Introduction
The focus of this assignment is to identify
the effectiveness and usefulness, as well as criticism of the Big Five
Personality Test. This psychological test aims to measure one’s personality.
The administrators who helped the author facilitate the survey process and the
owner/manager who was interviewed provided statements for and against this
test. The respondents/employees, on the other hand, commented on the process
itself.
The idea for this assignment to utilize
the Big Five Personality Test grew out of my belief that people have long term,
dispositional traits that influence their behavior in work settings. I believe
that there are meaningful relationships between individuals' personalities and
performance outcomes at work. While psychologists have traditionally viewed
personality testing as contributing little to the prediction of job
performance, recent development of the `big five' personality constructs has
shown that personality tests can be valid predictors of performance and may add
significant incremental validity to tests of cognitive ability. I think that
the use of the Big Five framework in testing personality provides a solid
foundation for investigating personality-performance relationship.
The Big Five Personality Test
During the past three decades the
view that personality is a poor predictor of job performance has become
established among many occupational psychologists in
Guion and Gottier (1965) found that
tests developed for specific purposes were more predictive of performance than
tests scored with standardised algorithms. Moreover, personality tests designed
to measure "normal" behavioural traits are likely to improve the
development of logical links between job requirements, personality measurement,
and performance (Rosse, Miller, & Barnes, 1991).
In reading the literature
pertaining to the structure of personality, it shows that while there is not
unanimous agreement among researchers, the views of a number of personality
psychologists are converging on five basic factors of personality
(Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to
Experience). Particularly impressive is the evidence showing that these five
factors have been obtained in different cultures, with different languages, using
different instruments and with different theoretical frameworks. In my opinion,
this is the missing link in studies seeking to understand
personality-performance relationships. This has provided a useful taxonomy in
which to identify consistent and meaningful relationships between personality
traits and performance criteria for different occupations.
The five-factor model of
personality is based upon peer ratings using ordinary trait vocabulary (Digman,
1990). While a number of researchers have claimed to successfully identify a
larger number of major personality traits, these five dimensions have proved to
be replicable over different theoretical frameworks, using different
instruments, and with ratings obtained from different sources, a variety of samples,
and with a high degree of generality.
In brief, Extraversion is marked by
sociability, energy, and a buoyant frame of mind. Neuroticism is the
inclination towards expressing anxiety, anger, depression, and other negative
affects. Agreeableness is a tendency towards altruism, trust, and sympathy.
Conscientiousness is characterised by self-discipline, order, reliability, and
foresight. And Openness is characterised by objectivity, need for variety, and
curiosity. According to McCrae and Costa (1987), these dimensions are
relatively independent of cognitive ability measures. Personality tests tap
into performance variance beyond that which can be explained by cognitive tests
alone (Driskell, Hogan, Salas, & Hoskin, 1994).
Inconsistencies in research findings
highlight the need for precise and differentiated research on personality-job
performance links (Goldberg, 1993). The poor validity of many job performance
measures, and summarising of criterion-related validities across either
predictor or criterion constructs, obscures the usefulness of personality
scales (Hough, 1992). Furthermore, the relationship between personality and
performance is susceptible to the moderating variables of performance criterion
and job type (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
While the five-factor model has
demonstrated the usefulness of personality for selection, the `big five'
themselves may in fact be too broad to have predictive usefulness among job
applicants (e.g., McAdams, 1992). Hough (1992) found nine factors to be more
appropriate than the "big five". Saville, Nyfield, Sik, and Hackston
(1991; cited in Schmit & Ryan, 1993) found specific facets of the `big
five' constructs were better predictors than the broader global measures.
Schmit and Ryan (1993) have
identified an "ideal employee" factor based upon work-related facets,
further suggesting that the `big five' model may be inappropriate for personnel
selection. Their ideal employee factor included mainly Conscientiousness items
but also items from the other four broad dimensions. Personality tests designed
to measure middle-level traits within the big five may better account for
different personality requirements between occupational groups (Schmit &
Ryan, 1993) than instruments designed to only assess the broader `big five' dimensions.
Methodology
For
this assignment, I conducted a survey and interview. As I am only concerned on
how the respondents view the Big Five Personality Test in terms of
effectiveness, the results are not discussed. The use of the questionnaire would
provide the researcher the ability to test the views and attitudes of the
respondents. The distribution and collation methods used to manage the
questionnaire process would ensure anonymity.
Twenty-five employees from a small company
(retail) participated in the survey. The owner and manager of the business is a
friend of the author, so it was never difficult to access its human
resource. Despite this, the author
issued a letter of consent, containing the purpose of the survey. Further, the
author made sure that the employees completely understand what was to be done.
A random sampling was conducted. During their break, the respondents were
divided into five groups. Each group was facilitated by a member of my team. We
encouraged the respondents to clarify statements that were not clear. After
answering the questionnaires, we had a brief focus group to find out how they
view the survey process. The respondents were told that the purpose of the test
was to measure their personality; and that the management (owner) had nothing
to do with it. They were told that it was part of the author’s assignment.
Prior to the survey process, the author
selected four colleagues to help in administering. They were told as to what
this assignment intended to accomplish. The administrators did not need to be
trained because they had previous experience in such research process. As part
of the objective of this assignment, the administrators were asked about their
view on the test.
For the interview part, open-ended
questions were used to obtain as much information as possible about how the
interviewee feels about the research topic. The owner/manager of the small
business was also interviewed. The interviews took 45 minutes. The questions
were based on the questions for this assignment: how effective is the Big Five
Personality Test in terms of the effects of personality on performance. Here, the researcher encouraged the interviewee to
clarify vague statements and to further elaborate on brief comments. The
researcher did not share personal beliefs and opinions.
