1

PERSONALITY
Why are some people quiet and passive, others loud and aggressive? Are certain personality types better
adapted for certain jobs? Before we can answer these questions, we need to address a more basic one: What is
personality?

What Is Personality?
When psychologists speak of personality, they don’t mean a person has charm or is constantly smiling; they
mean a dynamic concept of the growth and development of a person’s whole psychological system. First we
will de ine personality, and then discuss personality measurement methods and determinants.

Defining Personality Personality is commonly de ined as a persistent set of characteristics, qualities, and traits
that taken together form a unique person.1 For our purposes, you should think of personality as the sum total
of the ways an individual reacts to and interacts with others.

Measuring Personality The most important reason managers need to know how to measure personality is that
research has shown personality tests are useful in hiring decisions and help managers forecast who is best for
a job.2 The most common means of measuring personality is through self-report surveys in which individuals
evaluate themselves on a series of factors, such as “I worry a lot about the future.” Though self-report measures
work when well constructed, the respondent might lie or practice impression management to create a good
impression. When people know their personality scores are going to be used for hiring decisions, they rate
themselves as about half a standard deviation more conscientious and emotionally stable than if they are taking
the test to learn more about themselves.3 Another problem is accuracy; a candidate who is in a bad mood when
taking the survey may have inaccurate scores.

Personality Determiants An early debate in personality

research centred on whether an individual’s personality Personality—the sum total of the ways an individual
is the result of heredity or environment. Personality reacts to and interacts with others—is partly gene c
appears to be a result of both; however, research tends in origin; yet, personality can be easily measured by
various survey methods, including selfreport
to support the importance of heredity over the surveys.
environment.

Heredity refers to factors determined at conception.

Physical stature, facial features, gender, temperament, muscle composition and re lexes, energy level, and
biological rhythms are generally considered to be either completely or substantially in luenced by parentage—
by your biological parents’ genetic, physiological, and psychological makeup. The heredity approach argues
that the ultimate explanation of an individual’s personality is the molecular structure of the genes, located in
the chromosomes.

Researchers in many different countries have studied thousands of sets of identical twins who were separated
at birth and raised apart.4 If heredity played little or no part in determining personality, you would expect to
ind few similarities between separated twins. Researchers have found, however, that genetics accounts for
about 50 percent of the personality similarities between twins and more than 30 percent of shared
occupational and leisure interests. In an unusually extreme example, one set of twins who were separated for
39 years and raised more than 70 kilometres apart were found to drive the same model and colour car.
Although they had never met, they chain-smoked the same brand of cigarette, owned dogs with the same name,
and regularly vacationed within three blocks of each other in a beach community 2,400 kilometres away.
Interestingly, twin studies have suggested parental behaviour doesn’t add much to personality development.
The personalities of identical twins raised in different households were far more similar to each other than to
the personalities of siblings with whom the twins were raised. Ironically, the most important contribution our
parents may make to our personalities is giving us their genes!

This is not to suggest that personality never changes. People’s scores on dependability tend to increase over
time, as when young adults start families and establish careers. However, strong individual differences in

2
dependability remain; everyone tends to change by about the same amount, so their rank order stays roughly
the same.5 An analogy to intelligence may make this clearer. Children become smarter as they age, so nearly
everyone is smarter at age 20 than at age 10. Still, if Sahkyo is smarter than Siwili at age 10, she is likely to be
smarter than he is at age 20, too. Research has shown that personality is more changeable in adolescence and
more stable among adults.6

Early work on personality tried to identify and label enduring characteristics that describe an individual’s
behaviour, including shy, aggressive, submissive, lazy, ambitious, loyal, and timid. When someone exhibits
these characteristics in a large number of situations, we call them the personality traits of that person.7 The
more consistent the characteristic over time, and the more frequently it occurs in diverse situations, the more
important that trait is in describing the individual.

Early efforts to identify and classify the primary traits that govern behaviour8 often produced long lists that
were dif icult to generalize from and provided little practical guidance to organizational decision makers. Two
exceptions are the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Big Five Model, now the dominant frameworks for
assessing an individual’s personality traits. Let’s discuss each of them in turn.

DOMINANT PERSONALITY FRAMEWORKS

Throughout history, people have sought to understand what makes individuals behave in myriad ways. Many
of our behaviours stem from our personalities, so understanding the components of personality helps us
predict behaviour. Important theoretical frameworks and assessment tools, discussed next, help us categorize
and study the dimensions of personality.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is the most widely used personality-assessment instrument in the
world.9 It is a 100-question personality test that asks people how they usually feel or act in situations.
Respondents are classi ied as extraverted or introverted (E or I), sensing or intuitive (S or N), thinking or feeling
(T or F), and judging or perceiving (J or P):

■ Extraverted (E) Versus Introverted (I). Extraverted individuals are outgoing, sociable, and assertive.
Introverts are quiet and shy.
■ Sensing (S) Versus Intuitive (N). Sensing types are practical, prefer routine and order, and focus on details.
Intuitives rely on unconscious processes and look at the “big picture.”
■ Thinking (T) Versus Feeling (F). Thinking types use reason and logic to handle problems. Feeling types
rely on their personal values and emotions.
■ Judging (J) Versus Perceiving (P). Judging types want control and prefer order and structure. Perceiving
types are lexible and spontaneous.

These classi ications describe personality types by identifying one trait from each of the four pairs. For example,
Introverted/Intuitive/Thinking/Judging (INTJ) people are visionaries with original minds and great drive.
They are skeptical, critical, independent, determined, and often stubborn. ENFJs are natural teachers and
leaders. They are relational, motivational, intuitive, idealistic, ethical, and kind. ESTJs are organizers. They are
realistic, logical, analytical, and decisive, perfect for business or mechanics. The ENTP type is innovative,
individualistic, versatile, and attracted to entrepreneurial ideas. This person tends to be resourceful in solving
challenging problems but may neglect routine assignments.

