DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 384 754 CE 069 402

AUTHOR Howard, Pierce J.; Howard, Jane M.

TITLE The Big Five Quickstart: An Introduction to the

Five-Factor Model of Personality for Human Resource

Professionals.

INSTITUTION Center for Applied Cognitive Studies, Charlotte,

NC.

PUB DATE 95

NOTE 21p.

PUB TYPE Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.)

(120)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Adult Education; *Career Development; *Models;

Personality; *Personality Assessment; PersonalityDevelopment; Personality Measures; *Personality

Traits; Personnel Selection; *ProfessionalDevelopment; *Teamwork

IDENTIFIERS *Five Factor Model of Personality

ABSTRACTThe first section of this monograph shows how, by

analyzing the language of personality descriptors, researchers have

identified five correlated groups of behaviors. It finds that the

most popular formulation of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) is that of

Costa and McCrae (1992) and that their nomenclature can be adapted to

come up with a version for professional development. These five

factors are described: Negative Emotionality, Extraversion, Openness,

Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Six facets identified for each

of these five factors are described. Section 2 presents how the FFM

may be used in fostering individual development. It covers guidelines

for use of FFM test scores in professional development, including the

following: awareness of small interaction effects between all five

personality dimensions and aging; the social context of the Big Five;

when to use factors and when to use facets; and common themes among

the /arious facets and factors. It also addresses using the FFM in

individual coaching and counseling, in a classroom setting, and in

personnel selection. Section 3 presents ways in which the Big Five

model can be used in working with teams. It looks at how various

kinds of relationships--from two-person teams to larger work

teams--can benefit from taking time to study the effects of

similarities and differences in personality traits among the people

in relationships. Contains 21 references. (YLB)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

3

THE BIG FIVE QUICKSTART:AN INTRODUCTION TO THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY

FOR HUMAN RESOURCE PROFESSIONALS

iit

Section One: Background/Theory of the Five-Factor Model (page 2)Section Two: Using the Big Five with Individuals (page 9)Section Three: Using the Big Five with Teams (page 15)

Wi

Pierce J. Howard, Ph.D., and Jane M. Howard, M.B.A.Center for Applied Cognitive Studies (CentACS)

Charlotte, North Carolina

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOITc ol Educational Rossoch owl InsoomonntEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)4:11Tois document his boon rootolloest1 SI

flICOMPCI Item tho orlon or oommtsbooonounstiro

O Woor chomps tows won moos to mote,.Fsoroduchoo lushly

rv of viii 0e opinions moos In too 00C kkmom, d nal osoosoonly Footstool olhosiOERI Dalton or pokey

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCF THIS

MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

t-t

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

COPYRIGHT 1995 CENTER FOR APPLIED COGNTTIVE STUDIES (CENTACS)

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

THE BIG FIVE QUICKSTART:AN INTRODUCTION TO THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY

FOR HUMAN RESOURCE PROFESSIONALS

Pierce J. Howard, Ph.D., and Jane M. Howard, M.B.A.Center for Applied Cognitive Studies (CentACS), Charlotte, North Carolina

Section One:BACKGROUND AND THEORY OF THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL

Get ready, trainers and consultants! Thepersonality paradigm is shifting. For three decades,the training community has generally followed theassumptions of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator(MBTI) (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). Theseassumptions included:

a four-dimension model,bimodal distribution of scores on eachdimension,sixteen independent types,the concept of a primary functiondetermined by Judger/Ferceiverpreference, anda grounding in the personality theory ofCarl Jung (1971).

The emerging new paradigm is not a radicaldeparture from the MBTI, but rather more of anevolution from it. But, the new paradigm issufficiently different from the old one to require asignificant shift in thinking. For example, the newparadigm involves:

five dimensions of personality,a normal distribution of scores on thesedimensions,an emphasis on individual personalitytraits (the type concept is gone),preferences indicated by strength of score,anda model based on experience, not theory.

THE SEARCH FOR THE BEST METAPHOR

Personality theories, or models, are metaphorsfor describing something which is intrinsicallyindescribable--the human personality. For example,Robert Ornstein (1993, pp. 2-3) writes, "Ideas forpersonality classifications...provide everyone from

small children to clinical psychiatrists with a routinefor classifying people, one that helps us make senseof ourselves and others. But that's all they do, sinceone system doesn't map on to the other.... We needan explanation to get through the day, and that iswhat most personality-typing systems provide."

All language, in fact, is metaphor--it is a processby which we express one thing--the complex fabricof people and their environments--in terms ofanother--language. We shall never know the entiretruth--we can only talk about it. All our language isabout what we experience, but it is not the experienceitself. Why, even our scientific instruments can onlyapproximate a description of the true nature ofthings. Again, Ornstein says that even positronemission tomagraphy (PET) scans are not a"'window' to the mind, but merely...a metaphor."PET scans and personality models are bothmetaphors for describing the person.

Certainly, some metaphors are more vaguethan others. A PET scan is less vague than a paperand pencil questionnaire like the MBTI. The historyof the study of personality has been one ofminimizing vagueness. Just as the theory of CarlJung reduced the vagueness of the theory of humors(which spoke of phlegmatics, melancholics,sanguines, and cholerics), so Jung's theory will bereplaced by a model of personality which is yet lessvague. In a sense, the history of intellectual activityis the t,tory of our efforts to find the "source"metaphor from which all other metaphors arederived. Just as Latin was the parent, or source,language of all the romance tongues (such as Frenchand Italian), so all of our personality metaphors(such as Freud's and Jung's) must have a parent, orsource, metaphor that encompasses all the truths ofthe individually derived personality metaphors.There is some truth in Jung's theory, Freud's theory,and others' theories, but the human personalityfabric is woven from a far more complex set of fibersthan any one theory contains.

The Big Five Quickstart

LANGUAGE, NOT THEORY, IS THE PARENTMETAPHOR

Just as all cloths are woven from fibers, so alltheories are composed of language. Language is theone ingredient that all theories have in common. So,it is from language itself, and not theories, that wemust extract the source metaphor for describingpersonality. This was the insight that propelledTupes and Christal during the 1950's into theresearch that led to what we know today as the Five-Factor Model (FFM), or the Big Five theory.

Allport and Odbert (1936) were the firstresearchers to identify the trait-descriptive words inthe English language. Their compendium of 4,500words has been the primary starting point oflanguage-based personality trait research for the lastsixty years. Much of the early research, however,was seriously flawed. Raymond Cattell's work wastypical of the serious limitations of lexical studiesdone in the 1940's. Using modern computers,subsequent replications of his original studies doneby hand or by early computers revealed calculationerrors and, therefore, invalidated many of hisfindings.

The first evidence that flaws existed in Cattell'swork was revealed by Fiske (1949), who suggestedthat five, not sixteen, factors accounted for thevariance in personality trait descriptors. But Fiskestopped there, making no big deal of his finding andnot himself quite sure what to make of his results.From 1954-1961, two Air Force personnelresearchers, Tupes and Christal (1961), became thefirst researchers to make use of Al 'port and Odbert'swork. Building on Cattell and Fiske, Tupes andChristal thoroughly established the five factors weknow today. Sadly, they published their results inan obscure Air Force publication that was not readeither by the psychology or academic communities.

Then, in the late 1950's, Warren Norman at theUniversity of Michigan learned of Tupes andChristal's work. Norman (1963) replicated theTupes and Christal study and confirmed the five-factor structure for trait taxonomy. For bringing thisdiscovery into the mainstream academic psychologycommunity, it became known, understandably butinappropriately, as "Norman's Big Five." Rightly, itshould be Tupes and Christal's Big Five. A flurry ofother personality researchers confirmed Norman'sfindings.

But, even within the academic bastion of truth,politics prevailed. The influence of behaviorists,social psychologists and an especially withering

attack by Walter Mischel (1968), led to thesuppression of trait theory. During the 1960's and1970's traits were out of favor - -only behaviors andsituational responses were allowed. However,radical behaviorism began to fall from its pedestal inthe early 1980's with the rise of cognitive science.Cognitive scientists proclaimed that there was moreto the human mind than stimulus and response(Howard, 1994). Throughout the 1980'5 andcontinuing through the present, a plethora ofpersonality researchers have established the Five-Factor Model as the basic paradigm for personalityresearch. Four excellent summaries of this researchtradition are Goldberg (1993), Digman (1990), John,Angleitner, & Ostendorf (1988), and McCrae (1992).

