Relating Member Ability and Personality to Work-Team Processes and Team Effectiveness - Literature review Example

Running Head: PERSONALITY Personality Name Course Institution Date Literature Review People always assess and describe personalities of others around them either consciously or unconsciously. Dunnete, (1996) explains that informal evaluation of personality centers on individuals while scholars of personality implore conceptions of personality that apply across the divide. Barrick, (1998) on the other hand, believes that research in the field of personality has developed various theories that explain reasons that lead to particular personality traits. Paunomen, (2001) says in his article that a definition of personality consists of regular features of thoughts, behaviors, and feelings responsible for uniqueness in people. He further says that personality comes from the inner traits of people and tends to remain the same throughout an individual’s life. Dudley, (2006) defines personality as an individual’s consistent pattern of behavior, thought, and emotion coupled with his or her psychological mechanisms. The mechanisms could be visible or hidden behind the patterned characteristics. Dudley, (2006) in this case, means that scholars of psychology have the responsibility of defining a person as whole. Borrowing ideas from various scholars of psychology is acceptable to define personality as a pattern of relatively constant characteristics in a person’s life and unique traits that define an individual. Erez, (2000) delves into the components of personality in his studies. He identifies traits and emotional and behavioral patterns as the main components of personality. Consistency is another characteristic of personality. Erez, (2000) says that in personality, there is a recognizable order and regularity to particular behaviors. He says that individuals behave in the same way in different situations. According to Erez, (2000), personality is a psychological construct. Dunnete, (1996) supplements this information by saying that his research proved that biological processes and needs influence personality. Paunomen, (2001) puts into consideration work done by Dunnete, (1996) in his research affirms that personality does not only influence people’s movements and responsiveness but also stimulates them to behave certain ways. People display their personality in multiple expressions Lepine, (2003). Lepine, (2003) writes in his article that people show their personality through feelings, thoughts, actions, and close relationships among others. Rothstein, (1991) posits that studies in personality research produced several theories on its development. Various scholars of psychology have different schools of thought that influence the development of personality theories. Among the theories, Kroeck and Brown, (2006) mentions type theories that are the earliest perspectives on personality. These groups of theories pursue the perspective that personality traits influenced by biological concepts are limited. Barrick, (1998) supports this research by studying the trait theory that evaluates personality as a product of person’s internal genetic confluences. Kate, (1990) puts into focus Sigmund Freud’s psychodynamic theories. Se reiterates the role of unconsciousness in determining personality traits. Kate, (1990) combines psychosexual stage theory by Sigmund and Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development to derive psychodynamic theories. Behavioral theories as discussed by Dunnete, (1996), aver that personality develops because of the interaction between an individual and the environment. This school of thought distances itself from those who hold genetic confluences influence personality. They dismiss proponents of internal feelings and thoughts by researching observable behaviors that are measurable. Dunnete, (1996) identifies B. F Skinner and John Watson as the founders of behavioral theories. Lepine, (2003) expands the topic by analyzing broad and narrow traits. He appreciates that scholars of psychology have struggled to understand how personality relates to team performance. According to him, emphasis on the big five framework of personality overshadows the studies of broad and narrow traits. Research by Lepine, (2003) shows that narrow personality traits greatly influence variations in people’s general behavior including how they behave at the workplace and in the process influences the outcome of the team. Barrick, (1998) supports these views but extends his research to reveal that aspects of consciousness directly determine the rate at which people adapt to working in various teams. These facets include achievement and dependability. Self-awareness of personality characteristics A study among students revealed five major personality traits. Openness is one of the personality traits that appreciate artistry work, adventure, curiosity, emotional behavior, range of experience, and innovativeness. It covers ability for people to be innovative and curious against people who believe in consistency by being cautious. It reflects the level of intellectual curiosity, unusual ideas, and ability to vary within an individual. Another major personality trait is the conscientiousness (Kate 1990). This trait pits individuals who pursue efficiency by being organized against people who are easy going and careless. Those who believe in efficiency exhibit self-discipline, strive to earn success, and act responsibly as duty demands while those who are careless act spontaneously and are less independent. Extraversion as personality trait refers to people who are