According to the Research Department at Psychometrics Canada, introverts account for 48.1 percent of the
E/I responses in the English-speaking Canadian population. The three most common types are ISTJ (14.8
percent), ESTJ (11.4 percent), and ENFP (9.6 percent).10

The MBTI has been widely used by organizations, including Apple Computer, AT&T, Citigroup, GE, and 3M Co.;
many hospitals and educational institutions; and even the Canadian. Armed Forces. It is used as a recruitment
and selection tool, allowing companies to hire new employees who have personality traits that are associated
with success on the job. It is also used as a career planning tool, allowing the employee and employer to work

3
together to plan a career path that more likely to have good job–person it since it is aligned with their
personality. For example, a highly introverted person might choose to increase his or her technical skills rather
than seeking promotion to a socially demanding management role. Some organizations use the MBTI to form
project teams, reducing the likelihood of con licts by assigning compatible personalities to work together.
Finally, some use it to better understand and mediate existing interpersonal con licts. The MBTI is especially
useful for this purpose because it highlights differences in decision-making style that can cause persistent
con lict. At the University of Saskatchewan, Dwayne Docken, career development coordinator with the
university’s Aboriginal Student Centre, recommends the test highly. He says, “[T] he MBTI assessment is helpful
because it presents similar messages [as traditional Medicine Wheels], but in a language and context that can
help to bridge the generation gap between students and Elders. Like the complementary and balanced elements
of the Medicine Wheel, the MBTI type table represents aspects of personality and preference that are different
but equal in value—and all vital to a truly successful balance, whether in school, work or life.” 11

The MBTI is taken by over 2.5 million people each year and 89 of the Fortune 100 companies use it. 12 Evidence
is mixed about its validity as a measure of personality, however; most of the evidence is against it. 13 One
problem is that the model forces a person into one type or another; that is, you’re either introverted or
extraverted. There is no in-between, though most people are both extraverted and introverted to some degree.
Another problem is with the reliability of the measure. When people retake the assessment, they often receive
different results. An additional problem is in the dif iculty of interpretation. There are levels of importance for
each of the MBTI facets, and separate meanings for certain combinations of facets, all of which require trained
interpretation that can leave room for error. Finally, results from the MBTI tend to be unrelated to job
performance. The MBTI can thus be a valuable tool for increasing self-awareness and providing career guidance,
but managers should consider using the Big Five Personality Model, discussed next, as the personality selection
test for job candidates instead.

The Big Five Personality Model

The MBTI may lack strong supporting evidence, but an impressive body of research supports the thesis of the
Big Five Model—that ive basic dimensions underlie all
others and encompass most of the signi icant variation in The Big Five personality traits are related to
human personality.14 Test scores of the Big Five traits do a many OB criteria; each of the five traits has
very good job of predicting how people behave in a variety proven its usefulness to understanding
of real-life situations.15 These are the Big Five factors: individual behaviour in organiza ons

■ Extraversion. The extraversion dimension captures

our comfort level with relationships. Extraverts tend to be gregarious, assertive, and sociable. Introverts
tend to be reserved, timid, and quiet. This dimension also refers to preferred stimulation levels. Introverts
tend to become overwhelmed when there are a lot of stimuli in the environment (such as a large, busy
party), and they may seek a quiet place to recover from the excess sensory input, while extroverts are
energized and excited by busy environments.
■ Agreeableness. The agreeableness dimension refers to an individual’s propensity to defer to others.
Highly agreeable people are cooperative, warm, and trusting. People who score low on agreeableness are
cold, disagreeable, and antagonistic.
■ Conscientiousness. The conscientiousness dimension is a measure of reliability. A highly conscientious
person is responsible, organized, dependable, and persistent. Those who score low on this dimension are
easily distracted, disorganized, and unreliable.
■ Emotional stability. The emotional stability dimension—often labelled by its converse, neuroticism—
taps a person’s ability to withstand stress. People with positive emotional stability tend to be calm, self-
con ident, and secure. Those with high negative scores tend to be nervous, anxious, depressed, and
insecure.
■ Openness to experience. The openness to experience dimension addresses range of interests and
fascination with novelty. Open people are creative, curious, and artistically sensitive. Those at the other
end of the category are conventional and ind comfort in the familiar.

4
How Do the Big Five Traits Predict Behaviour at Work? Research has found relationships between the Big
Five personality dimensions and job performance.16 As the authors of the most-cited review observed, “The
preponderance of evidence shows that individuals who are dependable, reliable, careful, thorough, able to plan,
organized, hardworking, persistent, and achievement-oriented tend to have higher job performance in most if
not all occupations.”17 Employees who score higher in conscientiousness develop higher levels of job
knowledge, probably because highly conscientious people learn more (a review of 138 studies revealed
conscientiousness was related to GPA).18 Higher levels of job knowledge contribute to higher levels of job
performance. There can be “too much of a good thing,” however, as extremely conscientious Individuals
typically do not perform better than those who are simply above average in conscientiousness. 19

Conscientiousness is important to organizational success. A study of the personality scores of 313 CEO
candidates in private equity companies (of whom 225 were hired; their company’s performance was later
correlated with their personality scores) found conscientiousness—in the form of persistence, attention to
detail, and setting of high standards—was more important than other traits.

Interestingly, conscientious people live longer; they take better care of themselves and engage in fewer risky
behaviours like smoking, drinking and drugs, and unsafe sexual or driving behaviours. 20 They don’t adapt as
well to changing contexts, however. They are generally performance-oriented and may have more trouble
learning complex skills early in the training process, because their focus is on performing well rather than on
learning. Finally, they are often less creative than less conscientious people, especially artistically.21

Although conscientiousness is most consistently related to job performance, the other Big Five traits are also
related to aspects of performance and have other implications for work and for life. Let’s look at them one at a
time. Exhibit 5-1 summarizes these traits.

Of the Big Five traits, emotional stability is most strongly related to life satisfaction, job satisfaction, and low
stress levels. High scorers are more likely to be positive and optimistic and experience fewer negative emotions;
they are generally happier than low scorers. Low scorers are hypervigilant (looking for problems or impending
signs of danger) and are vulnerable to the physical and psychological effects of stress.

