Download Personality Development at Work: Balancing Fit and Work Demands and more Schemes and Mind Maps Business in PDF only on Docsity!
MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION IN
JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL BEHAVIOR, 2019
The Influence of Work on Personality Trait Development: The Demands-Affordances TrAnsactional (DATA) Model, an Integrative Review, and Research Agenda Stephen A. Woods PhD University of Surrey Bart Wille PhD Ghent University Chia-huei Wu PhD London School of Economics and Political Science Filip Lievens PhD Singapore Management University & Filip De Fruyt PhD Ghent University Address for Correspondence: Professor Stephen A. Woods PhD Surrey Business School University of Surrey Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH UK [email protected]
The Influence of Work on Personality Trait Development: The Demands-Affordances TrAnsactional (DATA) Model, an Integrative Review, and Research Agenda Abstract Although personality is typically conceptualised in industrial, organizational, and vocational psychology as enduring and stable, an increasing volume of research now shows that personality changes throughout the lifespan, with work being a potentially important influence of trait development. This paper reviews and integrates the emergent literature in this area, and in doing so proposes a new Demands-Affordances TrAnsactional (DATA) model of personality development at work, against which research is evaluated. This DATA model clarifies how personality-related behavior at work is called upon by work demands at four different levels (vocation, job, group and organization) and proposes Person- Environment (PE) fit as the main guiding mechanism for personality trait change at work. Drawing on this model, we develop a predictive framework of work demands that influence personality and outline eight core questions to advance this field. Keywords: Personality change, Personality development, Demands-Affordances TrAnsactional (DATA) Model, PE fit, Work environment.
A significant barrier to the integration of studies in this area is the absence of a coherent explanatory framework that is inclusive in the sense that it captures all relevant variables that have been studied, and those that could be considered salient for trait change at work. Accordingly, we present such a framework in our review, the Demands-Affordances TrAnsactional (DATA) model, drawing on a number of conceptual and theoretical sources. Our framework integrates theoretical and conceptual models from studies of personality change at work, and literatures from Industrial/Organizational and personality and social psychology. It serves both descriptive and explanatory functions. The DATA model firstly allows explication of mechanisms of change, and a multi-level taxonomic approach to organizing work factors that could prompt trait development, drawing on the concept of Person-Environment (PE) fit. Secondly, by classifying work factors around a coherent PE fit taxonomy, we are subsequently able to organize the emergent literature so as to evaluate its comprehensiveness to date and point towards future directions of research.
2. The Demands-Affordances TrAnsactional (DATA) model of personality development at work The lack of an integrating explanatory framework that facilitates understanding and prediction of work effects on personality is.a significant gap in the literature on personality development at work.We propose the DATA model as a solution to this gap (see Figure 1). There are three main elements in the framework: Demands, Affordances and Demand- Affordance Transactions. Demands and Affordances are descriptive elements. The Demands element represents all of the situational or work-oriented factors that define the external environment of work. Affordances represent individual personality attributes and characteristics that are activated or required to respond or deal with the demands of the environment (i.e. in the context of personality, what traits does a work demand call for? ). Based on the focus of the model on personality development, this affordances category
comprises traits at various levels of breadth versus specificity, and we conceptualize traits as affecting, and being affected by other elements of the model. The third element of the model is Demand-Affordance Transactions, an explanatory element. We propose that this transaction reflects a process initially triggered by the activation of affordances (traits) against work demands and then, motivated by the attainment of desirable work outcomes (e.g. reward, satisfaction), operated to achieve fit between affordances (traits) and demands. Such transaction should be determined by the levels of consistency between affordances (traits) and work demands as lower consistency should trigger a stronger developmental process to approach fit. The result of the transaction is ultimately expression of behavior, which reciprocally affects demands and affordances. We complete the elements of the DATA model by including a motivational element based on goal formation driven independently by both demands and affordances. A final general aspect of the framework is its dynamic nature. That is, we conceptualize all parts of the model to be in a dynamic state, interacting with one another. As personality is also conceptualized as dynamic, our model places personality development within this wider and fuller demands-affordances framework. 2.1. Demands Work demands in the model are organized into the four main levels of PE fit, namely job, vocational, team/group, and organizational (Su & Rounds, 2015). Each of these levels is elaborated further with respect to the literature that has examined the influence of each on personality trait development and change. However, consistent with theories of personality and performance (e.g. Trait Activation Theory; Tett & Burnett, 2003), we emphasize that affordances may be activated by micro- and macro-level features of the work environment. That is, people’s traits may be activated and developed in response to features of the work or
