ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

History in Brief

Earliest work: Personality as inner essence. Freud/Jung: Influence of early experience on later personality; structure of personality; role of sub-conscious and collective conscious.

Skinner: Focus on observable behaviors; operant conditioning.

Personality Today• Walter Mischel (1960s): Key

influence of situation on behaviors• Current focus: - Behavior as function of disposition

and situation- More recent work looking into the

link between biology and personality (resurrection of social darwinism?)

- The Big 5; Self-monitoring

The Big Five Personality Dimensions

Intellectual, imaginative, curious, broad minded

1) Openness to experience

Relaxed, secure, unworried5) Neuroticism/Emotional

stability

Dependable, responsible,

achievement oriented, persistent

2) Conscientiousness

Trusting, good natured, cooperative, soft hearted

3) Agreeableness

Outgoing, talkative, social, assertive

4) Extraversion

Characteristics of a Person Scoring Positively on the

Dimension

Personality Dimension

Myers-BriggsAttitudes

Extraversion Introversion Action Reflection

Perceiving FunctionsSensing INtuition Objective evidence Abstract evidence

Judging FunctionsThinking Feeling Detached Empathetic

Ambassador FunctionsJudging Perceiving Closure Open-ended

- Preferred modes of action (not aptitude), like being left or right handed. Type (one or the other) not trait (matter of degree).

- 93 forced choice questions used to categorize into one of 16 possible types. (e.g., ENFP; ISTP; etc.)

Me • INFJ: “The counselor” I: 11%; N: 88%; F: 75%; J: 1% I= Introvert; N=Intuitive; F=Feeling; J=Judging

- Contribute to others’ welfare- Like jobs requiring solitude- Also like interacting non-superficially with people- Exert influence behind the scenes- Attuned to values and seeking unique identity

Examples: Sidney Poitier, Alec Guiness, Carl Jung

1.5% of the US population is INFJ

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

Problems with Psychometric Tests

• Forced choice questions (but we’re often in the middle: continuous not binary)• Assumes that who we are is consistent; but in fact it depends, it varies depending on other

factors (e.g., preference for type of boss depends upon type of job)• Personality: A consistent pattern of behavior– but this pattern may vary across situations• Very low test-retest consistency• (Jung: “every individual is an exception to the rule”; “…a parlor game”)• Adaptive unconscious versus constructed self: which self are we tapping.• Two steps removed: personality trait behavior test• Test for global personality traits or local behaviors related to the specific role you are trying to

select for?

Why do Firms Use these Tests?(Despite the fact that they are potentially invalid)

• Speed of processing• Desperate need to anticipate, understand, and resolve

interpersonal issues• Self-fulfilling prophecies • “Hawthorne” effects

Smart? Great! But Do You Play Well With Others?

Who Would you Prefer to Work With?

Competent Jerk(mostly avoided)

Lovable Star(desperately wanted)

Incompetent Jerk(desperately avoided)

Lovable Fool(mildly wanted)

Likability

Low High

Competence

High

Low

Alan Mulally CEO, FordThe Demanding Cheerleader

Dan AkersonCEO, GMManagement by Barking

Sergio MarchionneCEO, ChryslerManagement by Walking Around

“gives hugs and means it… no blame thrower but no soft touch either… has swept aside a culture of politicking and back-covering among Ford executives”

“A gruff former naval officer with a frosty demeanor…doesn’t do hugs.” Shook up bureaucracy at GM but analysts “worry about the effect of all that ordering-about on morale... [wrong] approach to take with unions/dealers”

“constantly on the move, dressed casually in a dark sweater (he says he buys them in bulk)… frequently pops up at Chrysler’s and Fiat’s factories to fix things on the spot– for good or ill, a micromanager”

Self-Monitoring

http://personality-testing.info/tests/SMS/

Page 17

Low Constraint

High Constraint

The Overall Trust NetworkTwo Ego Networks

Human Analytics: Big Data Meets Human Resource Management

20

The Blank Slate?Personality Predicts Brain Response During Cognitive Tasks

Kumari, Ffytche, Williams, and Gray (2004), The Journal of NeuroscienceAlso, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA

Wasabi Waiter: New Recruitment ToolGames are fun, and powerful. Embrace the psychology of play to reliably predict job performance.