5
Extraverts tend to be happier in their jobs and in their lives. They experience more positive emotions than do
introverts, and they more freely express these feelings. Extraverts also tend to perform better in jobs with
signi icant interpersonal interaction. They usual have more social skills and friends. Finally, extraversion is a
relatively strong predictor of leadership emergence in groups; extraverts are more socially dominant, “take
charge” people and usually more assertive than introverts.22 Extraverts are more impulsive than introverts;
they are more likely to be absent from work and engage in risky behaviours such as unprotected sex, drinking,
and other sensation-seeking acts.23 One study also found extraverts were more likely than introverts to lie
during job interviews.24

High scorers for openness to experience are more creative in science and art than low scorers. Because
creativity is important to leadership, open people are more likely to be effective leaders—and more
comfortable with ambiguity. They cope better with organizational change and are more adaptable in varying
contexts. As for the downside, evidence suggests they are susceptible to workplace accidents. 25

You might expect agreeable people to be happier than disagreeable people. They are, but only slightly. When
people choose romantic partners, friends, or organizational team members, agreeable individuals are usually
irst choice. Agreeable individuals are better liked than disagreeable people; they tend to do better in
interpersonally oriented jobs such as customer service. Agreeable people also are more compliant and rule
abiding, less likely to get into accidents, and more satis ied in their jobs. They contribute to organizational
performance by engaging in citizenship behaviour26 and are less likely to engage in organizational deviance.
Agreeableness, however, is associated with lower levels of career success (especially earnings), perhaps
because agreeable people are less willing to promote their self-interests. The Big Five personality factors
appear in almost all cross-cultural studies,27 including China, Israel, Germany, Japan, Spain, Nigeria, Norway,
Pakistan, and the United States. Generally, the indings corroborate what has been found in U.S. research: Of
the Big Five traits, conscientiousness is the best predictor of job performance.

OTHER PERSONALITY FRAMEWORKS

Research indicates the Big Five traits have the most veri iable linkages to important organizational outcomes,
but they are neither the only traits a person exhibits nor the only ones with organizational behaviour
implications. Let’s discuss some other traits, known collectively as the Dark Triad, and the approach–
avoidance framework, which describes personality traits in terms of motivation.

The Dark Triad

With the exception of neuroticism, the Big Five traits are what we call socially desirable, meaning we might be
glad to score high on them. Researchers have found that three other socially undesirable traits, which we all
have in varying degrees, are relevant to organizational behaviour: Machiavellianism, narcissism, and
psychopathy. Owing to their negative nature, researchers have labelled these three traits the Dark Triad—
though, of course, they do not always occur together.28

Machiavellianism Hao is a young bank manager in Shanghai. He’s received three promotions in the past four
years and makes no apologies for the aggressive tactics he’s used to propel his career upward. “My name means
clever, and that’s what I am—I do whatever I have to do to get ahead,” he says. Hao would be termed
Machiavellian.

The personality characteristic of Machiavellianism (often abbreviated Mach) is named after Niccolo
Machiavelli, who wrote in the 16th century on how to gain and use power. An individual high in
Machiavellianism is pragmatic, maintains emotional distance, and believes ends can justify means. “If it works,
use it” is consistent with a high-Mach perspective. A considerable amount of research has found high Machs
manipulate more, win more, are persuaded less, and persuade others more than do low Machs. 29 They are more
likely to act aggressively and engage in other counterproductive work behaviours as well. A recent review of
the literature revealed that Machiavellianism does not signi icantly predict overall job performance.30 High-
Mach employees, by manipulating others to their advantage, may win in the short term, but they lose those
gains in the long term because they are not well liked.

6
The effects of Machiavellianism depend somewhat on the context. The reason, in part, is that individuals’
personalities affect the situations they choose. One study showed that high-Mach job seekers were less
positively affected by knowing an organization engaged in a high level of corporate social responsibility
(CSR).31 Another study found that Machs’ ethical leadership behaviours were less likely to translate into
followers’ work engagement because followers “see through” these behaviours and realize it is a case of
surface acting.32

Narcissism Sabrina likes to be the centre of attention. She often looks at herself in the mirror, has extravagant
dreams, and considers herself a person of many talents. Sabrina is a narcissist. The trait is named for the Greek
myth of Narcissus, a youth so vain and proud he fell in love with his own image. In psychology, narcissism
describes a person who has a grandiose sense of self-importance, requires excessive admiration, has a sense of
entitlement, and is arrogant. Evidence suggests narcissists are more charismatic than others. 33 Both leaders
and managers tend to score higher on narcissism, suggesting that a certain self-centeredness is needed to
succeed.

Some evidence suggests that narcissists are more adaptable and make better business decisions than others
when the decision is complex.34 One study of Norwegian bank employees found that those scoring high on
narcissism enjoyed their work more.35 Some people believe that camera phones and social media encourage
narcissism. Among people who believe that, the “sel ies” trend is considered a sign of widespread, excessive,
narcissism.

While narcissism seems to have little relationship with overall job performance, it is fairly strongly related to
increased counterproductive work behaviours and is linked to other negative outcomes. A study found that
while narcissists thought they were better leaders than their colleagues, their supervisors rated them as worse.
In highly ethical contexts, narcissistic leaders are likely to be perceived as ineffective and unethical. 36 A study
of Swiss Air Force of icers found that narcissists were particularly likely to be irritated by feeling under-
bene ited, meaning that when narcissists don’t get what they want, they are more stressed by that than
others.37

Special research attention has been paid to the narcissism of CEOs. An executive described Oracle’s CEO Larry
Ellison as follows: “The difference between God and Larry is that God does not believe he is Larry.” 38 A study
of narcissistic CEOs revealed that they make more acquisitions, pay higher premiums for those acquisitions,
respond less clearly to objective measures of performance, and respond to media praise by making even more

7
acquisitions.39 Research using data compiled over 100 years has shown that narcissistic CEOs of baseball
organizations generate higher levels of manager turnover, although members of external organizations see
them as more in luential.40

Narcissism and its effects are not con ined to CEOs or celebrities. Like the effects of Machiavellianism, those of
narcissism vary by context, but are represented in all areas of life. For example, narcissists are more likely to
post self-promoting material on their Facebook pages.41

Psychopathy Psychopathy is part of the Dark Triad, but in organizational behaviour it does not connote
insanity. In the OB context, psychopathy is de ined as a lack of concern for others, and a lack of guilt or remorse
when their actions cause harm.42 Measures of psychopathy attempt to assess the person’s motivation to comply
with social norms; willingness to use deceit to obtain desired ends and the effectiveness of those efforts;
impulsivity; and disregard, that is, lack of empathic concern, for others.