energetic and outgoing versus those who are reserved and solitary (Dunnete 1996). The former group of people has a lot of energy, show positive emotions, are assertive, social, and are comfortable when in company of other people. The latter group consists of people who are often alone, do not seek company, and are less talkative. Another personality trait comes from agreeable individuals. These people are friendly and compassionate. Their opposite numbers are unkind and have a cold reception. Friendly people are cooperative while the others are antagonistic and suspicious towards other individuals. This trait is an important scale when measuring the level of trustworthiness and the general temperament. Neuroticism, the last of the five main personality traits defines a sensitive and nervous group of people against secure and confident individuals. Nervous people tend to be quick in anger and are always anxious. They are easily depressed and are very vulnerable (Barrick 1998). Secure and confident individuals show a high degree of emotional stability because they easily control their impulse. During the study scores ranged from 1 to 5. An individual who displayed certain traits consistently received the highest score. The research asked participants to compare the scores because it helped them understand the behavior they display frequently. After comparison, the study showed that those who displayed extraversion as a personality trait scored a mean of 3.25, Agreeableness had 3.82 as its mean, Openness scored an average mean of 3.90, and Conscientiousness had 3.73 while Neuroticism had an average score of 3.13. Results of this study conform to other studies that Conscientiousness influences the ability to predict performance of all occupational groups. Analysis of the big five personality traits show that people who are dependable, thorough, reliable, organized, persistent, and able to plan their work and lives perform well on all duties assigned to them. These qualities resonate with conscientiousness form of personality traits. Similarly, these individuals have more knowledge of what they do and this could be the reason behind their exemplary performance at work. Scoring highly in extraversion personality traits indicates that individual is best suited as a manager or a sales representative (Paunomen 2001). The occupations demand a high degree of social interaction skills. Those who have good scores under openness as a trait are likely to reap from training programs. Case study from literature review Research results of personality traits indicate that it is not mandatory that the big five personality traits are the only factors to consider when aligning predictability of behavior. Other studies that consider the influence of both broad and narrow traits are essential. Their input towards team performance is meaningful, theoretically acceptable, and replicable. The analysis of the literature on personality leads to various conclusions that include the fact that a focus on the big five personality traits also referred to as the broad personality factors are not the imperative mechanisms of determining predictable team behavior and performance (Lepine 2003). This only happens if the dimensions are theoretically connected. The other aspect is that interpreting narrow personality is easier as its definitions are precise. They easily relate to team performance because of the tight theoretical connections. Although the conclusion does not justify the use the big five qualities, it justifies the use of narrow personality traits to predict the overall performance of people at their workplace. Comparing the two extremes reveals that basing the ability to predict behavior using narrow personality traits gives better results than relying on the big five personality traits. References Barrick, R. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377-391. Dudley, N. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 40-57. Dunnette, D. (1996). Broadsided by broad traits: How to sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(6), 639-655. Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 53, 563-593. Kate, D. (1990). Her personality & her books. Boston: Houghton Miffin. Kroeck, G., & Brown, W. (2004). Work applications of the Big Five model of personality. Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment: Industrial and organizational assessment (Vol. 4, pp. 109-129). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Lepine, A. (2003). Team adaptation and post change performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 27-39. Paunonen, V. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 411-424. Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742. Appendix Big 5 Personality (long) Extraversion: 2.88 out of 5 Agreeableness: 2.89 out of 5 Conscientiousness: 3.11 out of 5 Neuroticism: 3 out of 5 Openness: 2.9 out of 5  Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) Positive emotion: 30 Negative emotion: 28  Jungian 16-Type Personality Introverted: 5 vs. Extroverted: 3 Sensing: 4 vs. Intuitive: 4 Thinking: 4 vs. Feeling: 4 Judging: 4 vs. Perceiving: 4  Type A or B Personality Score: 90  Emotion Regulation Questionnaire Cognitive Reappraisal Score: 4 out of 7 Expressive Suppression Score: 3.5 out of 7 Authentic Expression Score: 3.75 out of 7  STEM Final score: 0.25 STEU Final score: 0.24 Vocabulary Test Score: 2 out of 18 Percentage Correct: 11.11% Average Confidence: 40% Bias in perceptual estimate: 28.89%  Letter Series Test Score: 1 out of 15 Percentage Correct: 6.67% Average Confidence: 21.67% Bias in perceptual estimate: 15% Read More