Organizational Culture and Employee Behavior 4

Central Michigan University

Master of Science in Administration (MSA) Program

Course Title: MSA 600 Administration Research and Report Methods

Submitted to: [Professor’s Name]

Submitted by: [Student’s Name]

[Street Address]

[City, State and Zip Code]

Work Phone: [703-555-1234]

Home/Cell Phone: [804-555-1111]

Email: [email protected]

Course Location: MSA600 Online

Submission Date: [Month, Day, Year]

Research Project Title: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY EXAMPLE

PERSONALITY TESTING IN THE WORKPLACE

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORSHIP:

I certify that I am the author of this paper and that any assistance I receive in its preparation is fully acknowledged and disclosed in this paper. I have also cited any sources from which I used data, ideas, or works, either quoted directly or paraphrased. I also certify that this paper was prepared by me specifically for this course.

Student’s Signature:

Instructor’s Comments:

PERSONALITY TESTING IN THE WORKPLACE

MSA 600 Administrative Research and Report Methods

Submitted by:

Jason Henderson

Project Instructor:

Dr. Thomas Kessler

March 2008

Table of Contents

Page Number

List of Tables ii

List of Figures ii

Chapter 1 Problem Definition 1

Chapter 2 Literature Review 7

Chapter 3 Research Methodology 15

Chapter 4 Data Analysis [Future]

Chapter 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations [Future]

Terminology and Definitions Page 18

References Pages 19-22

Appendix A Permission to Conduct Study

Appendix B Transmittal Letter/Survey Instructions

Appendix C Survey/Interview Questions

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Approach

In this chapter, the methodology that will be used to assess the research questions and hypotheses of this research is presented. The objectives of this research center around the effectiveness of the personality test with respect to the hiring and promotion of candidates and incumbent employees. This chapter is divided into five sections and a summary. The first section will present the original research questions outlined in Chapter 1 as the data to be collected. The second section will focus on the data collection approach. The third section will focus on the data collection procedures. The fourth section will focus on the proposed approach for data analysis and the final section will focus on the methodological limitations of this research.

Data Collection

Based on the objectives of the proposed research, the following questions were established:

1. Is there evidence of the effectiveness of personality testing in increasing training efficiency, or reducing the time necessary to train new hires?

2. Is there evidence of a link between personality testing and a reduction of personnel turnover? Specifically, what effect does personality testing have on this variable?

3. Is there evidence that personality testing has an impact on the workplace social environment? Specifically, what effect does it have on morale?

4. In terms of evaluating incumbent employees to promote, what effect does personality testing have on this decision process? Specifically, how does the use of personality testing, in conjunction with the standard methods of historical employee performance, compare to the standard methods of employee performance? In other words, does the addition of personality testing increase promoted employee performance relative to the promotion selection methods without the use of personality testing?

These questions will attempt to address the main issues discussed in the statement of the problem in Chapter 1. The research design and methodology that follow will be used in order to meet that goal.

Data To Be Collected

This research will use qualitative and quantitative methods to address the proposed research questions. This section will review the research design as well as the justification for the use of the mixed methods approach. In order to obtain the relevant and important information needed to answer the proposed research questions, a survey will be sent to 30 professionals (Appendix A). They will be known to work in a capacity that requires them to make decisions regarding initial hires and/or promotion of incumbent employees and whose company uses the NEO-PI R Personality Test as a factor in the selection process.

Of those 30 professionals, 10 will be interviewed either in person or via telephone by the researcher (Appendix B). Systematical sampling will be used in selection for interviews by requesting that the companies involved create a list of participants within their organization and selecting every 3rd employee. These interviews will allow the research to better cover the understanding of the experiences and emotions involved and gain a more in depth perspective on the interviewee’s thoughts regarding the research questions.

Mixed methods research combines theoretical or technical aspects of quantitative and qualitative research within a given study. Rocco et. al. (2003) discuss the use of mixed methods research in organizational systems. The authors discuss and give examples of the five purposes for adopting mixed methods design strategies: (1) triangulation; (2) complementarity; (3) development; (4) initiation; and (5) expansion (Rocco et. al., 2003).

· Triangulation refers to the convergence or corroboration. Triangulation is illustrated by using a qualitative interview and a quantitative questionnaire to measure the participants’ perceptions (Rocco et. al.).

· In order to increase a study’s validity and interpretability, complementarity measures the overlapping components (Rocco et. al.). Complementarity is the use of a qualitative interview to measure the participants’ perceptions and influence on those perceptions combined with a quantitative survey designed to measure the nature and level of the participants’ perceptions (Rocco et. al.).

· Development can increase a study’s validity by using the results from one methodology in order to help develop or inform other methods (Rocco et. al.). Development is the use of a quantitative survey to assess one characteristic of an experience in order to then interview those individuals who noted that characteristic (Rocco et. al.).

