Perfect Personality Profiles (2 page)

People have different levels of motivation for work and different things satisfy them. Some people work only for the pay and have little interest in the job itself. Obviously, some jobs are intrinsically more interesting than others, but some people are more likely than others to gain satisfaction from a task, no matter what it is. They gain satisfaction from a job well done, whether it is a happy customer, a problem solved, a project delivered on time or a clean floor. People can find motivation in interacting with others, working in a team, helping someone else, solving a problem, working out how something functions, wielding power and responsibility, being active and in many other ways.

Different jobs and organizations have a different potential to satisfy these personal needs. Jason, who likes achievements, might prefer a job with difficult goals and targets to reach. Jacinta might find constant striving for targets annoying or anxiety provoking. She might prefer a role where the pace of work was more measured and predictable, where she felt confident that she could accomplish everything that was needed and not have to worry about whether she could achieve what was required. Jason might find a job in sales with targets to achieve each month satisfying but an administrative job keeping records rather boring. Jacinta might find the administrative job appropriate and hate working in the sales environment. The way each person felt about a role would affect how they performed. All things being equal, it is likely that each person would work best in the role that best suited their personal style. It is, therefore, in both the employer’s and the job seeker’s interest to place people in jobs that suit their motivation and personality.

Working in a job that does not suit your personality generally requires more energy than one that is more in line with how you naturally behave. As an example of this consider Joanna and Josh, two tourist guides. Joanna, who is generally extroverted, likes talking to people and being the centre of attention, is happier in her work as a guide than Josh, who is naturally rather shy and is slow to develop a relationship when meeting new people. Josh has lots of interesting information to impart, but he can be perceived as a little cold and detached by those listening. He makes an effort to seem bright and entertaining to others and to amuse the group with jokes and humorous stories, and this does make his performance more successful. However, it is an effort for him, and at the end of the day he feels quite exhausted with putting on this act. When he is tired he finds it more difficult to maintain the façade and therefore becomes even less successful. Joanna, the more extrovert person, finds being bubbly and amusing quite natural and comes over to the group as warmer and more interested in them – at least superficially. It costs her little effort to be lively – in fact, she usually finds it energizing and ends the day on a high. The group enjoy Joanna’s more natural performance more than Josh’s efforts. Thus the person whose behavioural style best suits the job performs better in the role and gets more satisfaction from doing it. This is a win – win situation for the employer and employee. The person who is less suited to the role in terms of personality enjoys it less and produces a reduced level of performance, and this is a less good outcome for both the employer and the employee.

Personality style also affects the ease with which someone might learn the new behaviours required in a role. In sales or customer service roles staff need to learn how to interact with people, perhaps how to deal with a difficult customer, how to handle a complaint and how to close a sale. All of these require interacting with other people and influencing them to modify their behaviour or attitude – become less aggressive, less angry or agree the purchase. There are techniques that are helpful in these situations, and with training anyone can become better at handling them. However, a person who is naturally comfortable interacting and influencing others is likely to find it easier to pick up such techniques and use them effectively than someone who is less outgoing or more task focused than people focused. The person with a personality that suits the requirements of the role is likely to take more away from training of this kind than the person who finds these behaviours more alien.

The examples so far are based on jobs that require interaction with people, and they contrasted people who are more extrovert with those who are more introvert. However, similar examples can be found that reflect other personality characteristics. For instance, some people are more rigid in their approach, preferring to do things according to the rules and to work in a consistent manner, whereas others are quite flexible, like to try different approaches, tend to ignore rules and do things as the feeling takes them. The former are better suited to roles where it is important to follow rules and structures – where there are health and safety procedures that must be followed, for example. They are likely to learn procedures more easily and will naturally follow them once they know them. On the other hand, they will feel uncomfortable in less structured jobs where there are no set procedures and everyone finds their own way of doing things or where they are dealing with constant change. The more flexible people will feel comfortable in this type of role but are likely to feel constrained when they are working in a more rule-bound environment. They are more likely to break rules or skip some stages in a task, and this could lead to errors or even serious accidents. Studies have shown that people with some personality characteristics are more likely to have driving and work-related accidents. When health and safety officers investigate accidents they frequently find that lack of concern for procedures is in large measure to blame. Even where there are other contributing factors, such as faulty materials or equipment, the accident could often have been avoided had proper procedures been followed. For instance, a recent marine accident investigation found two crew members on a fishing boat were hurt when they fell over 4 metres from lifting gear, which they had used to get them out of the hold. Using the lifting gear was quicker and required less effort, but was much more risky than climbing the portable ladder that was the safe (and prescribed) way of exiting the hold. People who are adventurous and risk taking in their personality are much more likely to take this kind of dangerous short cut than those who are cautious and follow rules.

Personality is not the only determinant of behaviour. Extroverts are more lively and talkative, and introverts tend to be quieter and more reflective. While some people are more extrovert than others, we all behave in a more extrovert manner in some situations than in others. When they are with close friends or family, people are more likely to be lively and talkative and share amusing stories; at work we may behave in a more formal manner, and at a job interview a person may talk only to answer questions. If you were to observe a teacher giving a lesson to a (well-behaved) class, it might seem that the teacher was the extrovert – doing all the talking, moving around the room, initiating interactions with the students. The students would seem like introverts sitting quietly listening, speaking only when asked.

