he essence of trait approaches in OB is that
employees possess stable personality character-
istics that significantly influence their attitudes to-
ward, and behavioral reactions to, organizational
settings. People with particular traits tend to be rela-
tively consistent in their attitudes and behavior over
time and across situations.1
Of course, trait theorists recognize that all traits
are not equally powerful. They tend to put them
into one of three categories. Cardinal traits are those
so strong and generalized that they influence every
act a person performs. Primary traits are generally
consistent influences on behavior, but they may not
show up in all situations. Finally, secondary traits are
attributes that do not form a vital part of the per-
sonality but come into play only in particular situa-
tions. For the most part, trait theories have focused
on the power of primary traits to predict employee
behavior.
Trait theorists do a fairly good job of meeting
the average person's face-validity test. Think of
friends, relatives, and acquaintances you have
known for a number of years. Do they have traits
that have remained essentially stable over time?
Most of us would answer that question in the affir-
mative. If Cousin Anne was shy and nervous when
we last saw her 10 years ago, we would be surprised
to find her outgoing and relaxed now.
Managers seem to have a strong belief in the
power of traits to predict behavior. If managers be-
lieved that situations determined behavior, they
would hire people almost at random and structure
the situation properly. But the employee selection
process in most organizations places a great deal of
emphasis on how applicants perform in interviews
and on tests. Assume you're an interviewer and ask
yourself: What am I looking for in job candidates? If
you answered with terms such as conscientious, hard-
working, persistent, confident, and dependable, you're a
trait theorist!
1Some of the point in this argument are from R.J. House,
S.A. Shane, and D.M. Herold, "Rumors of the Death of Dis-
position Research Are Vastly Exaggerated," Academy of
Management Review, January 1996, pp. 203-24.
|
ew people would dispute that there are some
stable individual attributes that affect reactions
to the workplace. But trait theorists go beyond that
generality and argue that individual behavior con-
sistencies are widespread and account for much of
the differences in behavior among people.2
There are two important problems with using
traits to explain a large proportion of behavior in or-
ganizations. First, organizational settings are strong
situations that have a large impact on employee be-
havior. Second, individuals are highly adaptive and
personality traits change in response to organiza-
tional situations.
It has been well known for some time that the
effects of traits are likely to be strongest in relatively
weak situations and weakest in relatively strong situ-
ations. Organizational settings tend to be strong sit-
uations because they have rules and other formal
regulations that define acceptable behavior and
punish deviant behavior; and they have informal
norms that dictate appropriate behaviors. These for-
mal and informal constraints minimize the effects
of personality traits.
By arguing that employees possess stable traits
that lead to cross-situational consistencies in behav-
iors, trait theorists are implying that individuals
don't really adapt to different situations. But there is
a growing body of evidence that an individual's
traits are changed by the organizations in which
that individual participates. If the individual's per-
sonality changes as a result of exposure to organiza-
tional settings, in what sense can that individual be
said to have traits that persistently and consistently
affect his or her reactions to those very settings?
Moreover, people typically belong to multiple orga-
nizations that often include very different kinds of
members, and they adapt to those different situa-
tions. Instead of being the prisoners of a rigid and
stable personality framework as trait theorists pro-
pose, people regularly adjust their behavior to reflect
the requirements of various situations.
2Based on A. Davis-Blake and J. Pfeffer, "Just a Mirage: The
Search for Dispositional Effects in Organizational Re-
search," Academy of Management Review,July 1989, pp.
385-400.
|
Home
