The “big five” personality traits are shown in Figure 8.1 and can be summarized as follows.

Figure 8.1

The “Big Five” Personality Traits

• Agreeableness is a person’s ability to get along with others. A person with a high level of agreeableness is gentle, cooperative, forgiving, understanding, and good-natured in dealings with others. A person with a low level of agreeableness is often irritable, short-tempered, uncooperative, and generally antagonistic toward other people. Highly agreeable people are better at developing good working relationships with coworkers, whereas less agreeable people are not likely to have particularly good working relationships.

• Conscientiousness in this context refers to the individual’s persistence, dependableness, and orderliness. Highly conscientious people tend to focus on relatively few tasks at one time; as a result, they are likely to be organized, systematic, careful, thorough, responsible, and self-disciplined. Less conscientious people tend to pursue a wider array of tasks; as a result, they are often more disorganized and irresponsible, as well as less thorough and self-disciplined. Highly conscientious people tend to be relatively higher performers in a variety of different jobs.

• Emotionality refers to the degree to which people tend to be positive or negative in their outlook and behaviors toward others. People with positive emotionality are relatively poised, calm, resilient, and secure; people with negative emotionality are more excitable, insecure, reactive, and subject to mood swings. People with positive emotionality might be expected to better handle job stress, pressure, and tension. Their stability might also lead them to be seen as being more reliable than their less-stable counterparts.

• Extraversion refers to a person’s comfort level with relationships. Extraverts are sociable, talkative, assertive, and open to establishing new relationships. Introverts are much less sociable, talkative, and assertive, and more reluctant to begin new relationships. Extraverts tend to be higher overall job performers than introverts and are more likely to be attracted to jobs based on personal relationships, such as sales and marketing positions.

• Openness reflects how open or rigid a person is in terms of his or her beliefs. People with high levels of openness are curious and willing to listen to new ideas and to change their own ideas, beliefs, and attitudes in response to new information. People with low levels of openness tend to be less receptive to new ideas and less willing to change their minds. People with more openness are often better performers because of their flexibility and the likelihood that they will be better accepted by others in the organization.

The potential value of the “big five” framework is that it encompasses an integrated set of traits that appear to be valid predictors of certain behaviors in certain situations. Thus, managers who can both understand the framework and assess these traits in their employees are in a good position to understand how and why they behave as they do.

Another interesting approach to understanding personalities in organizations is the Myers-Briggs framework. This framework, based on the classical work of Carl Jung, differentiates people in terms of four general dimensions. These are defined as follows.

• Extraversion (E) Versus Introversion (I). Extraverts get their energy from being around other people, whereas introverts are worn out by others and need solitude to recharge their energy.

• Sensing (S) Versus Intuition (N). The sensing type prefers concrete things, whereas intuitives prefer abstract concepts.

• Thinking (T) Versus Feeling (F). Thinking individuals base their decisions more on logic and reason, whereas feeling individuals base their decisions more on feelings and emotions.

• Judging (J) Versus Perceiving (P). People who are the judging type enjoy completion or being finished, whereas perceiving types enjoy the process and open-ended situations.

To use this framework, people complete a questionnaire designed to measure their personality on each dimension. Higher or lower scores in each of the dimensions are used to classify people into one of 16 different personality categories. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a popular questionnaire that some organizations use to assess personality types. It is among the most popular selection instruments used today, with as many as 2 million people taking it each year. Research suggests that the MBTI is a useful method for determining communication styles and interaction preferences. In terms of personality attributes, however, questions exist about both the validity and the stability of the MBTI.

The concept of emotional intelligence has been identified in recent years and also provides some interesting insights into personality. Emotional intelligence, or emotional quotient (EQ), refers to the extent to which people are self-aware, can manage their emotions, can motivate themselves, express empathy for others, and possess social skills.⁴ These various dimensions can be described as follows:

• Self-awareness refers to a person’s capacity for being aware of how they are feeling. In general, more self-awareness allows people to more effectively guide their own lives and behaviors.

• Managing emotions refers to a person’s capacities to balance anxiety, fear, and anger so that they do not overly interfere with getting things accomplished.

• Motivating oneself is a person’s ability to remain optimistic and to continue striving in the face of setbacks, barriers, and failure.

• Empathy is a person’s ability to understand how others are feeling even without being explicitly told.

• Social skills help people get along with others and establish positive relationships.

