Personality – Blog 7

The recognition of individuality

Organisations are made up of a variety of different members, and without these and organisation would struggle to function properly. The way in which different people act and the way they are means that they need effective relationship management at work, or, as a result of differing personalities and beliefs there could be an increased amount of pressure between individuals that could affect the productivity of their work, and could even cause conflict.

The ways in which people are varies from the ethnic origin, physique, gender, social/cultural, motivation, attitudes, personality traits, intelligence and perception. This therefore means that everyone is different, and leaves mangers facing certain issues when trying to get a task done, because everyone works in a different way, and certain people work better together than others. For example, by putting two very confident powerful people together it could cause conflict by the two people both wanting to be in charge.

Personality is one attribute to the differentiation of people which is a large determiner as to whether people will work well together and marks the way in which they work individually as well as in a group.

The oxford English dictionary describes a personality as a noun (plural personalities) the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual’s distinctive character and further the quality or fact of being a person as distinct from a thing or animal (Oxford, 2011). It is also defined academically as an individual’s set of characteristics and tendencies which shape a sense of self, and what that person does and the behaviour they exhibit (Mullins, 2007)

However neither definitions state how or why we all have different personalities and different character traits. This for many years has been a largely debateable subject. How do you gain your own personality? Do you inherit it? Is it based on the environment you’re in? Or is it based on the situation? It all comes down to two words. Nature or Nurture.

To analyse which of these are correct, it is important to explore all possibilities of each theory.

The Nature Theory (Powell, 2011)

Nature theorist follow the ideas that scientist put forward. People know that when your born you follow your genes to determine things such as looks, so hair and eye colour, and even height. Nature theorists take this idea and say that you also inherit your personality form your parents or blood line. This means that they believe if your parents are adrenaline seekers, you should be. Or if you parents are naturally quiet people you will also follow this character trait.

There are two main components that suggest that this idea is wrong, but defines them as being wrong in different ways.  A being debatable subject is the idea of “ the gay gene”. Being gay is all based around your sexual preference, and thus, if you inherit your personality, your parents would have to be gay for you to be; and if your child is gay and your not, how was this picked up – were they born that way?  Not inherited but created like that. Or is it by what they have grown up experiencing.

The second idea that us looked upon to determine nature or nurture is twins. Twins both being born into the world at the same time, having the same genes and generic make up, and experiencing the same upbringing, should in the theory of nature be exactly the same tyhpes of people, but is this always the case? No, it’s not. Many twins take completely opposite forms, with the main comparison being their sibling. Twins are often compared with each other, for example the loud one, or the shy one.

This therefore poses the alternative option of nurture.

The nurture theory

 The idea of nurture is the complete opposite of nature. It follows the idea that our personality is based on the environment of our upbringing, and although we inherit our looks from our genes, that is all we get from them.

Nature therefore poses the question of - what would I be like if I grew up in a different country, or a different area? Would you still be the same?  

Nature has very valid points which suggest that people do in fact pick up their personality from their surroundings. Children have always been very susceptible to picking up on certain character traits. Children often idolise certain people, whether it be an older sibling or a friend, and they often adapt their personality to copy that person, showing that there personality comes from there environment.  It’s how the saying regarding bad children “ in with the wrong crowd” has come around.

However, this is not always the case, some children seem to have inner character traits which make them stand out from other people, for example, why  some people take on the role of being very studious at school and others not. They ll attend the same school and are around the same people.

Parents therefore are a clear influencer as to what a child is likely to grow up like, and can have a nurture effect on their child, as they can over love their could cause very sheltered children or could cause people to rebel against the rules.

Nurture basically follows the basic idea that we learn to read, to write and to ride a bike, and in the same way nurture theorists believe that we learn each of our personality traits, picking up and developing ourselves as we grow up.

So, what’s right? (Muir, 1999)

 It is clear from all of the cases put forward by nature and nurture theorists that neither one idea is correct. In fact, you are born with certain character traits that you have inherited from your parents for example your pain threshold, or fears. However, some of these are also picked up as you grow and develop, being influenced by the people you meet and the situations you are put in. This is why it is clear there are so many debated regarding peoples personalities and how they are created/developed.

