Running Head: PERSONALITY THEORIES: APPLICATIONS IN THE WORKPLACE1

THEORIES OF PERSONALITY31

Theories of Personality: Applications in the WorkplaceCherilyn FormanekColorado Technical University OnlinePSYC320-1203A-01

Theories of Personality: Applications in the WorkplaceIntroductionWithin every organizational workplace environment there are employees, individuals with distinct personalities and a need to understand how individuals interact with one another (American Psychological Association, 2003; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Srivastava, Oliver, Potter & Gosling, 2003; Sussex Publishers LLC, 1969). But what constitutes individual personality (APA, 2003; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Srivastava, et al, 2003; Sussex Publishers LLC, 1969)? Within the field of psychology there are several approaches regarding theories of personality; some theories include personality development and attempt to explain personality in terms of behavior and learning but there is no strict definition of the term personality, not even within each paradigm (APA, 2003; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Srivastava, et al, 2003; Sussex Publishers LLC, 1969). The purpose of this paper is to offer an overview of the paradigms; introduce leading theorists; offer a broad view of personality, its flexibility regarding change and offer applications and recommendations on effective workplace interactions (APA, 2003; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Srivastava, et al, 2003; Sussex Publishers LLC, 1969). I. Understanding Personality: Impact and Implications on Personality CharacteristicsThe concept of personality has defied attempts by leading theorists to provide one single agreed upon by all definition (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Silver, 2009). Theorists have tended to provide limited definitions in accordance to the paradigm and their own theories of personality (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Silver, 2009). That environment, culture, biological factors and temperament play a part in shaping personality in individuals is undisputed in terms of research studies; by how much can vary by the paradigm approach and methods of research (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Silver, 2009). Most theorists agree that personality is unique and dynamic; that there is a level of consistency and stability over time (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Silver, 2009). Yet there is evidence of fluidity in terms of personality change as individuals age; make personal choices in life experiences, and seek opportunities for learning (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Silver, 2009).Key to understanding the impact and implications on characteristics of personality is to understand that an early focus of the field of psychology involved the study of unhealthy individuals; personality development in children; and a study of non-human subjects with a tendency to over-generalize to human populations (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Later theorists have attempted to correct these issues by focusing on a study of healthy, adult, human populations (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). According to Olson and Hergenhahn, theorists have approached the study of personality in accordance to the focus of their schools of thought within the field of psychology; or paradigms (p. 2). These paradigms are psychoanalysis; neo-psychoanalytic; trait; behavioral-cognitive learning; evolutionary and existential-humanistic paradigms each with a focus on environment; culture; biology; behavior; cognitive; and psychological factors often in differing degrees and with exclusions in terms of the factors (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). To understand personality one must understand the paradigms; to understand the paradigms one must understand the theories of personality that shape the paradigms (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). According to Olson and Hergenhahn, personality cannot be understood or explained by any one paradigm or theorist (p. 14-15). The theories vary in terms of their completeness; often the same theory can be criticized for being both too detailed in some aspects and too vague in others (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Some theories lend themselves to the generating of research questions and others do not (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Within the field of psychology the validity of a theory does not rest on how well it may explain personality logically, but on how many research questions it can generate for empirical testing (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). It is through the process of generating research questions and testing a theorys predictive nature on personality that scientific rigor is established (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). For this reason one should consider the field of psychology as being engaged in a process of dialogue; of ideas of what personality is and how it can be predicted if at all (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). No theory has been found so rigorously sound as to be able to establish itself over all other theories; in a way understanding personality is like putting together pieces of a jigsaw puzzle (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). However the theories have provided useful applications to society and organizations that should not be ignored (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). II. The Major Paradigms and Theories of PersonalityThe Psychoanalytic Paradigm: Sigmund Freud and Carl JungThe key themes of the psychoanalytic paradigm: the principle theorists of the psychoanalytic paradigm are Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Key themes they share are an emphasis on the unconscious in the context of the id; ego; and superego (Jung substitutes the collective unconscious for the id) (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Each