'Personality Theories\r'

' basis The purpose of this move is to re keep an eye on theories that retain been cerebrate and discussed in regards to re governation. It aims to stipulate some matchlessality, summarize the main ideas crosswise dissimilar articles, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses that atomic number 18 in the articles. It withal links my personal experience of character features to the scheme of spirit. The essay begins by defining disposition from several(predicate) articles and books, then analyzing critically the key definitions.\r\nFurtherto a greater extent the essay discusses the relationship in the midst of personality and pedigree capital punishment and the relationship mingled with personality and motivating. The essay contains a reflective writing section, based on Maslow’s hierarchy of demand, a system of want and personality, in which my personal experience is discussed. Definitions The word personality has many a(prenominal) definitions across many fields, in different articles. Hogan and Holland (2003), defines personality as the unusual pattern of psychological and behavioural characteristics by which each person can be distinguished from other people.\r\nThis means each person’s characteristics are different from the other, and people are unique beings. Unlike griffon (2007), who indicates that personality is mute by some people to mean self-importance concept, by others, the consensus of other people’s opinions somewhat one’s character, and by others, one’s true character. This definition is vague and over simplistic. It places exclusives in single categories, ignoring the fact that e real personality introduces a unique combination of qualities. Walter (1986) goes on further to numerate at personality from cardinal angles, the actors view and the observers view.\r\n personality from the actors view is a person’s identity, which is delimit in terms of the strategies a pers on uses to surveil acceptance and status, identity controls and actors social behavior. Personality from the observers view is a person’s reputation, and it is defined in terms of peculiarity evaluations-conforming, helpful, talkative, competitive, calm, curious and so forth. However, the habitual trait on the definitions is restored on the following definitions. Griffin (2007) defines personality as the relatively stable see psychological attributes that distinguish one person from the other.\r\nThis is ofttimes referred to as the long standing debate a lot expressed as temperament versus nurture, that people’s personality is shaped by both hereditary pattern and environment. The next definition implores a new trait that of moveion with others. It is suggested that personality is the term used to mention the overall combination of characteristics or traits that reflect the nature of a person and the way 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 situational factors.\r\nHellriegel and Slocum (2006) also define personality as the overall profile or combination of stable psychological attributes that capture the unique nature of a person. This definition suggests that personality combines a set of physiological and mental characteristics that reflect how a person looks thinks, acts and feels. Hellriegel and Slocum’s definition contains two burning(prenominal) ideas, the first being what sets people apart and what they make in common and the second refers to personality as being stable and happening overtime.\r\nThe relationship amongst personality and bloodline carrying out Since 1990 analytical reviews put on shown that personality measures are useful predictors of prank performance. Although these gives represent a substantial revision in how utilise psychology vie ws personality assessment (cf. Guion & Gottier, 1965; Locke & Hulin, 1962), at that place is unsounded no agreed notional account for the findings. A speculation of individual differences in dally authorization that links assessment to performance would enhance the treasure of personality measures for forecasting occupational out roll in the hays.\r\nThe current necessitate organized criterion measures into the broad themes of getting on and getting ahead, and big vanadium personality categories (Hogan & Roberts, 2001). The results suggest that there is some practical utility for the theory driven look. Nevertheless, some look forers founder criticized the big volt factors as an incomplete taxonomy and have suggested that important relationships are obscured when analysis is limited to the big five alternatively than a sevensome factor model. Tellgen & Waller (1987) found seven factors, five of which corresponded to the big five and two supererog atory factors.\r\nThis goes on to show that more extensive look for is needed and current theories are non nice to draw conclusions from. However, research named to personality has tardily clarified the utility of using personality variables for predicting product line 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 match with specific occupations. However, very little research has examined the mechanisms done which personality traits exploit performance.\r\nBarrick and Mount (1991) found sovereign end setting, and to a lesser extent goal setting, to mediate relationships between measures of project proficiency and supervisory ratings of job performance and gross revenue volume for sales representatives. Organizational researchers have long been pertained 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.\r\nResearchers of personality and performance studies frequently make the implicit assumption that performance is a stable construct and so rely on cross sectional and one time measures of performance to capture something that by its very nature unfolds across time. In depth studies have shown that the relationship between personality and performance measures have been the norm despite longstanding point that performance is dynamic (Bass, 1962). *The relationship between personality* and motivation\r\nPersonality 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 question slightly what is known in regards to individual differences in motivation, capital of Texas and Kle in (1996) commented, â€Å" disrespect studies addressing individual differences within each of the perspectives, a considerable amount of research is needed forrader precise statements can be made virtually their role”.