Nomothetic and idiographic approaches (Mullins, 2007)

The nomothetic approach is the basic idea that your personality can be measured by tests and observations, meaning that they take a more scientific approach, and thus tend to view nurture influences minimal to developing personalities.  This fits into the business environment when looking at managing and employing people. As by doing character trait tests , and employer can look at whether a person exhibits a more or less “average” score when looking at types of personalities, and by this can determine whether or not they fit into the overall culture of the organisation and as to whether certain people will work well together.

Idiographic approach on the other hand; believe that character trait measurements and tests are inappropriate ways in which to look at people and to judge them by. They believe that peoples personalities change depending on what environment they are in, and so are instead of being focused on the psychological aspects of an individual focus more on their ability to develop and their image of self-concept. Making the tests some organisations give too narrow in scope and depth. This management style means employees feel valued and appreciated and so takes on a soft HR approach, looking at every employee as an individual that can be developed and improved to assist both themselves and the organisation.

What’s best – Nomothetic or Idiographic? And how do they really fit into the theory of work.

I believe when looking at how to define someone’s character and to decide actions, it is important to once again split the way it is done. It is best to look at both the scientific psychological approach as well as the individualistic approach, and that way there is no way they first impressions ( or bad ones) or a poor test result can rule someone out who could be perfect for a job.

The idea of how these theories fit into the work place really depending on the person who is assessing the personality. The perfect person for the job role or task could more often than not be seen to be a different person dependent on who is assessing. It is all down to the way in which a person interprets you, and falls back on the idea of first impressions and perception.

Personality Profiles and me

Upon taking a personality test myself, the following assumptions were made with regards to my character traits. (Winston, 2012)

I scored 3.2 out of 5 for Openness

It was suggested that I have a less broad range of interests, and I stick to what I know rather than being overly enthusiastic about trying new things.

I scored 4 out of 5 for conscientiousness.

It was explained that conscientiousness describes how dependable, organised and hard-working a person is likely to be. This may be the reason why, of all the personality traits, Conscientiousness is the most consistent indicator of job success

This means I have been rated to be extremely dependable and organised and It's likely that your my is well-planned and I approach things in a thorough manner.

With regards to my work ethic it explained that at work, I probably approach tasks methodically and thoroughly, with everything in its right place.

I scored 3.4 out of 5 (medium) on Extroversion.

Extroversion is characterised by positive emotions and the tendency to seek out pleasure-stimulating or risk-taking activities. It was explained that people with scores like mine are likely to be comfortable meeting new people and will usually enjoy social occasions.

I am also likely to have a generally have positive outlook on life and may display a greater gift for leadership compared to those with low scores on this trait.

I scored 3.9 out of 5(medium) on Agreeableness

Agreeableness measures how sympathetic and considerate a person is likely to be. People with scores like mine are likely to show concern for the feelings of others and will be inclined to help those in need.

It was suggested that I probably find it easy to get along with most people, but won't be averse to speaking your mind

I scored 2.9 out of 5 (medium) for Neuroticism

This was then explained to mean in the context of the Big Five personality traits, the term 'Neuroticism' relates to a person’s response to threatening or stressful situations. People with scores like mine are likely to be comparatively level-headed about perceived threats, but may find myself worrying when faced with uncertainty or unfamiliar situations.

Some scientists have suggested that Neuroticism was beneficial in evolutionary terms. Early man may have found it advantageous to live in a population where certain individuals had a high sensitivity to threats to the group's survival.

There is evidence to suggest that Neuroticism, when combined with high scores in personality traits such as Conscientiousness, can result in a powerful work ethic and a will to succeed.

My results therefor showed that I place an equal value on many different life goals and thus, research has uncovered relationships between personality and life goals. It suggests that people with high Openness scores tend to pursue aesthetic goals, while people with high Extroversion scores tend to pursue hedonistic goals.

Bibliography

Muir, D. (1999) The Nature-Nurture Debate. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Mullins, L.J. (2007) Management and organisational behaviour. 9th ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall FT.

Oxford (2011) Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Powell, K. (2011) Nature vs. Nurture [online]. About.com Genealogy. Available from: http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture_2.htm [Accessed: Jan 23rd 2012].

Winston, R. (2012) BBC [online]. Child of our time- big personlaity test. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/labuk/experiments/personality/feedback [Accessed: Jan 23rd 2012].