A. Personality can help you understand why people (including yourself!) act, think, and feel
the way we do, and the astute manger can put that understanding to use by taking care to
place employees in situations that best fit their personality.
B. Values often underlie and explain attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions.
1. Consider screening job candidates for high conscientiousness—as well as the other
Big Five traits—depending on the criteria your organization finds most important.
Other aspects, such as core self-evaluation or narcissism, may be relevant in certain
situations.
2. Although the MBTI has faults, you can use it for training and development; to help
employees better understand each other, open up communication in work groups, and
possibly reduce conflicts.
3. Evaluate jobs, work groups, and your organization to determine the optimal
personality fit.
4. Take into account employees’ situational factors when evaluating their observable
personality traits, and lower the situation strength, to better ascertain personality
characteristics.
5. The more you consider people’s different cultures, the better you will be able to
determine their work behavior and create a positive organizational climate that
performs well.
Career OBjectives
How do I ace the personality test?
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objectives: Describe personality, the way it is measured, and the factors that shape it; Describe how the
situation affects whether personality predicts behavior
Learning Outcome: Describe the factors that influence the formation of individual attitudes and values
AACSB: Reflective thinking; Ethical understanding and reasoning
I just landed a second-round interview with a great company, and I’m super excited. And super
nervous because I hear that they’ll give me tests. I’ve read a few articles about how more and
more companies are using them. Do you have tips for how I can put my best foot forward? —
Lauren
Dear Lauren:
Congratulations! It’s natural for you to want to understand the tests your prospective employer
uses. You’ve probably deduced that it’s possible to respond in a favorable manner. For example,
if a statement says, “I am always prepared,” you know that employers are looking for an
applicant who agrees with this statement. You might think responding in the most favorable way
possible increases your chances of getting hired, and you might be right.
There are a few caveats, however. First, some companies build in “lie scales” that flag
individuals who respond to statements in an extremely favorable manner. It’s not always easy to
detect them, but they usually appear across a number of items. If you respond in the most
favorable way to a long list of items, then, you might pop up on the lie scale.
Second, high scores on every trait are not desirable for every kind of job. Some employers might
be more interested in low scores on a particular trait or pay more attention to a total profile that
would be hard to “game.” For example, agreeableness is not a good predictor of job performance
for jobs that are competitive in nature (sales, coach, trader).
Third, there is an ethical perspective you should consider. How are you going to feel once you
are in the organization if you have not represented yourself correctly in the hiring process? What
is your general attitude toward lying? How are you going to make sure your behavior fits the
traits you tried to portray?
Finally, perhaps you should look at the assessment differently. The organization—and you—
should be looking for a good match. If you are not a good match and are hired, you are likely to
be unsuccessful, and miserable in the process. However, if you have a good, honest match, you
can arrive for your first day confident and ready for success.
In the end, you might increase your chances of getting hired by responding to a personality test
in a favorable manner. However, we still think honesty is the best policy—for you and for your
future employer!
Sources: M. N. Bing, H. K. Davison, and J. Smothers, “Item-Level Frame-of-Reference Effects in Personality
Testing: An Investigation of Incremental Validity in an Organizational Setting,” International Journal of Selection
and Assessment 22, no. 2 (2014): 165–78; P. R. Sackett and P. T. Walmsley, “Which Personality Attributes Are Most
Important in the Workplace?” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9, no. 5 (2014): 538–51; and L. Weber, “To
Get a Job, New Hires are Put to the Test,” The Wall Street Journal, April 15, 2015, A1, A10.
Personal Inventory Assessments
Personality Style Indicator
What’s your personality? You’ve probably been wondering as you read this chapter. Take this
PIA to obtain some indications of your personality style.
Myth or Science?
“We Can Accurately Judge Individuals’ Personalities a Few
Seconds After Meeting Them”
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objectives: Describe how the situation affects whether personality predicts behavior
Learning Outcome: Describe the factors that influence the formation of individual attitudes and values
AACSB: Reflective thinking
Surprisingly, this statement appears to be true.
Research indicates that individuals can accurately appraise others’ personalities only a few
seconds after first meeting them, or sometimes even from a photo. This “zero acquaintance”
approach shows that regardless of the way in which people first meet someone, whether in
person or online, their first judgments about the other’s personality have validity. In one study,
for example, individuals were asked to introduce themselves in, on average, 7.4 seconds.
Observers’ ratings of those individuals’ extraversion were significantly correlated with the
individuals’ self-reported extraversion. Other research suggests personalities can be surmised
from online profiles at zero acquaintance as well. One study even found that participants were
able to determine the personality traits of individuals at the ends of the trait spectrum from
viewing only photos.
Some traits, such as extraversion, are easier to perceive than others upon initial acquaintance, but
less obvious traits like self-esteem are also often judged fairly accurately by others. Even being
forced to make intuitive, quick judgments rather than deliberate evaluations does not seem to
undermine the accuracy of the appraisals.
