Discuss about the Organizational Behavior for Big Five Model of Personality.
Primary goal of this essay is to reflect on how individuals act differently while executing management practices with in organizational behavior. In order to understand this, “Big Five Model of Personality” concepts and results are used. The score that I got after undergoing “Big Five Model of Personality” test is attached in the appendix. That test helped me to understand the strengths and weaknesses with in my personality. This essay also includes information on how my personality influences my motivation and work performance. While discussing, main focus has been given on the dimensions of the Big Five Model of Personality model. Besides, pertinent theories of organizational behavior along with individual examples are also used to support the discussion in this essay. In the end of this essay, a recommendation is provided that can help me to enhance my work performance and improve my motivation in the future.
According to Gurven et al. (2013), Big Five Model of Personality which is also known as “Five Factor Model” is settled based on the common linguistic descriptors of personality, lexical hypothesis. Factor analysis which is known as a statistical technique is used to group the descriptors all together. In this way, a connection is built between personality and organizational behavior (Judge et al. 2014). A number of researchers conducted several researches on Big Five Model of Personality and they started by going through a large number of personality traits. Then a list of these personality traits were made that was later reduced by 5-10 fold (Halverson et al. 2014). After that factor analysis was executed in order to group the remaining traits. Data that was used while doing this research was collected through opinion poll based on self-report and peer ratings.
Figure 1: Big Five Model of Personality
(Source: Milfont and Sibley 2012)
As mentioned by KneÅ¾eviÄ‡ et al. (2016), in order to describe personality of an individual, most of the psychologist used five dimensions that are displayed in figure 1. They are also known by the acronym OCEAN. Detail information on those five dimensions are hereby mentioned below,
The first dimension of the Big Five Model of Personality is Openness that states human personality including emotion, dissimilar experiences, innovative ideas, indebtedness for art and curiosity. Primary goal of this dimension is to understand whether an individual is creative, curious or not. The second dimension that is Conscientiousness which is designated as propensity to be prearranged and consistent, aim for accomplishment, showing self-will and act unquestioningly (Cobb-Clark and Schurer 2012). Third dimension is Extraversion that showcases positive energy assurgency and confidence. If an individual is highly extravert then he will try to perceive attention and will try to dominate things. On the other hand, an individual with low extraversion will force him to stay sel-absorbed and aloof (Lehmann et al. 2013). Agreeableness which is the fourth dimension measures individual’s trust and helpful nature and decides whether if a person is well mitigated or not. As mentioned by Chang et al. (2012), if a person is highly agreeable then he will be looked as naïve or submissive. On the other hand, low agreeable individuals are normally competitive. Last but not the least; Neuroticism is described as human characteristics that help to experience hostile emotions with ease. Some of such emotions include helplessness, nervousness, fury and despair. It also helps to indicate instinct control and demonstrative stability (Carlo et al. 2014). It is mentioned that an individual with stable and calm personality will have high need of stability; however, it can be seen as demotivating and unconcerned. On the other hand, low need for stability might cause a sensitive and impulsive personality.
Through Big Five Model of Personality, my strengths and weaknesses within my personality are identified. In case of openness to experience, I scored only 35 out of 100 that can be considered as a low score. It is said that high score in this personality trait means an individual is creative, curious and complex (Wortman et al. 2012). However, low scoring means that person is conservative, down to earth, and not creative and has narrow interests. Individuals who score high in openness to experience is marked by some adjectives which are cultured, original, intelligent, broad minded, curious and innovative. However, my scores are low that means I am absolutely not one of them. I tend to do my jobs by following traditional ways, does not matter how much time it would take. I do not like to use innovative or new methods out of fear that something might go wrong. That is one of my weaknesses within my personality. In today’s corporate world, people are always looking to create things. They are even supported by their organizations to become imaginative. I am also not curious that means I do not love to learn new things which are also a major weakness (Zvolensky et al. 2015). New technologies are being implemented in companies almost every day. In order to survive in the work place people are learning as much as they can out of curiosity and requirement.