The literature is not consistent about whether psychopathy or other aberrant personality traits are important
to work behaviour. One review found little correlation between measures of psychopathy and job performance
or counterproductive work behaviours. A recent study found that antisocial personality, which is closely
related to psychopathy, was positively related to advancement in the organization but unrelated to other
aspects of career success and effectiveness.43 Still other research suggests that psychopathy is related to the
use of hard in luence tactics (threats, manipulation) and bullying work behaviour (physical or verbal
threatening).44 The cunning displayed by people who score high on psychopathy may help them gain power in
an organization, but keep them from using that power toward healthy ends for themselves or their
organizations.

Given the relative newness of research on the Dark Triad, using psychopathology scores for employment
decisions may carry more risks for now than rewards. Organizations wishing to assess psychopathy or other
aberrant traits need to exercise caution. Human rights legislation prohibits discrimination against individuals
with “a physical or mental impairment.” It is unclear whether psychiatric diagnoses that relate to personality
disorders would qualify. Other psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder clearly fall into
the protected disability category, but the legal status of biologically based personality disorders are unclear at
best. This does not mean organizations must hire every person who applies, or that they cannot consider
mental makeup in hiring decisions. However, if they do, federal human rights and provincial employment rights
legislation should be used as a guideline on when it is permissible to consider this factor. Avoidance is
permitted when the mental condition prevents or severely restricts effective performance, and when it cannot
be reasonably accommodated without creating undue hardship.45 As the name implies, the Dark Triad
represents three traits that can present signi icant downsides for individuals and organizations. It would be
easy to make quick conclusions on them as managers, but it is important to keep discussions on personality in
perspective. The degrees of each trait—the Big Five, the Dark Triad, and other traits—in a person, and the
combination of the traits, matter a great deal to organizational outcomes. So does the person’s approach–
avoidance motivation, which we discuss next.

Approach–Avoidance
The MBTI, the Big Five, and the Dark Triad are not the only theoretical frameworks for personality. Recently,
the approach–avoidance framework has cast personality traits as motivations. Approach and avoidance
motivation represent the degree to which we react to stimuli whereby approach motivation is our attraction to
positive stimuli, and avoidance motivation is our aversion to negative stimuli.

The approach–avoidance framework organizes traits and may help explain how they predict work behaviour.
One study showed, for instance, that approach and avoidance motivation can help explain how core self-
evaluations affect job satisfaction.46 The framework also addresses our multiple motives when we act. For
example, competitive pressures tend to invoke both approach motivation (people work harder to win) and
avoidance motivation (people are distracted and demotivated by fear of losing). The way an individual
performs depends on which of these motivations dominates.47 Another study found that when newcomers
joined IT companies in India, they received support from their supervisor (who helped the newcomer by doing
a special favour), but also verbal aggression (the supervisor made fun of new ideas). The support they received

8
provoked approach behaviour (the newcomer asked the supervisor for feedback on performance). The
aggression provoked avoidance behaviour (the newcomer avoided speaking with the supervisor unless
absolutely necessary). The net effect on performance depended on which of these dominated. 48

While the approach–avoidance framework has provided some important insights into behaviour in
organizations, there are several unresolved issues. First, is the framework simply a way of categorizing positive
and negative traits, such as conscientiousness and neuroticism? Second, what traits it into the framework?
Nearly all the traits reviewed in this text do—including the Big Five, the Dark Triad, and others—yet these
traits are quite different. Do we gain enough from aggregating them to make up for possibly missing other
insights into behaviour that are unique to each? Further research and evaluation are needed. For now, it is
helpful to consider our approach–avoidance tendencies while we explore some other relevant personality
traits in the next section.

OTHER PERSONALITY TRAITS RELEVANT TO OB

As we’ve discussed, studies of the Big Five traits, the Dark Triad, and approach–avoidance tendencies have
much to offer to the ield of OB. Now we’ll look at other attributes that are powerful predictors of behaviour in
organizations: core self-evaluations, self-monitoring, and proactive personality.

Core Self-Evalua ons

People who have positive a core self-evaluation (CSE) like themselves and see themselves as effective, capable,
and in control of their environment. Those with negative CSE tend to dislike themselves, question their
capabilities, and view themselves as powerless over their environment.49 We discussed in Chapter 3 that core
self-evaluations relate to job satisfaction, because people positive on this trait see more challenge in their jobs
and actually attain more complex jobs.

People with positive CSE perform better than others because they set more ambitious goals, are more
committed to their goals, and persist longer in attempting to reach them. One study of life insurance agents
found core self-evaluations were critical predictors of performance. In fact, this study showed the majority of
successful salespersons did have positive CSE.50 Ninety percent of life insurance sales calls end in rejection, so
an agent has to believe in herself to persist. People who have high CSE provide better customer service, are
more popular coworkers, and have careers that begin on better footing and ascend more rapidly over time. 51
They perform especially well if they feel their work provides meaning and is helpful to others. 52

What happens when someone thinks he is capable but is actually incompetent? One study found that many
Fortune 500 CEOs are overcon ident, and their perceived infallibility often causes them to make bad
decisions.53 These CEOs may be overcon ident and have high CSE, but people with lower CSE may sell
themselves short and be less happy and effective than they might be because of it. If people decide they can’t
do something, they might not try, reinforcing their self-doubt.

Self-Monitoring
Zoe is always in trouble at work. Although she’s competent, hardworking, and productive, she is rated no better
than average in performance reviews, and she seems to have made a career of irritating her bosses. Zoe’s
problem is that she’s politically inept. She’s unable to adjust her behaviour to it changing situations. As she
said, “I’m true to myself. I don’t remake myself to please others.” In psychological terms, Zoe is a low self-
monitor.

Self-monitoring describes an individual’s ability to adjust her behaviour to external, situational factors. 54 High
self-monitors show considerable adaptability in adjusting their behaviour to external situational factors. They
are highly sensitive to external cues and can behave differently in varying situations, sometimes presenting
striking contradictions between their public persona and their private self. Low self-monitors like Zoe can’t
disguise themselves in that way. They tend to display their true dispositions and attitudes in every situation;
hence, there is high behavioural consistency between who they are and what they do.