THE BIG FIVE DEFINED

Each of the Big Five dimensions is like a bucketthat holds a set of traits that tend to occur together.The definitions of the five super factors represent anattempt to describe the common element among thetraits, or sub-factors, within each "bucket." The mostcommonly accepted buckets of traits are thosedeveloped by Costa and McCrae (1992). Theirnomenclature was developed for an academic andclinical population. For use in the businesscommunity, some of the terms need to be modified.Specifically, the term "Neuroticism" needs to bechanged to "Negative Emotionality." Imagine anexecutive being called "High Neuroticism"! In thissection, we will present this business version for usein professional development activities.

THE NEGATIVE EMOTIONALITY FACTOR

Negative Emotionality refers to the number andstrength of stimuli required to elicit negativeemotions in a person. More resilient persons arebothered by fewer stimuli in their environment, andthe stimuli must be strong in order to bother them.More reactive persons are bothered by a greatervariety of stimuli, and the stimuli do not have to beas strong in order to bother them.

Costa and McCrae have identified six

correlated traits which comprise this negativeemotionality "bucket." They are listed and definedin Table 1.

Levels of Negative Emotionality

At one extreme of the negative emotionalitycontinuum, we have the Reactive, who experiencesmore negative emotions than most people and who

4 3

reports less satisfaction with life than most people.That is not meant to place a value judgment onreactives, however, as the susceptibility to negativeemotions and discontent with life provides the basisfor shaping extremely important roles in our society,such as social scientists, customer serviceprofessionals, and academicians. At higherintellectual and academic levels, extreme reactivity(high negative emotionality) interferes withperformance.

Table 1. The Six Facets of Negative Emotionality (adapted fromCosta & McCrae, 1992) with Anchors for the Two Extremes of theContinuum

Six Facets ofNegative

Emotionality:

RESILIENT(R -)

REACTIVE(R +)

Worry Relaxed; calm Worrying;uneasy

Anger Composed; slowtoaisi er 122.giSlowly discour-aged

Quick to feeler

Easily discour-aged

Discouragement

Self-

ConsciousnessHard to embar-rass

More easilyembarrassed

Impulsiveness Resists urgeseasily

Easily tempted

Vulnerability Handles stresseasily

Difficulty coping

On the other extreme of the negativeemotionality continuum, we have the Resilients, whotend to experience life on a more rational level thanmost people and who appear rather impervioussometimes to what's going on around them. Wethink, for example, of our -hoir director who didn'tmiss a beat during a dress rehearsal when thepodium on which he was standing collapsedforward. He simply placed his feet at angles like asnow plow and kept his baton moving. Of course,all the singers and instrumentalists broke outlaughing at this classic example of non-reactivity.He's unflappable. And that extreme is also thefoundation for many valuable social roles--from airtraffic controllers and airline pilots to militarysnipers, finance managers, and engineers.

Of course, along the negative emotionalitycontinuum from reactive to resilient is the vastmiddle range of what we call Responsives, who are amixture of qualities characteristic of resilients andreactives. Responsives are more able to turnbehaviors from both extremes on and off, calling onwhat seems appropriate to the situation. Aresponsive, however, is not typically able tomaintain the calmness of a resilient for as long aperiod of time, nor is a responsive typically able to

maintain the nervous edge of alertness of a reactive(as, for example, would be typical of a stock traderduring a session).

THE EXTRAVERSION FACTOR

Extraversion refers to the number ofrelationships with which one is comfortable. Highextraversion is characterized by a larger number ofrelationships and a larger proportion of one's timespent in enjoying them. Low extraversion ischaracterized by a smaller number of relationshipsand a smaller proportion of one's time spent inpursuing those relationships. Costa and McCrae'ssix facets of extraversion are described in Table 2.

Table 2. The Six Facets of Extraversion (adapted from Costa &McCrae, 1992) with Anchors for the Two Extremes of theContinuum

Six Facets ofExtraversion :

INTROVERT(E -)

EXTRAVERT(E +)

Warmth Reserved; formal Affectionate;friendly, intimate

Gregariousness Seldom seekscompanyStays inbackground

Gregarious, pre-fers companyAssertive; speaksup; leads

Assertiveness

Activity Leisurely pace Vigorous pace

Excitement-Seekin:

Low need forthrills

Cravesexcitement

Positive Emotions Less exuberant Cheerful;optimistic

Levels of Extraversion

On the one hand, the Extravert tends to exertmore leadership, to be more physically and verballyactive, and to be more friendly and outgoing aroundothers than most people tend to be. This extravertedprofile is the foundation of many important socialroles, from sales, to politics, to the arts and the softersocial sciences.

On the other hand, the Introverts tend to bemore independent, reserved, steady, and morecomfortable with being alone than most people are.This introverted profile is the basis of such variedand important social roles as production managersand the harder physical and natural sciences.

In between these two extremes are theAmbiverts, who are able to move comfortably fromoutgoing social situations to the isolation of workingalone. The stereotypical ambivert is the Player-Coach, who moves upon demand from the

The Big Five Quickstart

leadership demands of Coach to the personalproduction demands of the Player.

THE OPENNESS FACTOR

Openness refers the number of interests towhich one is attracted and the depth to which thoseinterests are pursued. High openness refers to aperson with relatively more interests and,consequently, relatively less depth within eachinterest, while low openness refers, to a person withrelatively few interests and relatively more depth ineach of those interests.

Costa and McCrae identify six facets ofopenness, which are described below in Table 3.

Levels of Openness

On the one hand, the Explorer has broader interests,has a fascination with novelty and innovation,would generally be perceived as liberal, and reportsmore introspection and reflection. Explorers are notunprincipled, but they tend to be open toconsidering new approaches. The explorer profileforms the basis for such important social roles asentrepreneurs, architects, change agents, artists, andtheoretical scientists (social and physical).

Table 3. The Six Facets of Openness (adapted from Costa &McCrae, 1992) with Anchors for the Two Extremes of theContinuum

Six Facets ofOpenness:

PRESERVER(0-)

EXPLORER(0+)

Fantasy Focuses on hereand now

imaginative;daydreamsAppreciates art andbeauty

Aesthetics Uninterested inart

Feelings Ignores and dis-counts feelings

Values all emotions

Actions Prefers thefamiliar

Prefers variety;tries new things

Ideas Narrower intellec-tual focus

Broad intellectualcuriosity

Values Dogmatic;conservative

Open to reexamin-ing values

On the other hand, the Preserver has narrowerinterests, is perceived as more conventional, and ismore comfortable with the familiar. Preservers areperceived as more conservative, but not necessarilyas more authoritarian. The preserver profile is thebasis for such important social roles as financialmanagers, performers, project managers, andapplied scientists.

In the middle of the continuum lies theModerate. The moderate can explore the novel withinterest when necessary, but too much would betiresome; on the other hand, the moderate can focuson the familiar for extended periods of time, buteventually would develop a hunger for novelty.

This trait is not really about intelligence, asexplorers and preservers both score well ontraditional measures of intelligence, but it is aboutcreativity. Openness to new experience is animportant ingredient of creativity.

THE AGREEABLENESS FACTOR

Agreeableness refers to the number of sourcesfrom which one takes one's norms for right behavior.High agreeableness describes a person who defers toa great many norm sources, such as spouse, religiousleader, friend, boss, or pop culture idol. Lowagreeableness describes one who, in the extreme,only follows one's inner voice. High agreeablenesspersons will march to the drumbeat of manydifferent drummers, while low agreeablenesspersons march only to their own drumbeat.

In defining the components of agreeableness,Costa and McCrae list six facets, which arepresented in Table 4.

Table 4. The Six Facets of Agreeableness (adapted from Costa &McCrae, 1992) with Anchors for the Two Extremes of theContinuum

6

Six Facets ofAgreeableness:

CHALLENGER(A -)

ADAPTER(A +)

Trust Cynical;skeptical

See others ashonest & well-intentioned

Straightforwardness

Guarded;stretches truth

Straightforward,frank

Altruism Reluctant to getinvolved

Willing to helpothers

Compliance Aggressive;competitive

Yields underconflict; defers

Modesty Feels superior toothers

Self-effacing;humble

Tender-

Mindedness

Hardheaded;rational

Tender-minded;easily moved

Levels of Agreeableness

At the one end of the continuum, the Adapter isprone to subordinate personal needs to those of thegroup, to accept the group's norms rather thaninsisting on his or her personal norms. Harmony ismore important to the Adapter than, for example,broadcasting one's personal notion of truth. Galileo,in recanting his Copernican views before the Roman

5

Inquisition, behaved like an adapter. The adapterprofile is the core of such important social roles asteaching, social work, and psychology.