Immerse your candidates in the world of a fast-paced sushi restaurant, and short-list quickly based on how well they play. The game reveals key personality traits and skills including:

Efficiency – how well do they process, prioritise and respond to information?

Social intelligence – do they respond appropriately to social cues?

Conscientiousness – do they try hard to get things

right?

http://www.onetest.com.au/home/WasabiWaiter-LP

The Fixed-Action Response in Ethology

Fixed Action Patterns Can be Used

• People like to be provided a reason for requests (Langer, 1989)• “Excuse me, I have five pages, may I use the copy machine?” • “Excuse me, I have five pages, may I use the copy machine because I am in a

rush?”

Fixed Action Patterns Can be Used

• People like to be provided a reason for requests (Langer, 1989)• “Excuse me, I have five pages, may I use the copy machine?” (60% complied)• “Excuse me, I have five pages, may I use the copy machine because I am in a

rush?” (94% complied)

Fixed Action Patterns Can be Used

• People like to be provided a reason for requests (Langer, 1989)• “Excuse me, I have five pages, may I use the copy machine because I have to

make some copies?”

Fixed Action Patterns Can be Used

• People like to be provided a reason for requests (Langer, 1989)• “Excuse me, I have five pages, may I use the copy machine because I have to

make some copies?” (93%)

The key is “because”… not what followed because

Fixed Action Patterns Among Humans

Cf. Podolny/Stuart/Krackhardt and Kilduff

The Influence of

• Attractiveness (one study found: large breasts but not too large?)• Age?• Network ties (Podolny; Stuart)• Gender (Julie Landsman playing French horn for the Met: blind auditions in

orchestras)• Race: who is a more promising candidate? John or Jamal? • Personality: “Survey of some 500 hiring managers, undertaken by the Corporate

Executive Board, a research firm, 74 percent reported that their most recent hire had a personality “similar to mine.”

• Similarity attracts…• The role of the unconscious mind…

Concerns About The Rise of Human Analytics• “Should the ideas of scientists be dismissed because of the way they play a game?

• Should job candidates be ranked by what their Web habits say about them?

• Should the “data signature” of natural leaders play a role in promotion?

• Concern:

• Will we cede one of the most subtle and human of skills, the evaluation of the gifts and promise of other people, to machines?

• What if the models get it wrong?

• Will some people will never get a shot in the new workforce.”

Source: Don Peck writing in The Atlantic, Dec. 2013

On Collecting Data on Personality Unobtrusively

Some of you may have heard this on Marketplace today:

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/good-video-games-could-land-you-job

The use of immersive games-- in lieu of self-report paper-and-pencil measures-- is on the rise... (the simulations in class are good examples... one day, something like these games could be used as a selection tool).

Worth pondering...

There is also the 2012 article in the Atlantic about this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/12/theyre-watching-you-at-work/354681/

And this recent piece in Business Week:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-24/new-way-to-assess-job-applicants-online-games-and-quizzes

Kronos and the P.I. Index: A Classic Story of a Growing Organization

• What problems arose as Kronos went from being a small startup to a (pre-public offering) company with $30 million in annual sales? (Today: 3400 employees; taken private in 2007)

• Describe Mark Ain’s personality: What kind of a manager was he (before Praendex)?

• What problems prompted Mark to bring Praendex into the picture?

• What are the theories underlying Praendex’s approach to personality assessment? Do you buy into their views? Why or why not?

• What kinds of benefits did Kronos gain from the use of personality testing?

• Would you recommend a product like Praendex to companies? Why or why not.