or feel on average; that is, across varying situations at work. More recent approaches to personality, however, increasingly consider how individual differences in traits are manifest in moment-to-moment behaviors at work (e.g., Debusscher, Hofmans, & De Fruyt, 2017). Whole Trait Theory (Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015), for instance, proposes a density distributions approach to trait descriptions in which individuals’ personality states are expected to deviate regularly and predictably from the average personality trait level. This approach arguably provides a fuller account of how individual differences are manifested in actual behavior, and how the expression of trait-relevant behavior is influenced by characteristics (or demands) from the environment, including work. Such a perspective on personality aligns better with our view on traits as affordances. Applying the logic of Trait Activation Theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003), work demands are proposed to differentially activate personality traits, bringing them into a process of development explained by the broader mechanisms of the model. The specificity of the activation can be differentiated in two ways. That is, demands may be related to specific Big Five domain areas (i.e. social demands related to Extraversion; intellectual demands related to Openness) and hence be differentiated across the defining categories of taxonomic models of traits. Secondly, demands may impact along various levels of the trait hierarchy (bandwidth). Whilst some demands may activate traits at a broad level of abstraction (e.g. Extraversion), others may act on narrower personality facets (e.g. sociability versus dominance facets of Extraversion), effectively differentiated through the hierarchy of personality traits. A final consideration in respect of affordances concerns the interplay of personality traits and other individual attributes such as knowledge, skills and abilities. In the theory of work adjustment, learning new skills or adjusting attitudes is a potential response to environment misfit (Dawis & Lofquist, 1987). Such strategies for adjustment could
conceivably influence traits. For example, improving interpersonal skills and practising them could lead to development of social poise or sociability more generally, elements of Extraversion (Woods & Anderson, 2016). Moreover, there are possible longer-term interactions between classes of affordances, for example the interplay of Openness/Intellect and cognitive ability as proposed in investment perspectives on personality and intelligence (see e.g. Woods, Hinton & Von Stumm, 2017). A full elaboration of these mechanisms is outside the bounds of this review paper, yet it remains important to recognise that traits exist as affordances at work alongside multiple individual characteristics and attributes. 2.3. Transaction At the centre of the explanatory model is the transaction between demands and affordances leading to behavior. The transaction represents a psychological exchange between perceptions of the demands of the work situation and the deployment of resources to meet those demands. The concept of a transaction or exchange between person and environment has been proposed to help understand and frame personality development influences of major life events (Denissen, Luhmann, Chung & Bleidorn, 2018), and career experiences (Wille & DeFruyt, 2012). It is both a relevant and helpful foundation for modelling the developmental effects of environments on traits because it is implicitly recognized that the nature of any transaction is dependent upon what each side contributes; the unique combination of the person and their profile of traits, with their work environment influence the developmental track that results. The aforementioned studies provide a basis for proposing the transactional nature of personality change based on environment factors. However, our conceptualisation of transaction advances its place in personality development processes in two important ways. First, we assume that transactions occur continuously through working life. Rather than focus on significant major events, or discrete work choices, we rather see regular, micro-transactions with aspects of work as building to
