Personality and the Workplace

Two important but contradictory theories of personalities are known as learning and trait and trait theories. The theories do not oppose each other in trait belief however Allport deviates from strict behavioral psychology in asserting the uniqueness of each character. This is a cognitive approach. Although many psychologists have explored each of these areas Allport's name is the one that is most associated with the learning theory and Eysenck, McCrae, and Costa are famous for their work in trait and factor theories. The major difference between these two explanations of personalities is the learning theory starts with the uniqueness of the individual and trait theories lump humans into categories. In appearance this difference seems huge and seems to indicate one theory is totally wrong and the other totally right. However, since Allport is described as a cognitive behavioral psychologist, a contradiction for a behaviorist, the convergence of learning and trait theory seem possible to this author. If learning and trait theory are both valid theories then the assumption that learning affects traits and traits affect learning is also valid. This essay will attempt to show this convergence in the author's personal experience of being a teacher and working with other teachers.

The Background

The author's group of co-teachers is unique with most of the individuals being from different backgrounds but with one unique commonality. The commonality is religion. The difference in the backgrounds could amount to an exhaustive study in itself. Therefore, a brief overview shows the possibility of background influencing the development of personality. The group of teachers is composed of four females and five males. Three of the teachers, one male and two females are native-born Japanese with two of these having attended university in the United States. The male and one female are about 24 years old and one female is about 35 married with one infant child. Two of the male teachers are native born United States citizens one is 48 years old married to a Japanese national with no children and one is 54 years old married to a Japanese national with two children. One male 55 years old is a U.K. national married to a Japanese national with one child. One of the female teachers 53 years old is Indian but raised in Japan and never married. She speaks Japanese but does not write the language because of attending international schools as a child. One of the male teachers is about 23 years old. His mother is Cuban and father is Japanese. He holds Japanese citizenship but was born and raised in the United States. Finally, one female is Peruvian about 46 years old and single.

The Personalities in Allport's World

In order to classify the personalities of the teachers in brief and within the context of Allport's individual theory and the trait theory a start is what Allport termed characteristic. Feist and Feist (2006, p. 374) explain Allport's meaning in terms of personality in these words: "All persons stamp their unique mark or engraving on their personality, and their characteristic behavior and thought set them apart from all other people." Using this explanation of Allport's

each of the teachers will be classified by unique characteristics. Reference to the teachers will be by gender, nationality and age as in JF-24 (Japanese female age 24), AM-54 (American male age 54), IF-53 (Indian female age 53), UK-55 (United Kingdom age 55), PF-4 (Peruvian female age 46) and JC-23 (Japanese-Cuban age 23). Beginning with the Japanese nationals JF-24 is soft-spoken, tolerant and non-judgmental. JF-35 is suspicious of males and has low social skills (quick to jump on sexual innuendos). JM-24 has low self-esteem covered by organizational skills. PF-46 is confident and tolerant of others but of note is the fact she is alone in the uniqueness of her culture. JC-23 is open and talkative to everyone but more so with females. UK-55 has a likeable personality with a good sense of humor but underlying is extremely self-centered. AM-54 is pushy always wanting quick and efficient action resulting in change making him difficult to work with. AM-48 is more comfortable with computers than people he is organized but with low social skills. The fact that AM-48 is low on social skills does not mean he would not get along with say UK-55 the reason being that UK-55 falls into the agreeable zone of the five factor scale. This means he is compassionate and modest. These traits overwhelm his self-centered nature. In addition AM-48 desires to be like UK-55 so goes out of his way to gain recognition by UK-55.

The Personalities Within Trait Theories

The five-factor model is the most well known scale derived from trait theories. The five factors according to McCrae (2002, p.1, ¶ 3) are "Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness to Experience (O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C).". Each of the five factors is defined by McCrae (2002, p.1, ¶ 3) in this way:

Individuals who are high in N are likely to be anxious, easily depressed, and irritable, whereas those who are low in N are calm, even-tempered, and emotionally stable. Extraverts are lively, cheerful, and sociable; introverts are sober and taciturn. Open men and women are curious, original, and artistic; closed people are conventional and down- to-earth. Agreeableness is characterized by trust, compassion, and modesty; Conscientiousness is seen in organization, punctuality, and purposefulness.

