The article starts with an evaluation of various models and theories that explains how personality influences the performance of a firm. According to Oh, Kim, & Van Iddekinge, (2015) organizational performance is influenced by human capital resources based on individual personality. The article analyses the Personality-based human capital resources using the Attraction-Selection-Attrition prospective (ASA), Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM), and Human Capital Research in stressing on the issue of Personality in Organizations. The study is based on qualitative research of various firms and managers.
It is evident that managers play a significant role in a firm because of their huge involvement in administration of most activities done. Relatively, employees also take part in the overall organizational performance. We note that there is a disparity in individual personality, skills, and knowledge depending on areas of specialization. In addition, according to Posthuma, Campion, &Masimova (2013) suggest that human capital resources are considered as valuable resources in an organization relative to the individual personality.
The authors of the article point out the relationship between the ASA model and the Organizational emergence of personality whereby ASA implies that most organizations hire and keep those individuals whose personalities suit the organization. According to King, & Ryan, (2015) organization performance helps us to understand ASA theory. The model shows that firms formulate the organizational personality profiles, which helps to find individuals who will use their personality in contributing to organizational goals. These profiles vary across organizations by uniqueness, therefore, creating disparities in inter-firm performance.
It is important to take into consideration that personality influences major departments of an organization such as the finance sector. Ployhart & Hale, (2014) suggest that human resource based on personality influences finance succession and workforce productivity of a firm. This phenomenon has been used by most organization to ensure that they keep the best performance both internally and externally. Organization rather spend many resources on hiring qualified personnel who will act as assets in the organization by improving both labor productivity and financial productivity. Notably, the resource-based theory suggests that Human resource is the most valuable asset to any organization. According to Bergeron, & Martinez, (2014) a productive labor force is necessary for an organizational performance.
Moynihan, & Peterson, (2014) Personality influences performance in two levels that is the individual level and the Organization level. Authors outline the huge gap between the two, as it is unclear to suggest whether there is a relationship between personality-performance in organizational levels and individual levels or whether the two have the same impact towards a firm. In addition to that, Utility analysis deduces personality performance at the organization level from the individual level by estimating the market price of total performance contributed by both. Authors suggest that studies have not properly addressed this relationship by majorly putting more emphasis on the intrafirm and less emphasis on inter-firm.
It is, therefore, significant to determine the performance of a firm based on personality perspectives at the organization levels. Reading through, we note that the gap between Inter-firm and Intrafirm has been contributed by external (financial) and internal (operational) performances of a firm. On the other hand, research stresses on closing the gap between micro and macro performance levels by putting more emphasis on human resources.
The article discusses how personality in top management influences the general outcome of an organization. According to Judge, T.A., (2017) personality influences leadership attitudes shown by leaders. Research done on the top management team suggests that administrators who are emotionally stable and diligent will create an environment of positive relations between organizational-level to the workforce productivity. Therefore, employees working under such criteria will receive clear information from their managers and they will work positively towards the goals of the organization and promote the increase in labor productivity and performance in general. An Organization with such influence will be seen to produce good performance despite the calamities that may occur to the working atmospheres. In addition to that, there will be no financial constraints due to profitability present in the organization.
We learn that Similarity-attrition hypothesis and social theory identity suggest managers in such organizations have a job satisfactory experience. Authors point out that organization with more managers who lack job satisfaction will probably lead to administration problems causing managerial difficulties. Employees in such organization receive less information about the goals of the organization and have little or no experience thus reducing labor productivity and performance. According to Kaplan, & Larcker, (2015) poor attitude of the CEOs minimizes organization excellence because of low performance from the workforce, which is influenced by managerial departments.
The article outlines the direct effects of personality on an organization. Authors suggest that organizations with emotionally stable managers are considered progressive since such managers formulate and keep a good environment that offers room for collaboration. In addition to that, research on top management shows that organization with more emotionally stable managers can handle disagreements in an effective way and remain oriented on the task. According to Colbert et al., (2014) organizations with conscientious managers create a good motive environment that allows employees to achieve the accredited tasks.
We note that outgoing managers generate more significant emotions, which advances collective process such as administration and work strategies. This results in improved communication activities and individuals gain experience. According to Colbert, (2014) managers of an organization are responsible for influencing communications activities and effective skills to other departments under them.
Diligent managers are considered to have the best performance environment, which is a good trait in urging the employees to work towards the organizational goals. Organizational administrations with such managers is motivated to work harder thus promoting performance and productivity outcomes. According to Chadwick et al., (2015) the resource-based theory emphasizes on the significance of administration motive as beneficial assets to a firm. On the other hand, we learn that there are indirect effects of personality at the organization level. This is well illustrated by the performance of labor productivity through managerial job satisfaction and financial productivity.
Authors have addressed the issue of firm effectiveness by considering Immense and limited Personality traits. They suggest immense personality characters are easier for competitors to learn because they might be less firm specific. We note that limited human capital resources might be strongly attached to a firm managerial job contentment and operational performance as opposed to financial performance due to the benefits created by the superior human capital. According to Barrick, Mount, & Li, (2014) the theory of meaningful work is based on the personality traits, which integrate performance with job satisfaction.