· Breadth and depth can be added to research results and interpretations through the use of initiation. This part of mixed methods research uses the intentional analysis of inconsistent qualitative and quantitative results to discover unexpected results that may not have arisen from the research (Rocco et. al.).

· Finally, expansion uses multiple mechanism to widen the scope of inquiry (Rocco et. al.). Expansion can be observed by using a qualitative method to assess hard to survey components (possibly involving emotional factors) while the qualitative method was used to address literal outcomes (Rocco et. al.).

This proposed research will use the mixed methods approach mostly to increase the validity and interpretability of the findings. Specifically, triangulation and complementarity will be the driving forces behind the implementation of the mixed methods approach for this study.

Data Collection Procedures

Generally speaking, data collection will begin in the fall of 2008. In order to stay within the guidelines of the mixed methods approach, two instruments will be used.

First, a survey questionnaire will be used to assess the participants’ opinions regarding the effectiveness of personality testing with respect to training procedures and increased training efficiency, incumbent employee selection for promotion, employee morale, and personnel turnover. This survey will be based on a 1-to-5 Likert scale so that the responses can be analyzed quantitatively.

Second, an interview will be conducted with a smaller sample of managers and/or human resource personnel in order to gain a more thorough understanding of their perceptions, thoughts, and beliefs regarding the research questions. Interviews will be conducted in order to gather additional data and to verify key observations. The interviews will provide participants an opportunity to express their perceptions, concerns, and experiences regarding the personality testing. Notes will be taken during the interview and will be recorded in order to ensure accuracy and consistency.

Proposed Approach for Data Analysis

The two types of analysis that will be used for this research are the quantitative analyses of the survey responses and the Moustakas (1994) methodology for interview coding, interpretation and analysis. Since the survey responses will be measured by the Likert scale, they will be available immediately for analysis. The means and variances of the quantitatively collected survey data will be calculated and compared in order to answer the research questions. The qualitative portion of the research will require an adaption of Moustakas phenomenological experience.

The adaptation will include seven overall steps.

1. Listing and preliminary grouping: the researcher will review all participant interviews to determine themes.

2. Reduction and elimination: the researcher will systematically reduce determined themes central to the phenomenon.

3. Clustering: the researcher will group core themes together.

4. Final identification of critical themes: the researcher will determine which themes are critical to the central questions.

5. Individual context descriptions: the researcher will develop an individual context for each participant. Step 6, individual structural descriptions: the researcher will compose a structural description for each participant based upon each participant’s individual textural description. Step 7, composite descriptions and textural-structural descriptions: the researcher will create composite descriptions from the participants’ individual textual and structural descriptions.

After this process, the researcher will produce the textural-structural description from both composite descriptions. This method involves reviewing each interview to catalogue the invariant constituents. These invariant constituents represent the most fundamental aspect of each theme. From those constituents, the more general themes can be constructed (Moustakas, 1994). In order to determine the invariant constituents, the researcher will test each phrase for two requirements: (1) does the phrase have an instance of the experience that is an essential and adequate constituent for understanding it?; and (2) can the researcher assign a label to it? If the answer to question 2 is yes, then it will represent a scope of the experience. Expressions that do not meet the requirements listed above will be removed. Overlapping, recurring, and unclear expressions will be taken out or a request for clarification will be sent to the interviewee. The perspectives that remain will be the invariant constituents of the experience.

The answers to the research questions will then be undertaken. Through the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods, this study will provide an assessment of the effectiveness of personality testing as a means for candidate selection and incumbent employee promotion.

Methodological Limitations

The limitations of the proposed research include multiple factors. Those factors include the sample, the methodology, and the possible presence of bias. First, it must be acknowledged that this partly phenomenological inquiry was limited by the sample of individuals who were chosen for participation. This sample was selective as it specifically eliminated managers and human resource personnel who did not have previous experience working in a similar role where a personality test was not used.

Second, the proposed study will be limited by the parameters and objectives of the qualitative feature of the mixed methods research. Qualitative research is dependent upon the researcher’s ability to develop the invariant constituents from the qualitative interviews (Moustakas, 1994). It is possible that different researchers will arrive at a different separation of the invariant constituents. Therefore, the findings could be different if written by other researchers. The goal of the methodology adapted by Moustakas (1994) is to arrive at invariant constituents and themes that would be highly likely to be duplicated if the research were revisited by different researchers (Moustakas). Also, the data could be vastly different if sampled from a different population. This separate sampling location or population could prove different results. Care will be taken to minimize the impact of these limitations on the results and findings of the research.

Finally, the researcher’s biases may potentially skew the results of the study. The researcher has undergone personality testing on multiple occasions and has had the benefit of a thorough information session from a psychiatrist regarding the results of the testing. A mitigating factor is that the researcher has deliberately focused on the NEO-PI R test, whereas, his personal experience has dealt with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). Care will again be taken in order to minimize any further negative effects of this bias.