theorized on the psychic energy behind mental processes though those processes radically differ in description (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Freud saw these as biologically inherited processes based on causality; the libido functioning through the pleasure principle; the ego through the reality principle and the death instinct through the nirvana principle (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Jung redefined the libido as a general life energy directing individuals teologically and causally; and conscious and unconscious states working through the principles of entropy, opposites, and equivalence (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Freud and Jung also share an emphasis on dream analysis and word association to uncover the content of the unconscious but differ on interpretation (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Freud believes dream content and word association uncovers repressed memories relating to fixations on the psychosexual stages of development and the oedipal complex (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Jung believes the content represents the amount of psychic energy devoted to complexes (redefining these as clusters of associated thoughts) and hints at genetic memories of the collective unconscious (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). For both Freud and Jung personality was considered consistent over time (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Personality components in the psychoanalytic paradigm: To Freud the components of personality consist of the unconscious, preconscious and conscious; the id; the ego; and superego; the id being unconscious and the ego and superego being conscious and preconscious (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Freud believes personality is the result of heredity; development according to the psychosexual stages and the oedipal complex; is focused on causal factors; is preoccupied with biologically driven impulses for physiological needs; driven primarily by the id but controlled by the ego and superego (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Freud believes individuals could and would repress negative memories and associations; regress to earlier failed developments at the psychosexual stages of development and employ ego defense mechanisms as a means of coping with problems (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Freud believes that individuals indicate repression of negative experiences through resistance due to the pleasure principle; seeking pleasure and avoiding pain which accounts for ego defense mechanisms (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Freud is pessimistic about human nature while Jung is optimistic (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).To Jung the personality consists of the ego, superego and collective unconscious; the ego is conscious, the collective unconscious is unconscious, the preconscious is both; is the result of heredity and environment; is focused on causal and teological reasoning; is driven by the principles of opposites, entropy and equivalence; that libido was less a sex drive and more a life drive and that archetypes, complexes and synchronicity play a role in personality development (Boeree, 2006; Donati, 2004; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Jungs components of personality also include archetypes in a spiritual context such as persona; the self; animus and anima; and the shadow whereas Freuds theories explain these elements of personality in the context of biology, id instincts, and sexual development (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Jung believes that individuals could repress negative experiences and that some memories are genetic memories in the collective unconscious (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Jung places an emphasis on attitudes and thinking functions; introversion and extroversion; thinking; feeling; intuiting and sensing with thinking and feeling considered rational and intuiting and sensing considered irrational (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Introversion is the focus of attention turned inward; extroversion was the focus of attention turned outward and this is where the principle of opposites come into play; when one is thinking one is not feeling; when one is feeling one is not thinking (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The strengths and weaknesses of the psychoanalytic paradigm: Of all of the personality theories, Freuds have been among the most tested; while Jungs theories have not been as tested as Freuds, what has been tested has proven sound on empirical evidence (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The theories emphasize the relevancy of unconscious mental states on both personality and behavior, particularly on topics such as aggression and anxiety (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Both theories describe and explain elements of personality such as ego defense mechanisms (Freud); conflicts between conscious and unconscious mental states (Freud and Jung); complexes and attitudes such as extroversion and introversion (Jung); an explanation of development of religious thought (Freud) and the importance of religious and spiritual beliefs relative to personality (Jung) (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Additional strengths of Jungs theory are a focus on teleology, a focus on the importance of self-realization; and a reinterpretation of Freuds libido as a more generalized life drive (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The weaknesses of the psychoanalytic paradigm are: the theories are difficult to falsify; some elements of the theories defy empirical testing (Freud and Jung) (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Freud and Jung focus on the study of unhealthy personalities (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Freud may have been too subjective in analysis and interpretation of patient reports; took too much credit for the ideas of others; and