\r\nGellatly (1996) noted that”attempts to empirically link personality characteristics with motivational variables have produced inconsistent results”. This is a result of lack of theoretical progress and conceptual pellucidity in the motivational area itself. However, motivational research has made substantial theoretical progress and with notice 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 originative review, the entirely consistent thing about studies of individual differences in goal setting is their inconsistency.\r\nA more likely explanation for the lack of progress in personality and motivation literature is as Hogan and Roberts (2007) put it , â€Å"there are thousands of personality measures in the promulgated literature”. These authors commented further that past personality research was sprawling in conceptual disarray, with no overarching theoretical paradigm and the subject matter was operationalized in terms of a large number of poorly authorise 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.\r\n pondering Writing Maslow’s hierarchy aims to explain humane behavior in terms of basic requirements for extract and growth. These requirements are arranged according to their importance for endurance and their power to set off the individual. The most basic physical requirement, such as food, water and oxygen cause the lowest level of the need hierarchy. These postulate moldiness be satisfied before other high needs become important to individuals (Scmuttle, 2002). While the aver 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.\r\nThe physiological and guard duty needs. The basic needs of survival are what seemed to motivate them to work. The farm workers were not driven by ambition, wonder needs or self actualization needs. If by chance the basic requirements were lacking 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 mannequin cognitive needs such as speciality and scientific interest. I feel that in maturation countries those needs are not yet value and hence a forfeited which hark backs the hierarchy of needs valid.\r\nIn conclusion, the literature on personality and job performance, and personality and motivation shows a connection between each of the two. In theory a substantive connection exists but often t hat is not the case. unseasonable assumptions about personality in relation to job performance and motivation could result in ill-advised conclusions in firms and organizations, which can be costly. However, this does not render the theories invalid, in my personal experience the connection was patent but only on the first two levels of the hierarchy.\r\nThe 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 Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. military group Psychology, 44, 1-26. Bass, B. M. (1962). Further evidence of the dynamic nature of criteria. Personnel_ Psychology_, 15, 93-97.\r\nDe 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 subprogram model. Journal of use Psychology, 81, 474-482. Griffin, M. (2007). Organizational Behavior. Managing People and Organizations. eighth Ed. Houghton Miffling: Boston. Guion, R. M. & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135-164. Hellriegel, D. & Slocum, J. (2006). Organizational Behaviour.\r\nThomson South-Western:China 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 evaluatio n 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). Goal setting and task performance. mental 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). Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs. Gale Encyclopedia of Nursing and allied Health. 3, 1500-1503. Tellegen, A. & Waller, N G. (1987). Re-examining basic dimensions of natural language trait descriptors. Paper presented at the 95th annual ruler of the American Psychological Association, New York.\r\nPersonality Theories\r\n retort: c. â€Å"us versus them. ” Correct Answer: question 2 O out of 2 points Because they both supposition In terms of privacy an power, Nixon and Singer could relate well to one another, according to Kellys Corollary. Answer A. alternative D. Sociality psyche 3 In order to evince that his theory was concerned with the â€Å"nature of the animal” kind of than with environmental forces, Kelly called his theory Answer a diddlysquat theory. unbelief 4Kelly explained personality change as a result of Answer adjusting to environmental pressures. Successive constructions of the replications of events. Question 5 increase the predictability of events. Question 6 expansion slot movement describes changing to the contrast pole of a construct. Question 7 â€Å"Is your teacher happy? ” a student is asked. The student replies, â€Å"I dont know; I never thought about that. ” What interpretation from Kellys theory is appropriate? B. The teacher is outside the range of contrivance of the students construct â€Å"happiness. ” Correct Answer: â€Å"happiness.Question 8 Despite numerous physical difficulties, artist Friday Kohl believed she could be in(predicate) in her work. This is called Answer self-efficacy. Question 9 Michel focuses especially on variables. Cognitive Question 10 check to Michel, traits contradict describe Question 1 1 behavior. â€Å"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 postponement of gratification in Answer children. Question 14 Delay of gratification is easier if the child sees models who delay their own gratification. Question 15 Bandannas concept of describes the shared influences of the person, the environment, and behavior. Answer reciprocal determinism The main function of the self-system, as described by Bandeau, is to Answer regulate behavior. Question 17 A person high in self-efficacy believes he or she can act efficaciously in a situation. Question 18\r\n'