Personality and Situations
Earlier we discussed how research shows heredity is more important than the environment in developing our personalities. The environment is not irrelevant, though. Some personality traits, such as the Big Five, tend to be effective in almost any environment or situation. However, we are learning that the effect of particular traits on behavior depends on the situation. Two theoretical frameworks, situation strength and trait activation, help explain how this works.
Situation Strength Theory
Imagine you are in a meeting with your department. How likely are you to walk out, shout at a colleague, or turn your back on everyone? Probably highly unlikely. Now imagine working from home. You might work in your pajamas, listen to loud music, or take a catnap.
Situation strength theory proposes that the way personality translates into behavior depends on the strength of the situation. By situation strength, we mean the degree to which norms, cues, or standards dictate appropriate behavior. Strong situations show us what the right behavior is, pressure us to exhibit it, and discourage the wrong behavior. In weak situations, conversely, “anything goes,” and thus we are freer to express our personality in behavior. Personality traits better predict behavior in weak situations than in strong ones.
Components of Situation Strength
Researchers have analyzed situation strength in organizations in terms of four elements:72
Clarity, or the degree to which cues about work duties and responsibilities are available and clear—jobs high in clarity produce strong situations because individuals can readily determine what to do. For example, the job of janitor probably provides higher clarity about each task than the job of nanny.
Consistency, or the extent to which cues regarding work duties and responsibilities are compatible with one another—jobs with high consistency represent strong situations because all the cues point toward the same desired behavior. The job of acute care nurse, for example, probably has higher consistency than the job of manager.
Constraints, or the extent to which individuals’ freedom to decide or act is limited by forces outside their control—jobs with many constraints represent strong situations because an individual has limited discretion. Bank examiner, for example, is probably a job with stronger constraints than forest ranger.
Consequences, or the degree to which decisions or actions have important implications for the organization or its members, clients, supplies, and so on—jobs with important consequences represent strong situations because the environment is probably heavily structured to guard against mistakes. A surgeon’s job, for example, has higher consequences than a foreign-language teacher’s.
Organizational Situations
Some researchers have speculated that organizations are, by definition, strong situations because they impose rules, norms, and standards that govern behavior. These constraints are usually appropriate. For example, we would not want an employee to feel free to engage in sexual harassment, follow questionable accounting procedures, or come to work only when the mood strikes.
The elements of situation strength are often determined by organizational rules and guidelines, which adds some objectivity to them. However, the perception of these rules influences how the person will respond to the situation’s strength. For instance, a person who is usually self-directed may view step-by-step instructions (high clarity) for a simple task as a lack of faith in his ability. Another person who is a rule follower might appreciate the detailed instructions. Their responses (and work attitudes) will reflect their perception of the situation.73
Creating strong rules to govern diverse systems might be not only difficult but also unwise. In sum, managers need to recognize the role of situation strength in the workplace and find the appropriate balance.
Trait Activation Theory
Another important theoretical framework toward understanding personality and situations is Trait Activation Theory (TAT). TAT predicts that some situations, events, or interventions “activate” a trait more than others. Using TAT, we can foresee which jobs suit certain personalities. For example, a commission-based compensation plan would likely activate individual differences because extraverts are more reward-sensitive, than, say, open people. Conversely, in jobs that encourage creativity, differences in openness may better predict desired behavior than differences in extraversion. See Exhibit 5-2 for specific examples.
Exhibit 5-2
Trait Activation Theory: Jobs in Which Certain Big Five Traits Are More Relevant
Note: A plus (+) sign means individuals who score high on this trait should do better in this job. A minus (−) sign means individuals who score low on this trait should do better in this job.
TAT also applies to personality tendencies. For example, a recent study found people learning online responded differently when their behavior was electronically monitored. Those who had a high fear of failure had higher apprehension from the monitoring than others, and consequently learned significantly less. In this case, a feature of the environment (electronic monitoring) activated a trait (fear of failing), and the combination of the two meant lowered job performance.74 TAT can also work in a positive way. One study found that, in a supportive environment, everyone behaved prosocially, but in a harsh environment, only people with prosocial tendencies exhibited them.75
Together, situation strength and trait activation theories show that the debate over nature versus nurture might best be framed as nature and nurture. Not only do both affect behavior, but they interact with one another. Put another way, personality and the situation both affect work behavior, but when the situation is right, the power of personality to predict behavior is even higher.