My score in conscientiousness was 79 which can be considered as high. Individuals who score high in this trait are known to be reliable, careful, disciplined and organized (Judge et al. 2013). This clearly indicates my strengths in my personality. It is however true as my personality includes typical behaviors such as hard working, accomplishments oriented and responsible. Even though I do not like to acquire new ideas, I know how to do things in time. For example, if my seniors provide me with a project that has a narrow deadline, I can manage that one way another. Most of the other employees would look for short cuts and innovative ideas; however, I stick to traditional ways. This consumes my energy and forces me do hard work. However, I can maintain it and can complete the work within the time limit. I believe that traditional ways are tested; therefore, the chances of error are negligible. As I am a careful person, I always take precautions and I always create several backups for my jobs.
In extraversion I scored 64 which is again a high score. This means I am friendly, talkative and fun loving. In one word I am quite sociable. This clearly indicates that I am flexible and suitable to organizational behavior. Team work is known to be one of the most important organizational behavior which out which it is impossible to execute a large task successfully. Now, if an individual is not friendly and fun loving then he will not be able to execute his task with in a group (Barrick et al. 2013). For example, if I am assigned to group where other people are from different backgrounds, race, sex, culture and color, then I will try to become comfortable with them. I understand that doing a team work is only possible if team members are bonded emotionally. I can easily mix with those members of my team as I am a talkative and fun loving person. Besides, I will also use m friendly behavior to help out others to overcome their hurdles in my team which will obviously help me and my team members to cultivate good results from that project. This is surely one of my strengths within my personality.
I scored 69 in agreeableness that means I have a good nature and I am merciful, polite and understanding. This is strength of my personality as these traits are perfect for a leader in an organization. It not only helps me to perform better but also allows collaborating perfectly when needed (O’Reilly et al. 2014). For example, if I am a manager in a business organization, then my first duty would be to win the loyalty of the employees who are working under me. Now, it is obvious that people will make mistakes in workplaces. However, I will figure out their mistakes only to strengthen their skill. Some managers in several organizations will provide you warnings or will demonstrate your faults in front of others in an improper manner. However, I will call the employees individually and will communicate with them about the problems they are having which is forcing them to make mistakes. I will show merci and will allow the employees to enhance their working through trainings so that they do not repeat their mistakes.
In the last train, that is Neuroticism, I have scored 11 which low; however, it is good. It means I can keep myself calm and relaxed in serious situations (Wayne et al. 2013). For example, it is possible that my team along with me has worked really hard in a project but the results are not expected. In that situation, it is obvious that we will receive negative reviews from our superiors. In this situation, most of the team members will panic and will feel demotivated (Judge and Kammeyer 2012). However, I can keep myself calm in that situation as I believe that failure is just another part of life. I will cheer up my team members and will try to motivate them so that they can perform better in the next projects.
Figure 2: Recommendation to enhance motivation and performance
(Source: Judge et al. 2013)
From the Big Five analysis it is found that my only weakness in my personality is my traditional thinking and working style. Lack of creativity is my working style has sometimes affected my performance as others did better than me using innovative ideas. Therefore, there are recommendations that will help me to improve by creative skills.
First of all I will have start thinking that creativity is an essential skill. I solely believe that creativity includes risks and one should not walk on this path as uncertainty waits in this. However, it is true that I am failing even after following traditional ways; therefore, creativity can only improve my results. I will have to take examples of companies such as Google and Apple where employees are allowed to take risk and implement as much innovation as they can in the workplace. That is why; both of these organizations are known be the paradise of employees.
Theories of organizational behavior strongly recommend that one should communicate with the successful employees to learn how they did things to gain success in their lives. I will find some people who have used innovation as their primary tool and achieved success in their life. I will have interacted with them in order to learn to use creativity in a proper manner.
Following old and traditional paths will do no good to me. I will have to ask questions, to myself and to the world. I will have to find better ways to complete a task in way that it would cultivate better results. If I do not ask questions then I will not learn new things.