overemphasized libido as a sex drive in child development (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Freuds theory is criticized for a bias against women (anatomy is destiny); and a dark and pessimistic view of both religion and human nature (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Jungs theories place too much emphasis on religious and spiritual beliefs; and his theories are considered too contradictory, inconsistent and mystical (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The Neo-Analytic (or Sociocultural) Paradigm: Alfred Adler, Karen Horney and Erik EriksonKey themes of the neo-analytic paradigm: The Neo-Analytic theorists share an emphasis on alternative explanations of child and human development; a focus on the conscious mental state; consider personality fairly consistent over time; emphasize the present and future rather than the past (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Differences between men and women are a result of cultural influence rather than biology; parent-child relationships are highly influential on personality development and therefore emphasize nurture over nature as an influence on personality (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The neo-analytic theorists are more optimistic about human nature; consider causality and teological influences as valid; minimize unconscious influences on personality relative to the psychoanalytic paradigm (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The neo-analytic theorists view religion in varying degrees as part of the sociocultural influence on personality (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Silver, 2009). The neo-analytic paradigm theorists view conflicts in early development as being reversible to a greater extent than did Freud (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Personality components in the neo-analytic paradigm: Like Jung, Adler and Horney were initially students of Freud and Erikson was an admirer of Freud trained by his daughter Anna (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Their theories differ from Freuds in a similar fashion to Jungs; agreeing and disagreeing on different points; Adler, Horney and Erikson disagree on the focus and orientation on unconscious mental states; emphasis on an individuals past; on sexuality as a drive in children; and in Eriksons case his personality development theory spans the entire human lifetime (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). While each agree that personality is relatively consistent over time; these theorists are more optimistic regarding the ability to change personality from an unhealthy state to a healthy state; use word association and dream analysis in partnership with clients and disagree with the use of transference as a healthy method of treatment (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Each of the neo-analytic theorists consider pathology as resulting from conflicts in early childhood that could be overcome; specifically inferiority, aggression, and anxiety (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Adler emphasizes social interest as an indicator of a healthy mental state while Horney emphasizes present or future orientation in thinking as healthy and a focus on the past as unhealthy (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The key components of Adlers theory are a single motivating drive called the striving for perfection drive; feelings of inferiority and inferiority complexes, masculine protest (for both genders), development of lifestyle concepts such as normal, mistaken or negative, personality types and influence of birth order on personality (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The key components of Horneys theory center on ten neurotic needs and anxiety as resulting from a focus on one need to the exclusion of others; on coping strategies; on the relationship between basic evil, basic aggression and basic anxiety; and on self-realization in healthy individuals (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Eriksons theory follows Freuds psychosexual theory of development on basic age and logical time progression but differs by placing an emphasis on social influences rather than sexual influences (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011) Eriksons theory is called the psychosocial theory of development for this reason and progresses beyond childhood throughout the human lifetime (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Erikson theorizes that progression through the stages of development could be positive or negative and were also reversible positively or negatively later in life (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The strengths and weaknesses of the neo-analytic paradigm: Adler, Erikson and to lesser extent in terms of influence for Horney, they are widely influential and stress the relevance of social and cultural influence on personality (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Horneys theory contributes to womens psychology; self-analysis has proven useful in application; her theory effectively synthesizes the theories of Freud, Jung and Adler; and there is indirect empirical support for her theory (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Eriksons theory provides a framework of reference on human development from birth to death and provides insight on cultural differences in normative development (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The weaknesses of Adlers theory are difficulty in testing due to the subjective nature of operational definitions; they are too simplistic; and difficult to falsify (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Horneys theories are criticized for an over-focus on unhealthy individuals; minimal direct empirical evidence and lack of originality for synthesizing ideas from Freud; Jung and Adler even though doing so is also considered quite original (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The weaknesses of Eriksons theory are difficulties in empirical testing; overemphasis