Personality Theories

Introduction The purpose of this bear witness is to review theories that hold up been linked and discussed in regards to temperament. It aims to define constitution, summarize the main ideas across diverse articles, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses that argon in the articles. It also links my soulfulnessal catch of psycheality traits to the theory of temper. The essay begins by defining reputation from antithetic articles and books, then analyzing critically the key commentarys.Furthermore the essay discusses the relationship amidst temper and duty operation and the relationship in the midst of temperament and motivation. The essay contains a reflective writing section, based on Maslows pecking order of require, a theory of motivation and personality, in which my personal experience is discussed. Definitions The sound out personality has many definitions across many fields, in different articles. Hogan and Holland (2003), defines personality as the whi msical pattern of psychological and behavioral characteristics by which separately person can be distinguished from other bulk.This means for each genius persons characteristics atomic number 18 different from the other, and people are unique beings. Unlike Griffin (2007), who suggests that personality is understood by some people to mean self concept, by others, the consensus of other peoples opinions nearly ones character, and by others, ones true character. This definition is vague and over simplistic. It places several(prenominal)s in single categories, ignoring the fact that every personality represents a unique combination of qualities. Walter (1986) goes on further to look at personality from two angles, the actors view and the observers view.Personality from the actors view is a persons identity, which is defined in terms of the strategies a person uses to result acceptance and status, identity controls and actors social behavior. Personality from the observers view is a persons reputation, and it is defined in terms of trait evaluations-conforming, helpful, talkative, competitive, calm, curious and so forth. However, the common trait on the definitions is restored on the following definitions. Griffin (2007) defines personality as the relatively immutable designate psychological attributes that distinguish one person from the other.This is lots referred to as the long standing debate often expressed as nature versus nurture, that peoples personality is shaped by twain inheritance and environment. The next definition implores a late trait that of interaction with others. It is suggested that personality is the term used to describe the overall combination of characteristics or traits that reflect the nature of a person and the expression they react to and interact with others (De Janasz, Wood, Gottschalk & Schneider, 2006). Here the authors suggest that personality determinants appear to be shaped by inheritance, environmental and situa tional factors.Hellriegel and Slocum (2006) also define personality as the overall profile or combination of stable psychological attributes that specify prisoner the unique nature of a person. This definition suggests that personality combines a set of physical and mental characteristics that reflect how a person looks thinks, acts and feels. Hellriegel and Slocums definition contains two measurable ideas, the first off being what sets people apart and what they be possessed of in common and the second refers to personality as being stable and happening overtime.The relationship between personality and job operation Since 1990 uninflected reviews lead shget that personality measures are useful predictors of job performance. Although these results represent a substantial revision in how applied psychology views personality legal opinion (cf. Guion & Gottier, 1965 Locke & Hulin, 1962), there is still no agreed speculative account for the findings. A theory of individual di fferences in piece of work effectiveness that links sound judgment to performance would enhance the value of personality measures for forecasting occupational outcomes.The legitimate study organized criterion measures into the broad themes of get along and getting ahead, and big phoebe bird personality categories (Hogan & Roberts, 2001). The results suggest that there is some virtual(a) utility for the theory driven seek. Nevertheless, some researchers select criticized the big five factors as an incomplete taxonomy and have suggested that important relationships are obscured when analysis is bound to the big five kind of than a seven factor standard. Tellgen & Waller (1987) ground seven factors, five of which corresponded to the big five and two additional factors.This goes on to show that more extensive research is needed and current theories are non enough to draw conclusions from. However, research connect to personality has deep clarified the utility of using pers onality variables for predicting job performance. This research by (Barrick & Mount, 1991 Hough, 1992 Salgado 1997) has demonstrated that personality constructs are indeed associated with work performance. Other traits are correlated with specific occupations. However, very little research has examined the mechanisms through which personality traits influence performance.Barrick and Mount (1991) found autonomous coating setting, and to a lesser extent goal setting, to mediate relationships between measures of job proficiency and supervisory ratings of job performance and sales volume for sales representatives. Organizational researchers have long been interested in relationships between personality traits and job performance. With the resurgent interest in theories of personality and the discovery of the big five model structure, research in this area has flourished.Researchers of personality and performance studies frequently make the implicit assumption that performance is a stab le construct and then rely on cross sectional and one time measures of performance to capture something that by its very nature unfolds across time. In perspicaciousness studies have shown that the relationship between personality and performance measures have been the average despite longstanding evidence that performance is dynamic (Bass, 1962). *The relationship between personality* and motivationPersonality has had an uneven history in work motivation research. Most researchers would implicitly agree that there are individual differences in motivation, and these differences can be traced to dispositional tendencies. In response to a incredulity nearly what is known in regards to individual differences in motivation, Austin and Klein (1996) commented, in spite of studies addressing individual differences within each of the perspectives, a considerable amount of research is needed before precise statements can be do about their role.Gellatly (1996) noted thatattempts to empi rically link personality characteristics with motivational variables have produced inconsistent results. This is a result of lack of theoretical encourage and conceptual clarity in the motivational area