Transcript Document

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 subconscious 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
Personality Dimension
Characteristics of a Person
Scoring Positively on the
Dimension
1) Openness to experience
Intellectual, imaginative, curious,
broad minded
2) Conscientiousness
Dependable, responsible,
achievement oriented, persistent
3) Agreeableness
Trusting, good natured,
cooperative, soft hearted
4) Extraversion
Outgoing, talkative, social,
assertive
5) Neuroticism/Emotional
Relaxed, secure, unworried
stability
Myers-Briggs
Attitudes
Introversion
Extraversion
Action
Sensing
Reflection
Perceiving Functions
INtuition
Objective evidence
Thinking
Abstract evidence
Judging Functions
Feeling
Detached
Empathetic
Ambassador Functions
Judging
Closure
Perceiving
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?
Likability
Low
High
High
Competent Jerk
(mostly avoided)
Lovable Star
(desperately wanted)
Low
Incompetent Jerk
(desperately avoided)
Lovable Fool
(mildly wanted)
Competence
Alan Mulally
CEO, Ford
The Demanding
Cheerleader
Dan Akerson
CEO, GM
Management by
Barking
Sergio Marchionne
CEO, Chrysler
Management 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 orderingabout 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/
The Overall Trust Network
Two Ego Networks
Low Constraint
High Constraint
Page 17
Human Analytics:
Big Data Meets Human Resource Management
The Blank Slate?
Personality Predicts Brain Response During Cognitive Tasks
Kumari, Ffytche, Williams, and Gray (2004), The Journal of Neuroscience
Also, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA
20
Wasabi Waiter: New Recruitment Tool
Games 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 c
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 situations
3. 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.