Leadership and Personality Science in Organisations

In the Handbook of the Economics of Education it was identified that, depending on the situation, personality measures could be predictive (rivalling cognitive measures) of performance and that standard measures of cognition are often influenced by personality traits and incentives.

In 1994 John Elkington introduced the term of Triple Bottom Line reporting. Quite often employee wellbeing, human resources and people development are seen as purely a social responsibility (or even just a tax break4) without considering the impact on the sustainability of the organisation. Personality Science is generally included in the Human Resources Function and as such is often seen as a “Nice to Have” rather than a vital driver of organisational sustainability.

Submitting “Personality Assessment” as a search to Google results in about 289 million results. Estimates is that personality testing is a $2 billion (approx.) industry. The question is, is this money well spent for an organisation?

In terms of the current landscape of how personality psychology is applied in organisations. Personality psychology is unfortunately called upon as a “quick fix” without sufficient support and the help employees require to increase their self-awareness and understanding of their own personality. The challenge is that organisations must develop a “personality mindset.” This mindset requires the establishment of a set of attitudes held by a person towards personality diversity and knowing themselves. Organisations often include personality psychology in their recruitment, team building and management strategies. In a LinkedIn survey I conducted, 76% of respondents had completed a personality assessment with their employer. However, when investigated with the respondents it was found that all respondents did not experience any further support when applying understanding of the personality assessment results, nor did they feel there was a long-lasting positive impact due to lack of continuous awareness.

In my research I identified that by utilising personality science organisations can experience improved effectiveness of the collective intelligence of a team/organisation. To achieve increased effectiveness awareness of personality diversity for the individual as well as their team members/colleagues must be attained. As individual diversity mindsets encompass idiosyncratic aspects, like personality, belonging and distinctiveness motives, and values, a multifaceted approach that includes not only an analysis of work performance, attrition data and perceived workplace happiness, but also includes a self-analysis by everyone to understand themselves better.

In a study of 532 diverse employees, it was found that personality is considered as an important source of individual diversity. Most interesting was that in the group 67.6% of the employees identified that their personality makes them different from others. It was furthermore noted that over 40% of respondents noted that personality plays a significant role in their willingness to form part of a team as well as their willingness to associate with people outside of their workplace.

?The study found that differences in personality have a strong impact on the efficiency and performance of working groups in organizations. In addition, it was determined that “Compatibility personality traits are significantly correlated with the performance and outcomes of working teams consisting of different ethnic origins,” which given the context of our connected society would significantly impact the sustainability of the organisation.

?While there is a compelling case for the use of personality psychology in organisations it is important to consider the benefits and risks thereof.

?A collective understanding of personality would benefit the performance of an organisation by not only leveraging strengths of each personality trait and creating a harmonious work environment, but also an environment supportive of the wellbeing of the individual. For example, in a literature review in 2023 of personality diversity in the workplace, it was determined that the individuals who positively identify with modern definitions of introversion would benefit from the adaption of workplace strategies to account for individual differences. Workplace strategies highlighted in the study included flexible working environments, provision of social support where needed, and employer initiatives to increase personality diversity of teams.

?Yes, the benefits may be achieved, the risks that exist require careful consideration and mitigation. Risks such as the over reliance of personality assessments could result (whether intentional or unintentional) in the exclusion of certain personality traits from an organisation resulting in a less personality diverse organisation.

The selection of personality assessment also carries a risk. Ensuring the personality assessment is fit-for-purpose and will support the goals of the organisation is vitally important. For example, utilising a personality assessment that is based on outdated personality psychology may result in incorrect results without considering latest research. One such example is the growing understanding that the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator personality test where research has found that as many as 50 percent of people arrive at a different result the second time they take a test as the traits the test measures, are not consistently different among people.

Another risk is the celebration of certain personality traits in an organisation such as neuroticism that could give rise to an environment where individuals lose focus on a work life balance whereas celebrating openness might result in a risk to the sustainability of the organisation where employees are so focussed on continuous innovation without follow-through on implementation.