itself. However, motivational research has made substantial theoretical circulate and with respect to the theory for which the most progress has been made it is not clearly defined. As Locke, Shawn, Saari and Latham (1981) noted in their creative review, the only consistent thing about studies of individual differences in goal setting is their inconsistency.A more likely explanation for the lack of progress in personality and motivation literature is as Hogan and Roberts (2007) put it, there are thousands of personality measures in the published literature. These authors commented further that bygone personality research was sprawling in conceptual disarray, with no overarching theoretical paradigm and the subject matter was operationalized in terms of a bear-sized number of poo rly validated scales with different names. With so many traits related to different aspects of motivation, it is no surprise that reviews of the literature have come away apathetic by the observed findings.Reflective Writing Maslows pecking order aims to explain human behavior in terms of basic requirements for choice and growth. These requirements are arranged according to their importance for survival and their power to strike the individual. The most basic physical requirement, such as food, water and type O constitute the lowest level of the need hierarchy. These necessarily must be satisfied before other higher needs become important to individuals (Scmuttle, 2002). While the order of satisfaction is subject to debate, I have worked as a farm manager and the most of my subordinates only cared about the first two needs.The physiological and safety needs. The basic needs of survival are what seemed to motivate them to work. The farm workers were not driven by ambition, estee m needs or self actualization needs. If by chance the basic requirements were wanting(p) the workers would revolt, but in abundance farm output would double or triple in certain quarters. Although Maslow agrees that other needs do not fit into his hierarchy for example cognitive needs such as curiosity and scientific interest. I feel that in developing countries those needs are not yet valued and hence a forfeited which renders the hierarchy of needs valid.In conclusion, the literature on personality and job performance, and personality and motivation shows a connection between each of the two. In theory a strong connection exists but often that is not the case. Incorrect assumptions about personality in relation to job performance and motivation could result in erroneous conclusions in firms and organizations, which can be costly. However, this does not render the theories invalid, in my personal experience the connection was transparent but only on the first two levels of the h ierarchy.The differences can be attributed to different cultures and values between developing countries and Western countries. References Austina, J. T & Klein, H. J. (1996). work motivation and goal striving. In K. R. Murphy (Ed), Individual differences and behaviour in organizations. San Francisco Jossey-Bass. Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The heavy(a) Five personality dimensions and job performance A meta-analysis. violence Psychology, 44, 1-26. Bass, B. M. (1962). Further evidence of the dynamic nature of criteria. Personnel_ Psychology_, 15, 93-97.De Janasz, S. Wood, G. Gottschalk, K. D. & Schneider, B. (2006). Interpersonal skills in organisations. McGrawHill NSW. Gellatly, I. R. (1996). conscientiousness and task performance Test of cognitive process model. Journal of use Psychology, 81, 474-482. Griffin, M. (2007). Organizational Behavior. Managing People and Organizations. 8th Ed. Houghton Miffling Boston. Guion, R. M. & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of perso nality measures in force out selection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135-164. Hellriegel, D. & Slocum, J. (2006). Organizational Behaviour.Thomson South-WesternChina Hogan, R. & Roberts, B. W. (2001). Personality and Industrial and organizational Psychology. In B. W. Roberts & Hogan (Eds) _Personality Psychology in the workplace (pp. 3-16). _Washington, DC American Psychology Association. Hough, L. M. (1992). The Big Five personality variables-construct confusion Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139-155. Locke, E. A & Hulin, C. L. (1962). A review and evaluation of the validity studies of activity vector analysis. Personnel Psychology, 15, 25-42. Locke, E. A. , Shaw, K. N. Saari, L. M. , & Latham, G. P. (1981). aim setting and task performance. Psychological Bulleting, 90, 125-152. Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30-43. Schuttle, D. (2002). Maslows Hierarc hy of needs. Gale Encyclopedia of Nursing and Allied Health. 3, 1500-1503. Tellegen, A. & Waller, N G. (1987). Re-examining basic dimensions of inbred language trait descriptors. Paper presented at the 95th annual conventionality of the American Psychological Association, New York.Personality TheoriesAnswer c. us versus them. crystallize Answer suspicion 2 O out of 2 points Because they both thought In terms of privacy an power, Nixon and Singer could relate wellhead to one another, according to Kellys Corollary. Answer A. Choice D. Sociality marvel 3 In order to emphasize that his theory was concerned with the nature of the animal rather than with environmental forces, Kelly called his theory Answer a Jackass theory. Question 4Kelly explained personality change as a result of Answer adjusting to environmental pressures. concomitant constructions of the replications of events. Question 5 increase the predictability of events. Question 6 Slot case describes changing to the co ntrast pole of a construct. Question 7 Is your instructor happy? a student is asked. The student replies, I dont know I never thought about that. What interpretation from Kellys theory is appropriate? B. The teacher is outside the range of convenience of the students construct happiness. Correct Answer happiness.Question 8 Despite numerous physical difficulties, artist Friday Kohl believed she could be successful in her work. This is called Answer self-efficacy. Question 9 Michel focuses particularly on variables. Cognitive Question 10 According to Michel, traits contradict describe Question 1 1 behavior. If I ask Jane to go to the movies, will she go, or reject me? This is a question of behavior-outcome expectancies. Question 12 According to Michel, people are not passively controlled by their environment because they can develop to influence their own behavior.Answer self-regulatory systems Question 13 Michel conducted research on the slow up of gratification in Answer child ren. Question 14 Delay of gratification is easier if the child sees models who delay their own gratification. Question 15 Bandannas concept of describes the mutual influences of the person, the environment, and behavior. Answer interactional determinism The main function of the self-system, as described by Bandeau, is to Answer place behavior. Question 17 A person high in self-efficacy believes he or she can act effectively in a situation. Question 18