9
Evidence indicates high self-monitors pay closer attention to the behaviour of others and are more capable of
conforming than are low self-monitors.55 High self-monitors also receive better performance ratings, are more
likely to emerge as leaders, and show less commitment to their organizations. 56 In addition, high self monitor
managers tend to be more mobile in their careers, receive more promotions (both internal and cross-
organizational), and be more likely to occupy central positions in organizations.57

Proac ve Personality
Did you ever notice that some people actively take the initiative to improve their current circumstances or
create new ones? These are proactive personalities.58 Those with a proactive personality identify
opportunities, show initiative, take action, and persevere until meaningful change occurs, compared to others
who passively react to situations. Proactive individuals have many desirable behaviours that organizations
covet. They also have higher levels of job performance and career success.59

Proactive personality may be important for work teams. One study of 95 research and development teams in
33 Chinese companies revealed that teams with high-average levels of proactive personality were more
innovative.60 Like other traits, proactive personality is affected by context. One study of bank branch teams in
China found that if a team’s leader was not proactive, the potential bene its of the team’s proactivity will lie
dormant or, worse, be suppressed by the leader.61

A recent study of 231 Flemish unemployed individuals found that proactive individuals abandoned their job
searches sooner. It may be that proactivity includes knowing when to step back and reconsider alternatives in
the face of failure.62

In short, while proactive personality may be important to individual and team performance, like all traits it
may have downsides, and its effectiveness may depend on the context. This brings us to the study of context
and personality. Do you think personality changes in various situations? Let’s explore this possibility.

PERSONALITY AND SITUATIONS

Earlier we discussed how research shows that heredity is more important than environment in developing our
personalities. The environment is not irrelevant, though. Some personality traits like the Big Five tend to be
effective in almost any environment or situation. For example, research indicates that conscientiousness is
helpful in the performance of most jobs, and extraversion is related to emergence as a leader in most situations.

Increasingly, we are learning that the effect of particular traits on organizational behaviour depends on the
situation. Two theoretical frameworks, situation strength and trait activation, help explain how this works.

Situa on Strength Theory

Imagine you are in a meeting with your department. How likely are you to walk out in the middle of the meeting,
shout at someone, turn your back on the group, or fall asleep? It’s probably highly unlikely. Now imagine
working from home. You might work in your pajamas, listen to loud music, or take a catnap.

Situation strength theory proposes that the way personality translates into behaviour depends on the
strength of the situation. By situation strength, we mean the degree to which norms, cues, or standards dictate
appropriate behaviour. Strong situations pressure us to exhibit the right behaviour, clearly show us what that
behaviour is, and discourage the wrong behaviour. In weak situations, conversely, “anything goes,” and thus
we are freer to express our personality in our behaviours. Thus, research suggests that personality traits better
predict behaviour in weak situations than in strong ones. Swearing is a simple example of this theory in action.
Aspects of personality including attention seeking, conservatism, and risk tolerance will in luence the degree
to which an individual tends to swear. Their behaviour, however, will also be constrained by the situation such
that they will be more likely to swear when casually hanging around with friends and less likely to when in a
classroom or in a meeting with their boss.

Researchers have analyzed situation strength in organizations in terms of four elements. 63

10
1. Clarity, or the degree to which cues about work duties and responsibilities are available and clear. Jobs
high in clarity produce strong situations because individuals can readily determine what to do. For example
an actor or cameraman’s duties are clear and unambiguous, while a movie producer’s role is less well
de ined and may include a range of activities from simply providing money to making casting and editing
choices.

2. Consistency, or the extent to which cues regarding work duties and responsibilities are compatible with
one another. Jobs with high consistency represent strong situations because all the cues point toward the
same desired behaviour. The job of manager often lacks consistency due to incompatible goals such as
maximizing employee well-being while reducing staff and associated costs.

3. Constraints, or the extent to which individuals’ freedom to decide or act is limited by forces outside their
control. Jobs with many constraints represent strong situations because an individual has limited
discretion. Accountants, for example, are constrained by international accounting regulations, while sales
representatives are free to use a wide range of strategies, tactics, and techniques.

4. Consequences, or the degree to which decisions or actions have important implications for the
organization or its members, clients, supplies, and so on. Jobs with important consequences represent
strong situations because the environment is probably heavily structured to guard against mistakes. A
surgeon’s job, for example, has higher consequences than a foreign-language teacher’s.

Some researchers have speculated that organizations are, by de inition, strong situations because they impose
rules, norms, and standards that govern behaviour. These constraints are usually appropriate. For example, we
would not want an employee to feel free to engage in sexual harassment, to follow questionable accounting
procedures, or to come to work only when the mood strikes. But that does not mean it is always desirable for
organizations to create strong situations for their employees. First, jobs with myriad rules and tightly

11
controlled processes can be dull or demotivating. Most of us prefer having some freedom to decide how to do
our work. Second, people do differ, so what works well for one person might work poorly for another. Third,
strong situations might suppress the creativity, initiative, and discretion prized by some cultures. One recent
study, for example, found that in weak organizational situations, employees were more likely to behave
proactively in accordance with their values.64 Finally, work is increasingly complex and interrelated globally.

Creating strong rules to govern complex, interrelated, and culturally diverse systems might be not only dif icult
but unwise. Managers need to recognize the role of situation strength in the workplace and ind the appropriate
balance.

Trait Ac va on Theory
Another important theoretical framework toward understanding situational activators for personality is trait
activation theory (TAT). TAT predicts that some situations, events, or interventions “activate” a trait more
than others. For example, a commission-based compensation plan would likely activate individual differences
in extraversion because extraversion is more reward-sensitive, than, say, openness to new experiences.
Conversely, the performance level of marketers developing new online advertising techniques would be more
likely to be correlated with their openness to new experiences than their extraversion scores.

A recent study applying TAT found that individual differences in the tendency to behave prosocially mattered
more when coworkers were not supportive. In other words, in a supportive environment, everyone behaves
prosocially, but in an environment that is not so nice, whether an individual has the personality to behave
prosocially makes a major difference.65

Together, situation strength and trait activation theories show that the debate over nature versus nurture
might best be framed as nature and nurture. Not only does each affect behaviour, but they interact with one
another. Put another way, personality affects work behaviour and the situation affects work behaviour, but
when the situation is right, the power of personality to predict behaviour is even higher.

