Organizational Demands vs Individual Needs: Argyris's Conflict and
Selection Consequences
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
Chris Argyris has suggested a person-organization connection model. 22 Three
components make up this concept, which is known as the basic incongruity
thesis: what people want from organizations, what organizations want from
people, and how these two possibly incompatible sets of demands are
reconciled. Argyris starts out by looking at how healthy people evolve with age.
Based on earlier research, Argyris proposes that seven fundamental shifts in
needs and interests take place as people mature: 1. As adults, people become
more active after developing from a passive stage as infants. 2. Individuals
progress from being reliant on others to becoming somewhat independent. 3.
Individuals evolve from having a limited number of behavioral patterns to
having a wide variety of behavioral patterns. 4. Individuals grow from having
sporadic, superficial, and inconsistent interests to having fewer, but more
profound, interests. 5. Humans evolve from a short-term perspective, where
conduct is dictated by current events, to a longer-term perspective (behavior is
determined by a combination of past, present, and future events). 6. Individuals
progress from lower to higher positions (from child to parent or from trainee to
manager). 7. As adults, people go from having little consciousness or
comprehension of themselves to having more knowledge and control over them.
It is thought that the overall inclinations from childhood to maturity are
generally universal, however Argyris admits that these processes may vary
among individuals. Argyris then focuses on the traits that distinguish traditional
work organizations. He specifically contends that corporations construct work
environments that are more focused on completing tasks than on meeting the
personal objectives of employees in an effort to increase efficiency and
effectiveness. Increased task specialization, unity of command, a rules
orientation, and other measures to produce a standardized product with
standardized personnel are a few examples. According to Argyris, corporations
frequently design work environments with the following traits in an effort to
achieve this standardization: 1. Workers have little authority over their work;
instead, machines frequently have this authority. 2. They are supposed to be
subservient, meek, and reliant. 3. They are only permitted to labor for a little
period of time. 4. They are assigned to monotonous tasks that call for very little
expertise. 5. People are expected to perform under circumstances that result in
psychological failure based on the first four items. Therefore, Argyris makes a
strong case that a lot of employment in our technologically advanced society are
designed to be incompatible with the fundamental requirements for personal
development of a sound personality. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates this conflict. A
number of factors influence how much of a conflict exists between personality
and organization. When workers are extremely mature, the organization is
highly structured, rules and procedures are established, and jobs are mechanized
and segmented, the strongest conflict is likely to occur. Therefore, we would
anticipate that the most intense conflict would occur among blue-collar and
clerical personnel at the lower levels of the organization. Managers typically
work in less automated environments with fewer codified rules and processes.
Employees are forced to make tough decisions in situations when there are
significant conflicts between personalities and companies—or, more accurately,
between what employees and organizations desire from one another. They could
decide to leave the company or put in a lot of effort to move up the managerial
ladder. They may employ defense mechanisms to adjust and protect their self-
concepts. Another possible reaction is to psychologically distance themselves
from the company (e.g., by losing interest in their work, decreasing their
standards, etc.) and focus instead on the tangible benefits offered by the group.
Or they can find partners among their coworkers and work together to further
adapt as a group by actions like sabotage, strikes, unionization, and quota
limitations. Regretfully, while such actions could give workers a sense of
retaliation against the company, they don't address the fundamental issue that is
generating the issue. Examining the job's nature and work environment is
necessary to do this. Before managers can make significant changes to increase
the effectiveness of their businesses, they must acknowledge the significant
influence that personality has on how employees behave at work.
Personality and the Selection of Employees The use of preemployment
screening tests has gained popularity in recent years. The use of personality
tests as a means of hiring new employees is predicated on several important
tenets: (1) people differ in their personalities and characteristics, (2) these
variations influence their behavior and performance, and (3) different jobs have
varied requirements. As a result, tests can be used to match certain job types to
specific individuals and to choose candidates that fit the firm as a whole.
Managers must exercise caution when using these selecting tools, though. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures contain nondiscrimination requirements that all
selection tests must legally adhere to. "Good intent or the absence of
discriminatory intent does not redeem... testing systems that operate as built-in
'head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring work
capability," the Supreme Court specifically said in Griggs v. Duke Power
Company in 1971. Two significant cases where discrimination may apply to
selection procedures resulted from this verdict. First, deliberate discrimination
against a person on the basis of their race, color, gender, religion, or national
origin is known as "disparate treatment." Second, "disparate impact" refers to
the negative effects that selection procedures (as well as other procedures) have
on minorities, whether or not these effects were the intended result. Therefore, it
is crucial to show that the traits assessed truly predict job performance, even
though personality tests might be a useful tool for choosing candidates and
connecting them with suitable positions.