adaptive given the negative psychological consequences of work situations where personal resources are insufficient to deal with demands (e.g. the job-demands resources model; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). In sum, while PE fit is the central guiding concept of our DATA model, the attainment of associated positive consequences of fit (e.g. satisfaction, work happiness and engagement) are also viable outcomes of personality development mechanisms. 2.3.1. Developmental Mechanisms. To further elaborate how discrete interactions between demands and affordances can evoke a transactional development process resulting in fit, we offer an integrative perspective by incorporating different ideas in the literature. First, based on the idea of reciprocity suggested in social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), person, environment, and behavior can shape each other in a dynamic reciprocal way. This classical learning theory highlights how repeated experience of environmental demands, processed through cognitive and affective reactions resulting in behavior, and observation of behavioral consequences, leads to typical, characteristic response patterns. Through such processes, traits may become refined, strengthened or modified based to fit situational demands, providing a theoretical foundation to examine personality change under the interactions between demands and affordances. Then, depending on the initial consistency between demands and affordances, two different mechanisms may operate to achieve fit between demands and affordances by shaping one’s behavior. First, the corresponsive mechanism theorised by Roberts and colleagues (e.g. Roberts et al., 2003) proposes that people select-in to environments that fit their traits, and that the corresponding activation and expression of those traits serves to strengthen and deepen them. The developmental process in the model is the activation and expression of traits in ways that serve to reinforce and deepen them. For example, in a busy customer-facing environment, sociability is likely to be an advantage for performing key job
tasks. By this pathway, for highly sociable workers, the activation and expression of this trait would serve to strengthen and deepen it. However, development may also be prompted in situations where traits are a misfit for demands, suggesting an alternative mechanism. In this scenario, what a situation calls for may be different from the typical ways of responding associated with a person’s traits, evoking an adjustment mechanism. Trait Activation Theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003) incorporates moderation of trait-behavior pathways by extrinsic and intrinsic job rewards, recognizing that people may be motivated to behave counter to their traits to attain certain pecuniary or non-pecuniary (e.g. satisfaction, well-being) benefits of work. Imagine a person in the example above, who is low on sociability (e.g. shy or socially reserved). Their typical social style may be incompatible with effective performance of duties. Therefore, to attain the benefits of the job, they may need to act in ways that are counter-typical to their traits. The theory of work adjustment describes how people respond to the demands of their work by acting on themselves to develop skills, adapt behavior and change attitudes (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). In simple terms, if traits are not a fit for demands, then development may be prompted so that appropriate behavior is deployed in response (Su, Murdock & Rounds, 2015). Through learning processes, such new behavior becomes strengthened, practiced and more autonomous as it is deployed across similar and consistent work demands and situations. In time, this reinforcement is a likely mechanism through which personality develops. Again, the direction of development is towards increasing PE fit. No matter which (i.e., corresponsive or adjustment) mechanism is operated to achieve fit between demands and affordances, the long term personality trait development should be based on accumulated short-term or micro person-work environment transactions, which can be understood from the recently developed TESSERA framework (Wrzus & Roberts, 2017). Specifically, the TESSERA model posits that long-term personality development occurs due
repeated job-related sociable behaviour (e.g. interacting with customers, initiating communication, talking warmly etc) could in time lead to development of higher trait sociability. The association of behavioural change with subsequent personality trait change along these lines has been evidenced in recent research on development interventions (see Hudson, Briley, Chopik, & Derringer, 2018). 2.5. Goals A final element of our proposed explanatory model of personality development at work is the role of goals and motivation as inputs into the demands-affordance transaction. The importance of motivation is underlined in general perspectives on personality development in adulthood, as well as in Trait Activation Theory. The corresponsive mechanism (Roberts, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2003) of personality development proposes that personality traits lead people to select into environments or take decisions that enable pursuit of trait-relevant goals. An example is the pursuit of close and positive relationships or pro-social goals by people higher on Agreeableness. Pursuit of those goals correspondingly strengthens and deepens those same traits (e.g. see Woods, Lievens, De Fruyt & Wille, 2013). A similar motivational mechanism at work is presented in the Theory of Purposeful Work Behaviour (Barrick, Mount, & Li, 2013). The theory proposes a directional influence of traits on behavior through the process of striving for superordinate goals. One motivational mechanism is therefore from the affordance side of our model (paths f and g in Figure 1): that personality traits as individual characteristics direct the general direction of work behavior toward attainment of personally salient goals. This may affect, for example, how different people respond to similar work demands. Work as a context for personality trait development, however, also introduces motivational factors from the environment demands side of the model (paths d and e ). As highlighted earlier, Trait Activation Theory positions extrinsic and intrinsic rewards as
