|
|
An interesting aspect to the personality/behaviour
debate is that although behaviour is linked to personality it is considered
to be separate from it. This is explained by the fact that a person may
have an underlying predisposition for close personal relationships, however,
due to what would be considered socially acceptable behaviour the person
may appear quite reserved when interacting with others. In another case
they may have a strong disposition to always be right yet when interacting
with others may be much more subtle in the way this is done even to the
point of appearing to accept a contrary view. How do we Describe Personality? Type Theory: is
very popular in business and the Public Sector as this offers a packaged
way of describing personality that makes sense to a lot of people. The
approach is largely based on Jung's
theoretical concepts of 'preferences' which holds the view that people
tend to be at either end of a scale with limited chance of being neutral.
An example of this is that people tended to be labelled either Introverted
or Extroverted but not Ambiverts. Most of the current approaches based
on Jung's
theories, (e.g. Keirsey
and the Myers Briggs
Type Indicator) follow this line. Individuals are therefore classified
into 'types' based on their responses to a questionnaire. The output tends
to be a generic description for each of the types that can provide some
important insights into a range of personality characteristics associated
with each type. Although one advantage is in the simplicity of the process
and its outputs, a perceived disadvantage is in the loss of detail that
would enable effective differentiation to be made of people in each type.
This means that you could have two people that emerge with the same type
who demonstrate a significantly different personality from one another.
This potential weakness does not appear to dampen confidence in the type
theory as it remains very popular in many areas of organisational and
personal development. Trait Theory: This
tends to have been the 'happy hunting ground' of the theoretical psychologists
who have been wedded to a 'trait' approach for many years. The general
view of the trait theory supporters is that personality is made up of
a limited number of characteristics or 'traits' which can be used to differentiate
one person from another. A major difference in perspective between the
Type and Trait models is the belief that a person can have any amount
of a particular trait. This underscores that a person can just as easily
be an Ambivert as they can be an Introvert or Extravert. Therefore a person
can be in the middle of any of the 'Traits' and does not need to be at
one extreme or other. These views tend to be supported by the statistical
data (scores are normally distributed) and is usually intuitively acceptable
as well as most of us accept that some people are genuinely neither one
extreme nor the other in a 'trait'. More on Trait Theory: The
outcome of a significant amount of research has been the development of
sound behavioural analysis based on trait theory initiated by the work
of Eysenck
(1947) who developed a two-factor model. This was soon added to many other
researchers including Cattell's 16
PF model (1946). However, in 1963, W.T.
Norman found that a general model that
described five major factors could be used to cut through the mountain
of different traits in a way that would be useful for people wanting to
compare the outcomes of different personalities. Norman identified five
factors using a statistical analysis of the way in which personality test
items and scales could be grouped together. The five factors model has
become a focus for the work of many more researchers with increasing acceptance
of the model and although the labels given by each author tended to have
differences there was something of a consensus that the five factors could
be described as:
Centell's Behavioural Questionnaires: As Centell Limited has developed and added to its suite of behavioural questionnaires we have also taken cognisance of the outputs of the 'Trait' field of research and have looked for ways to link the feedback from our questionnaires to the five traits theory. By using a suite of at least four of our questionnaires we were able to link specific questions to the following five traits that appeared to us to be important in determining how these personality characteristics influenced the behaviour a person might display in a given working environment. The five traits we use are:
Below the iceberg factors can tell a lot of the actions and attitudes a person may adopt in a range of situations. This information can be extremely useful for an individual to better understand what is triggering the behaviour they use to help them differentiate what happens to produce very positive behaviour from those occasions it emerges as less positive behaviour. Personal BrandingThis interesting work is ongoing as we seek ways to improve our questionnaires and the feedback provided in order to assist people both in and outside organisations to discover who they are and what motivates them to behave the way they do. This assists them to understand their personal Brand and to determine if it is the one they want to have in the public arena. In many instances our questionnaires and coaching processes have helped participants to significantly reshape their personal Brands with very positive outcomes being experienced. The journey continues as we develop our processes to enable use in a wide range of applications such as:
By knowing the factors that could trigger certain reactions that produce inappropriate behaviour the person can intervene to modify the behaviour to fit the needs of the situation. This is about having organization or social savvy coupled with the ability to effectively manage relationships simply because all relationships matter. Therefore, being able to consistently create and sustain constructive relationships is a very worthwhile goal to achieve and our development processes are tailored to suit each individual help them to achieve this worthy goal. | ||
| Close Window | Print | ||