From the article, we note that the method used during data collection was questionnaires reports and Literature research. Questionnaires were used to collect samples from different firms and managers based on different industries through. The research was conducted under several guidelines. The first guideline was based on the personality aspect, which is considered vital according to Khamisa, & Oldenburg (2015). The second guideline used was the Job satisfaction. It was noted that single-item measure of job satisfaction is greatly related with longer measures of job satisfaction. The third guideline was Firm performance, which was based on the Internal, and external performance. The evaluation suggested that internal performance was mainly influenced by labor productivity while the external performance was influenced by the return on equity.
In addition, rational controls based on the size of the firm, financial performance, and models used to predict firm external performance were used to foresee managerial satisfaction at the organizational level. From the data collected, we note that most of the findings correlated with the research expectations in that most organizations had emotionally stable managerial departments, which ensured good performance, and labor productivity was high. Relatively, some findings were different from the research expectations since some organizations had limited personality traits, which minimized stronger relationships with the internal or extremal performance of the organization.
In my point of view, I consider the article having some strengths and limitations based on the research done. To begin with the strengths, the article has used significant measures while undertaking the research. We note that research was conducted based on three key elements that are personality, job satisfaction, and firm performance. These three are reliable guidelines in providing information about the operational organization performance both external and internal performance.
Secondly, the research has adhered to theories such as the resource-based theory and used to determine firm performance based on personality human capital. We note that the implication of the theories in determining the performance of an organization results in resourceful information that is reliable. In addition, reliable statistical data retrieved from Korea Informational Services (KIS) was used while evaluation firm performance during the research activities.
Thirdly, the researchers collected samples through questionnaires from various industries and managers. This is a reliable way of obtaining information from a diverse number of sources. In addition, qualitative analysis is made on these data and accurate and realistic results will be reflected at the end. The essence of having information from a variety of sources is that the outcomes of the results produced will mostly be related to the expectations of the research.
On the limitations side, while measuring job satisfaction, single item scale was used. Fishers, & Matthews, (2016) suggest single-item scale measures are not reliable ways of examining the individual level performance since the research here was based only on one motive. It will be much better if the research could consider using employee reviews about their jobs in making. In addition, the researchers would have used comments from suggestion box is organizations in order to find out where employees are satisfied with their routine departmental jobs.
In addition to that, Angalim & Grant, (2016) implied that personality traits account for irrelevant incremental variance. Therefore, the common method variance might have caused an inflation on the relation between personality and managerial job satisfaction in that the two were measured using subjective reports in the same study. The research relied on self-reports on a single region. It is appropriate if Self-reports would have been effective in different survey studies at different places of research.
In conclusion, research done provides clarifications on personality-based human capital resources. We have learned that organization, which hires personnel who correlate with the firm’s personality, will help in attaining the goals of the firm. For this reason, personality is yet declared a major issue that influences the performance of an organization either external or internal performance. Organizations that want to increase their labor productivity and performance should, therefore, put more emphasis on this matter
References
Anglim, J., & Grant, S. (2016). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: Incremental prediction from 30 facets over the Big 5. Journal of Happiness studies, 17(1), 59-80.
Bergeron, D. M., Schroeder, T. D., & Martinez, H. A. (2014). Proactive personality at work: seeing more to do and doing more?. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 71-86.
Chadwick, C., Super, J. F., & Kwon, K. (2015). Resource orchestration in practice: CEO emphasis on SHRM, commitment?based HR systems, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 36(3), 360-376.
Downes, P. E., Kristof-Brown, A. L., Judge, T. A., & Darnold, T. C. (2017). Motivational mechanisms of self-concordance theory: Goal-specific efficacy and person–organization fit. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(2), 197-215.
Fisher, G. G., Matthews, R. A., & Gibbons, A. M. (2016). Developing and investigating the use of single-item measures in organizational research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(1), 3.
Gow, I. D., Kaplan, S. N., Larcker, D. F., & Zakolyukina, A. A. (2016). CEO personality and firm policies (No. w22435). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Joseph, D. L., Jin, J., Newman, D. A., & O’boyle, E. H. (2015). Why does self-reported emotional intelligence predict job performance? A meta-analytic investigation of mixed EI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 298.
King, D. D., Ott-Holland, C. J., Ryan, A. M., Huang, J. L., Wadlington, P. L., & Elizondo, F. (2017). Personality homogeneity in organizations and occupations: considering similarity sources. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(6), 641-653.
Li, N., Barrick, M. R., Zimmerman, R. D., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2014). Retaining the productive employee: The role of personality. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 347-395.
Oh, I. S., Kim, S., & Van Iddekinge, C. H. (2015). Taking it to another level: Do personality-based human capital resources matter to firm performance?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 935.
Ployhart, R. E., & Hale Jr, D. (2014). The fascinating psychological microfoundations of strategy and competitive advantage. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 1(1), 145-172.
Posthuma, R. A., Campion, M. C., Masimova, M., & Campion, M. A. (2013). A high performance work practices taxonomy: Integrating the literature and directing future research. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1184-1220.
Schneider, B., & Bartram, D. (2017). Aggregate personality and organizational competitive advantage. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(4), 461-480.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download