Personality and Employee Performance - Essay Example

Personality and Employee Performance Personality and Employee Performance All people express different attitudes, opinions, emotions and behaviours in their life and at work. In other words, all of them have different personalities which influence all dimensions of their lives. The importance of personality measures is constantly increasing in HR management. Many organizations grow globally, and they need to be sure that they hire appropriate people for different positions available. Application of personality measures can predict some typical patterns of employee behaviour and suggest whether the applicant meets the expectations of the organization. Moreover, this practice rewards HR professionals with sustainability and confidence inside the organization as they can foresee unwanted reactions and responses. Personality analysis is crucial to use in HR practices to advance hiring practices, predict behaviours and motivate employees at work. The Current Application of Personality in Employee Performance Personality tests as a common practice in HR management were developed as a result of meta-analytic studies in 90s. According to Hakstian & Ng (2005, p. 405), initially they were appraised because their results granted predictability and validity of employees’ performance. Since then personality tests have been actively integrated in HR management. Most of these tests are based on “Big Five” personality model. According to it, there are five main personality variables which influence people’s behaviour; they include openness to experience, extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness and consciousness (Judge et al. 1999, p. 624). HR professionals design tests in order to identify these factors in each personality. Companies tend to conceal their testing practices as they exist for internal use only. It is the reason why there are not many sources available in regard to the studied issue. At the same time, there are some surveys, publications written by HR professionals and corporate reports which reveal that personality tests are successfully integrated in HR practices all over the world. For example, according to Rothstein & Goffin (2006, p. 155), 30% of corporations in the United States used special personality tests in their hiring procedures in 2003. Personality measures can target different characteristics of current or potential employees; they can test integrity, performance effectiveness or personal expectations. Integrity tests remain the most popular and one of the most complicated to analyse. Rothstein & Goffin (2006, p. 155) state that there are around 5 million applicants who do this tests and 20% of the Human Resource Management Society (HRMS) members who use them in their hiring practices during a year. Successful corporations included in Fortune 100 list apply these tests even more frequently. Barrick, Stewart & Piotrowski (2002, p.46) mention that 40% of them test employees at different levels to maximize their performance effectiveness at work. Top 100 of the most successful organizations in the UK apply personality in performance management and hiring practices (Hurtz & Donovan 2000, p. 877). Researchers are not afraid of supposing that personality tests are used more often than firms report it; around two thirds of big companies conduct personality tests to examine skills and personal characteristic of their potential employees (Rothstein & Goffin 2006, p. 155). In this case, statistics proves that personality tests are effective as far as they are used by world leading organizations. These statistical findings are possible to support with real data takes from corporate reports. There is a $400 million industry which deals with personality testing for corporate needs in the USA, and it grows steadily (up to 10% annually) (Rothstein & Goffin 2006, p. 156). Despite the fact that hiring practices include personality tests more often than all other corporate activities, testing can be used to improve employee performance and atmosphere inside the organization. Different companies managed to motivate their employees to follow healthy lifestyle and increased retention rates up to 20% (Barrick, Stewart & Piotrowski 2002, p. 43), 30% (Judge et al. 1999, 640), 40% (Hurtz & Donovan 2000, p. 875), and even 70% (Rothstein & Goffin 2006, p. 156). The use of personality test results to predict employees’ behaviour is often criticized with no supportive arguments provided. MMPI results are believed to fail in forecasting real job performance. However, Rothstein & Goffin (2006, p. 156) state that it is one of the most effective method that provides enough evidence to feel confident about future performance of tested employees. Personality tests are specifically designed to provide particular personal information about the employee, but they require HR professionals to have good skills of interpretation of their results to utilize them effectively. Is Personality a Valid Predictor of Employee Performance? A Short Review of the Meta-Analytic Proof With the development of “Big Five” or five factor model (FFM) of personality, many researches were challenged by the need to examine the relation of these five factors to performance analysis and prediction. In 90s there were already many trials to generalize knowledge about the connection of performance prediction and personality analysis. Meta-analysis, which was aimed at comparison and contrast of already existing studies of the issue, identified the primary meaning three factors out of “Big Five” because they were more connected with further career success. Consciousness, neuroticism and extraversion in their greater degree were treated as prerequisites of productive performance and successful leadership ( Judge et al. 1999, p. 624). However, the study failed to show comprehensive results of meta-analysis at work. Separate practical studies included in the work for meta-analysis contained numerous lapses which made it impossible to apply the same analysis scheme to each. On the other hand, the studies managed to add characteristics to each of five factors of personality. For instance, among other characteristics consciousness was related to higher degree or self-control, while neuroticism motivated inability to deal with stressful situations and emotional instability (Judge et al. 1999, p. 624). Hough & Ones (2002, p. 233) updated the “Big Five” theory and added different occupational traits to it. The authors revealed that the “Big Five” proportions of performance were linked to personality through work-related groups and principle measures varied from 04 for Honesty to Skill to 22 for Meticulousness. Those findings opened a new promising perspective in studying the connection of personality and performance prediction at work (Barrick, Stewart & Piotrowski 2002, p. 50). Critical reflection on the suggested criteria shows that they are really relevant for hiring people with the most suitable personal characteristic for certain jobs. For instance, if it requires readiness to cope with daily stress, the factor of consciousness and related characteristics will give an advantage to the applicant. Some factors were additionally related to certain occupations; people with high level of extroversion were better at trade and