Preliminary research suggests that people with high EQs may perform better than others, especially in jobs that require a high degree of interpersonal interaction (such as a public relations specialist) or that involve influencing or directing the work of others (such as a project manager). Moreover, EQ appears to be something that isn’t biologically based but which can be developed.

Besides these complex models of personality, several other specific personality traits are also likely to influence behavior in organizations. Among the most important are locus of control, self-efficacy, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, self-esteem, and risk propensity.

Locus of control is the extent to which people believe that their behavior has a real effect on what happens to them.⁵ Some people, for example, believe that if they work hard they will succeed. They may also believe that people who fail do so because they lack ability or motivation. People who believe that individuals are in control of their lives are said to have an internal locus of control. Other people think that fate, chance, luck, or other people’s behavior determines what happens to them. For example, an employee who fails to get a promotion may attribute that failure to a politically motivated boss or just bad luck, rather than to his or her own lack of skills or poor performance record. People who think that forces beyond their control dictate what happens to them are said to have an external locus of control.

Self-efficacy is a related but subtly different personality characteristic. A person’s self-efficacy is that person’s belief about his or her capabilities to perform a task. People with high self-efficacy believe that they can perform well on a specific task, whereas people with low self-efficacy tend to doubt their ability to perform a specific task. Coupled with the individual’s personality, self-assessments of ability contribute to self-efficacy. Some people simply have more self-confidence than others. This belief in their ability to perform a task effectively results in their being more self-assured and better able to focus their attention on performance.⁶

Another important personality characteristic is authoritarianism, the extent to which a person believes that power and status differences are appropriate within hierarchical social systems such as organizations.⁷ For example, a person who is highly authoritarian may accept directives or orders from someone with more authority purely because the other person is “the boss.” On the other hand, a person who is not highly authoritarian, although he or she may still carry out reasonable directives from the boss, is more likely to question things, express disagreement with the boss, and even refuse to carry out orders if they are for some reason objectionable. A highly authoritarian manager may be relatively autocratic and demanding, and highly authoritarian subordinates are more likely to accept this behavior from their leader. On the other hand, a less authoritarian manager may allow subordinates a bigger role in making decisions, and less authoritarian subordinates might respond more positively to this behavior.

Machiavellianism is another important personality trait. This concept is named after Niccolo Machiavelli, a sixteenth-century author. In his book The Prince, Machiavelli explained how the nobility could more easily gain and use power. The term Machiavellianism is now used to describe behavior directed at gaining power and controlling the behavior of others. Research suggests that the degree of Machiavellianism varies from person to person. More Machiavellian individuals tend to be rational and nonemotional, may be willing to lie to attain their personal goals, put little emphasis on loyalty and friendship, and enjoy manipulating others’ behavior. Less Machiavellian individuals are more emotional, less willing to lie to succeed, value loyalty and friendship highly, and get little personal pleasure from manipulating others.

Self-esteem is the extent to which a person believes that he or she is a worthwhile and deserving individual. A person with high self-esteem is more likely to seek higher-status jobs, be more confident in his or her ability to achieve higher levels of performance, and derive greater intrinsic satisfaction from his or her accomplishments. In contrast, a person with less self-esteem may be more content to remain in a lower-level job, be less confident of his or her ability, and focus more on extrinsic rewards (extrinsic rewards are tangible and observable rewards such as a paycheck, job promotion, and so forth). Among the major personality dimensions, self-esteem is the one that has been most widely studied in other countries. Although more research is clearly needed, the published evidence suggests that self-esteem as a personality trait does indeed exist in a variety of countries and that its role in organizations is reasonably important across different cultures.

Risk propensity is the degree to which a person is willing to take chances and make risky decisions. A manager with a high-risk propensity, for example, might experiment with new ideas and gamble on new products. Such a manager might also lead the organization in new and different directions. This manager might be a catalyst for innovation or, if the risky decisions prove to be bad ones, might jeopardize the continued well-being of the organization. A manager with low risk propensity might lead an organization to stagnation and excessive conservatism or might help the organization successfully weather turbulent and unpredictable times by maintaining stability and calm. Thus, the potential consequences of a manager’s risk propensity depend heavily on the organization’s environment.

Attitudes are formed by a variety of forces, including our personal values, our experiences, and our personalities. For example, if we value honesty and integrity, we may form especially favorable attitudes toward a manager whom we believe to be honest and moral. Similarly, if we have had negative and unpleasant experiences with a particular coworker, we may form an unfavorable attitude toward that person. Any of the “big five” or individual personality traits may also influence our attitudes. Understanding the basic structure of an attitude helps us see how attitudes are formed and can be changed.

