To What Extent Does Personality Predict Employee Performance - Essay Example

To what extent does personality predict employee performance? 1.0 Introduction The identification of the potentials of employees to respond to the demands of their role can be characterized as one of the most critical challenges for managers in modern organizations. Moreover, it has been proved that employee performance can be depended on various factors; securing high employee performance can be a difficult task even for highly experienced HR managers. Current paper focuses on a particular aspect of employee performance: the relationship between employee performance and personality. Emphasis is given to the following issue: can personality help to predict employee performance? The literature developed in regard to this subject verifies the intervention of personality in the prediction of employee performance. However, the terms of involvement of personality in the prediction of employee performance are not standardized, being influenced by the organizational environment and the psychological characteristics of individuals, as analyzed below. In any case, the value of personality as a means for predicting the performance of individuals in the workplace cannot be doubted. In fact, the research developed in this field proved that personality is a strong indicator of an individual’s behaviour in all aspects of his daily life, no matter his economic or social status. In regard to the above, the following issue should be also explored: is the prediction of employee performance using personality fully accurate or not and how the relevant risks can be limited? 2.0 Personality and employee performance Personality, as a concept, refers to various aspects of human behaviour. In practice, it has been proved that the personality characteristics, or else traits, of individuals are likely to be incorporated into five, major, categories (Aamodt 2009). The relevant model of personality is known as the ‘Five Factor model’ (Aamodt 2009, p.187). The categories of the particular model are presented in graph in Figure 1 below. Figure 1 – Five Factor model or Big Five model (Nettle 2009) Different explanations have been given in the literature in regard to the involvement of personality in employee performance. The Big Five model, as presented above, can be used for measuring employee performance, both in regard to specific individuals and in regard to groups (Krausert 2009). In the last case, the personality characteristics/ traits of each group’s individuals would be ‘gathered and evaluated as a total for identifying the group’s performance’ (Krausert 2009, p.179). According to Shields (2007) the important role of personality in employee performance is proved through the following fact: the employment relationship is not based only on the contract signed by the employer and the employee. In addition to the above contract, there is the psychological contract which reflects ‘the perceptions of the parties in regard to their obligations in the workplace’ (Shields 2007, p.50). These perceptions are influenced by the personality of the parties, i.e. the employer and the employee (Shields 2007). At this point, the interaction between personality and employee performance is verified: depending on his personality an employee will interpret the terms of his contract, meaning the written employment contract, in a particular way (Shields 2007). On the other hand, Aamodt (2009) has explained that in many organizations the evaluation of employee performance is developed using personality inventories; through these inventories the personality characteristics of employees are categorized, using the Big Five model (Aamodt 2009, p.187, Figure 1). Then, the relevant information is used for identifying the skills/ strengths and the weaknesses of employees (Aamodt 2009). Furthermore, the particular information can be valuable in assigning to employees tasks that are mostly aligned with employees’ skills and in identifying training schemes that can effectively support employees in all organizational departments (Aamodt 2009, p.187). At the same time, Kusluvan (2003) noted that the relationship between personality and employee performance can be quite higher in the services sector. In the research developed by Kusluvan it was proved that the potentials of employees in services industry to ‘be helpful, thoughtful and cooperative’ (Kusluvan 2003, p.39) were depended on their personality. From a similar point of view Kise (2006) explained that HR managers could become more effective in keeping employee performance at high levels if they would focus on the personality of their employees. The relevant plan should be based on the theory of personality types: this theory suggests that each individual has a particular type of personality (Kise 2006, p.2). By identifying the personality types of employees a HR manager could also identify their ‘strengths and their potential to work as a team’ (Kise 2006, p.2). Towards the same direction, Furnham (2005) noted that personality is a significant factor in regard to employee