Evolution of the study and practice of personality at work

Abstract

This article reviews the dynamic evolution of personality research and practice in work organizations from the early 1900s through the present. The article reveals steady‐state equilibrium in the world of practice. In contrast, the world of research is shown to be punctuated by rapid changes in conceptual foci, levels of analysis, and methodological approaches, as well as whether or not personality at work is even considered important. Explanations are offered for these trends, including the ways theory and research in the larger world of the study of personality have been reflected in personality research in and on work organizations. The article concludes with some thoughts about revisiting various branches in this evolution and suggestions for the future of personality research and practice in work organizations. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Increased Accuracy for Range Restriction Corrections: Implications for the Role of Personality and General Mental Ability in Job and Training Performance

“…Hence, a mean u x value of .90 for personality does allow for substantial between‐job differences in mean personality trait scores, which if observed would support the ASA model. However, these data do not support the conclusion that the ASA process “produces homogeneity” (Schneider, 2007). The reduction in heterogeneity of about 10% cannot accurately be said to produce homogeneity.…”

“…Schneider (1987) proposed that people who are similar to those already in an organization are more likely to be attracted to that organization (attraction), more likely to be accepted into that organization (selection), and more likely to remain in that organization (low attrition). Schneider (2007) makes clear that the individual difference dimensions the ASA process applies to includes personality traits , so one might expect to find as much range restriction on personality traits as on GMA; yet this is apparently not the case. If the job‐based data in this study generalize to the organizational level, the suggestion would be that Schneider's ASA process operates more strongly on GMA than on personality.…”

Relating the Spherical representation of vocational interests to the HEXACO personality model

“…Consequently, all meta-analytic studies on the relations between interests and personality have used the RIASEC scales and the Big Five personality dimensions (e.g., Barrick et al, 2003;Larson et al, 2002). However, as several researchers have indicated, Integrity complements the Big Five personality dimensions Schneider, 2007). Based on lexical studies using a similar approach and datasets as prior Big Five studies, six personality dimensions have been uncovered in over nine countries (e.g., Ashton, Lee, Marcus, & De Vries, 2007;Ashton et al, 2004).…”

“…Personality is commonly measured using the Big Five dimensions (Schneider, 2007). Consequently, all meta-analytic studies on the relations between interests and personality have used the RIASEC scales and the Big Five personality dimensions (e.g., Barrick et al, 2003;Larson et al, 2002).…”

An Examination of the Competitive Attitudes of Entrepreneurs: Implications for Entrepreneurial Orientation at the Individual Level

“…These questions were chosen from the larger instruments for their applicability to a business situation. Also, to enhance their validity they were adapted to emphasize to respondents that they should consider them in a business context (Schneider, 2007). For example, the PDCA positive question "Through competitiveness I feel that I am contributing to the well-being of others" was rewritten as "Some people believe that by being competitive in business they are contributing to the well-being of others.…”