i. Authoritarianism
It is a concept developed by the psychologist Adorn during World War II to measure susceptibility to autocratic, fascistic or antidemocratic appeals. Since that time, the concept has been extended to the authoritarianism personality, a generic term used to describe an individual who has a strong belief in the legitimacy of established mechanisms of formal authority, views obedience to authority as necessary, exhibits a negative philosophy of people, adheres to conventional and traditional value systems, is intellectually rigid and opposes the use of subjective feelings. Authoritarians also tend to be rigid in their positions, place high moral value on their beliefs and are strongly oriented towards conformity to rules and regulations. They naturally prefer stable and structured work environments which are governed by clean rules and procedures. Similarly, authoritarians are likely to prefer autocratic or directive leadership and would exhibit high respect for individuals in positions of authority.
ii. Locus of Control
It refers to an individual’s belief that events are either within one’s control (internal locus of control) or are determined by forces beyond one’s control (external locus of control). These personality traits are manifested in different behaviour which are significant to manager. It has been proved that externals (those who believe that events are determined by external forces) are less satisfied with their jobs, have higher absenteeism rates, more alienated from work setting and are less involved on their jobs than internals (those who believe that events are within one’s control). Internals typically have more control over their own behaviour, are more active in seeking information to make decisions, and are more active socially than externals.
iii. Machiavellianism
It refers to an individual propensity to manipulate people. Machiavellians would be prone to participate in organizational politics. They are also adept at interpersonal game playing, power tactics and identifying influence system in organizations. Do the Machiavellians make good employees? The answer depends on the type of job and whether one considers ethical considerations in evaluating performance. In jobs that require bargaining skills (such as labour negotiation) or where there are substantial rewards for winning (commissioned sales), Machiavellians perform better.
iv. Introversion and Extroversion
These are the most common descriptions of personality traits. These terms are normally associated with an individual’s sociability and interpersonal orientation. Extroverts are gregarious and sociable individuals while introverts are shy, quiet and retiring. It is generally established that, introverts and extroverts have significantly different career orientations and require different organizational environments to maximize performance. Extroverts are more suitable for positions that require considerable interaction with others, whereas introverts are more inclined to excel at tasks that require thought and analytical skills. Not surprisingly, managerial positions are dominated by extroverts, thus suggesting that, this managerial trait is a factor in managerial success.
v. Achievement Orientation
It is yet another personality character which varies among people and which can be used to predict certain behaviours. Employees with a high need to achieve, continually strive to do things better. They want to overcome obstacles, but they want to feel that their success or failure is due to their own actions (read internals). This means that they like tasks of moderate difficulty. An easy task shall not evoke challenges and is, therefore, not liked by high achievers. Similarly, a task with high risk is not linked by these people as the failure rates are more. Given the high achievers propensity for tasks where the outcome can be directly attributed to his or her efforts, the high achiever looks for challenges having approximately a 50-50 chance of success on the job, high achievers will perform better where there is moderate difficulty, rapid performance feedback and direct relationship between effort and reward. This means that the high achievers tend to do better in sales, sports or in management.
vi. Self-esteem
It refers to feeling of like or dislike of one-self. This trait, naturally, varies from person to person. Self- esteem is directly related to desire for success. People with high self-esteem believe that they have abilities to undertake challenging jobs. They tend to choose unconventional jobs than those with lower self-esteem. People with low self-esteem are more susceptible to external influence than are those with high esteem. Low esteems are dependent on the receipt of positive evaluation from others. As a result, they are more likely to seek approval from others and more prone to conform to the beliefs and behaviours of those they respect than high esteems. In managerial positions, low esteems will tend to be concerned with pleasing others, and therefore less likely to take unpopular stands than high esteems. Self-esteem is also related to job satisfaction. High esteems are more satisfied with their jobs than the low esteems.
vii. Risk-taking
People differ in their willingness to take chances. Their propensity to assume or avoid risk has been shown to have an impact on how long it takes managers to make a decision and how much information they require before making their choice. For instance, 79 managers worked on simulated personnel exercise that required them to make decisions. High-risk-taking managers made more rapid decisions and used less information in making their choices than did low-risk- taking managers. Interestingly, the decision accuracy was the same for both groups.
While it is generally correct to conclude that managers in organizations are risk aversive, there are still individual differences on this dimension. As a result, it makes sense to recognize these differences and even to consider aligning risk taking propensity with specific job demands. For instance, a high-risk-taking propensity may lead to more effective performance for a stock trader in a brokerage firm. This type of job, demands rapid decision-making. On the other hand, this personality characteristics might prove a major obstacle to accountants performing auditing activities. This Iater job might be better filled by someone with a low-risk taking propensity.
viii. Self-monitoring
It refers to an individual’s ability to adjust his or her behaviour to external factors. Individuals high in self-monitoring can show considerable adaptability in adjusting their behaviour to external, situational factors. They are highly sensitive to external cues and can behave differently in different situations. High self-monitors are capable of presenting striking contradictions between their public, personal and their private selves. Low self- monitors cannot deviate their behaviour. They tend to display their true dispositions and attitude in every situation, hence there is high behavioural consistency between who they are and what they do. The high self-monitors tend to pay closer attention to the behaviour of others and are more capable of conforming than are low self-monitors. We might also hypotheses that high self-monitors will be more successful in managerial positions where individuals are required to play multiple and even contradicting roles. The high self-monitor is capable of putting on different “faces” for different audiences.
ix. Type of personality
Finally, there is type ‘A’ personality and type ‘B’ personality. Type A personality typifies a person who is always in a hurry, is extremely competitive and is often hostile and irritable. Opposite is Type B personality who is relaxed, incompetent and easy going. How do the two perform in organizations? Type A’s are no doubt highly competitive and hardworking. But it is the Type ‘B’ who climbs up to the top of organization. Type A’s will make most successful sales people and senior executive yes are usually Type B’s. Why this paradoxes? Answer lies in the tendency of Type A’s to trade off quality of effort for quantity. Executive positions usually go to those who are patient rather than to those who are merely hasty, to those who are tactful rather than to those who are hostile and to those who are creative rather than to whose who are merely agile in competitive strife.
Titany answered the question on September 7, 2021 at 12:14