Having discussed personality traits—the enduring characteristics that describe a person’s behaviour—we now
turn to values. Values are often very speci ic and describe belief systems rather than behavioural tendencies.
Some beliefs or values say little about a person’s personality, and we don’t always act consistently with our
values.

VALUES
Is assisted suicide right or wrong? Is a desire for power good or bad? The answers to these questions are value-
laden.

Values represent basic convictions that “a speci ic mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or
socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence.” 66 Values contain a
judgmental element because they carry an individual’s ideas about what is right, good, or desirable. We all have
a hierarchy according to the relative importance we assign to values such as freedom, pleasure, self-respect,
honesty, obedience, and equality.

Values tend to be relatively stable and enduring.67 Many of the values we hold are established in our early
years—by parents, teachers, friends, and others. As children, we are told certain behaviours or outcomes are
always desirable or always undesirable, with few grey areas. You were never taught to be just a little bit honest
or a little bit respectful toward elders, for example. It is this absolute, black-or-white characteristic of values
that ensures their stability and endurance. (That does not imply that we always act on our values in an absolute
manner. We may choose to lie, for example, but we are aware that we are doing something wrong when we do
it and most people will feel some level of guilt or anxiety about compromising their values.) If we question our
values, they may change, but more often they are reinforced. There is also evidence linking personality to
values.68 Open people, for example, may be more politically liberal, whereas conscientious people may place a

12
greater value on rules ensuring safe or ethical conduct. To explore the topic further, we will discuss the
importance and organization of values next.

The Importance and Organiza on of Values

Values lay the foundation for our understanding of people’s attitudes and motivation, and they in luence our
perceptions. We enter an organization with preconceived notions of what “ought” and “ought not” to be. These
notions are not value-free; on the contrary, they contain our interpretations of right and wrong and our
preference for certain behaviours or outcomes over others. While values can sometimes augment decision
making, at times they can also cloud objectivity and rationality.69 Regardless of whether they clarify or bias our
judgment, our values do in luence our attitudes and behaviours at work.

Suppose you enter an organization with the view that allocating pay on the basis of performance is right, while
allocating pay on the basis of seniority is wrong. How will you react if you ind the organization you’ve just
joined rewards seniority and not performance? You’re likely to be disappointed—this can lead to job
dissatisfaction and a decision not to exert a high level of effort because “It’s probably not going to lead to more
money anyway.” Would your attitudes and behaviour be different if your values aligned with the organization’s
pay policies? Most likely.

Terminal Versus Instrumental Values

How can we organize values? One researcher—Milton Rokeach—argued that we can separate values into two
categories. One set, called terminal values, refers to desirable endstates. These are the goals a person would
like to achieve during his lifetime. The other set, called instrumental values, refers to preferable modes of
behaviour, or means of achieving the terminal values. Some examples of terminal values are prosperity and
economic success, freedom, health and well-being, world peace, and meaning in life. Examples of Instrumental
values are autonomy and self-reliance, personal discipline, kindness, and goal-orientation. Each of us places
value on both the ends (terminal values) and the means (instrumental values). A balance between the two is
important, as well as an understanding of how to strike this balance. Which terminal and instrumental values
are especially key vary by the person.

So far, we’ve discussed personality and values separately, including some organizational implications for each.
As you can see, inding a it between an individual person and an optimal work situation is complex. A few
theories we discuss in the next section help link an individual’s personality and values to jobs and organizations.

LINKING AN INDIVIDUAL’S PERSONALITY AND VALUES TO THE

WORKPLACE
Thirty years ago, organizations were concerned only with personality because their primary focus was to match
individuals to speci ic jobs. That concern has expanded to include how well the individual’s personality and
values match the organization. Why? Because managers today are less interested in an applicant’s ability to
perform a speci ic job than with the applicant’s lexibility to meet changing situations and commitment to the
organization. We’ll now discuss person–job it and person–organization it in more detail.

Person–Job Fit
The effort to match job requirements with personality characteristics is best articulated in John Holland’s
personality–job it theory.70 Holland presents six personality types and proposes that satisfaction and the
propensity to leave a position depend on how well individuals match their personalities to a job. Exhibit 5-2
describes the six types, their personality characteristics, and examples of the congruent occupations for each.

13
 EXHIBIT 5-3 Rela onships Among Occupa onal Personality Types
Source: Reprinted by special permission of the publisher, Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.,
from Making Voca onal Choices, copyright 1973, 1985, 1992 by Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
All rights reserved.

Holland developed the Vocational Preference Inventory questionnaire, which contains 160 occupational titles.
Respondents indicate which they like or dislike, and their answers form personality pro iles. Research supports
the resulting hexagonal diagram shown in Exhibit 5-3.71 The closer two ields or orientations are in the hexagon,
the more compatible they are. Adjacent categories are quite similar, whereas diagonally opposite ones are
highly dissimilar.

What does all this mean? Personality–job it theory argues that satisfaction is highest and turnover lowest when
personality and occupation are in agreement. A realistic person in a realistic job is in a more congruent situation
than a realistic person in an investigative job. A realistic person in a social job is in the most incongruent
situation possible. The key point of this model is that people in jobs congruent with their personality should be
more satis ied and less likely to voluntarily resign than people in incongruent jobs.

Person–Organiza on Fit
We’ve noted that researchers have looked at matching people to organizations and jobs. If an organization faces
a dynamic and changing environment and needs employees able to readily change tasks and move easily

14
between teams, it’s more important that employees’ personalities it with the overall organization’s culture
than with the characteristics of any speci ic job.

The person–organization it theory essentially argues that people are attracted to and selected by organizations
that match their values, and they leave organizations that are not compatible with their personalities. 72 Using
the Big Five terminology, for instance, we could expect that people high on extraversion it well with aggressive
and team-oriented cultures, people high on agreeableness match up better with a supportive organizational
climate than one focused on aggressiveness, and people high on openness to experience it better in
organizations that emphasize innovation rather than standardization.73 Following these guidelines at the time
of hiring should identify new employees who it better with the organization’s culture, which should, in turn,
result in higher employee satisfaction and reduced turnover. Research on person–organization it has also
looked at whether people’s values match the organization’s culture. This match predicts job satisfaction,
commitment to the organization, and low turnover.74

Are person–job it and person–organization it more applicable in some countries than others? Apparently yes.
Research indicated that person–job it was a strong predictor of lower turnover in the United States, but a
combination of person–organization it and other factors strongly predicted lower turnover in India.75 These
indings may be generalizable for individualistic countries like the United States, and collectivistic countries
like India, but more research is needed to understand the exact relationship.