However, the initial impression is likely to be false. Both the teacher’s and the students’ behaviour are determined largely by the situation – that is, how it is appropriate to behave in class if you are a teacher and if you are a student. It is not possible to determine from this type of observation the personalities of the students or the teacher. If we were to examine the people’s behaviour more closely we might gain some more clues, but these also could be misleading. An extrovert teacher might tend to focus more on the individuals being taught, whereas an introvert might be more detached and less connected with the individual class members. But an experienced introvert teacher might have learned that it is important to maintain a connection with the class and make an effort to do so. Extrovert class members may find it more difficult to sit still and listen, and their discomfort with their role might be evident through fidgeting or other signs of restlessness. They may be quicker to respond to the teacher’s questions and more likely to take opportunities to interact with others or contribute and speak up when doing so. On the other hand, an introvert student might be bored with the topic and also restless or have a high need to please others and therefore be willing to contribute when called on to do so.

If we consider the way we behave, particularly at work, far more of what we do is determined by the situation – the demands of the job or the expectations of our supervisor, colleagues or customers – than by anything to do with our own personality. When we speak and when we are silent, whether we sit still or move around, how much we help others, what we spend time thinking about, even how we dress and how we speak – these are all constrained by the requirements of the work we do and the organization we work for.

If situations were the only determinant of our behaviour personality would not be a very important factor in the way people perform jobs. However, this is not the case. After the basic ability and skills of the job – word processing, cooking, dentistry, for example – research suggests that personality is the next most important indicator of suitability for a job. This is because although we can all moderate our behaviour to fit the needs of a situation, it can be hard to maintain the change over an extended period. The ‘true’ personality tends to come out, particularly in times of difficulty, fatigue or stress. The waiter who has been pleasant and attentive becomes tacitum and apathetic as the shift progresses; the computer programmer starts to lose concentration and make coding errors when a deadline is approaching.

Someone whose personality suits the role can behave naturally, but the person whose personality does not match the requirements of a role has to act a part, and this takes energy. Some roles require taking calculated risks. For instance, a buyer for a department store has to make the decision in summer about what quantity of winter coats to order for the next season, but the number sold will depend on how cold the winter will be and when the cold weather arrives. Order too few, and the store will miss out on potential sales; order too many, and the store will be left with stock it cannot sell. A buyer who is risk averse will find this type of decision very stressful and may tend to err on the side of caution or spend too much time seeking more information and therefore postpone the decision, leading to increased costs or delayed delivery dates. Someone who is a moderate risk taker will probably deal with the situation more easily, and because they experience less anxiety about the decisions they will be able to focus on what is known about the situation (trends in previous years, the accuracy of long-term weather forecasts, the quality of the goods on offer and so on) and not be distracted by worrying about things that cannot be known. Of course, an extreme risk taker might not make good decisions by tending to underestimate the potential downside of decisions. So, while anyone with the appropriate knowledge and experience could make the necessary decisions, someone with the most appropriate personality characteristics would be more likely to make a good decision and would feel comfortable with the need to make decisions when, of necessity, many of the facts are unknown.

Overall, the appropriate skills, knowledge and experience and/or the ability to learn them will be most important when selecting people for jobs, but after this the person’s personality will be the next most important thing for ensuring a superior level of performance.

Personality can be important in judging if a person will be successful in doing a job, but it can also be relevant to determining how well a person will fit into a particular organization. Every company or organization has its own culture, its own way of doing things. Some organizations are very friendly, egalitarian and informal. Others may be more structured and hierarchical. In some companies people are expected to spend time helping other employees with their work, while in others people are expected to get on with their own jobs. Some companies monitor quite closely how people work, but others let employees get on with things as long as the outputs are all right. The quality of the product produced may be of paramount concern to one organization; another may pay more attention to the quantity produced. As you read this, you may already have sensed that you would feel more comfortable working in certain of these organizational cultures rather than others. Personality is a large factor in this kind of fit. Someone who is flexible and has a high tolerance of ambiguity will fit in better in Company A, which is unstructured and deals in a spontaneous manner with issues as they arise. The same person might find Company B, which has a very planned and controlled approach with lots of procedures that must be carefully followed and documented, stifling and bureaucratic. Someone who is more regulated and prefers a more predictable environment might be very happy with Company B but find Company A chaotic and disorganized.

Personality questionnaires are used for a number of different purposes. One of the most frequent is in making recruitment, selection and promotion decisions. The information about candidates’ personality style and how they approach things, relate to people, express their feelings and so on is relevant to how well they will perform in the job and fit into the organization. Personality profiles help in understanding how candidates might approach the job and the strengths and weaknesses associated with their approach.

Questionnaires and other tests are an efficient way of providing a lot of information about candidates. One administrator can administer a questionnaire to a number of candidates at the same time. Questionnaires can also be administered via a computer and over the internet, and computer-based report generation helps make the use of questionnaires very efficient. Interviews and other selection procedures tend to take up a lot of time, often of senior people. Questionnaires are objective and standardized measures, and they provide an additional perspective to that gained through other selection means.