At the other end of the continuum, theChallenger is more focused on his or her personalnorms and needs rather than on those of the group.The challenger is more concerned with acquiringand exercising power. Challengers follow the beatof their own drum, rather.than getting in step withthe group. The challenger profile is the foundationof such important social roles as advertising,managing, and military leadership.

In the middle of the continuum is the Negotiator,who is able to move from leadership to followershipas the situation demands. Karen Homey describedthe two extremes of this trait as "moving towardpeople" (adapter) and "moving against people"(challenger). The former, known as tender-minded,in the extreme become dependent personalities whohave lost their sense of self. The latter, known astough-minded, in the extreme become narcissistic,antisocial, authoritarian, or paranoid personalitieswho have lost their sense of fellow-feeling. In onesense, this trait is about the dependence (or altruism)of the adapter, the independence (or egocentrism) ofthe challenger, and the interdependence (orsituationalism) of the negotiator.

THE CONSCIENTIOUSNESS FACTOR

Conscientiousness refers to the number of goalson which one is focused. High conscientiousnessrefers to a person who focuses on fewer goals andexhibits the self-discipline associated with suchfocus. Low conscientiousness refers to one whopursues a larger number of goals and exhibits thedistractibility and spontaneity associated withdiffuse focus.

Table 5 lists the six facets which Costa andMcCrae associate to form the conscientiousnessfactor.

Levels of Conscientiousness

On the one hand, the Focused profile exhibitshigh self-control resulting in consistent focus onpersonal and occupational goals. In its normal state,the focused person is characterized by academic andcareer achievement, but when focusedness turnsextreme, it results in workaholism. The focusedperson is difficult to distract. Such a profile is thebasis for such important social roles as leaders,executives, and, in general, high achievers.

On the other hand, the Flexible person is moreeasily distracted, is less focused on goals, is morehedonistic, and is generally more lax with respect togoals. The flexible is easily seduced fr6m the task athand by a passing idea, activity, or person; i.e., theyhave weak control over their impulses. Flexibles donot necessarily work less than focused people, butless of their total work effort is goal-directed.Flexibility facilitates creativity, inasmuch as itremains open to possibilities longer without feelingdriven to closure and moving on. This profile is thecore of such important social roles as researchers,detectives, and consultants.

Table 5. The Six Facets of Conscientiousness (adapted fromCosta & McCrae, 1992) with Anchors for the Two Extremes of theContinuum

Six Facets ofConscientiousness

FLEXIBLE(C -)

FOCUSED(C +)

Competence Often feelsunprepared

Feels capable andeffective

Order Unorganized;unmethodical

Well-organized;neat; tidy

Dutifulness Casual aboutobligations

Governed by con-science; reliable

AchievementStriving

Low need forachievement

Driven to achievesuccess

Self Discipline Procrastinates;distracted

Focused oncompleting tasks

Deliberation Spontaneous;hasty

Thinks carefullybefore acting

Towards the middle of this continuum is theBalanced person, who finds it easier to move fromfocus to laxity, from production to research. Abalanced profile would make an ideal manager foreither a group of flexibles or a group of focuseds,providing just enough of the opposite quality tokeep flexibles reasonably on target withoutalienating them, and to help focused people relaxperiodically to enjoy life a little.

RELATION OF THE BIG FIVE TO THE MBTI/JUNGMODEL

Perhaps one of the reasons for the popularity ofthe MBTI has been that it closely resembles theempirically derived Five-Factor Model. Althoughthe MBTI derives from theory and not experience,apparently Carl Jung and the MBTI test developerswere closely attuned to human experience whendefining their four dimensional model. Thetransition, then, from using the MBTI to using theFFM is a relatively easy one. McCrae and Costa(1989) in their watershed article--"Reinterpreting theMyers-Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective ofthe Five-Factor Model of Personality"--clearly

The Big Five Quickstart

highlight how the MBTI is both supported by FFMresearch and corrected by it. The principal pointsthey make are:

1. The Judgment dimension (Thinking vs.Feeling) is unstable because of its failure to separatenegative emotionality from agreeableness. Theconcept of thinking vs. feeling does not fitisomorphically to the FFM. In order to measure thethinking/feeling supertrait, one would need to piecetogether several different facet scores from amongthe thirty facets of the FFM (as defined by Costa andMcCrae).

2. Because the distribution of factor scores isnormal and not bimodal, the practice ofdichotomizing respondents, for example, intoextraverts and introverts, is unjustified. McCrae andCosta prefer speaking of degrees of extraversion.For convenience's sake, we speak of three levels, orregions, in which one might score--extraversion,ambiversion, and introversion.

3. The Judger/Perceiver preference does notidentify one's primary. In fact, assuming, as soundpsychometric practice requires, that one's primaryfunction (from among sensing, intuiting, thinking,and feeling) would be the fun' ion with the highestscore, then the J/P preference picks the highestfunction score at a rate no better than chance.

4. The type concept has no validity. Assumingthe integrity of the sixteen four-letter types, onewould expect to find consistent correlations amongthe types and other behavioral measures. This is notthe case. Rather than reporting a five-letter type,then, the FFM simply reports five trait scores.Certainly, many behaviors are explained by thecombinative effect of two or more FFM traits, suchas authoritarian behavior being associated with highnegative emotionality, low openness, and lowagreeableness. We call these behaviors with multi-trait explanations "themes" or interactive effects.The second and third sections in this monographwill discuss such thematic behaviors.

5. Introspection, or reflection, is not associatedwith introversion, but rather with the trait calledintuition (by the MBTI) or openness (by the FFM).

6. The judgment/perception scale does notmeasure one's decisiveness, but rather appears tomeasure one's need for structure.

7. The definitional problems with thethinker/feeler dimension are many, but they areresolved by adopting the two new dimensions,negative emotionality and agreeablenoss. Apreference for reason and logic belong; to the

negative emotionality (low) bucket, while apreference for harmony belongs to the agreeableness(high) bucket.

Because of the empirical origins of the FFM, nosingle theory is best supported by its structure. Onthe other hand, because the FFM is essentially anattempt to find the "lowest common denominators"among personality words across all languages, it isuniquely able to serve as a source for measuring theconstructs defined by most other personality tests.By being in possession of FFM scores, for example,one could derive an individual's profile using suchmodels as the FIRO, LIFO, AVA, MBTI, DISC,Holland Hexagon, and Social Styles Inventory, aswell as such popular concepts as leadership style,conflict management style, and attributions' style.

CONSENSUS IN THE PSYCHOLOGICALCOMMUNITY?

In the strictest sense of the word, consensusrequires universal agreement, as in a unanimousvote. Consensus within a group implies that allwithin the group agree with a particular point.While many have claimed that consensus existswithin the psychological community on the FFM asthe research paradigm for the foreseeable future,certainly not 100% of personality researchers wouldagree. Hans Eysenck (1991), for one, holds out for athree-factor solution. Hogan (1986) holds out for asix-factor solution. But what is different about thepersonality research community today versus tenyears ago is that there is a clear trend towardsembracing a single model--the FFM--as the researchparadigm to follow. Up until ten years ago, thepersonality research community was fragmented,with Freud, Erikson, Homey, Jung, Murray,Eysenck, and others all claiming the best model. Allwere partially right, but only the FFM has arms bigenough to include them all.

But while unanimity among personalityresearchers is still beyond our grasp, one can sensethe excitement among researchers in the recentliterature:

8

A series of research studies of personality traits has led to afinding consistent enough to approach the status of law.

Digman & Inouye (1986)

The comprehensive analyses in Dutch have provided so farthe strongest cross-language evidence for the Big Five.

- John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf (1988)

The past decade has witnessed a rapid convergence ofviews regarding the structure of the concepts ofpersonality. Digman (1990)

7

The major aim of this article has been to provide sufficientevidence to alleviate any qualms about the generality of theBig-Five structure.