Summary

This chapter reviewed the data collection, data collection approach, data collection procedures, data analysis approach, and methodological limitations. The effectiveness of personality testing as a means for candidate selection and incumbent employee promotion will be researched and assessed. The results of the research can add to the literature in a positive manner regardless of the results or answers to the research questions. Practitioners who rely on the use of personality testing can potentially be provided with additional perspectives from the outcome of this research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barrick, M.; Mount, M. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology. V44.

Barrick, M; Mount, M.; Stewart, G. (1998). Five Factor Model of Personality and Performance in Jobs Involving Interpersonal Interactions. Human Interaction. V11 n2&3 pp. 145-165.

Becker, B.; Gerhart, B. (1996). The Impact of Human Resource Management on Organizational Performance: Progress and Prospects. The Academy of Management Journal. V39, n4 pp. 779-801.

Block, J. (1995). A Contrarian View of the Five Factor Approach to Personality Description. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. V117 pp. 187-215.

Bullock, W.A.; Gilliland, K. (1993). Eysenck’s Arousal Theory of Introversion-Extraversion: A Converging Measures Investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. V64 pp. 113-123.

Campbell, L.; Simpson, J.A.;Steward, M.; Manning, J. (2003). Putting Personality in Social Context: Extraversion, Emergent Leadership, and the Availability of Rewards. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. V29 pp. 1547-1559.

Cooper, M.L.; Agocha, V.B.; Sheldon, M.S. (2000). A Motivational Perspective on Risky Behaviors: The Role of Personality and Affect Regulatory Processes. Journal of Personality. V68 pp. 1059-1088.

Digman, J. (1990) Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five Factor Model. Annual Review of Psychology. V41 pp. 417-440.

Dilchert, S.; Ones, D.; Viswesvaran, C.; Judge, T. (2007). In Support of Personality Assessment in Organizational Settings. Personnel Psychology. V60 pp. 995-1027.

Eysenk, H.J. (1982). Attention and Arousal: Cognition and Performance. Berlin: Springer.

Elliot, A.J.; Thrash, T.M. (2002). Approach-Avoidance Motivation in Personality: Approach and Avoidance Temperaments and Goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. V8.

Goffin, R.D.; Rothstein, M.G.; Johnston N. G. (1996). Personality Testing and the Assessment Center: Incremental Validity For Managerial Selection. Journal of Applied Psychology. V81 n6 pp. 745-756.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The Development of Markers for the Big-Five Factor Structures. Psychological Assessment. V4 pp. 26-42.

Goleman, D. (1997). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam.

Goodstein, L.; Lanyon, R. (1999). Applications of Personality Assessment to the Workplace: A Review. Journal of Business and Psychology. V13 n3 pp. 291-322.

Hogan, R. (1983). A Socioanalytic Theory of Personality. In M.M. Page (Ed.), 1982 Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 55-89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Hough, L. (1992). The “Big Five” Personality Variables – Construct Confusion: Description versus Prediction. Human Performance. V5 pp. 139-155.

Infante, D.A.; Rancer, A.S. (1982). A Conceptualization and Measure of Argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment. V46 pp.72-80

Kinsbourne, M.; Bemporad, M. (1984). Lateralization of Emotion: A Model and the Evidence. In N.A. Fox and R.J. Davidson (Eds.), The psychology of affective development (pp. 259-292). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

McAdams, D.P. (1992). The Five Factor Model In Personality: A Critical Appraisal. Journal of Personality. V60 n2 pp. 329-361.

McCrae, R.R.; Costa, P.T. Jr. (1985). Updating Norman’s “Adequate Taxonomy”: Intelligence and Personality Dimensions in Natural Language and in Questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. V49 pp. 710-721.

McCrae, R.R.; Costa, P.T. Jr. (1987). Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Instruments and Observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. V52 pp.81–90.

McCrae, R.R.; Costa, P.T. Jr. (1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The Full Five Factor Model and Well Being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. V17 pp. 227-232.

McCrae, R.R.; Costa, P.T. Jr. (1992). Four Ways Five Factors Are Basic. Personality and Individual Differences. V13 pp. 653-665.

McDougall, W. (1932). Of the Words Character and Personality. Character Personality. V1 pp. 3-16.

Meier, B.P.; Robinson, M.D. (2004). Does Quick to Blame Mean Quick to Anger? The Role of Agreeableness in Dissociating Blame and Anger. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. V30 pp. 856-867.

Mills, C.; Hogan, R. (1978). A Role Theoretical Interpretation of Personality Scale Item Responses. Journal of Personality. V 46 n4 pp. 778-785.

Morgeson, F; Campion, M; Dipboye, R.; Hollenbeck, J.; Murphy, K.; Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the Use of Personality Tests in Personnel Selection Contexts. Personnel Psychology. V60 pp. 683-729.