factors determining or regulating the expression of traits in behavior. When responding to work demands, people’s actions result from a complex set of cognitive evaluations. These comprise perceptions of the situation and psychological features of demands, and associated affordances. Where traits and individual resources are judged to be inconsistent with work demands, a process of adjustment is invoked to respond in a way counter to one’s typical style or behaviour. The motivation to respond in such a way (in effect to act counter to personality traits) is reinforced by the rewards that work brings. In order to obtain the benefits of work, one must deliver required standards of performance, regardless of whether those standards are consistent with preferred ways of behaving (e.g., the low Conscientious person who is required to be organized and systematic in their administration work). Perhaps most interesting is when traits may interact to influence goals in different ways. In the example above, a person low on Conscientiousness may need to act in an organised manner to gain progression or promotion. However, the extent to which that outcome is desirable may itself be dependent on other traits such as ambition and achievement orientation. 2.6. Developing an explanatory framework of work demands that influence personality We propose that to date, an explanatory framework of work demands that influence personality development is elusive in part because taxonomies of work demands are highly descriptive in that they describe what people are required to do, or the environments they experience, or the KSAOs that are needed to perform. However, there exists no systematic approach to examining underlying taxonomic structures through a person-environment interactional lens. In our explanatory model, traits develop because they represent affordances to deal with situational work demands. Logically, to develop an integrated understanding and taxonomy
sources of demands at work towards which people develop. These demands were deliberately selected because of their connection to the central explanatory process in this framework, namely PE fit (Su, Murdoch & Rounds, 2015). More specifically, job - , vocation - , group, and organization- level demands have been used in the literature as relevant categories to distinguish between different levels of fit at work (Kristof Brown, Jansen, & Colbert, 2002). In each case, we highlight how the demands associated with each level of fit could be conceptualised, providing direction towards the objective of a descriptive taxonomy of work factors affecting personality traits, and outline what the literature has already offered with respect to empirical research into their developmental influences. With respect to the latter point, we emphasize that our model serves both descriptive-integrative (i.e. summarising findings of the literature to date) and predictive-prospective functions (i.e. proposing a coherent model of work factors that conceptually could influence trait development, yet have not been studied to date). All studies reviewed in this section are integrated in Table 1 where different work demand factors are defined and previously identified demand-affordance transactions are summarized. 3. 1. Job characteristics and features In the context of PE fit, jobs have been identified by Kristof (1996) as “the tasks a person is expected to accomplish in exchange for employment, as well as characteristics of those tasks” (p. 8). In our DATA model, we classify job-level demands as specifically the tasks and activities required of a person in the attainment of their job requirements and the general ways in which they are characterized (e.g. the extent to which a person has autonomy in deciding how to perform tasks). To elaborate further, existing job-based demand models describe features or characteristics of work at various levels of specificity. The Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) for example, describes key psychologically relevant workplace
features, namely skill variety (i.e., the range of tasks performed, and skills called upon doing so), task identity (i.e., the ability to complete the whole job from start to finish), task significance (i.e., the impact of the job on others), autonomy (i.e., the extent of discretion and freedom an employee has over his or her tasks), and feedback (i.e., the extent to which the job provides the employee with information about the effectiveness of his or her performance). Task characteristics are a more complex prospect to profile given their evident job- specificity. Unlike the job characteristics model, a description of job tasks should represent a functional specification of the work to be done rather than the deeper psychological profiling of the nature of the work. At this advanced level of specificity, one illustrative example and means of taxonomizing task demands is the ONET content model (Peterson, Mumford, Borman, Jeanneret, & Fleishman, 2001), which includes detailed descriptions of the tasks and features associated with jobs within occupational categories. For example, the taxonomy describes generalized work activities, and specific work tasks, profiling in a more direct way what a job actually entails in terms of work to be done. Moreover, ONET also provides some translation of work demands to statements of general work styles that are needed to meet those demands, providing a potentially useful heuristic for linking demands and affordances. We return specifically to this point in our discussion section of the review. 