Goldberg (1990)

We believe that the robustness of the 5-factor modelprovides a meaningful framework for formulating andtesting hypotheses relating individual differences inpersonality to a wide range of criteria in personnelpsychology, especially in the subfields of personnelselection, performance appraisal, and training anddevelopment.

Barrick Si Mount (1991)

I again, anticipate more extensive use by tomorrow'spractitioners of new generations of inventories, forexample, the NEO Personality Inventory developed byCosta and McCrae (1988) for the assessment in healthyindividuals of something akin to today's five basicdimensions of character and personality that have evolvedempirically from a line of inquiry first suggested by Galtona century ago.

Matarazzo (1992)

The past decade has witnessed an electrifying burst ofinterest in the most fundamental problem of the field--thesearch for a scientifically compelling taxonomy ofpersonality traits. More importantly, the beginning of aconsensus is emerging about the general framework ofsuch a taxonomic representation.

--Goldberg (1993)

While we do not mean to overwhelm orsteamroll you by this surge of interest in the FFM,we do hope that you will catch some of theexcitement. It may be helpful for us to explain howwe converted four years ago to the FFM. Pierce wasresearching his book on practical applications ofbrain research (Howard, 1994). Each chapter of thebook attempted to find the most current brainresearch in a particular field (e.g., aging, sleep,memory, intelligence, gender, motivation, etc.) andpresent how the findings might be used in everydaylife. While researching the chapter on personality,he encountered the groundswell of support for theFFM described earlier. This presented a dilemma forus. We had been using the MBTI for team buildingand professional development activities, as well asthe 16-PF for individual coaching and counseling.According to the research literature, we were usinginstruments with less than desirable validity andreliability. Not only that, but improvedinstrumentation was also available in Cie form ofCosta and McCrae's NEO tests.

We should note that other instruments formeasuring the Big Five are available; see discussionof them in Stephen Briggs' article "Assessing theFive-Factor Model of Personality Description" inMcCrae, 1992. We prefer the NEO series of testsbecause 1) both short and long forms are available,

and 2) most FFM researchers point to Costa andMcCrae's test as the research standard.

Pierce had no choice but to write about theNEO and the FFM in his book. So, as professionalmanagement consultants, were we to preach onething and continue to do another, or were we tomake our practice, consistent with our preaching?We knew that the only responsible choice was tofully embrace the FFM in both the book and in ourpractice. It was a costly decision -- retooling is alwayscostly, and is a major reason why many people donot embrace new and better paradigms. But itwould have been more costly in the long run if wehad not made the change. For a while, it was alonely, tough decision. All our colleagues weremarching to a different drum. There were noapplications materials available. We had to developall our own exercises, forms, games, etc., to use infeedback and training sessions. Now that theprocess is complete, we know that it has been worthit. Our clients know that the FFM is a significantlyimproved approach to discussing individualdifferences. It is not just a new twist on an oldtheme, it is a new paradigm. And, we have built onthe inconvenience of having to develop all of ourown applications materials--we have a book comingout soon and have developed a certification programto train consultants and trainers to use the FFM!

WHERE WE GO FROM HERE

As fellow human resource professionals, weencourage you to study the FFM. The academicpsychology community is now ahead of the humanresource development community. We must playcatch-up. The Big Five will influence most areas ofour work. Since 1991 we have been using the NEOtests in many areas of our professional practice:

team buildingselectionjob analysistraining designcustomer servicemanagement and professional developmentcoaching and counselingcareer developmentleadership developmentconflict management

In the next two sections of this monograph, wewill describe how we use the FFM in both individualand team development. We suggest that, in order toget the most out of this reading, you administer toyourself both the short and long forms of the NEO

The Big Five Quickstart

tests and read some more from the now steadilygrowing literature. Here is a reasonable plan:

1. Order a NEO-FFI and NEO-PI-R specimenset (includes self-scoring tests and manual) from theCenter for Applied Cognitive Studies (CentACS) inCharlotte, NC. The NEO tests are Level B products(requires B.A. in psychology or related field pluscoursework in testing to qualify for purchasing).Call 1-800-BIG-5555 to arrange for your specimenset. Be sure to ask to be added to CentACS' mailinglist.

2. Order McCrae and Costa's Personality inAdulthood, their excellent summary of thedevelopment of the FFM published in 1990 byGuilford Press, 72 Spring Street, New York 10012.(Also available from CentACS)

3. Call the Center for Applied CognitiveStudies and order a sample set of applicationsmaterials (includes The Big Five Workbook, feedbackforms, and assorted learning materials) at 1-800-BIG-5555, or fax request to 704-331-9408, or E-mailrequest to centacs@cybernetics.net.

4. To engage in professional dialog about FFMtheory and applications, send E-mail tocentacs@cybernetics.net or follow the bulletin board"alt.psychology.personality" on the Internet/Usenet.

5. For training in the use of the FFM inprofessional development settings, contact theauthors at the Center for Applied Cognitive Studies.A public, four-day certification program is offeredseveral times annually.

Some half dozen years ago, an intern withwhom we were working looked at his results on theMBT1. All his scores were just at zero on each of thescales. He commented forlornly, "Does this meanthat I don't have a personality?" I wish he were backwith us today, looking at his FFM results. He wouldnever have asked that question. Welcome, inadvance, to the new paradigm of the Big Five.

IP*

a. 0

Section Two:USING THE BIG FIVE WITH INDIVIDUALS

In the first section, we showed how, byanalyzing the language of personality descriptors,researchers have identified five correlated groups ofbehaviors. The most popular formulation of theFFM is that of Costa and McCrae (1992) as measuredby their NEO tests (short form=NEO-FFI, longform=NEO-Pl-R). For the use of human resourceprofessionals, the authors of this series have adaptedCosta and McCrae's nomenclature to come up withthe professional development version (as opposed tothe clinical or academic version) of the FFM, whichis presented in Table 6 (on page 11).

The purpose of this section is to present howthe FFM may be used in fostering individualdevelopment, whether through individual coachingand counseling, classroom training, or as a part ofthe personnel selection process.

GUIDELINES FOR USING THE FFM INPROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

While this monograph is no substitute for auniversity course in Tests and Measurements or forthe NEO test manual (Costa & McCrae, 1992), wenonetheless feel professionally bound to providesome guidelines for the use of FFM test scores.

STABILITY OVER TIME

In their extensive research conducted throughthe Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, McCraeand Costa (1990) have identified small interactioneffects between all five personality dimensions andaging. Namely, from late adolescence throughyoung adulthood (i.e., roughly from 20 to :.;0 yearsold), agreeableness (A) and conscientiousness (C)

Figure 1. Stability and Change in the Five-Factor Model

From age 20 W age 30, negative emotionality, extraverswi andopenness tend to decrease, while agreeableness and conscientiousnesstend to increase.

Negotve Ernztonoity

Ertraverson

Openness

Aprosablems

Caseentiouvess

AGE 20 --X

both tend to increase, while negative emotionality(N), extraversion (E), and openness (0) all three tendto decrease. This relationship is portrayed in Figure1. Norms which reflect this relationship are

9

available for both college age people and adultsover30 (Costa & McCrae, 1992). One should be aware ofthis relationship when presenting test feedback toindividuals. When younger persons have high N, E,or 0, or low A or C scores, they should be advised ofthe natural tendency of these scores to moderatesomewhat over the next ten years. On the otherhand, persons with extremely low N, E, or 0 or highA or C scores should be concerned with how to livecomfortably with such extremes which could, in fact,become more extreme over time. For example, atwenty-year old with extremely high C stands agood chance of becoming a workaholic, whileanother twenty-year old with low C stands a goodchance of becoming somewhat more goal-focused.

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF THE BIG FIVE

Two of the five factors are especially relevant tothe quality of one's relationships--extraversion andagreeableness. For two individuals in a relationship,extremely divergent scores on these two dimensionstend to intensify the effects of other differenceswhich under different circumstances might not be sonoticeable. For example, a couple might include onepartner who is A+ (high A) and 0+, and the otherpartner is A- (low A) and 0-. In this case, the A-partner may have trouble accepting the other's 0+.On the other hand, a couple where both score A+but diverge on the 0 dimension should tend to bemore accepting of each other's extremes on the 0factor. This translates, for example, into whether aliberal and a conservative can live in the samehousehold or work effectivelyon the same team. If one or both is A-, expectfireworks. If both are A or A+, expect co-existence.