Situations make a difference in the accuracy of the judgments for some personality traits. For
example, although neuroticism is perhaps the most difficult trait to detect accurately, a recent
study found neuroticism could be judged much more accurately when the situation made the
individual react nervously. This makes sense when you consider that some situations activate or
draw out a trait much more readily than others. Almost everybody looks calm when they’re about
to fall asleep!
The moderate accuracy of “thin slices” helps to explain the moderate validity of employment
interviews, which we discuss in Chapter 17. Specifically, research shows that interviewers make
up their minds about candidates within 2 minutes of first meeting them. While this is hardly an
ideal way to make important employment decisions, the research on personality shows these
judgments do have some level of validity. It is important to keep in mind, however, that though
we can ascertain people’s personalities quickly, we should still keep an open mind and suspend
judgment. There is always more to people than first meets the eye.
Sources: A. Beer, “Comparative Personality Judgments: Replication and Extension of Robust Findings in
Personality Perception Using an Alternative Method,” Journal of Personality Assessment 96, no. 6 (2014):610–18;
S. Hirschmueller, B. Egloff, S. C. Schmukle, S. Nestler, and M. D. Back, “Accurate Judgments of Neuroticism at
Zero Acquaintance: A Question of Relevance,” Journal of Personality 83, no. 2 (2015): 221–28; S. Hirschmüller, B.
Egloff, S. Nestler, and D. Mitja, “The Dual Lens Model: A Comprehensive Framework for Understanding
Self–Other Agreement of Personality Judgments at Zero Acquaintance,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 104 (2013): 335–53; and J. M. Stopfer, B. Egloff, S. Nestler, and M. D. Back, “Personality Expression
and Impression Formation in Online Social Networks: An Integrative Approach to Understanding the Processes of
Accuracy, Impression Management, and Meta-Accuracy,” European Journal of Personality 28 (2014): 73–94.
Class Exercise
1. Place the students in teams of five.
2. Ask students to have a two-minute conversation with each other.
3. Then, ask students to write down a description of each team member.
4. Next, ask students to record their own assessment of their personalities.
5. Ask students to compare their assessments of each other and the self-assessments.
6. Finally, ask students to present their results to the class and explain their experience with
the concept of “zero-acquaintance.”
Teaching Notes
This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as
BlackBoard 9.1, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See
http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information.
An Ethical Choice
Do You Have a Cheating Personality?
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: – Describe how the situation affects whether personality predicts behavior
Learning Outcome: Describe the factors that influence the formation of individual attitudes and values
AACSB: Ethical understanding and reasoning; Reflective thinking
Stories of widespread cheating have been on the rise, leading many experts to conclude that the
incidence of cheating is increasing. Recently a major cheating scandal was uncovered at Harvard
University, where more than 125 students were found to be involved in an organized cheating
scheme.
Like most complex behaviors, cheating in school, at work, and in life is a product of the person
and the situation. As for the person, research reveals that certain traits are related to the tendency
to cheat, including high levels of narcissism, low levels of conscientiousness and agreeableness,
and high levels of competitiveness.
As for the situation, cheating increases when it is easier to cheat (such as on take-home exams),
when there is greater pressure to cheat, and when clear standards are lacking or are not
reinforced (such as when an organization’s sexual harassment policy is not communicated to
employees).
How can this research help inform you as a student and employee?
1. Recognize situations that are more likely to provoke pressures to cheat. Being explicit and
open with yourself about your response to these pressures should keep you from succumbing
to a moral blind spot, in which you engage in behavior without considering its ethical
undertones. Remember that technological advancements in the detection of cheating increase
the probability of being caught.
2. If you score high on certain traits that predispose you to cheat, this does not mean you are
destined to cheat. However, you should realize that you might be more susceptible and
therefore need to avoid certain situations, especially unethical ones.
Sources: M. J. Cooper, and C. Pullig, “I’m Number One! Does Narcissism Impair Ethical Judgment Even for the Highly Religious?” Journal of
Business Ethics 112 (2013), pp. 167–-176; H. E. Hershfield, T. R. Cohen, and L. Thompson, “Short Horizons and Tempting Situations: Lack of
Continuity to our Future Selves Leads to Unethical Decision Making and Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
117 (2012), pp. 298–310; M. Carmichael, “Secret E-mail Searches on Harvard Cheating Scandal Broader Than Initially Described,” Boston
Globe (April 2, 2013),
http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/04/02/secret-mail-searches-harvard-cheating-scandal-broader-than-initially-described/Mgz0mc8hSk3Ig
WGjxLwsJP/story.html; P. E. Mudrack, J. M. Bloodgood, and W. H. Turnley, “Some Ethical Implications of Individual Competitiveness,”
Journal of Business Ethics 108 (2012), pp. 347–-359; and R. Pérez-Peña, “Studies Find More Students Cheating, with High Achievers No
Exception,” The New York Times (September 8, 2012), p. A13.