To determine how the respondents perceive their own
personality, the researcher prepared a questionnaire that was based directly on
the Big Five Personality Test. The questionnaire was a 48-item test. This test
aimed to measure the respondents’ personality in terms of Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience. The
structured questionnaire was based on a Likert scale, a rating scale that
requires the subject to indicate his or her degree of agreement or disagreement
with a statement. The respondents would grade each statement in the
survey-questionnaire using a Likert scale with a five-response scale wherein
respondents would be given five response choices.
By rating scale we mean the
scales that are usually used to measure attitudes towards an object, the degree
to which an object contains a particular attribute, toward some attribute, or
the importance attached to an attribute. Rating scales require the rate to
place an attribute of the object being rated at some point along a numerically
valued continuum or in one of a numerically ordered series of categories. The
equivalent weights for the answers would be: 1- Strongly Disagree, 2- Disagree,
3- Neither Disagree nor Agree, 4- Agree, 5- Strongly Agree.
For
validation purposes, the author initially submitted the sample of the set of
survey questionnaires to some of her peers; and after approval, the survey was
initially conducted to five respondents. After the questions were answered, the
author asked the respondents for any items that were not clear to them to
ensure further improvement and validity of the instrument. The researcher again examined the content of
the interview questions to clear vague statements. Afterwards, the author
changed words that would be deemed difficult by the respondents, to much
simpler terms. The author excluded the five respondents who were initially used
for the validation of the instrument.
In/Effectiveness of the
Device
This section presents the
merits as well as criticisms of the Big Five Personality Test as viewed by the
administrators; the importance of this test for the owner/manager of the small
company; and the comments of the employees.
Administrators
Mr. D states that the results
of the study may enhance understanding and contribute to the theoretical
development of causal models explaining job performance. He believes
Conscientiousness to be the important trait-oriented motivation variable that
has long eluded I-O psychologists. This meant that there are now two
dispositional predictors in our field whose validity generalizes: general
mental ability and conscientiousness.
Ms. A argues that if
prediction rather than description is important, the Big Five may not be an
adequate taxonomy. She suggests that the Big Five is not an adequate taxonomy
of personality variables for predicting important criteria. Mr. B adds that the
Big Five constructs are too heterogeneous and incomplete. Moreover, he noted a
study by Houggh (1992) that provides evidence of different patterns of
criterion-related validity for at least nine personality constructs. If only
the Big Five personality constructs are used, he says, several important
differences in the criterion-related validities of Dependability, Achievement,
Potency, and Affiliation are obscured and the usefulness of the taxonomy
thereby diminished. According to him, the constructs Locus of control and
Rugged Individualism are important predictors of important life outcomes and
are missing entirely from the Big Five. If prediction of life outcomes or
criteria is important in evaluating personality taxonomies, the Big Five is an
inadequate taxonomy of personality constructs.
The Owner/Manager
Personality tests such as the
Big Five Personality Test are beneficial to any business as research has found
that personality has something to do with job performance. According to the
owner/manager, the strength of the test lies in the positive correlation of one
of the Big Five dimensions, Conscientiousness, with job performance.
Individuals who are dependable, persistent, goal directed and organized tend to
be higher performers on virtually any job; viewed negatively, those who are
careless, irresponsible, low achievement striving and impulsive tend to be lower
performers on virtually any job.
In addition, extraversion was
a valid predictor for two occupations, managers and sales, where interactions
with others are a significant portion of the job. Thus, traits such as being
sociable, talkative, assertive, and energetic contribute to performance in such
jobs. Extraversion and Openness to Experience were valid predictors of training
proficiency across occupations. Being active, sociable, and open to new
experiences may lead individuals to be more involved in training and,
consequently, learn more. This test, according to the owner/manager, no matter
what job one is selecting for, if the employer wants employees who will turn
out to be good performers, he or she should hire those who work smarter and
work harder.
Employees
As
for the employees, they felt that the survey was not a big deal. It was as if
they were only answering something that had not significance at all. When asked
how they found the process, the problems they encountered, if there is any,
majority of them said that the questionnaire was easy to understand and answer.
With regard to privacy, a respondent/employee stated that the survey did not
require them to provide very personal information. Thus, according to him,
there was no need for anonymity. What alarmed the author was when an employee
joked that if it were not for my assignment, he would fake his answers. He said
that if the management were the one who conducted the test, of course he would
lie so as to provide a more positive answer.
References
Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five
personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence
of the five-factor model. Annual Review of
Psychology, 41, 417-440.
Driskell, J.E., Hogan, J., Salas, E., & Hoskin, B.
(1994). Cognitive and personality predictors of training performance. Military Psychology, 6(1). 31-46
Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic
personality traits. American Psychologist,
48, 26-34.
Guion, R.M., & Gottier, R.F. (1965). Validity of
personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135-164.
Hogan, R. & Nicholson, R. (1988). The meaning of
personality test scores. American Psychologist,
43, 621-626.
Hough, L.M. (1992). The "big five"
personality variables-construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139-155.
McAdams, D.P. (1992). The five-factor model in
personality: A critical appraisal. Journal
of Personality, 60, 329-361.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. (1987).
Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and
observers. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.
Rosse, J.G., Miller, H.E., & Barnes, L.K. (1991).
Combining personality and cognitive ability predictors for hiring
service-oriented employees. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 5(4), 431-445.
No comments:
Post a Comment