FACTORS VERSUS FACETS: WHEN TO USE WHICH

Paul Valery once wrote that "seeing isforgetting the name of what one sees." Labels cannever take the place of the real thing. Jast as onecannot get away with just talking about love withoutactually behaving in a loving manner (gifts, cards,consideration, humor, support, affection, etc.), soone cannot understand and cope with the world'scast of millions by simply labeling them properlywith the Big Five domain names. The five factornames are an introduction to a much wider realm ofdiscovery. Just as no two sets of fingerprints areidentical, so no two introverts (or adapters orresponsives) are just alike. Therefore, whenevertime allows, we should prefer to use all thirty facetsin our exploration of individual differences, and thefive superfactors should only be used as a shorthand

to refer generally to the groupings of facets. Eventhe facets are no substitute for the complexity of theindividual human personality and should be treatedonly as a somewhat more precise descriptor than afactor.

When working with a team of people who haveonly a couple of hours to devote to personalityvocabulary, we tend to use the five factors only. Butwhen more time is available, or if we are workingwith an individual one-on-one, we prefer (and feel aprofessional obligation) to use the full-facetapproach. As a rough guideline, using the full-facetversion with a team of people who have Less thanthree hours to devote to it would not make sense. Totry to give adequate attention to each member on allfacets in such a short time span could becomesomething akin to an interpersonal hit-and-runaccident. On the other hand, one can adequatelypresent full-facet results to an individual in aboutone hour.

The reliability of the NEO-FFI (60 items)averages around .80, while the reliability of theNEO-PI-R (240 items) averages around .90.Consequently, where the risks are higher, as in usingthe FFM for counseling a borderline employee ormaking selection decisions, there is no question-- usethe full-facet long version. The increased reliabilityand validity available with the long form isespecially crucial for interventions with potentiallegal repercussions. It is really a matter of first aidversus thorough diagnosing and prescribing. Theshorter form, however, does possess excellentreliability for use in teaching the FFM as avocabulary for understanding individual differencesin such contexts as team building and trainingcourses.

COMMON THEMES AMONG THE VARIOUS FACETSAND FACTORS

A theme, as we use the term, is a trait which isattributable to the combined effect of two or moreseparate traits. Because the most recent version ofthe Costa and McCrae's full facet test (the NEO-PI-R)has only been available for a couple of years, theidentification of themes using their thirty- facet /five-factor terminology is only just beginning to surface.Five years from now, many more themes will bereported in the research literature. For now, we willbe content to identify themes using mainly the fivefactors and common sense based on general (i.e.,non FFM) research results. These themes arepresented in Table 7 (on page 12).

11

1 The Big Five Quickstart

Table h. Professional Development Version of the Five-Factor Model(Adapted with permission from Costa and McCrae, 1992)

LEVEL: LOW MEDIUM HIGH

FACTOR 1:NEGATIVEEMOTIONALITY

Resilient (N-) Responsive (N) Reactive (N+)

Facets:Ni: Worry more calm (N1-) worried /calm (N1) more worried (N1+)N2: Anger slow to anger (N2-) some anger (N2) quick to anger (N2+)N3: Discouragement seldom sad (N3-) occasionally sad (N3) often sad (N3+)N4: Self-Consciousness seldom embarrassed (N4-) sometimes embarrassed (N4) easily embarrassed (N4+)N5: Impulsiveness seldom yielding (N5-) sometimes yielding (N5) often yielding (N5+)Ivo,: Vulnerability stress resistant (N6-) some stress (N6) stress prone (N6+)

FACTOR 2:EXTRAVERSION Introvert (E-) Ambivert (E) Extravert (El

Facets:El: Warmth aloof (El-) attentive (El) cordial (El+)E2: Gregariousness prefers alone (E2-) alone/others (E2) prefers company (E2+)E3: Assertiveness in background (E3-)

leisurel (E4-)

in foreground (E3)avera:e -ace (E4)

a leader (E3+)yi_orous (E4+)E4: Activity

E5: Excitement-Seeking low need for thrills (E5-) occasional need for thrills (E5) craves thrills (E5+)E6: Positive Emotions seldom exuberant (E6-) moderate exuberance (E6) usually cheerful (E6+)

FACTOR 3:OPENNESS Preserver (0-) Moderate (0) Explorer (0+)

Facets01: Fantasy here and now (01-) occasionally imaginative (01) a dreamer (01+)02: Aesthetics uninterested in art moderate interest in art (02) major interest in art (02+)03: Feelings ignores feelings accepts feelings (03) values all emotions (03+)09: Actions the familiar (04-) a mixture (04) variety (04+)05: Ideas , narrow focus (05-) moderate curiosity (05) broad intellectual curiosity (05+)06: Values conservative (06-) moderate (06) open to new values (06+)

FACTOR 4:AGREEABLENESS Challenger (A-) Negotiator (A) Adapter (A+)

Facets:Al: Trust skeptical (Al-) cautious (Al) trusting (Al+)A2: Straightforwardness guarded (A2-) tactful (A2) frank (A2+)A3: Altruism uninvolved (A3-) willing to help others (A3)

approachable (A4)eager to help (A3+)

A4: Compliance aggressive (A4-) defers (A4+)AS: Modesty superior (A5-)

hardheaded (A6-)_Nual (A5)

responsive (A6)humble (A5+)easily moved (A6+)A6: Tender-Mindedness

FACTOR 5:CONSCIENTIOUSNESS Flexible (C-) Balanced (C) Focused (C+)

.,

Facets:CI: Competence unprepared (C1-) prepared (Cl) capable (C1+)C2: Order unorganized (C2-) half-organized (C2) well-organized (C2+)C3: Dutifulness casual about obligations (C3-) covers priorities (C3) strong conscience (C3+)C4: Achievement Striving casual about success C4-)

distractible (C5-)serious about success (C4)mix of work and play (C5)

driven to succeed (C4+focused on work (C5+)C5: Self-Discipline

C6: Deliberation spontaneous (C6-) thoughtful (C6) careful (C6+)

12BEST COPY AVAILABLE

11

Table 7. Themes based on the Five-Factor Model.

A theme is a characteristic personality pattern which reflects thecombined effect of two or more factors or facets. A plusi+lindicates ascore above 55, a minus (-I indicates a score below 45, and a letterwithout either plus or minus indicates a score in the 45.55 range. The45-55 range comprises one standard deviation in the middle of thepopulation.

THEMECATEGORY:

THEME: COMPONENTS:

Leadership Style Visionary 0+, A-Catal st 0+, A+Troubleshooter 0-, C-Traditionalist 0-, C+

Holland Hexagon Realistic 0-, A-Investigative E-, 0+, C-Artistic N+, E+, 0+, A-,

C-Social N-, E+, A+Enterprising E+, A-, C+Conventional E-, 0-, A+, C+

Conflict Slides Negotiator N, E (+), A, C (-)Aggressor N+, E +, A-, C+Submissive N-, E-, A+, C-Avoider N+, E-, C-

Learning Style Classroom N+, E-Tutorial N+, E+Correspondence N-, E-Independent N-, E+

Decision Style Autocrat N+, 0-, A-, C+Bureaucrat N-, C+Diplomat N-, A, C-Consensus

.N+, E+, A+, C

Sample Careers Entrepreneur E+, 0+, A, C+Flight Attendant N+, E+, 0+Trainer N(+), t:.+, 0, A+,

CSales N-, E+, 0, A, C+

USING THE FFM IN INDIVIDUAL COACHINGAND COUNSELING

We find that FFM scores are helpful from theoutset when working with an individual client.These individuals have come for coaching orcounseling for a variety of reasons:

borderline performancedifficulties with other employeesboredom with workfrustration with workcareer explorationdesire for self-improvementpreparation for promotion opportunityjob search

One of our favorite cases was Henry, a free-lance television sports producer who was rich and

miserable. His Big Five profile was N+, E+, 0-, A,C+ He had plenty of work but was worn out. At11:00 p.m., after wrapping up his evening's workbroadcasting an NBA game, he found he couldn'tget to sleep until five or six in the morning, and thenit was time to get up. The basketball games frazzledhis nerves, and it took him a long time to calmdown.. He was good at his job, and he loved sports.He didn't know what was wrong with him but knewthe quality of his life must change.

