Using the hybrid model of learning in personality to predict performance in the workplace

Using the hybrid model of learning in personality to predict performance in the workplace Prof. Chris J. Jackson School of Organisation and Management UNSW c.jackson@unsw.edu.au

Aims Introduce idea of hybrid learning in personality model which argues that functional and dysfunctional learning (and therefore performance) has a common basis Compare other personality models with the hybrid model. To compare validity of different personality models To see that there are interesting applications of the hybrid model Argue that mediations in theoretical and applied personality research are important in explaining and describing

The hierarchical model of personality The trap of Measurement without Theory Eysenck EFA Big 5 EFA Almost all psychometric assessments EFA Most personality models maintain that traits are hierarchically organised. Classic example is Big Five personality model Is this good? Extraversion Warmth Gregariousness Going to parties Mixing with people

So what s wrong with the Big Five? Lots according to Block (1995): Origins in Exploratory Factor Analysis Problems with the lexical hypothesis leads to McAdams psychology of the stranger Five Factors not comprehensive Consensus misleading: FF adherents disagree Global factors questionable usefulness But ideal for use in prediction due to orthogonal(ish) solution

Simplified figurative representation of personality research foci BIOLOGICAL Eysenck Gray Zuckerman Honey & Mumford Kolb EXPERIENTIAL COGNITIVE Dweck & Leggett Vandewalle & Cummings Bandura Figure only shows most important position as opposed to broader models Why not try and achieve a hybrid model which is : representative of all these different foci explanatory and descriptive emphasising theory and measurement based in learning & personality Cloninger s TCI also E&T (2002) BIG 5

Simplified figurative representation of personality research foci BIOLOGICAL Eysenck Gray Zuckerman Honey & Mumford Kolb EXPERIENTIAL COGNITIVE Dweck & Leggett Vandewalle & Cummings Bandura Figure only shows most important position as opposed to broader models Why not try and achieve a hybrid model which is : representative of all these different foci explanatory and descriptive emphasising theory and measurement based in learning & personality Cloninger s TCI also E&T (2002) Hybrid model of learning in personality BIG 5

Zuckerman (1994): SS is a risk taking tendency with a biological basis Has a biological basis related to: Interest in enzyme monoamine oxidase (MAO) = precursor to dopamine Testosterone Ball & Zuckerman (1990); Pickering(1994) both report that High SS Learn tasks faster than Low SS Sensation Seeking in Child development (Raine et al., 2002) High Sensation Seeking can be: functional exploration strategy related to curiousity and learning Eg I seek thrilling and exciting activities, I look for new sensations and I excel at seizing the moment.

A quick lesson on mediation The effect of X on Y may be mediated by a process or mediating variable M, and the variable X may still affect Y. The mediated model is M Cognitive (proximal) X Biological (distal) Y Functional or Dysfunctional Behaviour Advocated by Humphreys and Revelle; Elliot and Thrash

The Learning Model of Personality Biology; genes; instinctive; difficult to change; more subcortical: Provides Drive and Curiousity Sensation Seeking Different to Zuckeman Goal Oriented Achiever / Mastery Emotionally Intelligent Achiever Conscientious Achiever Deep Learning Achiever Behaviour Socio-cognitive; complex rules learning; flexible; open to change; Conscious; neo-cortical Provides re-expression of learning drive

Functional learners have personality oriented towards success Winner Functional learner SS Goal Oriented Achiever Functional learning SS DLA CA EIA Functional learning Still researching Do Think Persevere Logic

And dysfunctional learners ~ They ll undermine work and worse Winner Functional learner Loser Dysfunctional learner SS Dysfunctional behaviour When indirect pathway with GOA is included

Archery analogy Well aimed arrows: Have forward momentum (Sensation Seeking) Result from provision of adequate cognitive resources to the goal (Goal Oriented / Mastery) Are the result of perseverance and practice (Conscientiousness) Are logically fired at an appropriate target (Emotionally Intelligent Achiever) Are fired by people with a good understanding of archery (Deep Learners)

Correlations Learning Scale Learning Styles Profiler Scales SS GOA DLA CA EIA Sensation Seeker (SS) -.50**.25**.03 -.25** Goal Oriented Achiever (GOA) -.27**.41**.17 Deep Learning Achiever (DLA) -.29** -.06 Conscientious Achiever (CA) -.21* Emotionally Intelligent Achiever (EA) - Jackson, Hobman, Jimmieson & Martin, 2009, British Journal of Psychology

The pattern across LSP and NEO-IPIP (n = 400 workers) LSP NEO-IPIP Correlations n = 273 Entreprenueurial Dysfunction SS GOA DLA CA EIA E A C N O.49**.39**.30**.07 -.05.24** -.05.00 -.07.16**.28**.12*.20** -.16** -.44**.11 -.28** -.28**.09 -.08 Entrepreneurial: I see big opportunities to make money in business, I want to manage sales, see growth and lead a team Dysfunction: Some people see me as quite delinquent, I do not have much respect for laws Functional and dysfunctional learning have a common basis but also clear differences

LSP in Maze Performance O Connor & Jackson (2008, Journal of Personality).51** GOA.24* SS.22* (.09) Best distance travelled on Maze Mastery Orientation mediates the effect of Sensation Seeking on Maze Performance. Regression weights for the prediction of performance from Sensation Seeking only are included in parentheses. N = 119

Self-rated school performance and detention 0.63** Goal Orientation Achiever 0.52** N = 119 from a single school in UK O Connor & Jackson (2008, Journal of Personality) Sensation seeking School Performance.30* (-0.02) Goal Orientation acting as a mediator in the relationship between Sensation Seeking and measures of positive performance in school. Sensation seeking Times in Detention.17 (0.33)* The relationship between Sensation Seeking and Times in Detention, with the effect of Goal Orientation (GO) removed from Sensation Seeking.