Attitudes are usually viewed as stable dispositions to behave toward objects in a certain way. For any number of reasons, a person might decide that he or she does not like a particular political figure or a certain restaurant (a disposition). We would expect that person to express consistently negative opinions of the candidate or restaurant and to maintain the consistent, predictable intention of not voting for the political candidate or not eating at the restaurant. In this view, attitudes contain three components: (1) cognition, (2) affect, and (3) intention.

Cognition is the knowledge a person presumes to have about something. You may believe you like a class because the textbook is excellent, the class meets at your favorite time, the instructor is outstanding, and the workload is light. This “knowledge” may be true, partially true, or totally false. For example, you may intend to vote for a particular candidate because you think you know where the candidate stands on several issues. In reality, depending on the candidate’s honesty and your understanding of his or her statements, the candidate’s thinking on the issues may be exactly the same as yours, partly the same, or totally different. Cognitions are based on perceptions of truth and reality, and, as we note later, perceptions agree with reality to varying degrees.

A person’s affect is his or her feelings toward something. In many ways, affect is similar to emotion; it is something over which we have little or no conscious control. For example, most people react to words such as love, hate, sex, and war in a manner that reflects their feelings about what those words convey. Similarly, you may like one of your classes, dislike another, and be indifferent toward a third. If the class you dislike is an elective, you may not be particularly concerned about your participation or final grade. But if it is the first course in your chosen major, your affective reaction may cause you considerable anxiety.

Intention guides a person’s behavior. If you like your instructor, you may intend to take another class from him or her next semester. Intentions are not always translated into actual behavior, however. If the instructor’s course next semester is scheduled for 8 a.m., you may decide that another instructor is just as good. Some attitudes, and their corresponding intentions, are much more central and significant to an individual than others. You may intend to do one thing (take a particular class) but later alter your intentions because of a more significant and central attitude (fondness for sleeping late).

When two sets of cognitions or perceptions are contradictory or incongruent, a person experiences a level of conflict and anxiety called cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance also occurs when people behave in a fashion that is inconsistent with their attitudes. For example, a person may realize that smoking and overeating are dangerous yet continue to do both. Because the attitudes and behaviors are inconsistent with each other, the person probably will experience a certain amount of tension and discomfort and may try to reduce these feelings by changing the attitude, altering the behavior, or perceptually distorting the circumstances. For example, the dissonance associated with overeating might be resolved by continually deciding to go on a diet “next week.” Cognitive dissonance affects people in a variety of ways. We frequently encounter situations in which our attitudes conflict with each other or with our behaviors. Dissonance reduction is the way we deal with these feelings of discomfort and tension. In organizational settings, people contemplating leaving the organization may wonder why they continue to stay and work hard. As a result of this dissonance, they may conclude that the company is not so bad after all, that they have no immediate options elsewhere, or that they will leave “soon.”

People in an organization form attitudes about many different things. Employees are likely to have attitudes about their salary, their promotion possibilities, their boss, employee benefits, and so on. Especially important attitudes are job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

• Job satisfaction reflects the extent to which people have positive attitudes toward their jobs. (Some people use the word morale instead of job satisfaction.) A satisfied employee tends to be absent less often, to be a good organizational citizen, and to stay with the organization. Dissatisfied employees may be absent more often, may experience stress that disrupts coworkers, and may be continually looking for another job. Contrary to “common sense” and what a lot of managers believe, however, high levels of job satisfaction do not necessarily lead to higher levels of productivity.

• Organizational commitment, sometimes called job commitment, reflects an individual’s identification with the organization and its mission. A highly committed person will probably see himself or herself as a true member of the firm (for example, referring to the organization in personal terms, such as “we make high-quality products”), overlook minor sources of dissatisfaction, and see himself or herself remaining a member of the organization. A less committed person is more likely to see himself or herself as an outsider (e.g., referring to the organization in less personal terms, such as “they don’t pay their employees very well”), to express more dissatisfaction about things, and to not see himself or herself as a long-term member of the organization.

There are a few critical things managers can do to promote satisfaction and commitment. For one thing, if the organization treats its employees fairly and provides reasonable rewards and job security, its employees are more likely to be satisfied and committed. Allowing employees to have a say in how things are done can also promote these attitudes. Designing jobs so that they are stimulating can enhance both satisfaction and commitment. Another key element is understanding and respecting what experts call psychological contracts, which we will discuss in the next section.