Influence of Personality on Individual Performances in the Workplace
INFLUENCE OF PERSONALITY ON INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCES IN THE WORKPLACE
INTRODUCTION
With today’s increasingly competitive global market, organizations are placing paramount emphasis upon their ‘Human Resources’ or ‘Intellectual Capital’ as a source of competitive advantage. Therefore, it is very important for any organization to levy the best out of an individual, and facilitate its own growth. This can be achieved by effective measurement of the individual’s performance in the workplace and identifying the essentialities that will serve to be the best criteria for this evaluation. The two jargon terms prevalent in the industry today for analyzing the performance of an individual in the workplace are, “Personality” and “Cognitive Ability”. One group of researchers says that it is the Personality of an individual which enables him to perform better, while the others support the latter. P.A.Touze, 2005., in his findings said that, personality can be considered to be more relevant to performance especially when the personality traits and the performance criteria have a common theoretical or conceptual orientation. In parallel, a more systematic consideration of work requirements and a better understanding of factors that are important for work performances, have allowed for a clearer definition of the potential roles for personality in this context. It is in light of these findings, will the argument proposed that, it is ‘Personality’ that influences Performance in the Workplace, be substantiated in this essay, and appropriate evidences will be drawn from various researches to support the same.
BACKGROUND
A lot of research has been carried out to satisfy the urge to explore the influence of personality of individuals on their work performance. A basic understanding of the research made on personality findings such as the Big Five, which is an assimilation of the commonalities among most of the existing systems of personality description, that provides an
INTRODUCTION
With today’s increasingly competitive global market, organizations are placing paramount emphasis upon their ‘Human Resources’ or ‘Intellectual Capital’ as a source of competitive advantage. Therefore, it is very important for any organization to levy the best out of an individual, and facilitate its own growth. This can be achieved by effective measurement of the individual’s performance in the workplace and identifying the essentialities that will serve to be the best criteria for this evaluation. The two jargon terms prevalent in the industry today for analyzing the performance of an individual in the workplace are, “Personality” and “Cognitive Ability”. One group of researchers says that it is the Personality of an individual which enables him to perform better, while the others support the latter. P.A.Touze, 2005., in his findings said that, personality can be considered to be more relevant to performance especially when the personality traits and the performance criteria have a common theoretical or conceptual orientation. In parallel, a more systematic consideration of work requirements and a better understanding of factors that are important for work performances, have allowed for a clearer definition of the potential roles for personality in this context. It is in light of these findings, will the argument proposed that, it is ‘Personality’ that influences Performance in the Workplace, be substantiated in this essay, and appropriate evidences will be drawn from various researches to support the same.
BACKGROUND
A lot of research has been carried out to satisfy the urge to explore the influence of personality of individuals on their work performance. A basic understanding of the research made on personality findings such as the Big Five, which is an assimilation of the commonalities among most of the existing systems of personality description, that provides an
References: Carl, J.T., Jill, C.B., Paul, D.B., Joseph D.T., The Big Five personality traits and individual job performance growth trajectories in maintenance and transitional job stages. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5(2004), pp. 835-853. David, J. P., Cautionary Comments Regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 57, 3(2005), pp. 210–221. Jennifer, 1(2008). Joyce E. Bono and Timothy A. Judge., 2004. Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5(2004), pp. 901-910. Pervin, L., and John, O.P., The Big-Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 2(1999). Philip, B., Philip, L.R. and Denise, P., Derivation And Implications of a Meta-Analytic Matrix Incorporating Cognitive ability, Alternative Predictors, And Job Performance. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, INC, (1999). Sean, P. N., The Five-Factor Model of Personality in the Workplace. Rochester Institute of Technology, (2004). Touze P.-A. , Personality and prediction of performance in the workplace, Le travail humain, 1(2005). pp. 68, p. 37-53. DOI : 10.3917/th.681.0037. William Revelle., Personality structure and measurement: The contributions of Raymond Cattell., British Journal of Psychology, (2009), 100, pp. 253–257. D.,McDonald., Measuring Personality Constructs: The Advantages and Disadvantages of Self-Reports, Informant Reports and Behavioural Assessments. Enquire, 6