The key to understanding Henry's job-personmismatch was Henry's N+. His scores on the otherfour dimensions were a perfect fit for the job, butlive, on-the-air sports production, especially the fastpace of basketball, was no place for a reactivepersonality. The behind-the-scenes producer mustbe relatively resilient, calmly monitoring all thecameras and coolly giving instructions to guide theshow's progress. His high reactivity in a stressfulenvironment with no margin for error was a recipefor misery. He has since moved from producing livesports shows to producing sports documentaries, inwhich he can edit without the stress of real time. Inaddition, he has begun work on a Master's Degree inEastern Studies, as he hopes eventually to specializein television documentaries of eastern culture,including sports, of course.

USING THE FFM IN A CLASSROOM SETTING

The FFM has proved to be ideal for use in aclassroom setting. Having used several otherinstruments throughout our consulting careers, weknew the good news and bad news associated withproviding test results. While many participantsaccepted their results readily, a substantial numberquestioned the appropriateness of their results.Some of the more common concerns were:

"This description doesn't sound like me at all.""I'm equally extraverted and introverted--why do youhave to call me one or the other?""The last time I took this test, I scored Thinker - -thistime I scored Feeler. What gives?""The world is not composed of opposites--it iscomposed of shades of gray.""You know that the academic community is not inagreement on a common vocabulary for talking aboutpersonality, don't you?""Don't put me in a box."

Well, fret no more. We have found that thesetypes of objections do not accompany Big Fivefeedback sessions. The degree of acceptance of BigFive test results has been remarkably high.Everyone--everyone--to whom we have providedFFM results has been comfortable with being placed

The Big Five Quickstart

in either the high, medium, or low areas of the fivedimensions. Persons previously called introverts- -but %vho were puzzled that their extraverted sidewas discounted--are now happy to be calledAmbiverts. Persons previously called extraverts ,theauthors, for example)--but who were puzzled thattheir strong introversion was discounted-- are alsonow happy to be called ambiverts. Finally, with theFFM, the people who score in the middle of the bellcurve are recognized as first class citizens!

We have used the FFM in many different kindsof training classes:

basic management developmentteam skill developmentconflict managementleadership developmentproblem-solving and decision-makingcommunicationseffective meetingstraining designcustomer service

In each case, we use the FFM to teach thevocabulary of individual differences. We then assistparticipants in using this vocabulary to explain theirpast and to plan for their future. For example, onewho scores A+ will tend to be a conflict avoider. So,we help the individual understand howagreeableness behaviors (trust, straightforwardness,altruism, deferring, humility, and empathy) have ledto conflict avoidance in the past. Then, we help theindividual plan to engage selectively with conflict inthe future. We help the individual learn twostrategies for managing conflict: development andcompensation. We develop the individual byteaching her or him skills, and we help the personlearn to compensate by learning how to involveothers in assisting with conflict situations.

Meanwhile, all of the instruction keeps thepersistent reality of personality traits foremost.

USING THE FFM IN PE .SONNEL SELECTION

The NEO-PI-R measures six facets for each ofthe five factors of the FFM. These thirty traitmeasures form a state-of-the-art palette for paintingthe highlights of individual differences. In theselection of employees, whether for newemployment or for new deployment, the full-facetprofile can capture the unique trait composition of aspecific job. For some jobs, no unique traits emerge- -in other words, the scores of a sample of incumbentsin that job average out the same as the general

population. But many jobs are characterized byunique trait scores -- scores which differ substantiallyfrom the normal population. In this latter case, onecast compare an individual's scores to the job'sscores and therefrom determine the degree of fitbetween the individual and the job.

Here are some examples of jobs which containincumbents who differ from the norm:

Flight Attendant: N+, E+, 0+Family Practice Physician: N-, 0+, A+, C-Pharmaceutical Sales: E+, C+Organization Development

Consultants: 0+

In the four jobs described above, note that we haveused only the broad-brush factor scores. In an actualpersonnel selection application, we would want touse the facet scores for greater precision ofmeasurement. For example, for flight attendants,based on a sample of 84, we would get the facetprofile presented in Table 8 (on page 14).

In an unpublished study conducted by theauthors with a local university intern, we furtherdetermined that flight attendants who were highlysatisfied with their jobs could be furtherdifferentiated from unsatisfied flight attendants inthe following manner: satisfied flight attendantsscored lower on the negative emotionality factor overallthan unsatisfied flight attendants (even though bothgroups scored in the N+ area). This is consistentwith the common notions that 1) customer servicepositions (e.g., flight attendants) are associated withpersonalities that are more reactive (N+), and 2)extremely reactive (N++) persons would not be ascontent with airplane life (because of its associatedhigher risks) as less reactive (i.e., more resilient)persons.

In the third section of this monograph, we willpresent ways in which the Big Five model can beused in wor'ng with teams. We will look at howvarious kinds of relationships--from marriages towork teams--can benefit from taking time to studythe effects of similarities and differences inpersonality traits among the people in relationships.

14

P.

13

Table S Profile of Flight Attendants to = 84)Unshaded areas represent the az,erw score for flight attendants on each of the facets of the NEO-PI R

LEVEL: LOW MEDIUM HIGHFACTOR 1:

NEGATIVEEMOTIONALITY

Sedate (N-) Responsive (N) Reactive (N-)

Facets:

Nl. Worry more calm (Ni-)slow to anger (N2-)seldom sad (N3-)seldom embarrassed (N4-)seldom yielding (N5-)stress resistant (N6-)

worried/calni (N1)some anger (N)occasionally sad (N3)sometimes embarrassed (N4)sometinies yieldbig (N5)some stress (N6)

more worried (N1 +)quick to anger (N2+)often sad (N3+)easily embarrassed (N4+ )often yielding (N5+)stress prone (N6+)

NI AngerN3: DiscouragementN4: Self-ConsciousnessN5: ImpulsivenessN6.

FACTOR 2:

EXTRAVERSION Introvert (E-) Ambivert (E) Extravert (E-)Facets.

El l% armth aloof (El-) attentive (ED cordial (E1+)prefers company (E2+)a leader (E3+)

E2 Gregariousness prefers alone (E2-)in background (E3-)leisurely (E4-)low need for thrills (ES-)seldom exuberant (E6-)

alone/others (E2)E3: Assertiveness in foreground (E31E4 Activit% average pace (E4)

occasional need for thrills (E5)moderate exuberance (E6)

vigorous (E4+ )E3 Excitement-Seeking craves thrills (E5+ IEh Positive EMOtiOn, usually cheerful (E6+ )

FACTOR 3:

OPENNESS Preserver (0-) Moderate (0) Explorer (01-)Facet,,

01. Fantacv here and now (01-)uninterested in artignores feelingsthe familiar (04-)narrow focus (05-)conservative (06-)

occasionally imaginative (01)moderate interest in art (02)accepts feelings (03)a mixture (04)

a dreamer (01+)02 Aesthetics mayor interest in art (02., i03 Feeling, values all emotions (03+)04 Actions variety (04+)03 Ideas moderate curiosity (Os) broad intellectual curiosity (05+)

open to new values (06+)06 Value moderate (Ow

FACTOR 4:

AGREEABLENESS Challenger (A-) Negotiator (A) Adapter (Al-)Facets

Al lrust skeptical (Al-)guarded (A2-)uninvolved (A3-)aggressive (A4-)

cautious (AI) trusting (Al+)frank (A2+)eager to help (A3+)defers (A4+)humble (A5+)easily moved (A6+)

1 A2 Straighttorwardnes, tactful (A2)Al Altruism willing to help others (A3iA4 C ompliance approachable (A4)A3 Modesty superior (A5-) equal (A5)A6 Tender-Mindednes,, hardheaded (A6-) responsive (A6)

FACTOR 5'

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS Flexible (C-) Balanced (C) Focused (C+)Facets

Cl Competence unprepared (C1-) prepared (C1) capable (C1+)C2. Order . unorganized (C2-) .. half-organized (C2) kwell-o rganized (C2+)C3. Dutifulness casual about obltgatkint(C3-) covers priorities (C3) strong conscience (C3+)C4 Achievement Striving casual about success (C4-) serious about success (C4) driven to succeed (C4+)C3 Self - Discipline distractible (CS-) mix of work and play (C5) focused on work (C5+)e0 Deltheration spontaneous (C6-) thoughtful (C6) 'careful (C6+)

REST COPY AVAILABLE

1

The Big Five Quickstart

Section Three:USING THE BIG FIVE WITH TEAMS

Most human resource developers have placed ahigh value on the use of a common personalityvocabulary as a tool in working with teams. Byintroducing a common vocabulary to members of ateam, a facilitator is able to identify and discuss teamstrengths and weaknesses constructively and non-defensively.