INTERNATIONAL VALUES
Unlike personality, which as we have seen is largely genetically determined, values are learned from our
environments. Values are also shared between people
and passed down from one generation to the next. For
these reasons, different value systems have developed Values do appear to vary across cultures,
over time in each national culture. As researchers have meaning that, on average, people’s values in
sought to understand the national value system one na on tend to differ from those in
differences, two important frameworks that have another; however, there is substan al
emerged are from Geert Hofstede and the GLOBE
variability in values within a culture.
studies.

Hofstede’s Framework
One of the most widely referenced approaches for analyzing variations among cultures was done in the late
1970s by Geert Hofstede.76 Hofstede surveyed more than 116,000 IBM employees in 40 countries about their
work-related values and found that managers and employees vary on ive value dimensions of national culture:

■ Power distance. Power distance describes the degree to which people in a country accept that power in
institutions and organizations is distributed unequally. A highrating on power distance means that large
inequalities of power and wealth exist and are tolerated in the culture, as in a class or caste system that
discourages upward mobility. A low power distance rating characterizes societies that stress equality and
opportunity.
■ Individualism versus collectivism. Individualism is the degree to which people prefer to act as
individuals rather than as members of groups and believe in individual rights above all else. Collectivism
emphasizes a tight social framework in which people expect others in groups of which they are a part to
look after them and protect them.
■ Masculinity versus femininity. Hofstede’s construct of masculinity is the degree to which the culture
favours stereotypically masculine values such as achievement, power, and control, as opposed to
stereotypically feminine values such as social harmony. A high masculinity rating indicates the culture has
separate roles for each gender and endorses competitive, assertive behaviours, particularly among men. A
high femininity rating means the culture sees little differentiation between gender roles and endorses
communal, nurturing behaviours.
■ Uncertainty avoidance. The degree to which people in a country prefer structured over unstructured
situations de ines their uncertainty avoidance. In cultures that score high on uncertainty avoidance,
people have an increased level of anxiety about uncertainty and ambiguity and use laws and controls to

15
 reduce uncertainty. People in cultures low on uncertainty avoidance are more accepting of ambiguity, are
less rule-oriented, take more risks, and more readily accept change.
■ Long-term versus short-term orientation. This newer addition to Hofstede’s typology measures a
society’s devotion to traditional values. People in a culture with long-term orientation look to the future
and value thrift, persistence, and tradition. In a shortterm orientation, people value the here and now;
they accept change more readily and don’t see commitments as impediments to change.

How do different countries score on Hofstede’s dimensions? The variation is immense. For example, power
distance is higher in Malaysia than in any other country, and lowest in Austria. The United States is the most
individualistic nation of all (closely followed by Australia and Great Britain). Guatemala is the most collectivistic
nation. The country with the highest masculinity rank by far is Japan, and the country with the highest
femininity rank is Sweden. Greece scores the highest in uncertainty avoidance, while Singapore scores the
lowest. Hong Kong has one of the longest-term orientations; Pakistan has the shortestterm orientation. To see
the full value pro iles of some of Canada’s key trading partners and the nations that provide large numbers of
immigrants to Canada refer to Exhibit 5-4. Pro iles for other nations are available online.

English-speaking Canada has a pro ile similar to many other wealthy Commonwealth nations, including
Australia, Great Britain, and New Zealand. Anglophone Canadians score high in individualism and relatively
high in masculinity, indicating a society focused on personal achievement, material wealth, competition, and
prestige. Anglophone Canadians tend to score in the lower middle range in uncertainty avoidance and the lower
end in power distance, indicating an equity-focused society willing to take responsible risks. Francophone
Canadians have a similar pro ile, with some subtle differences. French-Canadians score higher in power
distance and lower in individualism; As a result they tend to be more formal and hierarchical. They score lower
in masculinity and higher in uncertainty avoidance, indicating that Francophones as a group tend to be more
relationship-focused, emotionally expressive, and risk-averse than Anglophone Canadians.

Hofstede did not collect data from First Nations peoples, so their cultural value pro ile is not included here.
Some insights into their cultural values appear later in this chapter. Hofstede’s culture dimensions have been
enormously in luential on OB researchers and managers, and he has been one of the most widely cited social
scientists ever. Nevertheless, his research has been criticized. First, although the data has been updated, the
original work is more than 40 years old and was based on a single company (IBM). A lot has happened on the
world scene since then. Some of the most obvious changes include the fall of the Soviet Union, the
transformation of central and eastern Europe, the end of apartheid in South Africa, the rise of China as a global
power, and the advent of a worldwide recession. These changes would more than likely shift some of the
cultural values that Hofstede’s framework assesses. Second, few researchers have read the details of Hofstede’s
methodology closely and they are therefore unaware of the many decisions and judgment calls he had to make
(for example, reducing the number of cultural values to just ive).

16
 EXHIBIT 5-4 Hofstede’s Cultural Values by Nation: A Sampling of Country Pro iles
Notes: Scores range from 0 = extremely low on dimension to 100 = extremely high. 1 = highest rank. LTO ranks: 1 = China; 15–16 = Bangladesh;
21 = Poland; 34 = lowest.
Source: Copyright Geert Hofstede BV, hofstede@bart.nl. Reprinted with permission.

Research across 598 studies with more than 200,000 respondents investigated the relationship between
Hofstede’s cultural values and a variety of organizational criteria at both the individual and national level of
analysis.77 Overall, the ive original culture dimensions were found to be equally strong predictors of relevant
outcomes. The researchers also found that measuring individual scores resulted in much better predictions of
most outcomes than assigning all people in a country the same cultural values. In sum, this research suggests
that Hofstede’s framework may be a valuable way of thinking about differences among people, but we should
be cautious about assuming all people from a country have the same values.