McCrae (2002) further explains the five factors as being a scale resulting in dominance rather that one factor being a description of a personality.

According to McCrae (2002), language is important in the categorization of personalities. Allport and Odbert are famous for their exhaustive research into words, which describe personalities and their attempt to truncate the list of thousands of adjectives. Therefore, the definition of the five factors is an abbreviation of more extensive criteria. In fact, McCrae and Costa (1992) developed the NEO-PI-R inventory, which takes into account 6 points for each the five factors for a total of 30 factors. In this study of a diverse cultural group, the NEO-PI-R would most likely return a more accurate picture.

To plug our study group of teachers into a specific trait in the five-factor list would be difficult at best. However, each teacher can be judged as highest in one factor or another. For example, AM-48 is would score the highest in the factor of being conscientious with AM-54 possibly scoring the lowest. However, AM-54 would score the highest in openness to experience…having traveled the world, worked in many occupations and lived in a foreign country for over 15 years. JF-35 would score the lowest in this category with only 6 months experience living in Canada. JF-24 would score the highest in agreeableness. JC-23 would score the highest in extraversion. Finally, JF-35 would score the highest in neuroticism. The fact that each teacher has a dominant trait in relation to the other members of the group lends to the validity of trait theory

The Commonality

Although the test group within this essay is an ideal case study because of the diversity in culture, age and experience one commonality makes a difference in how they interact. This factor is religion. Every teacher in the school (over 200) is actively practicing Buddhism and has training in how to overcome negative traits in personality and negative conflict in work or life in general. Each teacher is also aware of factors in personality inherent and learned.

According to McCrae (2002), traits studies have shown that traits are common across cultures and specific to age groups, which shows correlation to maturation. This commonality across cultures is apparent in our test group since the variation of ages is as large 33 years. The factor of religion is not a small influence since it incorporates learning, as Allport felt was important. Each member of the test group has been trained both in the basis for personality as well as organizational training in working with others. This training for three of the members has been over an entire lifetime. The other members of the test group have from 6 to 25 years training. This training in how life works and where personality comes from makes our test group an unusual one within Allport's learning theory but not in trait theory as McCrae points out. In studies across cultures McCrae (2002, p. 1) reports this result, "the FFM and the NEO-PI-R have shown themselves to be serviceable tools in a wide variety of cultures." This means that no matter what the training, learning, or culture people fit into the trait factors.

McCrae (2002) reports that studies show a 30 year old is closer in traits to a 70 year old than a 20 year old. This shows within our teacher group in the inability of the young inexperienced teachers to take the lead in making change. The difference is also apparent in the fact that conflict occasionally arises between 30s individuals and 50s individuals. This perhaps is because the middle 30s individuals feel equal to the older more experienced teachers.

Obstacles to Improvement

The goal of all teachers is to educate but underlying this goal is the need for personal success. This personal success for a teacher is in continual danger. Failure lurks in each class and position within the group of peers is of tantamount importance. Because of the aspect of failure and group position a protective stance leads to a limited guarded sharing of knowledge and therefore to limited change and improvement. This limit of exchange is largely because the group protects itself and its members through routine. The group members and the group fear change so behavior is restricted. Unique behavior, complaining or any self-induced conflict is dangerous to the individual's position in the workplace. This pressure to conform depresses individual job satisfaction and limits growth. Unique behavior is rewarded with group exclusion and ostracism.