of support for social institutins, conformity and status quo; a too optimistic view of human nature that fails to account for aggression and violence; overemphasis of Eriksons moral views; and failure to accurately credit influences on the development of his personality theory (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).The Trait Paradigm: Gordon Allport, Raymond B Cattell and Hans J. EysenckKey themes of the Trait Paradigm: Trait theory attempts to describe and explain human behavior and cognitive processes as the result of characteristics, called traits, which develop in clusters and grant personality a measure of consistency and predictability over time (Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). According to trait theory, traits can be seen and measured in individual behavior and mental states that represent the causes of the behavior (Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Managementstudyguide.com, 2012; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Traits vary in strength or weakness within individual personalities and account for a wide variation in human behavior (Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Managementstudyguide.com, 2012; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). How traits develop; cluster together; and manifest in behavior vary in individual theoretical descriptions (Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Managementstudyguide.com, 2012; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). How much traits may account for personality consistency and stability over time vary according to the individual theorist (Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Managementstudyguide.com, 2012; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Consistent across theoretical views is that the total number of personality traits may never be known; but the more that is known; the greater the degree of accurately predicting human behavior (Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Managementstudyguide.com, 2012; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Relevant to trait theory are research methods, empirical testing and application of research; Gordon Allport relies on research methods of a more qualitative nature; such as study of personal documents; while Raymond B. Cattell and Hans J. Eysenck rely on quantitative measures such as personality inventories and factor analysis (Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Consistent across theorists is that personality derives from both biological factors and environmental influence (Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Managementstudyguide.com, 2012; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Empirical testing within Trait theory is more rigorous in terms of Cattells and Eysencks theories and less rigorous in terms of Allports theories; Allport disagrees with generalizing to large populations on the subject of personality (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). All three theorists contribute significantly to the popularity of Trait theory; the design of personality inventory questionnaires; a large body of research regarding traits and their influence on personality both in terms of individuals and large groups (Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Managementstudyguide.com, 2012; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The personality components of the trait paradigm: Allport regards personality as real; unique; dynamic; and organized; temperament, physique and intelligence are the raw materials of personality and traits structure the personality in terms of motivation and uniqueness that can be used by individuals to describe and categorize other individuals by type (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). According to Allport individuals have unique traits called personality dispositions and traits shared in common with groups, called common traits; he further distinguishes personality dispositions between cardinal; central (five to ten); and secondary dispositions (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Cattell and Eysenck both use factor analysis to determine differences between traits; then each deviate on which traits they stress and how they are stressed (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Cattell classifies some traits as surface traits and others as source traits and focuses on source traits which explain overt behavior and then classifies these as constitutional (genetic), environmental mold (culture influence), ability (genetic), dynamic (motivation; ergs/biological and metaergs/learned), and temperament (emotions, also genetic) traits (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Using factor analysis Eysenck describes three primary, genetically based superfactors he called Extroversion; Neuroticism and Psychoticism; relating each to level of arousal of the cerebral cortex; and did not emphasize either intelligence (genetic) or the study of Psychoticism (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The strengths and weaknesses of the trait paradigm: Allport was the first to study traits, values, influence of rumor and prejudice, and expressive behaviors such as body language and facial expression; he also demonstrates the usefulness of subjective written documents in personality analysis (Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Managementstudyguide.com, 2012; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Cattell and Eysencks theories lend significant scientific rigor to the study of personality; aid the development of useful tools to measure personality such as questionnaires and inventories and these tools are implemented in a wide range of applications such as employment selection; career and relationship counseling; clinical diagnoses and therapy (Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Managementstudyguide.com, 2012; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Allports theory is criticized for lack of scientific rigor; circular logic in describing and explaining traits; is