The GLOBE Framework

Begun in 1993, the Global Leadership and Organizational Behaviour Effectiveness (GLOBE) research program
is an ongoing cross-cultural investigation of leadership and national culture. Using data from 825 organizations
in 62 countries, the GLOBE team has identi ied nine dimensions on which national cultures differ.78 Some
dimensions—such as power distance, individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and future
orientation (similar to long-term versus short-term orientation)—resemble the Hofstede dimensions. The
main difference is that the GLOBE framework added dimensions, such as humane orientation (the degree to
which a society rewards individuals for being altruistic, generous, and kind to others) and performance
orientation (the degree to which a society encourages and rewards group members for performance
improvement and excellence). The GLOBE studies also separated out Hofstede’s masculinity dimension into
two distinct values: gender equality, meaning the support for equality between men and women in society, and
assertiveness, meaning the social acceptability of dominant, forceful behaviours.

Comparison of Hofstede’s Framework and the GLOBE Framework

Which framework is better, Hofstede’s or GLOBE’s? That’s hard to say, and each has its supporters. It is
important to note that both frameworks result in similar pro iles. Put another way, you will get similar results
and country value groupings regardless of which one you use. The only two countries whose scores differed

17
markedly between the Hofstede and GLOBE studies were Brazil and Israel. In the former case the
subpopulations studied were from different cultural groups within Brazil and in the latter case immigration
signi icantly changed the ethnic pro ile of the nation in the intervening years, from a primarily European Jewish
population to a more diverse population including many Middle Eastern and Northern African Jewish people.

Overall we give more emphasis to Hofstede’s dimensions here, because they have stood the test of time and the
GLOBE study con irmed them. For example, a review of the organizational commitment literature found that
the Hofstede and the GLOBE individualism/collectivism dimensions operated similarly. Speci ically, both
frameworks suggest that organizational commitment (discussed earlier) tends to be lower in individualistic
countries.79 Both frameworks thus have a great deal in common, and each has something unique to offer.

Our Primary Trading Partner: Key U.S./Canadian Differences

It is important to learn about many different cultures; but the United States is Canada’s largest trading partner,
so it is especially important to be aware of cultural differences between that country and Canada. The following
table summarizes some key cultural differences identi ied by the Environics Institute for Survey Research.80
These differences will in luence negotiating tactics, compensation system design, motivational strategies, and
day-today workplace behaviours in various ways. For example, the disparity in pay between the top earner in
a company, such as the CEO, and the bottom earner, such as a labourer, will generally be much greater in an
American irm than a Canadian irm. See Exhibit 5-5.

Na ons Within Na ons: Aboriginal Values in the Canadian Context

Canada includes many different Aboriginal cultures, none of which were examined in the Hofstede and GLOBE
studies. There is immense cultural variation across bands. Most notably, some bands are matrilineal and
emphasize communal behaviours while others are patrilineal and emphasize a warrior ethos similar to what
Hofstede termed “masculinity.” Even with these differences, however, there are common cultural themes.
Aboriginal cultures tend to be more collectivist, with an emphasis on participative decision-making processes.
This is often described as having “power with” rather than “power over.” Relationship building and reaching
consensus are more important than ef iciency. Direct personal confrontation is avoided; in fact,
noninterference in the lives of others is a key cultural value. Formalized respect for elders is also an important
part of most Aboriginal cultures.81

18
Accultura on and Biculturalism: Immigrant Adjustment and Changes in Values
Cultural value pro iles become more complex when individuals are exposed to multiple cultures. There is
evidence that our core values are formed early in life and stabilize between the ages of 11 to 14. Children
routinely exposed to two or more cultures from a very early age are likely to adopt a blended value system, or
be truly bicultural or even multicultural.82 There is evidence that older people, however, go through
acculturation. Acculturation is de ined as the process by which individuals change as a result of being
in luenced by contact with another culture.83 Early conceptualizations of acculturation focused on the
immigrant’s receptiveness to the social norms and values of the host country, which were impacted by personal
characteristics such as language ability, age at time of migration, and duration of stay in the host country. 84 A
researcher named Berry extended the concept of acculturation by de ining it on the basis of the degree to which
immigrants are willing to adapt to the dominant culture/values and the degree to which they want to maintain
their own ethnic culture and values. This conceptualization led to the identi ication of four possible
acculturation orientations: integration, marginalization, assimilation, and separation. Members of the host
culture will also have expectations regarding the degree to which immigrants will integrate or maintain their
home culture and values, which in luence outcomes.85 If the expectations of the immigrants and the members
of the host culture both support assimilation then immigrants are more likely to change their value orientations
over time as a result of exposure to the new culture. Those focused on integration will maintain some of their
old values and adopt some new ones. Groups who experience separation generally maintain the values of their
prior culture, as do marginalized individuals and groups.

SUMMARY
■ Personality matters to organizational behaviour. It does not explain all behaviour, but it sets the stage.
■ Emerging theory and research reveal how personality matters more in some situations than in others.
■ The Big Five has been a particularly important advancement in our understanding of personality; it, along
with the Dark Triad and other traits impact workplace behaviours and attitudes.
■ Every trait has advantages and disadvantages for work behaviour, and there is no perfect constellation of
traits that is ideal for every situation.
■ Personality can help you to understand why people (including you!) act, think, and feel the way we do, and
the astute manager can put that understanding to use by taking care to place employees in situations that
best it their personality.
■ Values often underlie and explain attitudes, behaviours, and perceptions. Values tend to vary
internationally along dimensions that can predict organizational outcomes; however, an individual may or
may not hold values that are consistent with the values of the national culture.

IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGERS

■ Consider screening job candidates for high conscientiousness—as well as the other Big Five traits,
depending on the criteria your organization inds most important. Other traits, such as core self-evaluation
or narcissism, may be relevant in certain situations.
■ Although the MBTI has faults, you can use it in training and development to help employees better
understand themselves, help team members better understand each other, and open up communication in
work groups and possibly reduce con licts.
■ You need to evaluate your employees’ jobs, their work groups, and your organization to determine the
optimal personality it.
■ Take into account employees’ situational factors when evaluating their observable personality traits, and
lower the situation strength to better ascertain personality characteristics.
■ The indings from Hofstede’s work and the GLOBE program underscore the need for managers to
understand the cultural values of their employees. The more you take into consideration people’s different
cultures, the better you will be able to determine their work behaviour and create a positive organizational
climate that performs well.

19