motivation. Moreover, it seems that personality does not equally affect all aspects of employee motivation: rather, the involvement of personality was ‘higher in expectancy motivation and lower in self-efficacy motivation and goal-setting motivation’ (Furnham 2005, p.285). It should be noted that personality traits can be valuable in predicting employee performance but the accuracy of the predictions made can vary: for example, it has been proved that ‘when measuring employee performance using quite broad criteria then the role of personality traits in understanding the level of employee performance can be limited’ (Farr and Tippins 2013, p.769). Moreover, Furnham (2002) noted that checks of employee performance using Personality Inventories can lead to different findings in different time points, depending on the conditions in the organizational environment and the psychological status of each employee in each particular time point. In addition, Ashton (2013) explained that Conscientiousness is more powerful in influencing employee performance, compared to the other personality traits, as including in the Big Five model. Particular reference should be also made to the study of McCrae and Costa (2003). The above researchers supported that personality can differently affect employee performance under the influence of the position of the employee involved: for example, ‘a bank clerk is expected to chat more with customers’ (McCrae and Costa 2003, p.227), if compared to the other employees of a bank. Mone and London (2014) explained that there is a particular type of personality, ‘the expansive personality’ (Mone and London 2014, p.170) that denotes the high potentials of an individual to respond to the needs of most job roles. The particular personality type is characterized by ‘high motivation and willingness for continuous development’ (Mone and London 2014, p.170). Terry (2006) noted that certain personality types, such as individuals who are apathetic, should be avoided when setting the criteria for an organization’s hiring/ selection process. A similar view is included in the study of Langan-Fox et al. (2007). The above researchers noted that individuals with psychological disorders should be rejected in the selection/ hiring process (Langan-Fox et al. 2007) as they could lead to severe organizational problems in the short or the long term. Through a similar direction it has been noted that personality traits of individuals should be carefully reviewed, as possible, before their hiring (Hersen 2004), a practice though that it is proved ineffective since false assumptions can be made in this stage in regard to the personality of an individual (Furnham 2008). Also, it should be noted that not all managers are able to interpret effectively the personality traits of employees (Houldworth and Jirasinghe 2006); this means that the effective use of the Five Factor model in predicting employee performance is highly depended on the competence of the people involved in the particular task (Pearce 2010, Kinder et al. 2008). Also, it is possible for the personality traits of individuals/ employees to change after an unexpected event, meaning an event that is quite strong in emotional terms being able to affect one or more personality traits of the particular individuals (Locke 2011, Hosie 2006). For this reason, the personality traits of employees should be checked periodically so that their Personality Profile is kept updated (Bennett et al. 2014). Such target would be achieved in different ways: for example, employees could be asked to complete a questionnaire related to their firm’s Personality Inventory every six months (Epstein and Manzoni 2008). A similar practice could be developed by including feedback forms in a firm’s training programs (Christiansen and Tett 2013), as these forms would be appropriately customized for reflecting employees’ personality traits. In any case, the prediction of employee performance should not refer only to the tasks assigned to employee after his entry in the workplace; rather, it should take place during the hiring/ selection process (Cardy and Leonard 2011). In this way, the potentials of an individual to respond to the needs of a specific role would be checked in advance and major damages, from the employees’ incompetence, at a next level, could be avoided (Cardy and Leonard 2011). 