to the demands of the situation they are in and to manage their impressions effectively are
great advantages for them (Turnley & Bolino, 2001). They are rated as higher performers and emerge as leaders (Day
et al., 2002). They are effective in influencing other people and are able to get things done by managing their
impressions. As managers, however, they tend to have lower accuracy in evaluating the performance of their
employees. It seems that while trying to manage their impressions, they may avoid giving accurate feedback to their
subordinates to avoid confrontations, which could hinder a leader’s ability to carry out the Controlling function
(Jawahar, 2001).
Proactive personality refers to a person’s inclination to fix what is wrong, change things, and use initiative to solve
problems. Instead of waiting to be told what to do, proactive people take action to initiate meaningful change and
remove the obstacles they face along the way. Proactive individuals tend to be more successful in their job searches
(Brown et al., 2006). They also are more successful over the course of their careers because they use initiative and
acquire a greater understanding of how the politics within the company work (Seibert, 1999; Seibert et al., 2001).
Proactive people are valuable assets to their companies because they may have higher levels of performance (Crant,
1995). They adjust to their new jobs quickly because they understand the political environment better and make
friends more quickly (Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Thompson, 2005). Proactive people are eager to learn
and engage in many developmental activities to improve their skills (Major et al., 2006). For all their potential, under
some circumstances, a proactive personality may be a liability for a person or an organization. Imagine a person who
is proactive but is perceived as too pushy, trying to change things other people are not willing to let go of, or using
their initiative to make decisions that do not serve a company’s best interests. Research shows that a proactive
person’s success depends on his or her understanding of the company’s core values, ability, and skills to perform the
job, and ability to assess situational demands correctly (Chan, 2006; Erdogan & Bauer, 2005).
Self-esteem is the degree to which a person has overall positive feelings about himself or herself. People with high
self-esteem view themselves in a positive light, are confident, and respect themselves. In contrast, people with low
self-esteem experience high levels of self-doubt and question their self-worth. High self-esteem is related to higher
levels of satisfaction with one’s job and higher levels of performance on the job (Judge & Bono, 2001). People with
low self-esteem are attracted to situations where they will be relatively invisible, such as large companies (Turban &
Keon, 1993). Leading employees with low self-esteem may be challenging at times because negative feedback given
with the intention of improving performance may be viewed as a negative judgment of their worth as an employee.
Therefore, effectively leading employees with relatively low self-esteem requires tact and providing lots of positive
feedback when discussing performance incidents.
Self-efficacy is a belief that one can perform a specific task successfully. Research shows that the belief that we can
do something is a good predictor of whether we can actually do it. Self-efficacy is different from other personality
traits in that it is job-specific. You may have high self-efficacy in being successful academically, but low self-efficacy in
relation to your ability to fix your car. At the same time, people have a certain level of generalized self-efficacy, and
they have the belief that whatever task or hobby they tackle, they are likely to be successful in it.
Personality Testing in Employee Selection
Personality is a potentially important predictor of work behavior. In job interviews, companies try to assess a
candidate’s personality and the potential for a good match, but interviews are only as good as the people conducting
them. In fact, interviewers are not particularly good at detecting the best trait that predicts performance:
conscientiousness (Barrick et al., 2000).
One method some companies use to detect potentially good job candidates is personality testing. Several companies
conduct pre-employment personality tests. Companies using them believe that these tests improve the effectiveness
of their selection and reduce turnover.
In employee selection, where the employees with the “best” personalities will be the ones receiving a job offer, a
complicating factor is that people filling out the survey do not have a strong incentive to be honest, and may guess
what the job requires, and try to answer the questions in a way they think the company desires. As a result, the
rankings of the candidates who take the test may be affected by their ability to fake. Some experts believe that this is
a serious problem (Morgeson et al., 2007a; Morgeson et al., 2007b). Others point out that even with faking the tests
remain valid—the scores are related to job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1996; Ones et al., 2007; Ones et al., 1996;
Tett & Christansen, 2007). It is even possible that the ability to fake is related to a personality trait that increases
success at work, such as social monitoring.
Scores on personality self-assessments may be distorted for other reasons beyond the fact that some candidates can
fake better than others. Do we even know our own personalities? Are we the best person to ask this question? Using
self-report measures of performance may not be the best way of measuring someone’s personality (Mount et al.,
1994). We have our blind areas. We may also give “aspirational” answers. If you are asked whether you are honest,
you may think “yes, I always have the intention to be honest.” This actually says nothing about your actual level of
honesty.
Values
Values refer to people’s stable life goals, reflecting what is most important to them. Values are established
throughout one’s life as a result of accumulating life experiences, and values tend to be relatively stable (Lusk &
Oliver, 1974; Rokeach, 1973). The values that are important to a person tend to affect the types of decisions they
make, how they perceive their environment, and their actual behaviors. Moreover, a person is more likely to accept a
job offer when the company possesses the values he or she cares about (Judge & Bretz, 1992; Ravlin & Meglino,
1987). Value attainment is one reason people stay in a company. When a job does not help them attain their values,
they are likely to decide to leave if they are dissatisfied with the job (George & Jones, 1996).
What are the values people care about? As with personality dimensions, researchers have developed several
frameworks, or typologies, of values. One of the particularly useful frameworks includes 10 values (Schwartz, 1992).
Table 2.3.2: Values included in Schwartz’s (1992) Value Inventory
Values Definition
Achievement The desire for personal success.
Benevolence The desire to protect the well-being of people who are close to the person.
Conformity Being motivated by being self-disciplined and obedient. Conforming to others.
Hedonism The desire for pleasure in life.
Power The desire for control over others, attaining power and prestige.
Security Valuing safety and stability
Self-direction The desire to be free and independent.
Stimulation The desire for a stimulating and exciting life.
Tradition Acceptance of social customs and traditional ideas in a society.
Universalism The desire to protect the well-being of all people. Caring about social justice.
According to Rokeach, values are arranged in hierarchical fashion. In other words, an accurate way of assessing
someone’s values is to ask them to rank the 36 values in order of importance. By comparing these values, people
develop a sense of which value can be sacrificed to achieve the other, and the individual priority of each value
emerges.
Where do values come from? Research indicates that they are shaped early in life and show stability over the course
of a lifetime. Early family experiences are important influences over the dominant values. People who were raised in
families with low socioeconomic status and those who experienced restrictive parenting often display conformity
values when they are adults, while those who were raised by parents who were cold toward their children would
likely value and desire security. Kasser, T., Koestner, R., & Lekes, N. (2002). Early family experiences and adult values:
A 26-year prospective longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 826–835.
Values of a generation also change and evolve in response to the historical context that the generation grows up in.
Research comparing the values of different generations resulted in interesting findings. For example, Generation Xers
(those born between the mid-1960s and 1980s) are more individualistic and are interested in working toward
organizational goals so long as they coincide with their personal goals. This group, compared to the baby boomers
(born between the 1940s and 1960s), is also less likely to see work as central to their life and more likely to desire a
quick promotion. Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values
for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363–382.
The values a person holds will affect his or her employment. For example, someone who has an orientation toward
strong stimulation may pursue extreme sports and select an occupation that involves fast action and high risk, such
as fire fighter, police officer, or emergency medical doctor. Someone who has a drive for achievement may more
readily act as an entrepreneur. Moreover, whether individuals will be satisfied at a given job may depend on whether
the job provides a way to satisfy their dominant values. Therefore, understanding employees at work requires
understanding the value orientations of employees.