The models of personality on which facilitatorshave based their vocabularies have varied widely.The terms wafting through the halls of meeting sitesmingle like a veritable alphabet soup: drivers andamiables, high expressed controls and low wantedinclusions, quick starts and implementors, sanguineand phlegmatic, cerebral left and limbic right,submissive-hostile and dominant-warm, MBTI,LIFO, DISC, and AVA (see summary with referencesin Howard (1994), page 132).

As we saw in the first section of thismonograph, each of these aforementionedvocabularies is a different metaphor that describeshuman personality from a particular perspective.Over the last ten years, the psychological communityhas reached an unprecedented degree of agreementon the best, most universal metaphor--the Five-Factor Model, or the Big Five (Costa & McCrae,1992). The Big Five serves as a kind of sourcemetaphor. It does not compete with othermetaphors; rather, it acts as psychometricinfrastructure from which profiles for each of theother models may be derived. In fact, however, ifone is using the source metaphor, why bother withthe others?

APPLYING THE BIG FIVE TO TEAMS

In the second section, we saw how the Five-Factor Model (FFM) might be applied to the humanresource professional's work with individuals--incareer development, in executive coaching andcounseling, in selection, and in management andprofessional development. In this section, we focuson the use of the FFM with teams, whether with two-person teams (boss-subordinate, partners, etc.) orwith larger ones.

TWO-PERSON TEAMS

As we prepare to look at some real-life teams,we need to recall the vocabulary that we outlinedearlier in this monograph. A recap of the fivedimensions with names for the three levels (or areas)

of each dimension (or continuum) is presented inTable 9.

Table 9. The Big Five Dimensions, with the Three LevelsDescribed.

LEVEL:DIMENSION: LOW: MEDIUM: HIGH:

NegativeEmotionality

Resilient(N-)

Responsive(N)

Reactive(N+)

Extraversion Introvert(E-)

Ambivert(E)

Extravert(E+)

Openness Preserver(0-)

Moderate(0)

Explorer(0+)

Agreeableness Challenger

(A-)

Negotiator(A)

Adapter(A+)

Conscientious-ness

Flexible(C-)

Balanced(C)

Focused(C+)

To assist in identifying similarities anddifferences among team members, we have deviseda four-by-five table in which we display themembers' scores. For two-person teams, we simplyplace the two individuals' initials in the box whichrepresents his or her score for each of the fivedimensions. The first case study on which we focusis that of two division managers--peers--but whowork under the same roof and report to an executivevice-president in another location.

Situation: Sandy and Harvey each manage amajor division of an automotive manufacturer. Bothdivisions happen to be located under one roof.While each division has its own intactmanufacturing department, the two divisions sharea common set of support departments- -humanresources, purchasing, and material handling.

Table 10. The General Managers

N-EResi Resp

S-HReac

EXTIntro Ambi

S-HExtra

OPNPres

HModr Expl

S

AGRChall Negot

S-HAdap

CONFlexi

S

Balan FocuH

Therefore, the two general managers mustcooperate with one another in managing the supportfunctions. Sandy's division has higher sales but

16 15

smaller margins, while Harvey's division has lowersales and larger margins. Harvey accuses Sandy oflimiting profits through unnecessary spending, andSandy retorts that Harvey limits growth byexcessively tight controls.

Analysis: The keys to the dynamics of thisrelationship are Sandy's high 0 and moderately lowC interacting with Harvey's low 0 and moderatelyhigh C. We have a flexible explorer who's willing totry innovative methods, but who neglects the bottomline. On the other hand, we have a focusedpreserver who's fixated on efficiently milking thestatus quo but who is blind to opportunities forchange and growth. These two managers can learnfrom one another. Perhaps they could institute aonce-a-month "I'll take one of your suggestions, andyou take one of mine" session where they agree tolisten to each other.

In our second relationship case study, we lookat two managers in a reporting relationship.

Table 11. Two Presidents: One Corporate, One Divisional

N-EResi

S

RespC

Reac

EXTIntro

C

Ambi ExtraS

OPNPres

C

Modr ExplS

AGRChall

C-S

Negot Adap

CONFlexi

S

Balan FocuC

Situation: Cesar is president of a highlysuccessful construction conglomerate. Shelly ispresident of a barely profitable managementdivision. Cesar continually picks at Shelly for failingto meet budgets and deadlines, and Shelly, infrustration, responds that the division is performingas well as market conditions permit. Shelly doesn'tfeel trusted by Cesar, and Cesar is losing confidencein Shelly.

Analysis: Cesar is a highly introverted (low E)preserver (low 0) focused on results (high C), whileShelly is an outgoing explorer whose strength isdeveloping business during the good times. Duringmarket downturns, Shelly's high 0 has no outlet,and his low appetite for efficiency (moderately lowC, moderately low N) is exposed. Cesar needs tofind a way to communicate more frequently with

Shelly, both to deal with Shelly's frustration and tofind ways to focus on the bottom line.

MULTI-PERSON TEAMS

In displaying the scores of members of multi-person teams, one has two choices: either placeeveryone's identifier (initials, or, for anonymity,numbers) in the appropriate boxes, or simply showthe distribution of scores by showing the number ofteam members who score in each of the three boxes.

The first team case study (Table 12) is that of anold-school, Theory X management team with thecorporate office located in the northern U.S. and theplants located in the South, for the purpose of unionavoidance. Interestingly enough, this company isr belly-up.

Table 12. The Crisis Experts

N -E

Resi Resp10

Reac

EXTIntro

1

Ambi8

Extra1

OPNPres

9

Modr F.xpl1

AGRChall

9

Negot1

Adap

CONFlexi Balan

1

Focu9

Situation: This management team has a proudrecord of successfully managing in crisis situations.Once a strike shut down a plant (the only unionplant), and the management moved all theequipment in the shut-down plant to another site ina different state and had production restored within72 hours. But turnover is high, morale is low, andbusiness is declining. Management is at a lossconcerning what they can do differently.

Analysis: This management team of ten menappears to be composed of clones. With twoexceptions, all have the same profile. The only ideaperson (high 0) happens also to be introverted (lowE), so his ideas don't tend to get expressed. Thisteam needs to identify a couple of high 0, high A,and low C staff members to attend all meetings andmake them consider alternatives to their currentmanagement practices. Because they have a highmargin product, they need to spend some money onconsultants and listen carefully to therecommendations. This team's profile is geared for

The Big Five Quickstart

efficiency but doomed to fail because it lacks therenewing energy of new ideas and openness tochange.

The second multi-person team (Table 13) comesfrom a not-for-profit organization.

Table 13. A Human Service Agency Team

N-EResi

3

Resp5

Reac8

EXTIntro

2Ambi

1

Extra13

OPNPres

3

Modr4

Expl9

AGRChall

4Negot

2

Adap10

CONFlexi

2

Balan2

Focu12

Situation: Team meetings are loud andcompetitive with little real listening. Sideconversations continually crop up among this teamof sixteen. They love to brainstorm but lose track ofmany of their good ideas. Some tend to feelarrogant with respect to the rest of the agency,particularly to what they perceive as a sluggishupper management. Most of them, however, areuncomfortable with conflict and dread the meetings,which frequently erupt into accusation, blaming,and intimidation.

Analysis: The abundance of extraverts calls forstrict norms on how to conduct meetings. Theabundance of explorers (high 0) calls for detailedminutes with follow-up to evaluate suggestions,establish priorities, and assign responsibility forimplementation. The high number of adaptiveprofiles (high A) account for the discomfort withconflict, and they need to agree to turn everycomplaint into a plan of action. "Fix it or accept it."The large number of high C team members accountsfor the perception of others as sluggish. They needto learn to ask for and accept time-lines for decisionsfrom top management.

THE BIG FIVE AND TRAIT CONGRUENCE

When looking at a team's array of FFM scores,one considers two factors in using the Big Fivevocabulary to identify the team's developmentalneeds. First, one considers the unique elements ofthe team's situation--geography, politics, product

maturity, competitive environment, workforcemorale. Second, one considers the natural benpfitr,and drawbacks that typically accompany teams withhigh loadings on one trait, or with split loadings. inwhich a team shows two or more clusters along adimension, such as four members who are moreextraverted and seven who are more introverted.When all or most of a team load on one area of adimension, as in all (or most) being moreextraverted, we refer to that as trait congruence, ortrait homogeneity. When team members clusteralong different areas of a dimension, we call thattrait diversity, or trait heterogeneity.