The increase in the awareness of rights that people now have in terms of their personal information and the use thereof by organisations is an important consideration now more important than ever. The South African “Protection of Personal Information Act” promulgated in 2013 defines personal information to include a person’s conscience. In terms of the act, fines and penalties may be imposed on the organisation where personal information is used without prior consent of the individual or is used for a purpose other than it was intended for. One such example is the collection of personal information for the purpose of recruitment. If this same information (such as a personality assessment) is utilised as a basis to demote or promote some individuals into leadership and management roles without gaining consent, would not only possibly outdated information but also provides the basis for infringement of the act.

Quite often the use of personality psychology shines a light on the conscience of organisations that require an analysis of ethical considerations. Creating an environment that is supportive of personality diversity requires a focus on confidentiality and sensitivity as primary concerns due to personal nature of this information. Forcing employees to complete personality assessments and then sharing those results without adequate support could result in the ostracising and stereo typing of individuals based on the results. An employer can also mandate the use of personality assessments during the recruitment process. Ethical boundaries for the use of the results would have to be set to avoid denying employment opportunities to people who are neuro diverse.

Cultural norms and references bring their own additional ethical challenges. Where a person’s culture heavily influences their behaviour, thinking and freedom of expression it has been found to be a key consideration. Higgins found that cultural variability in modal personalities yields cultural differences in manners of goal pursuit.

The benefits, risks and ethical considerations illustrate the importance of a well-defined strategy to support the role of personality diversity within teams and organisations. Moynihan and Peterson support three different theoretical approaches to study the effects of team personality diversity. The universal approach takes the stance that certain traits predict teamwork success whereas the contingent approach takes the stance that traits predict team performance depending on the task or organizational culture. Configuration proposes that the mix of traits of individual members and their interaction with each other predicts team performance.

While the approaches offer structure and can support the achievement of strategic goals, it is important to evaluate the appropriateness of each approach prior to implementation. Certain recommendations on how to best use personality psychology in organisations include:

• The critical analysis of the vision, mission, and values of the organisation to identify the role personality psychology and diversity plays in the achievement thereof for the establishment of a business case for a greater awareness of personality psychology.
• An analysis of the unique risks that exists within the context of the specific organisation, legislative framework, and cultural norms.
• Stakeholder engagement for input and true empowerment of individuals.
• A system of continuous monitoring, evaluation and impact identification of initiatives adopted to support personality psychology.
• Development and implementation of employee support systems and processes that drive employee empowerment utilising personality psychology.

Personality science is ever evolving but harnessing the potential benefits thereof can considerably influence the sustainability of the organisation. As a leader, establishing the business case that It would be beneficial for the organisation to create an eco-system that acknowledges the importance of personality diversity and the impact thereof on the sustainability of the organisation, will be key to the establishment of the eco-system.

References:

?DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic big five theory.?Journal of research in personality,?56, 33-58.

?Almlund, M., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J., & Kautz, T. (2011). Personality psychology and economics. In?Handbook of the Economics of Education?(Vol. 4, pp. 1-181). Elsevier.

?Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development.?California management review,?36(2), 90-100.

?Drucker, J., & Lipton, E. (2019). How a Trump tax break to help poor communities became a windfall for the rich.?The New York Times,?8, 31.

?Newton, D. E. (2021).?World Oceans: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO.

?Rothermel, U. (2018). The influence of perceived social diversity in the workplace on employee performance: an integrative model and research agenda.

?Understanding the Dilemmas of Workplace Diversity: Personality Perspective by Hazal Koray Alay, 2020. Extracted 23/07/2023: Understanding the Dilemmas of Workplace Diversity

?Herbert, J., Ferri, L., Hernandez, B., Zamarripa, I., Hofer, K., Fazeli, M. S., ... & Abdallah, K. (2023). Personality diversity in the workplace: A systematic literature review on introversion.?Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health,?38(2), 165-187.

?Grant, A. (2013). Say goodbye to MBTI, the fad that won’t die.?LinkedIn-artikkeli. Luetta.

?Staunton, C., Adams, R., Anderson, D., Croxton, T., Kamuya, D., Munene, M., & Swanepoel, C. (2020). Protection of Personal Information Act 2013 and data protection for health research in South Africa.?International Data Privacy Law,?10(2), 160-179.

?Higgins, E. T. (2008). Culture and personality: Variability across universal motives as the missing link.?Social and personality psychology compass,?2(2), 608-634.

?