not a fully developed theory; and does not account for personality development or unconscious motivations (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The theories of Cattell and Eysenck are criticized for over-generalization to large populations and group averages; too many subjective elements in their theories; suggesting source traits are physically real; and lack of focus on individuals within their theories (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Allport, Cattell and Eysenck are criticized for the view that personality is more stable and consistent than empirical research studies have found; and for the wide-scale assumption regarding the consistency of personality due to traits resulting in categorizing individuals in applications of the theory in various fields (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).The Behavioral-Cognitive Learning Paradigm: Skinner, Dollard, Miller, Bandura, MischelKey themes of the behavioral-cognitive learning paradigm: on determining how humans learn; most of the theories agree that learning is based on classical and operant conditioning on behavior and that how one behaves influences personality (Dowd, 2004; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Another key theme in Learning Theory is the impact of structured learning; the more an individual learns through structured learning the more personality is changed (Dowd, 2004; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). In Learning Theory, depending on the theorist; there is a focus on the relationship between stimulus, response, and the organism; emphasis on biological and environmental stimuli; and consideration or lack of it for cognitive processes (Dowd, 2004; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Learning theory as a paradigm is influenced by the behavioral school of thought and there is a heavy emphasis on scientific rigor; quantitative research methods and generalization to large populations (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). A key theme in common to most learning theorists is that personality is a process involving biological factors, genetics; environmental and social stimuli; learned behaviors through structured learning and modeling; with varying degrees of de-emphasis on cognitive processes; mental states or even the existence of the mind (Dowd, 2004; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The personality components of the behavioral-cognitive learning paradigm: The key theorists of the behavioral learning theory are: B.F. Skinner; John Dollard and Neal Miller (Dowd, 2004; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). According to Skinner personality components are made up of behaviors learned for survival; stimuli and responses favorable to survival are learned, retained and repeated while stimuli and responses unfavorable to survival are learned and avoided (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Behavior is learned through classical or operant conditioning; a process of positive or negative primary and secondary reinforcers linked through associations between stimuli (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Behavior is either responsive or controlled by that which preceded the behavior or it was operant and controlled by that which comes after a behavior, there is no personality beyond behavior (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Dollard and Miller are collaborating theorists attempting to merge Freuds psychoanalytic theory with Clark Hulls Drive-Reduction Theory (a Behavioral theory); personality components are the same as Freuds personality theory and learning explained by the processes of learning behavior to reduce biological needs (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Bandura and Mischel developed the social-cognitive theory of learning; and the key components of personality are the result of learned behaviors in a social and environmental context as well as cognitive processes (Dowd, 2004; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Key to this theory is that cognitive processes are the main contributors to behavior; influenced by the personal characteristics of the individual and situational factors of the environment (Dowd, 2004; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011) Learning takes place by classical and operant conditioning, structured learning, modeling behavior; thinking processes; individual choice on what is given attention in the learning process and can be learned through experience or by observation (Dowd, 2004; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Behavior is self-regulated; determined by perception of competency (self-efficacy); and motivated by the perception and expectation of reward or punishment (Dowd, 2004; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Key components to personality according to Bandura and Mischel are; cognitive and emotional states influenced by genetics, environment, social situations and learning (Dowd, 2004; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).The strengths and weaknesses of the behavioral-cognitive learning paradigm: The strength of Skinners theory is that it is so controversial it inspires a vast amount of rigorous empirical research and testing and has been widely found useful in application; particularly positive and negative reinforcement in behavior modification (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Dollard and Miller contribute theoretical ideas well grounded in empirical research; and a theory that has withstood scientific rigor (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Bandura and Mischels socio-cognitive theory strengthens the paradigm by being well established on empirical research specifically with human subjects; recognition of cognitive differences between human and non-human populations; and emphasis on topics of complex and social relevance (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The weaknesses of this paradigm are: over-generalization to human populations from nonhuman population testing on the part of