The debate on whether character acts as a valid predictor of job performance has been ongoing among researchers and scholars, who present varied views on the idea of using personality as a measure. Opponents of the concept of using personality measurement reflect on the argument that one does not offer what would be considered as inherent traits. Instead, one gains habits and behaviors depending on his or her exposure to a given situation or circumstance (Robie, Risavy, Holtrop, & Born, 2017). That means that using personality as a predictor of performance would present a contrary opinion considering that one's performance would depend wholly on the environment and situation. However, proponents of character argue that personality presents natural behaviors that individuals cannot change about themselves. Thus, this makes it easier to define whether an individual has the capacity or ability to perform efficiently.
When reviewing the argument by Walter Mischel, one of the key aspects to note is that he seeks to argue against the idea of using personality measurement to make inferences. In his understanding of personality, Mischel (1977) argues that one's behavior is based on the fundamental concept revolving around the situational cues, which seek to determine how individuals behave in specific situations. That means that the situation in which an individual is in acts as a critical determinant of one's behavior considering that the behavior must move along with the situational cues. Thus, Mischel (1977) concludes that using personality as an element for making inferences would result in a situation where the predictions made are somewhat limited, as well as, paving the way for generalizations. In the context of performance, Mischel's arguement does not support the idea of using personality as a predictor of performance, as one's behavior would depend wholly on the situational cues.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, Robert Hogan engages in an in-depth discussion about his defense of personality measurement, which is in contrast to the previous position by Mischel, as indicated above. On his part, Hogan (2005) argues that personality can be viewed from multiple perspectives, which seek to create some form of understanding about some of the inherent factors that define human behavior. From this argument, Hogan incorporates the argument that it is much easier to use personality as a measurement, as this seeks to present that overall structure of an individual. Hogan (2005) presents an example of when individuals are seeking employment for a given position, which provides employers with an avenue for having to create a personal profile. Through the profile, an employer can judge an applicant to determine whether he or she is well positioned for the job in question. Hogan indicates that using this profile, which is a personality tool, eliminates the possibility of ineffectiveness in the applicant selected, as one cannot fake an entire profile.
My stand on this debate is that indeed personality can be used as a valid predictor of job performance attributed to the position that person seeks to present specific inherent behaviors that individuals cannot be in a position to change. In my understanding of the arguments, I noted that the argument by Mischel lacks merit about his findings considering that he does not consider the fact that human beings portray inherent behaviors. Instead, Mischel seeks to indicate that all actions and traits that human beings gain arise due to their exposure to situational cues. However, in my view, I believe that usage of the theoretical model in a company or organization may act as a critical determinant of whether one's personality fits. That means that one's ability to work within a given environment would depend wholly on the connection of the theoretical model to nature and traits presented.
References
Hogan, R. (2005). In defense of personality measurement: New wine for old whiners. Human Performance , 18 (4), 331-341.
Mischel, W. (1977). On the future of personality measurement. American Psychologist , 32 (4), 246-254.
Robie, C., Risavy, S. D., Holtrop, D., & Born, M. P. (2017). Fully contextualized, frequency-based personality measurement: A replication and extension. Journal of Research in Personality , 70 , 56-65.