Neither trait congruence nor trait diversity is inand of itself a good or bad thing. All team membershaving congruent extraversion scores, for example,can be both a plus and a minus. Table 14 (see nextpage) lists the typical key effects for trait congruenceand trait diversity for all five Big Five dimensions.

The key effects listed in Table 14 are subject tothe influence of other traits. For example, we pointout that persons at opposite ends of theConscientiousness dimension tend to "be at eachother constantly." If these people are also high inAgreeableness, then they probably will be "at eachother" much less frequently and overtly, while ifthey are low in Agreeableness, they will have dailyknock-down, drag-outs. Keep in mind, then, thatthese key effects are not absolutely and inexorablyassociated with their specific traits, but rather aresubject to influence by other traits and situations.

ADAPTATION STRATEGIES

How does one cope with the negative effects ofa particular trait congruence or diversity? Becausethe key effects listed in Table 14 tend to he naturalconsequences of their associated traits, they alsotend to be stable and life-long. They won't go away.How does one then cope with the permanent effectsof trait interactions within relationships?

Robert Sternberg of Yale University hassuggested (1988) that three kinds of problem-solvingstrategies are available to us:

I can try to change myselfI can try to change othersI can try to change the situation

Sternberg proposes that persons of higherintelligence will employ strategies from all threegroups, showing a flexibility in selecting the mostappropriate strategy for the situation. Lessintelligent people, Sternberg continues, tend to fixrigidly on one type of strategy and persist in trying

17

Table 14. The Effects of Trait Congruence and Trait Diversity(+ = Positive Effect; - = Negative Effect)

BOTH HI BOTH MID BOTH LO HI + MID LO + MID HI + LONEGATIVEEMOTIONALITY

+ Nothingescapesattention- High stress

+ Even-tempered

- Takestability forgranted

+ Stress-free

- Can missimportant cues

+ Hi admiresMid's control

Mid can tire ofHi's reactions

...taressed+ Hi attractedto M's balance

- Mid wishes Himore private

+ Mid willadmire Lo'ssteadiness- Lo's needsmay not get

+ Mid willdraw Lo outsocially

Mid impatientat reading Lo'smind

+ Lo providesstability for Hi

- Hi seen as outof control; Laseen as uncaring

+ Hi handlesrelationship asLo works- Hi seen asshallow; La asafraid of people

EXTRAVERSION + Manyfriends

- Little timefor reflection

+ Balance ofgroup andsolitude- Longing formore of bothextremes

+ Closerelationship

- Inadequatecommunication

OPENNESS + Enjoydreamingtogether- Neverachieve

efficiencies

+ Lots ofcommonsense- No competitine edge

+ Respect forexpertise

- Rigid inoutlook

+ Mid keepsHi's feet onground- Resents Hi'srisk-proneness

+ Mid respectsLo's constancy

Resents Lo's

lack of dreaming

+ Balance ofdreams withreality- Lo seen asboring; Hi as adreamer

AGREEABLENESS + Strongbonds

- Overlydependent

+ Gooddecisionmakers- Get caughtup in politics

+ Respect forfighting spirit

- Can fightconstantly

+ Mid willdraw out Hi'sneeds- Mid impatientw/Hi's martyr-dom

+ Mid helpsLo see others'needs- Mid impatientw/Lo's rigidity

+ Fight tobalance Ind &group needs- Hi taken tocleaners; IA

rejected

CONSCIENTIOUS-NESS

+ Highachievement

- Little purerelationshipbuilding

+ Balance ofwork andplay- No one goesfor the gold

+ Spontaneityand discovery

- Always out oftime and money

+ Mid helps Hito relax

- Hi feels heldback

+ Mid helpsLo meet goals

- Mid resentsLa's drain onresources

+ Lo handlescrisis; Hi winsthe campaign- Constantly ateach other--make

vs. spend

variations of the same type. For example, personswho persist in trying to change themselves becomeknown as doormats, persons who persist in trying tochange others become known as control freaks, andperscns who persist in trying to change the situationbecome known as quitters. Table 15 lists severalexamples of strategies in each category that might beemployed to adapt to the effects of traitcongruence/diversity.

Individual differences are here to stay. And, inthe words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Everyindividual nature has its own beauty." Having avocabulary of personality differences enables us tocommunicate constructively. The Five-FactorModel provides us with a comprehensive sourcemetaphor that celebrates the fullness of humanpersonalities. Join us in this rich dialogue!

Table 15. Examples of Adaptation Strategies.

STERNBERG'SSTRATEGY TYPES:

EXAMPLES:

1. Changing Me Develop procedures tocompensate for weaknessesDelegateTrainingCounseling

2. Clanging Others Give permission for someone toplay roles none like but all needDevelop a set of team normsTinker with team roles (chair,recorder, timekeeper, etc.)Assign names and deadlines to allaction itemsEvaluate team performanceperiodically (in light of norms)TrainingNegotiate job descriptions, goals,and rewards

3. Changing the Add more team membersSituation Ask for a volunteer to perform

missing functionsInvite non-members to attendpermanently or occasionallyClarify type of decision processintended (lx.ss, vote, consensus)Transfer or terminate individualsReengineer processes and roles

ly

The Big Five Quickstart

REFERENCES

Allport, G.W., & Odbert, H.S. (1936). Trait names:a psycho-lexical study. PsychologicalMonographs, 47 (211).

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R:Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: PsychologicalAssessment Resources.

Digman, j.M. (1990). Personality Structure:Emergence of the Five-Factor Model. AnnualReview of Psychology, 41, 417-440.

Eysenck, H.J. (1991). Dimensions of personality:16, 5, or 3?--Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm.Personality and Individual Differences, 12(8), 773-790.

Fiske, D.W. (1949). Consistency of the factorialstructures of personality ratings from differentsources. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology,44, 329-344.

Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The Structure of PhenotypicPersonality Traits. American Psychologist.January 1993, 48(1), 26-34.

Hogan, R. (1983). Hogan Personality InventoryManual. Minneapolis: National ComputerSystems.

Howard, P.J., & Howard, J.M. (1993). The Big FiveWorkbook: A Roadmap for Individual and TeamInterpretation of Scores on the Five-Factor Model ofPersonality. Charlotte, NC: Center for AppliedCognitive Studies.

Howard, P.J. (1994). The Owner's Manual for theBrain: Everyday Applications from Mind/BrainResearch. Austin, TX: Leomian Press.

Kin law, D.C. (1990). Developing Superior WorkTeams. New York: Free Press.

John, 0.P, Angleitner, A., and Ostendorf, F. (1988).The lexical approach to personality: A

historical review of trait taxonomic research.European Journal of Personality, 2, 171-203.

Jung, C.G. (1971). Psychological Types. (H.G.Baynes, Trans., revised by R.F.C. Hull).Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(Original work published 1923)

McCrae, R.R. (Ed.) (1992). The Five-Factor Model:Issues and Applications. Journal of Personality(Special Issue). June 1992, 60(2).

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. (March 1989).Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type IndicatorFrom the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model ofPersonality. Journal of Personality, 57(1), 17-40.

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1990). Personality inAdulthood. New York: Guilford.

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and Assessment.New York: Wiley.

Myers, I.B., & McCaulley, M.H. (1985). Manual: AGuide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto: ConsultingPsychologists Press.

Norman, W.T. (1963). Toward an adequatetaxonomy of personality attributes: Replicatedfactor structure in peer nomination personalityratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,66, 574-583.

Ornstein, R. (1993). The Roots of the Self: Unravelingthe Mystery of Who We Are. Harper SanFrancisco.

Sternberg, R.J. (1988). The Triarchic Mind: A NewTheory of Human Intelligence. New York:Viking.

Tupes, E.C. & Christal, R.E. (1961, May). RecurrentPersonality Factors Based on Trait Ratings (ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX:Aeronautical Systems Division, PersonnelLaboratory.

19

For further information:

Center for Applied Cognitive Studies (CentACS)719 Romany Road

Charlotte, NC 28203-4849

Telephone: 704-331-0926, 800-BIG-5555Fax: 704-331-9408

E-mail: centacs @cybernetics.net