Class Exercise
1. Ask student to reflect on situations in which they were aware that cheating was taking
place.
2. Then, ask students what, if anything, they did about it. Students should consider why they
made the choices they did. Is not doing anything ethical? Is it more ethical to protect a
friend who is cheating?
Point/Counterpoint
Millennials Are More Narcissistic Than Their Parents
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: Describe how the situation affects whether personality predicts behavior; Describe
personality, the way it is measured, and the factors that shape it
Learning Outcome: Describe the factors that influence the formation of individual attitudes and values
AACSB: Reflective thinking
Point
Millennials have some great virtues: as a group, they are technologically savvy, socially tolerant,
and engaged. They value their quality of life as equal to their career, seeking a balance
between home and work. In these ways, Millennials surpass their baby boomer parents, who are
less technologically adept, less tolerant, more localized, and who have a history of striving to get
ahead at all costs. However, Millennials have a big Achilles’ heel—they are more narcissistic.
Several large-scale, longitudinal studies found Millennials are more likely than baby boomers to
have seemingly inflated views of themselves, and psychologists have found narcissism has been
growing since the early 1980s. More Millennials rate themselves as above average on attributes
such as academic ability, leadership, public speaking ability, and writing ability. Millennials are
also more likely to agree they would be “very good” spouses (56 percent, compared to 37
percent among 1980 graduates), parents (54 percent; 36 percent for 1980 graduates), and workers
(65 percent; 49 percent for 1980 graduates).
Cliff Zukin, a senior faculty fellow at Rutgers University, believes the reason is in the childhood
upbringing of Millennials. “This is the most affirmed generation in history,” he said. “They were
raised believing they could do anything they wanted to, and that they have skills and talents to
bring to a job setting.” Jean M. Twenge, author of Generation Me, agrees. “People were not
saying, ‘Believe in yourself’ and ‘You are special’ in the ‘60s.”
Narcissism is bad for society, and particularly bad for the work place. “[Narcissists] tend to be
very self-absorbed; they value fun in their personal and their work life,” one administrator said.
“I can’t expect them to work on one project for any amount of time without getting bored.”
Counterpoint
Wasn’t “The Me Generation” generations ago? Honestly, every generation thinks they are better
than the ones that come after! “You can find complaints [about the younger generation] in Greek
literature, in the Bible,” Professor Cappelli of the Wharton School observed. “There’s no
evidence Millennials are different. They’re just younger.” While Millennials are the
20-somethings of today, what is universally true is that young people share certain characteristics
… because they are young.
A recent study shows the similarity between how Millennials and baby boomers thought about
themselves at the same stage of life. As college freshmen, 71 percent of Millennials thought they
were above average academically, and 63 percent of baby boomers thought the same thing when
they were college freshmen. Similarly, 77 percent of Millennials believed they were above
average in the drive to achieve, versus 68 percent for baby boomers. Millennials, like their baby
boomer counterparts, expect to work hard and to work overtime. So we think young people are
different when in fact they’re just the way today’s older folks were when they were younger. In
other words, “Every generation is Generation Me.”
In some ways, Millennials may be less narcissistic than baby boomers today. As one manager
observed, “[Millennials] don’t have that line between work and home that used to exist, so
they’re doing Facebook for the company at night, on Saturday, or Sunday. We get incredible
productivity out of them.” Millennials also may be more altruistic. For example, 29 percent of
Millennials believe individuals have a responsibility to remain involved in issues and causes for
the good of all, while only 24 percent of baby boomers feel the same level of responsibility.
Rather than comparing different generations, it is more accurate to compare people at one life
stage with others at the same life stage. Research supports that people in their 20s tend to be
more narcissistic than baby boomers were in their youth.
Sources: J. M. Twenge, W. K. Campbell, and E. C. Freeman, “Generational Differences in Young Adults’ Life Goals, Concern for Others, and
Civic Orientation, 1966–2009,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102 (2012), pp. 1045–-1062; J. Jin and J. Rounds, “Stability and
Change in Work Values: A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies,” Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012), pp. 326–-339; and S. W. Lester, R.
L. Standifer, N. J. Schultz, and J. M. Windsor, “”Actual Versus Perceived Generational Differences at Work: An Empirical Examination,””
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19 (2012), pp. 341–-354.
Class Exercise
1. Divide the class into paired groups of three to four students each.
2. Assign half the paired groups to take the Point position and the other half to take the
Counterpoint position.
3. Call upon a pair to come to the front of the classroom.
4. Have the sides present their views of their perspective positions.
5. After each debate, ask the class to vote on the “winning side.”
Teaching Notes
This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as
BlackBoard 9.1, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See
http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information.