LSP in workplace: self rated O Connor & Jackson (2008, Journal of Personality) Goal Orientation Achiever 0.62** 0.22** 0.22** Sensation seeking 0.28*(0.19*) 0.20 (0.12*) Org Performance Job Performance And sinning: N = 347 Sensation seeking (controlling for GO) 0.18 (0.20*) 0.13 (0.17*) 0.14 (0.16*) Socio-sexual proclivity Delinquency Drug use

Biological EPQ-R PEN C&W BIS BAS Zuckerman s SSS Socio-cognitive Vanderwalle & Cummings Goal Orientation Measures 137 part-time workers also at University completed all questionnaires under supervision in Study 1 and 56 worker:supervisor dyads in Study 2 Dependent variables Downey s Job Performance Also supervisor rated Warr & Payne s job satisfaction Griffin et al. s workplace performance Objective knowledge Overall work performance Experiential Honey & Mumford s LSQ Hybrid Jackson s LSP Measures of Sinning Furnham s delinquency Bennett and Robinson s workplace deviance Lilienfeld and Andrew s psychopathy Jackson, Hobman, Jimmieson & Martin, 2009, British Journal of Psychology

Results Self-rated Workplace performance Jackson s Sensation Seeking and Goal Oriented Achiever scales are predictive of all but one measure of self-reported work performance Vandewalle s Learning Goal Orientation is predictive of all measures of self-reported workplace performance. Eysenck s Extraversion is predictive of most workplace performance scales BIS/BAS scales, Zuckerman s scales, Honey and Mumford s LSQ do not predict Supervisor Workplace performance Jackson s scales are generally most predictive (but n = 56) Sinning EPQ P predicts Jackson s socio-cognitive scales negatively predict BAS positively predicts Others do not Generally, Learning Styles Profiler is better predictor of performance than other models of personality Jackson, Hobman, Jimmieson & Martin, 2008, British Journal of Psychology

The path in the prediction of work performance and deviance 0.58*** Goal Oriented Achiever.50***.55***.41**.36*.48** -.31* -.36* Sensation Seeking -.36* (-.07) -.39** (-.07) -.32* (-.09) -.21 (-.01) -.34* (-.06).15 (.33*).18 (.39*) Supervisor-rated Job Performance Supervisor-rated Organisational Performance Supervisor-rated Work Unit Performance Supervisor-rated Job Performance Overall Supervisor-rated Performance Self-rated Workplace Deviance Self-rated Delinquency Jackson, Hobman, Jimmieson & Martin, 2008, British Journal of Psychology

New data from 242 worker : supervisor pure dyads across many businesses... Goal Oriented Achiever 0.59***.17*.20***.15* Sensation Seeking.20** (.16).25** (.20*).17** (.13) Overall Supervisor-rated Job Performance Supervisor-rated Organisational Performance Supervisor-rated Work Unit Performance Using the NEO-IPIP, high agreeableness and high Neuroticism significantly predict each of the three criteria (R 2 =.05 ->.07). Using the LSP, R 2 =.04 ->.07).

LSP in education: Predicting GPA Emotional Intelligent Achiever predicts GPA in: 131 Ugandan University Students (above) 290 Australian University Students (below) GOA.35**.54**.32**.14.35**.25**.38** GPA.22** SS.23** -.22** -.29** EIA.22** DLA.18*.27**.12*.13* CA Jackson, C. J., Baguma, P., Furnham, A. (submitted). Predicting Grade Point Average from the hybrid model of learning in personality: Consistent findings from Ugandan and Australian Students (GFI =.97, AGFI =.90, CFI =.90. RMSEA =.073).

Siadaty, M. & Taghiyareh, F. (2007) Selected people for training to improve performance on basis of Sensation Seeking and Conscientious Achievement Only Conscientious Achievement training improved performance Just as model predicts

Contrast with Big Five Big Five might have a biological and socio-cognitive basis to some scales; hybrid model is more clearly defined Hybrid model is more elegant than Big 5 as it is theory based and therefore less circular Big Five is descriptive; Hybrid model is more about intrinsic motivation and is concerned with explanation (To date) hybrid model explains at least as much variance in work outcomes as the Big Five

Criticisms of hybrid model Does it provide a full description of personality? What about the missing elements of the models which were used in the hybrid model? Maybe moderation instead of mediation? New model - Needs independent replication

Application of Model Predicts functional and dysfunctional performance (useful in selection and assessment, training, education, clinical, offender management, community) Psychological interventions. socio-cognitive and experiential scales should be more open to interventions than biological ones As well as being used for selection or rejection the model also identifies areas for development and training. In areas where there is a high desire to accept applicants (due to a small pool) applicants could be separated into successful, rejects and recoverable rejects.