Personality Traits in Organizational Behavior: Research Review

Introduction: Personality Research in Organizational Behavior

According to Judge, Klinger, Simon, and Yang (2008), the various criticisms directed at early organizational behavioral theories have been countered by a growing body of evidence that supports these fundamental precepts. Judge et al. report that three main pieces of evidence have been particularly influential in rehabilitating personality research within organizational behavior.

Despite the criticisms leveled at the use of personality traits for human resource research and planning, the research to date supports this practice because personality has consistently been shown to be relevant to individual attitudes and behavior, as well as team and organizational functioning (Judge et al., 2008). An excerpt from their literature review makes this clear: "Personality traits do matter at work, and indeed, the data appear to support [this] conclusion" (p. 1983). Notwithstanding this growing body of evidence, Judge et al. also note that not everyone is convinced of the efficacy of personality research for organizational behavior applications. As Judge and his associates emphasize, "Perhaps the most intensive application of personality research in organizational settings, and arguably the most controversial, has been in relation to job performance. One reason for this interest — and controversy — concerns the role of personality testing in hiring decisions" (p. 1983).

Judge et al. (2008) identify three developments that have been especially important in advancing the field:

Key Evidence Supporting Personality Trait Research

First, the growth of meta-analysis allowed for the cumulation of results across studies. This development was particularly important in the area of personality, given the myriad traits that had been considered over decades of scientific research.

Second, the widespread acceptance of the five-factor model (or the "Big Five" — Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience) provided a framework to organize the diverse set of traits. While the gains from the five-factor model have been considerable, its acceptance in organizational behavior is so widespread that it threatens to "white out" other potentially relevant traits.

Third, there was an accumulating body of evidence in personality psychology that supported the enduring nature of personality traits, their genetic origins, and their neuropsychological basis (Judge et al., 2008, p. 1983).

Criticisms and Ongoing Controversies

Because the decisions based on personality traits affect people's lives, it is vitally important for them to be legitimate and evidence-based. In this regard, Judge and his colleagues note that "The acceptance of personality traits as important predictors of employment outcomes is far from universal" (p. 1983). Personality traits, moreover, are not the only factors involved in employee performance. Work motivation, job attitudes, and the type and quality of leadership have all been shown to play critical roles in shaping employee morale and organizational performance (Judge et al., 2008).

The research to date remains controversial in spite of the growing consensus concerning its legitimacy. Judge et al. report that "Though there is general acceptance that personality predicts most broad organizational attitudes and behaviors, not all scholars are convinced of the usefulness of personality measures in organizational research" (p. 1990). Among the criticisms most often directed at personality traits are the following:

First, the validities are sufficiently weak as to question the usefulness of personality measures in predicting organizational criteria, particularly job performance. Second, because items on self-report personality measures are socially desirable — that is, the "right" response is transparent — faking undermines the usefulness of personality measures (Judge et al., p. 1990).

Why Further Research on Personality and Employment Matters

In many cases, sophisticated testing regimens for personality traits form part of the hiring decision and, when poorly understood and administered, the potential for erroneous decisions based on these tests can be high (Chen & Chen, 2008). For instance, according to McTurk and Shakespeare-Finch (2008), "Barriers to employment are linked to individual factors such as thinking styles and personality traits" (p. 12). As Judge et al. (2008) noted, response behaviors on personality tests are influenced by a wide range of factors that may skew the results. In this regard, Rost (2002) emphasizes that "There are so many influences on response behaviour in a typical personality assessment situation that it is hard to imagine that all these factors can be reduced to a single latent trait" (p. 108).

A particularly challenging aspect of the problem is the fact that a sufficiently large number of studies do exist that support the notions concerning various personality traits to the extent that they can be used to confirm or refute the accuracy of a hiring decision, whether the decision was a sound one in reality or not (Rost, 2002). Furthermore, personality trait testing has a lengthy track record of successfully predicting a wide range of employment outcomes within certain parameters, and busy human resource professionals need these types of tools in order to identify superior candidates for different positions (Rost, 2002).

Conclusion: Who Benefits and How

Human resource practitioners can benefit from an improved understanding of personality traits as well as better ways to measure them. Rost (2002) suggests that "Personality assessment is not possible without assuring something like a trait. The trait explains the contingencies of observed behaviour, i.e. it explains why people that show a particular behaviour A, also tend to show behaviour B" (p. 109). A refined research agenda would therefore yield practical tools that help organizations make more accurate, fair, and legally defensible employment decisions grounded in validated personality science.