3 .1.1. Research on personality development in response to job characteristics and features PJ fit has been one of the most commonly studied levels of PE fit due to the tremendous amount of attention directed toward the selection of applicants based on his or her skills to fill available positions. The bulk of research on reciprocal relationships between personality and work environments has focused on this level of analysis. That is, a series of studies have looked at how personality predicts and is predicted by job-level characteristics (see Table 1). Whereas some studies included (only) a select set of isolated job characteristics, others
related to changes in personality, and these effects were also replicated when parent reports were used instead of self-reports of personality. In particular, individuals who reported that their jobs did not allow them to use their skills, were stressful and less fitting, did not provide a secure working environment, and were lower quality and involved some level of danger, increased in negative emotionality across time. Other research has adopted more integrated and established models of job characteristics. One of the earliest examples of this tradition is a study by Brousseau and Prince (1981) which used the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) to assess an integrated set of psychologically relevant workplace features: skill variety, task identity , task significance , autonomy and feedback (see Table 1) in a single-company sample of engineers, scientists and managers. Skill variety, task identity and task significance were related to increases in emotional stability (or decreases in Neuroticism) over a time period of 7 years. Having a job which has a profound impact on other’s lives was also related to increases in social dominance (i.e. an aspect of Extraversion). Complementing these results, two studies investigated reciprocity between Big Five personality and the Job Demand-Control Model (JDCM; Karasek, 1979). The JDCM describes work environments along four independent dimensions thought to predict work stress: Decision latitude , psychological demands , physical demands and hazardous work (see Table 1). Sutin and Costa (2010) investigated reciprocal relationships between JDCM job characteristics and Big Five personality traits over a 10-year time interval. Baseline personality was associated with changes in job characteristics, particularly decision latitude. More specifically, participants high in neuroticism decreased in decision making latitude, whereas extraverted, open, and particularly conscientious participants at baseline reported more decision making latitude at the 10-year follow-up. Importantly, none of the job characteristics predicted change in personality at the factor level. These authors concluded
that personality shaped job characteristics, but occupational experiences had minimal impact on personality. However, using the same JDCM, Wu (2016) showed that time demand and job control (i.e. a combination of decision-making autonomy, work-methods autonomy and work- scheduling autonomy) shaped job stress at a given time; and over time, an increase in time demand predicted an increase in job stress, which subsequently predicted an increase in Neuroticism, and a decrease in Extraversion and Conscientiousness. In addition, an increase in job control predicted an increase in Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Openness directly, but did not predict changes in Neuroticism and Extraversion. This study concluded that work conditions can be important drivers of personality change, and job stress was identified as a key feature underlying changes in extraversion and neuroticism in particular. In summary, our review indicates that a substantial number of studies has investigated reciprocal relationships between personality development and job characteristics, and that the plethora of these work demands are distilled from frameworks which describe work in terms of stressors and/or resources. This explains why most of the predictive effects from work to personality development have been found for the trait Neuroticism (or Negative Emotionality), given that this is the personal attribute most related to stress. We propose that, to more comprehensively understand the predictive effects from jobs to personality development, greater variability in job characteristics is needed. More specifically, future research needs to consider job characteristics that better capture what people actually (need to) do in their jobs. So, greater consideration of work content is needed. We return to this point in our discussion section of the review. 3.2. Vocational characteristics Vocational characteristics describe work environments at a high level of abstraction. More specifically, work demands conceptualized at this level relate to higher-order