management than others (Barrick, Stewart & Piotrowski 2002, p. 50). At the same time, those characteristics were claimed to be inferior to other strategies of prediction and analysis of performance at work. According to Hakstian & Ng (2005, p. 405) the analysis of personality lacked some significant strategy for data interpretation and these two researchers contributed their own scheme to examine employee personality. FFM provided them with a very derived and informative basis which lacked some limitations and additional considerations. Hakstian & Ng (2005, p. 405) stated that any personality faced some external distortions. In their study they researched employment-related motivational distortion, which predicted a visible influence on the “Big Five” representation during job interview or similar procedures. Overall, their study added more meaning to personality analysis in terms of HR management and further behaviour prediction. All those studies related to personality and performance prediction connection attracted much attention of people interested in the issue. The first attempts to analyse this connection managed to gather enough information, but they failed to interpret it accurately. Moreover, there were no limits imposed on information collected; researchers were overloaded with numerous characteristics related to FFM personality factors and could not create a general picture out of them. Additional criteria included to support “Big Five” factors were fruitful because they determined the function of personality at the workplace and integrate it in the general organizational behaviour. Examining the article by Hough & Ones (2002, p. 233), it is possible to say that FFM is used as a basis for further research; while numerous new terms might make the research even more doubtful than the previous one, retention of the same framework can be understandable for people who want to apply this theory practically. There results generated by Hough & Ones (2002, p. 233) and Rothstein & Goffin (2006, p. 155) finally reached the point which was considered to prove the persuasive connection between personality and performance prediction. Researches managed to create comprehensive framework for personal characteristics interpretation which was applicable to analyse different situation at work. At the same time, findings resulted in the next controversy to the issue. The researches kept focus on their research with no regard to hot debates on the issue and heavy criticism of their works. Nevertheless, it is essential to sum up shortly a couple of the key matters, which cause the situation where meta-analysis of personality role in performance prediction was considered to be irrelevant by many researchers. The process of meta-analysis was criticized at its core methodological stage as claimed by Barrick, Stewart & Piotrowski (2002, p. 50). In some situations, scepticism towards meta-analytic studies was caused by particular situations where they were applied; for example, the use of meta-analytic findings in recruitment of police officers was criticised by many researchers (Barrick, Stewart & Piotrowski 2002, p. 50). Hakstian & Ng (2005, p. 430) claimed that choosing of personality measures rooted on personality analysis results should ensure that those findings were derived from appropriate sample groups, as well as accurately stated performance criteria and relevant tests, particularly in the field of recruitment in the law enforcement system. In essence, nevertheless, the worries concerning methodology with personality analysis could be eased through a systematic development and adaptation of the method of data procession, as well as its appropriate application. Hakstian & Ng (2005, p. 430 ) offered a study of the vital issues left behind the personality analysis and its interpretation for recruitment practices or further research. First, it was necessary to consider the relevance of the data base used for the analysis. It was also important to identify the role of the researcher in the whole process. Finally, the analysis needed to be applicable to different circumstances. If it was valid only for a single situation, it would not be used for predicting further behaviours of any employee. Even though, Hakstian & Ng (2005, p. 430) pointed out that numerous personality tests left out such a relevant information; however, practitioners and researchers had a comprehensive method to interpret all selected factors accurately. When the efficacy and accuracy of data procession method were approved by several researches together, the results of meta-analysis were becoming more and more valued by other researchers (Hough & Ones 2002, p. 233 and Rothstein & Goffin 2006, p. 157). A cautious reflection of those elements was connected to the suitable use of relevance simplification standards for shaping the future value of meta-analyses based on previous studies as forecasters of work performance (Hough & Ones 2002, p. 233 and Rothstein & Goffin 2006, p. 157). To sum up, this essay provides enough support for the idea that personality analysis can greatly contribute to sustainability of organization as it is directly related to performance prediction. People are the core of any organization; all of them have different needs and preferences which can positively influence their performance. It is the reason why leading HR professionals resort to personality testing in organizations where they work. Theoretical background for personality analysis is strong enough to produce comprehensive results. An analyst can apply the data to test his/her theories concerning how specific personality characteristics forecast specific aspects of employee performance. Using this procedure should help guarantee job relevance, as well as a business necessity, evidently recognize the performance criteria, choose the proper gadget for the investigation rooted in theory, validity, and reliability, guarantee that job performance raters comprehend the applicable criteria and eventually advance people’s knowledge of how character traits add to job performance. References Barrick, M R, Stewart, G L & Piotrowski, M 2002, Personality and job performance: test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives, Journal of Applied Psychology vol. 87, pp. 43-51. Hakstian, A R & Ng, E 2005, Employment related motivational distortion: its nature, measurement, and reduction, Educational and Psychological Measurement vol. 65, pp. 405–441. Hough, L M & Ones, D 2002, The structure, measurement, validity, and use of personality variables in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. In N. Anderson, D. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology, volume 1: Personnel psychology (pp. 233–277). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hurtz, G & Donovan, J 2000, Personality and job performance: the big five revisited, Journal of Applied Psychology vol. 85, pp. 869–879. Judge, T A, Higgins, C A, Thoresen, C J, & Barrick, M R 1999, The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span, Personnel Psychology vol. 52, pp. 621–652. Rothstein, M G & Goffin, R D 2006, The use of personality measures in personnel selection: what does current research support? Human Resource Management Review vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 155–180. Read More