Practicing openness is another solution that I can adopt. Creativity cannot be learned easily. I should not try to use it to complete bigger tasks. I will have to use openness in smaller tasks at fist where chances of failure are negligible. Then I will understand how I can implement innovation in broader manner.
I will have to act as an explainer to no one but to myself. I will have to talk to myself about my successes and failures. I will have to explain to myself that I can cultivate better results by using innovation and openness in my work style. Even if I fail, I will have to explain the reasons to myself so that I can find out solutions for my mistakes.
In the end, it can be concluded that this assignment, an analysis has been done on my personal behavior depending on big five personality trait model. Depending on the results I found, strengths and weaknesses of my personality are identified. It is found that my only weakness is that I refuse use innovation and openness which I will have to rectify in the near future if I want to become a successful person on my life. On the other hand, I will also have to work on my strengths so that they become more powerful with time.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. and Li, N., 2013. The theory of purposeful work behavior: The role of personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), pp.132-153.
Carlo, G., Knight, G.P., Roesch, S.C., Opal, D. and Davis, A., 2014. Personality across cultures: A critical analysis of Big Five research and current directions.
Chang, L., Connelly, B.S. and Geeza, A.A., 2012. Separating method factors and higher order traits of the Big Five: A meta-analytic multitrait–multimethod approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 102(2), p.408.
Cobb-Clark, D.A. and Schurer, S., 2012. The stability of big-five personality traits. Economics Letters, 115(1), pp.11-15.
Gurven, M., Von Rueden, C., Massenkoff, M., Kaplan, H. and Lero Vie, M., 2013. How universal is the Big Five? Testing the five-factor model of personality variation among forager–farmers in the Bolivian Amazon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), p.354. Judge, T.A., Simon, L.S., Hurst, C. and Kelley, K., 2014. What I experienced yesterday is who I am today: Relationship of work motivations and behaviors to within-individual variation in the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), p.199.
Halverson, C.F., Kohnstamm, G.A. and Martin, R.P., 2014. The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood. Psychology Press.
Judge, T.A. and Kammeyerâ€Mueller, J.D., 2012. General and specific measures in organizational behavior research: Considerations, examples, and recommendations for researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), pp.161-174
Judge, T.A., Rodell, J.B., Klinger, R.L., Simon, L.S. and Crawford, E.R., 2013. Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), p.875.
KneÅ¾eviÄ‡, G., LazareviÄ‡, L.B., Bosnjak, M., PuriÄ‡, D., PetroviÄ‡, B., TeovanoviÄ‡, P., OpaÄiÄ‡, G. and BodroÅ¾a, B., 2016. Towards a personality model encompassing a Disintegration factor separate from the Big Five traits: A meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, pp.214-222.
Lehmann, R., Denissen, J.J., Allemand, M. and Penke, L., 2013. Age and gender differences in motivational manifestations of the Big Five from age 16 to 60. Developmental psychology, 49(2), p.365.
Milfont, T.L. and Sibley, C.G., 2012. The big five personality traits and environmental engagement: Associations at the individual and societal level. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(2), pp.187-195.
O’Reilly, C.A., Caldwell, D.F., Chatman, J.A. and Doerr, B., 2014. The Promise and Problems of Organizational Culture CEO Personality, Culture, and Firm Performance. Group & Organization Management, 39(6), pp.595-625.
Wayne, J.H., Casper, W.J., Matthews, R.A. and Allen, T.D., 2013. Family-supportive organization perceptions and organizational commitment: The mediating role of work–family conflict and enrichment and partner attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), p.606.
Wortman, J., Lucas, R.E. and Donnellan, M.B., 2012. Stability and change in the Big Five personality domains: Evidence from a longitudinal study of Australians. Psychology and aging, 27(4), p.867.
Zvolensky, M.J., Taha, F., Bono, A. and Goodwin, R.D., 2015. Big five personality factors and cigarette smoking: A 10-year study among US adults. Journal of psychiatric research, 63, pp.91-96.