• http://www.kronos.com

Mark Ain and Problems before Praendex

• Mark Ain: • Founded company in ’77; by ’90, • B.S., MIT; MBA, Rochester (OB)

- “I was always interested in what made organizations and people tick”- “I always knew that I wanted to do my own thing”- Early years: “did everything”

- People thought: “I made decisions from the hip”; too involved in everything - “My philosophy was the best argument would win.’ - “I assumed this was a good way to operate because I was

comfortable operating in this mode”- Hired Garret Lewis as COO in ’86; by ’90 let him go

Question: “Could my management team handle higher level of responsibility? Should I look for another COO?”

Benefits of PI?

• Guidance on what kinds of sales people and branch managers to hire (more high As and Bs instead of high Ds)

• Insight into self: “I realized how different I was from most of our people”; and “how similar the management team was to me”; Paul Lacy (lower A and higher D): a valuable asset

• Mark Ain: Venturer; Paul Lacy: Specialist; Decker: authoritative salesperson, etc.

Kronos after PI

• The PI gave us a framework to understand our own and others’ behaviors. It gave us a language to talk about things in a non-threatening way; it legitimated talk about these things; and it provided an analytical lens to make sense of these issues.

• Mark Ain started delegating more: realized he was different; delineated responsibility; stopped second-guessing everyone.

• Paul Lacy: from curmudgeon to valuable player (who thinks differently than others– implementation oriented guy)

• Created a set of common goals: Everyone is now paid based on the company’s (not department’s) performance plan

• Instituted a “communications committee” made up of a mix of people so Paul wouldn’t have to do the communicating.

• Went public on June 5, 1992 (offered at $56 million)

Benefits of PI?

• Guidance on what kinds of sales people and branch managers to hire (more high As and Bs instead of high Ds)

• Insight into self: “I realized how different I was from most of our people”; and “how similar the management team was to me”; Paul Lacy (lower A and higher D): a valuable asset

• Mark Ain: Venturer; Paul Lacy: Specialist; Decker: authoritative salesperson, etc.

Given the problems with self-report personality tests, why/how did Kronos still find them useful?

(a) Perhaps because they are easy to process for large numbers of people and it yields quantitative data that is somehow reassuring (even if misleading).(b) There is a desperate need to understand to locate and place the right people in the right jobs; and there is a belief that tools that help a conversation about personality started can, even if somewhat inaccurate, do much to alleviate interpersonal conflict, a real problem in most human organizations.(c) The Hawthorne effect: Even if the tests are faulty, employees may feel like the company is at least paying attention to them. This attention can lead to better performance.(d) Self-fulfilling prophecies: Even if initially wrong, beliefs about personality generated through tests can lead people to become that kind of person (because they believe it and more importantly because others believe it and act towards the person as if it were true, thereby turning them into that kind of person)

Steps for managing a difficult interaction

1. Identify the cause.• Ask whether you and the other person have differing:

• Interests on an issue• Perceptions about what's critical• Motivations• Work styles• Communication styles• Life experiences and cultural backgrounds

• Differing interests can be addressed by creative solutions that at least partially satisfy both individuals' interests. Other differences, when discussed constructively, can lead to new understanding of one another's perspectives.

2. Decide whether to deal with the situation.• You should attempt to improve matters with the other person when:

• You've dealt with your own contributions to the problem but the difficulty persists• You want to do what's best for the long run, not simply vent your feelings to achieve short-term emotional relief• Your working relationship with the other person is important and long term, and the stakes are high• There's hope of improving the situation because neither you nor the other person is profoundly troubled emotionally or has

a long history of destructive relationships with many people across a wide range of situations3. Assess the facts.• With the other person, share perceptions of what's going on and explain where those perceptions are coming from. Cite

information you're using, experiences you've had, and assumptions about what's critical.• Also compare your intentions—you may discover that you have similar aims and priorities but are dealing with them differently.• Finally, acknowledge your contributions to the problem, and encourage the other person to do the same.