Humans look for success in the eyes of peers and groups. This need for success follows more than one personality theory. The Adlerian theory of behavior explains that humans strive for success to achieve a feeling of superiority. (Feist and Feist, 2006) Harry Sullivan's interpersonal theory also explains that humans and human behavior are inseparable from their social systems. (Feist and Feist, 2006)

George Kelly's reality construct theory explains that people see reality depending on the meaning they attach to that reality. George Boeree (2006) In the case of teachers within an organization the teachers consciously and unconsciously agree and accept a certain reality whether or not that reality is the true one. The reason for this is that the reality construct within an educational organization is normally based on a certain surface belief that allows for a degree of failure and incompetence. Without a forgiving reality construct, teachers would be held within an accountability construct allowing only dynamic successful people. Unfortunately, the paradox of the educational system is that the system does not produce enough dynamic teachers to go around. In fact, the educational construct guarantees perpetual mediocre success. The paradox exists within each individual's protection of his or her position of success. This may seem to be a rather pessimistic analysis but the overall picture must first be clear in order to bring about improvements through theories of personality as follows.

Improvements

In the author's workplace, a major improvement could be made by testing each educational department to determine dominant positive characteristics. This could be done with McCrae's FFM and NEO-PI-R trait factors. A second improvement in conjunction with the first would be to train a manager in Allport's learning theory. The training would give the manager the skill to use his or her personality in a positive conscientious fashion to determine the best spot for each teacher. The personality cues of each teacher would most likely match a certain age group of students and that particular teacher could be plugged in to teaching that age group. The added factor of knowing the dominant trait factors of each adolescent age group would allow for training of the teachers in the most effective teaching style for each maturity level. In the author's department at present the teachers shift from every year to different age groups. This shift disallows the perfecting of classroom styles. The experience gained from teaching the same age group year in and year out is priceless. However, at the present time experience is gained almost by osmosis rather than by training. A thorough knowledge of the psychology of personality by the management and training for teaching through workshops and lectures would vastly improve the results in the classrooms.

Summation

The effects of learning experiences as well as the inherent dominant traits of individual personalities determine an individual's personality. Maturity is also a factor in personality and most certainly social interaction within groups has an effect on the dominance of one trait over another. Tests have been conducted across many cultures and languages. The test results show that personality traits do not differ from culture to culture. Allport and McCrae are not so far apart in categorizing personalities as Feist and Feist (2006, p. 378) explain in this quote from Allport (1961), "Few people have cardinal dispositions, but everyone has several

central dispositions, which include the 5 to 10 most outstanding characteristics

around which a person's life focuses." This quote from Allport specifically agrees with trait theory. The disagreement Allport had with other theories is the limit of their research as he so aptly put in this warning to other researchers. His warning was not to

"forget what you have decided to neglect" (Allport, 1968, p. 23 as cited by Feist and Feist, p.371).

Analytical Conclusion

Change is an endeavor that requires a moral value that allows a risk-all attitude. If individuals have this value, they are in danger of losing their position within their subgroup and larger organizational group. Therefore a degree of trust must be established that allows honesty without fear of reprisal. Only with this degree of trust can change that is needed occur to the benefit of the education of the students. Education should exist on the front line of risk and not behind the security of routine and conformity. Beyond just the field of education a most important role exists for personality theory that seems to be just beyond our intellectual grasp at least at this time. This role is to define personalities to a degree that allows the choosing of the perfect team for whatever endeavor. This is not difficult to imagine. Think of the people in the past that seemed to be just the right extension of your own ability. In fact those people brought out a better you, a sharper you, a more motivated you. If personality is well understood people will no longer work at jobs they are unsuited for and people will not be put on teams that end up in failure. Instead the greatest and best minds within a personality criteria will work together in perfect unison. Perhaps Hawkins and Einstein were perfectly suited to work together and perhaps they would have defeated their overall goal through personality conflict. The most fascinating potential for personality research is to find which mind works the best with another. The possibilities are limitless and no problem insurmountable if personality theory matures to an exact empirical science.

References

Feist, J., Feist, G. (2005). Theories of personality, sixth edition. McGraw-Hill

McCrae, R. R. (2002). Cross-cultural research on the five-factor model of personality. In W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler (Eds.), Online Readings in Psychology and Culture (Unit 6, Chapter 1), (http://www.wwu.edu/~culture), Center for Cross-Cultural Research, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington USA.

Retrieved November 3, 2008 from http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~culture/mccrae.htm