Personality as a concept

Personality presents an outline sketch of a person which can then be used as a behaviour prediction
tool. In everyday life, ones first impression on meeting somebody new is largely created by this tool
named personality. Whilst your personality traits can often change depending on the surroundings
one find themselves in; personality theory focuses on behaviour patterns that are more consistent in
different contexts over a prolonged period of time rather than transposing on a day to day basis. As
will be discussed in greater depth within this assignment, with regards to the business world and
organisations, recruiters generally are on the lookout for specific types of personality which then
allow them to shape their company within their visions.
One of the most widespread debates held concerning personality theory is that of nature v nurture.
This is the battle of the nomothetic approach (e.g. having a predisposition to being shy in certain
situations) in comparison to the ideographic approach which focuses on the agenda of uniqueness
and continual change. Are humans purely shaped by their surroundings and their actions learnt by
the environment to which they grow up in or is it completely predetermined before birth? To this,
Pinker contends with the former, criticising the late 20
th
century general mindset which defined the
mind as a blank slate later adapted by both experiences and location.
Due to personality playing such a huge role in everyones life, consequently many theories have
been formed. These theories fall into the categories of type and trait. Whilst type can be
depicted descriptively such as Jason is a quiet and nervous young man; traits focal points are the
attributes of ones personality which then play an influence on their respective mannerisms.
Friedman and Rosenman acknowledged that there were two established personality types; Type A
and Type B. Whilst it must be noted that these are both on either end of the spectrum to each other
and therefore extreme, it is typically possible to effortlessly place somebody within one of the two
categories. The two types were contrasted against variances in stress levels. Whilst members of the
Type A group would suffer more stress related illnesses due to being consistently tense, impatient
and pressured, Type B would rarely be impatient, typically tranquil and had a sensible work/life
balance allowing them to suffer less stress related illnesses. This solid association between stress
and personality certainly causes much detriment to the business world; proven by the Health and
Safety executive estimating that yearly, on average 90 million working days are loss solely due to
stress-related illnesses. In terms of productivity, type A are more reliable in getting a job done
quickly within a given timescale, however in the long run; type B will have a longer life expectancy
and therefore be able to manage more whilst doing less.
The Big Five Personality model encompasses broad categories of personality traits which are
believed to capture an individuals rough personality profile. Backed most recently by Paul Costa and
Robert McRae; this models traits are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and
neuroticism. One can then take the opposite dimension of each of these categories and use this
range to place ones personality. Costa and McRae additionally identified 6 sub-traits under each of
the main traits; for example achievement and self discipline under conscientiousness umbrella.
Whilst this model provides an extremely wide range and comes with ease in placing peoples
personalities; in terms of how an individual acts; it is usually the situation which plays the biggest
role in ones actions rather than those of their underlying personality traits. Additionally, the Big Five
traits omit other important factors such as humour and honesty therefore showing its limits in use.
Thus in a business sense, whilst achievement and self discipline are generally what is expected, in
some occupations this may not be relevant at all; e.g factory workers, hence showing the role of
variations in work situations.
During the 1940s, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was developed identifying personality types that
result from questions self-answered on ones perception and judgement. In comparison to other
personality measurer tools, MBTI sorts an individuals preferences rather than measuring their
character traits. 16 personality types displayed in a matrix were identified originally produced as a
test to allow women entering the workforce to find a job which was most appropriate to their
personality. Within each personality type, there are further explanations on the assigned behaviour
pattern. Whilst being useful to quickly pinpoint an individuals personality; key criticisms are that
once again, the categories are too rigid. According to MBTI, one is either introvert or extravert and
therefore there doesnt exist any space for someone falling in the middle of the two categories. As
will be discussed later, this indicator was initially used to split our group into dominant and less
dominant characters.

Appendices
In relation to Tuckman and Jensens stages of development theory, the team went through the
forming/storming/norming/performing/adjourning process which measured our performance over
time. At the start, having formed into our group, we used this opportunity to get to know each
other whilst undertaking discussions on our understanding of the task. We allocated certain team
members different tasks according to their skill set which correlated with our newly discovered MBTI
scorings (Forming). Ewa was INFP; Helena was ISFJ; Nishay was ENFJ and Philip was ESTP.
The team unanimously selected Nishay as team leader due to his extrovert profile and willingness to
take on the role. Ewa was team shaper contributing alternative thought provoking methods of
thinking to the group (Storming). This was demonstrated when Ewa suggested a new approach to
the assignment. Philip criticised others approach on occasions whilst suggesting alternative
methods which he thought were appropriate (Norming). Nonetheless, he was open to new
opportunities and demonstrated flexibility whenever tasks needed reallocating. Helena took the
opportunity to be task completer by reviewing each individual section of the work. She also used
positive feedback in order to improve her section stemming from constructive criticism (Performing).
Post completion, we reflected on the development of the team and appraised each others
performance (Adjourning).
In hindsight, having completed the task it was evident that the group constructively used the
feedback given from both fellow team members as well as our group mentor. This allowed us to
reflect on our thoughts and concretely decide whether we wanted to pursue them. There were also
no barriers inter-group making sure no time was wasted. Regarding improvements, we needed to be
a bit more realistic and take a second to think about the question in detail before jumping straight
into the task without adequate planning. Nonetheless, we have learnt that altering a plan midway
not only provides us with more ideas whilst reinforcing our original thought patterns. We thoroughly
enjoyed the assignment.....PLEASE HELP FINISH THIS BIT!!