Skinner, Dollard and Miller; Skinners theory fails to explain complex human behaviors and Dollard and Millers theory is considered too simplistic; Skinners thoughts regarding cultural engineering raises frightening questions regarding authority and behavior control (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Dollard and Millers theory is controversial on the issue of how well or how poorly it synthesizes psychoanalysis with Hulls Drive Reduction Theory; Bandura and Mischels theory is criticized for being overly critical of psychoanalysis; for claims of human behavior being more inconsistent than it actually is; suggesting mental events can account for behavior; neglecting unconscious motivations; conflict; motivation and personality development; finally, failing to be a unified personality theory (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The Evolutionary Paradigm: David BussThe key themes of the evolutionary paradigm: The key themes of evolutionary psychology are a focus on Darwins evolutionary theory relative to the structure of the human brain and adaptive strategies specific to human survival and reproduction; a rejection of Lockes theory tabula rasa (personality shaped by experience); human nature is based on evolved predispositions that manifest dependent on environment, learning, and situation; and that human nature is shaped by natural and sexual selection (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Evolutionary theory considers the nature versus nurture debate to be false; arguing that it is not a question of how much is nature and how much is nurture but rather it is both (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The Evolutionary theory emphasizes an evolutionary past; the process of natural and sexual selection; the employment of survival strategies and predispositions to seek survival within the context of contemporary life (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Human behavior is driven by strategies (also called circuits and adaptations) to provide basic necessities (food, water, shelter); to find a mate and reproduce; and to aid and abet the survival of others particularly those who share the same genes (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The evolutionary paradigm is interested in commonalities in behavior and cognitive processes across cultures and between genders in the effort to trace adaptation in human nature within the evolutionary process (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).The personality components of the evolutionary paradigm: Personality components begin with genetic predispositions for behaviors such as interest in facial features in infants; cooperative behaviors (altruism) in family units; aggressive behaviors toward those perceived as rivals for mates or resources and problem-solving (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). According to the evolutionary paradigm sexual selection for long and short-term mating between males and females has evolved differences in mating strategies; men and women employ different strategies designed to attract mates (including deception) according to the desire of a long or a short term relationship (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Emotions such as love and jealousy have also evolved to protect mate relationships; and men and women employ strategies designed to deal with rivals for mates and resources (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Also important are evolutionary processes regarding altruism (kin and reciprocal); individuals will share resources and make sacrifices to benefit mutual survival (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The evolutionary paradigm explains maladaptive behaviors (dysfunction) as the result of context failure; a response to stimuli that results in destructive or self-destructive behaviors (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The strengths and weaknesses of the evolutionary paradigm: the strengths of the evolutionary paradigm are a firm foundation in scientific principles specifically Darwins theory of evolution; connectivity to personality theories from other psychology paradigms; generating new questions for research study leading to new research findings; and providing an alternative perspective to the nature versus nurture debate (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The weaknesses of the paradigm are: accusations of being too creative in explaining evolutionary scenarios of modern behaviors; engaging in panadaptationism (universal human behaviors as evolutionary adaptations); for ignoring neuroscience research; and justifying racial and gender bias status quo (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). However, the author of this paper agrees that Olson and Hergenhahn have adequately defended the evolutionary paradigm regarding many of the perceived weaknesses (p. 397). Several research studies are cited throughout the descriptions of the evolutionary paradigm and lend credibility to the theoretical ideas of the paradigm; the author of this paper finds it difficult to believe the paradigms theorists ignore neuroscience research or attempt to justify race or gender bias status quo (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Furthermore research findings from several non western countries support theoretical concepts considered as being panadaptationism; this suggests a significant amount of scientific rigor in research and lack of western cultural bias in the findings (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The Existential-Humanistic Paradigm: George Kelly, Carl Rogers, Abraham MaslowThe key themes of the existential-humanistic paradigm: the key themes of the existential-humanistic paradigm include a nature and nurture perspective; a wide variance of theoretical opinions of human nature; existential is known for having a dark, pessimistic view of human nature while humanistic tends to be overly optimistic (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Personality is fairly consistent over time; change is