Moss, S.A.; Ngu, S. (2006). The Relationship Between Personality and Leadership Preferences. Current Research in Social Psychology. V11 n6 pp. 70-91.

Mount, M.; Judge, T.; Heller, D. (2002). Five Factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. V87 n3 pp. 530-541.

Ones, D.; Dilchert, S. (2007). In Support of Personality Assessment in Organizational Settings. Personnel Psychology. V60 pp.995-1027.

Ones, D.S.;Viswesvaran, C.; Schmidt, F.L. (1993). Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Integrity Test Validities: Findings and Implications for Personnel Selection and Theories of Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. V78 pp. 679-703.

Rankin, K. P. et al. (2004). Right and Left Medial Orbitofrontal Volumes Show an Opposite Relationship to Agreeableness in FTD. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, V17 pp. 328-332.

Rokeach, M. (1960). The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books.

Rosse, J.G.; Stecher, M.D.; Miller, J.L.; Levin, R.A. (1998). The Impact of Response Distortion on Preemployment Personality Testing and Hiring Decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology. V83 n4 pp. 634-644.

Rothbart, M.K.;Ahadi, S.A.; Evans, D.E. (2000). Temperament and Personality: Origins and Outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. V78 pp. 122-135.

Schneider, R.J.; Hough, L. (1995). Personality and Industrial Organization Psychology. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. V10 pp. 75-129.

Suls, J.; Martin, R.; David, J.P. (1998). Person-Environment Fit and Its Limits: Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Emotional Reactivity to Interpersonal Conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. V24 pp. 88-98.

Tupes, E.C.; Christal, R.E. (1961). Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings. Lackland Air Force Base. US Air Force.

Watson, D.; Clark, L.A. (1997). Extraversion and its Positive Emotional Core. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, and Sr. R. Briggs (Eds.). Handbook of Personality Psychology. San Diego CA: Academic Press. Pp. 767-793.

Zuckerman, M. (1984). Sensation Seeking: A Comparative Approach to a Human Trait. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. V7 pp. 413-471.

Survey Questions

1. Personality testing effective is in the workplace?

2. My current organization is more effective than previous organizations because we use personality testing.

3. I would place more emphasis on personality testing if I could.

4. Employees who have been tested assimilate into their jobs better.

5. Employees who have been tested seem to perform better in job specific training.

6. Employees who have been tested seem to come to their jobs better prepared.

7. Managers should consider personality testing when evaluating employees to promote.

8. Managers who have been tested seem to be better bosses.

9. If I were identified as not being a fit for promotion based on a personality test, then I should be passed over for the good of the section.

10. I have high moral.

11. Personality testing is a key component to my moral level.

12. My close co-workers and I seem to get along better because personality testing has helped place the right people in those positions.

Please comment on any questions that you answered as a “1” or “5”

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 NA

1 2 3 4 5 NA

1 2 3 4 5 NA

1 2 3 4 5 NA

1 2 3 4 5 NA

1 2 3 4 5 NA

1 2 3 4 5 NA

1 2 3 4 5 NA

1 2 3 4 5 NA

1 2 3 4 5 NA

1 2 3 4 5 NA

1 2 3 4 5 NA

Dear Participant:

Thank you for participating in this important survey. You answers will assist current and future managers to make informed decisions regarding your organizations hiring process.

The purpose of this survey is to collect information regarding the use of personality tests in hiring new employees and promoting incumbent employees. This information will be a key component in assessing the effectiveness of using the personality test.

The individual data collected from these surveys will remain strictly confidential. No one from your organization will see any answers associated with your personal demographic or personal data. Once all of the surveys are collected, the researcher will compile the results, ensure there is no identifying data and make them available to all participants.

The survey consists of 12 questions that focus around key workplace competencies and should not take more than 10 minutes. The test will ask to what level you agree or disagree with a statement and if for some reason you cannot answer a question, simply circle “NA.” The survey will ask you to write in comments for any question that elicits a strong response. Lastly, please complete the demographic information at the bottom of this page.

Thank you in advance for your participation and if you have any questions, please contact me at the numbers given below.

Jason A. Henderson

Central Michigan University

Masters of Science in Administration Candidate

Phone number

Sex ______________

Years employed

1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 more than 20

Years with a company that uses personality testing.

1-3 4-6 7-10 11-14 more than 14

Number of employees supervised

1-3 4-7 7-10 11-14 more than 14

Interview Questions

1. Do you think personality testing is effective in evaluating potential hires and incumbent employees for promotion?

2. How much experience do you have with personality testing in the workplace?

3. Compare your managerial experience with your current organization and any organizations you work with previously that did not use the testing.

4. Are there any areas of personality testing in the workplace you think are missing?

5. What is your knowledge of the arguments against using personality testing?