2.1 Personality and employee performance in practice Askarian and Eslami (2013) have tried to check the relationship between personality traits, as described in the Five-Factor model (Figure 1), and job performance. The relevant study has been related to a particular organization: the ‘education department of Kerman province’ (Askarian and Eslami 2013, p.322). The study was based on a survey through a questionnaire; in total 178 employees of the above organization accepted to participate in the particular study (Askarian and Eslami 2013). The findings of the survey proved that all personality traits (Figure 1) can affect employee performance and that among the above traits Cosceintiousness is the one that is mostly involved in employee performance (Askarian and Eslami 2013, p.332). Figure 2 – Correlation between personality traits and employee performance (Liao and Lee 2009, p.30) The practical effects of the five personality traits, as included in the Five – Factor model (Figure 1), are also explored in the study of Liao and Lee (2009). Emphasis is given to the potential involvement of these traits in employee performance. The study has been based on a survey. In the context of this survey 279 questionnaires have been gathered from employees in the plastics sector of Taiwan (Liao and Lee 2009, p.22). The results of the study are presented in Figure 2. It has been proved that among the five personality traits, ‘only one, the neuroticism, is negatively correlated to employee performance’ (Liao and Lee 2009, p.22, Figure 2). All other personality traits can benefit employee performance but at different level, as indicated in the table in Figure 2. From a similar point of view, Abdullah et al. (2013) have tried to check whether the personality of individuals can affect their commitment and performance in the workplace. Primarily, a model has been developed for showing the above relationship. According to the particular model the five traits of personality, as included in the Five – Factor model (Figure 1) can be related both to employees’ commitment and performance in a particular way (Figure 3). Figure 3 – Personality vs. commitment and performance in the workplace (Abdullah et al. 2013, p.761). The study of Abdullah et al. (2013) was based on a survey conducted through a questionnaire among the employees of banks in Pakistan. In total, 384 participated in the particular survey (Abdullah et al. 2013). The above survey proved that employee performance in both its aspects, as presented in Figure 3, can be directly affected by personality while organizational commitment is more likely to be positively influenced only by the first three personality traits (Abdullah et al. 2013, p.763), as marked with the symbols A, B and C in Figure 3 above. In addition, it has been proved that not all personality traits can be used for predicting organizational commitment (Abdullah et al. 2013, p.763): only the personality traits with the symbol A, C and E (Figure 3) can play effectively such role. Moreover, the empirical study developed by Allameh et al. (2012) revealed that personality traits can affect at different level each aspect of employee performance. Indeed, in the relevant survey, the employees of University of Isfahan were asked to state their view in regard to the relationship between personality and employee performance (Allameh et al. 2012). In total, 160 employees participated in the particular study which was based on a questionnaire. According to the study’s results, two of the personality traits, those presented with the symbols C and D in Figure 3, are related mostly to job recognition but also to job motivation; in the last case the personality trait with the symbol E (Figure 3) has also a critical role. Moreover, the personality traits under the symbol A and B are more important in regard to team-working and communication; for this reason, the above two personality traits are considered as of critical importance for those working in ‘public relations and in sales’ (Allameh et al. 2012, p.6294). In addition, Van der Linden et al. (2010) explained that the Big Five model (Figure 1) can offer critical information in regard to the potentials of employees to achieve high performance; still, it is noted that the relevant information seems to be more accurate when reference is made to three or more elements of the above model and not just to one personality trait (Van der Linden 2010, p.323). The above study was based on meta-analysis across studies focusing on the involvement of Big Five model in identifying employee performance; in total, 212 studies of such kind, as published between 2000 and 2008, were employed (Van der Linden 2010, p.317). 3.0 Conclusion The psychological status of individuals cannot be standardized for a long period of time. In businesses also a similar phenomenon is likely to appear. However, in business environment the psychological disorders of individuals can have severe effects: they can lead to severe organizational damages, a fact that would also affect the life of other employees within the same unit. On the other hand, it has been proved that employee performance can be effectively predicted using the personality traits of individuals. This means that managers can secure high employee performance, at least up to a point, so that critical failures in daily business operations are avoided. The literature review developed for this paper revealed that personality can help to predict employee performance but not all personality traits are equally involved in the performance of individuals in the workplace. Moreover, it has been proved that the accuracy of information gathered through the analysis of personality traits of individuals cannot be guaranteed, as personality traits can change under the influence of various factors. Still, the role of personality in predicting employee performance is quite important, as also verified through the empirical research developed in this field. The most important challenge for managers who are involved in such tasks seems to be the following: the prediction of employee performance, as developed for an organization, needs to be based on data continuously updated otherwise the validity of the findings would be criticized, in the context described above. References Aamodt, M. (2009) Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Abdullah, I., Omar, R. and Rashid, Y. (2013) “Effect of Personality on Organizational Commitment and Employees’ Performance: Empirical Evidence from Banking Sector of Pakistan.” Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 18 (6): 759-766 Allameh, S., Ghafari, M., Mohammad, S. and Davoodi, R. (2012) “Studying Impact of Personality Traits on Job Performance (The Case of University of Isfahan’s Personnel).” Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research. 2(6): 6293-6299 Ashton, M. (2013) Individual Differences and Personality. London: Academic Press. Askarian, N. and Eslami, H. (2013) “THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB PERFORMANCE (CASE STUDY: EMPLOYEES OF THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION OF KERMAN).” Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 5(8): 322-335 Bennett, W., Lance, C. and Woehr, D. (2014) Performance Measurement: Current Perspectives and Future Challenges. New York: Psychology Press. Cardy, R. and Leonard, B. (2011) Performance Management: Concepts, Skills, and Exercises. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Christiansen, N. and Tett, R. (2013) Handbook of Personality at Work. London: Routledge. Delpo, A. and Guerin, L. (2013) Dealing With Problem Employees: A Legal Guide. Berkeley: Nolo. Epstein, M. and Manzoni, J. (2008) Performance Measurement and Management Control: Measuring and Rewarding Performance. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. Farr, J. and Tippins, N. (2013) Handbook of Employee Selection. London: Routledge. Furnham, A. (2008) Personality and Intelligence at Work: Exploring and Explaining Individual Differences at Work. London: Routledge. Furnham, A. (2005) The Psychology of Behaviour at Work: The Individual in the Organization. East Sussex: Psychology Press. Furnham, A. (2002) Personality at Work: Individual Differences in the Workplace. London: Routledge. Hersen, M. (2004) Comprehensive Handbook of Psychological Assessment, Industrial and Organizational Assessment. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Hosie, P. (2006) Happy-performing Managers: The Impact of Affective Wellbeing and Intrinsic Job Satisfaction in the Workplace. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Houldworth, E. and Jirasinghe, D. (2006) Managing and Measuring Employee Performance. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Kinder, A., Hughes, R. and Cooper, C. (2008) Employee Well-being Support: A Workplace Resource. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Kise, J. (2006) Work it Out: Using Personality Type to Improve Team Performance. Mountain View: Davies-Black Publishing Krausert, A. (2009) Performance Management for Different Employee Groups: A Contribution to Employment Systems Theory. New York: Springer. Kusluvan, S. (2003) Managing Employee Attitudes and Behaviors in the Tourism and Hospitality Industry. New York: Nova Publishers. Langan-Fox, J., Cooper, C. and Klimoski, R. (2007) Research Companion to the Dysfunctional Workplace: Management Challenges and Symptoms. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Lia, C. and Lee, C. (2009) “An Empirical Study of Employee Job Involvement and Personality Traits: The Case of Taiwan.” International Journal of Economics and Management, 3(1): 22-36 Locke, E. (2011) Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior: Indispensable Knowledge for Evidence-Based Management. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. McCrae, R. and Costa, P. (2003) Personality in Adulthood: A Five-factor Theory Perspective. New York: Guilford Press. Mone, E. and London, M. (2014) Employee Engagement Through Effective Performance Management: A Practical Guide for Managers. London: Routledge. Nettle, D. (2009) ‘A test of character.’ March 7, 2009. The Guardian. Available at http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/mar/07/personality-test Pearce, B. (2010) Senior Living Communities: Operations Management and Marketing for Assisted Living, Congregate, and Continuing Care Retirement Communities. Baltimore: JHU Press. Shields, J. (2007) Managing Employee Performance and Reward. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Terry, F. (2006) Documenting Employee Performance Workshop. Amherst: Human Resource Development. Van der Linden, D., Nijenhuis, J. and Bakker, A. (2010) “The General Factor of Personality: A meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related validity study.” Journal of Research in Personality, 44: 315-327 Vigoda-Gadot, E. and Drory, A. (2006) Handbook of Organizational Politics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Read More