possible; emphasis is on consciousness and present and future orientations (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The existential-humanistic paradigm emphasizes sociocultural and environmental influences, cognitive factors, learning and concepts such as self-actualization (Maslow) (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). What drives human nature and behavior varies according to the theorist; the three most prominent theorists of this paradigm are George Kelly, Carl Rogers, and Abraham Maslow (other prominent theorists are Rollo May and Erich Fromm) (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Finally, there is an emphasis on the impact of quality and meaning of life; the theorists share the view that all individuals desire love and acceptance; attempt to have meaning in their lives; and strive toward an ideal self (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The personality components of the existential-humanistic paradigm: Kellys theories are phenomenological; cognitive; existential and humanistic; involve the study of consciousness; mental states; emphasize free will and present and future orientation in thinking; are optimistic on human nature and problem solving ability (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Kellys concept of personality involves constructs (subjective viewpoint structure) and a system of eleven corollaries that elaborate on constructs; explain how constructs are created, changed or discontinued in accordance to subjective experience (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Kelly redefines several terms found in personality theories (guilt; fear; hostility; anxiety); defines neurotics as bad scientists that make predictions not based on actual experience; and considers motivation to be a drive all humans are born with (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Rogers theories are based on an actualizing tendency and an organismic valuing process that guides individuals toward or away from experiences based on how well the experience fits the actualizing tendency (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Rogers theorizes that individuals live in a subjective reality from which a sense of self develops; followed by development of a need for positive regard then a need for positive self regard (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Rogers explains pathology as an incongruence resulting from the relationship of positive regard, self regard, and conditions of worth; individuals that do not experience unconditional positive regard develop a conditional sense of self worth from external perceptions; external perceptions factor into an individuals self concept that controls self regard (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). For this reason Rogers emphasizes unconditional positive regard in person-centered therapy in order to minimize a conditional sense of self worth; bringing an individual back into congruence with the organismic valuing process and the actualizing tendency (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Rogers agrees with Bandura and Mischels theory of learning; learning and retention is faster and greater when information is relevant and of interest (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Like Kelly and Rogers, Maslow believes in a motivating process of self actualization; he did not disagree with psychoanalysis or behaviorism but acknowledges an over--focus on pathology and over-generalization to human populations from non-human populations in research (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Maslow focuses on a hierarchy of human needs ranging from lowest to highest order; from physiological needs to needs for belonging, self esteem and love and theorizes that once needs are met from bottom to the top self-actualization can occur (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The strengths and weaknesses of the existential-humanistic paradigm: the strengths of the existential-humanistic paradigm are: an optimistic view of human nature (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Widespread application of theories; for Kelly in industrial-organizational psychology, career counseling and management development, for Rogers, a new form of therapy and methods to evaluate the therapeutic process; for Maslow, expanding the domain of psychology and extensive applied value in general (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Additional strengths are varying degrees of generativity of research and empirical evidence (Kelly, high generativity of research, limited empirical evidence; Rogers, high generativity of research and high empirical evidence; Maslow, some generativity of research and some empirical support for the hierarchy of human needs and peak experiences) (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Weaknesses of the existential-humanistic paradigm are: an overly-optimistic view of human nature (Kelly, Rogers and Maslow) (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Criticisms regard generativity of empirical evidences to support the theories more fully; not addressing all aspects of personality; being too simplistic (Kelly, Rogers and Maslow); and in the case of Rogers, not giving credit to sources of his ideas (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). III. Applications and Recommendations for the WorkplaceFrom the psychoanalytic and neo-analytic to the behavioral-cognitive learning, trait, evolutionary and existential-humanistic paradigms there is agreement in part or in whole that psychological, biological, environmental, and cultural factors have an impact on personality (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). Behavior is learned; can be changed by cognitive and learning processes and can affect change in personality (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). What does this mean for the workplace (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009)? Every individual is unique, dynamic; may or may not be predictable. Genetics, early development, cultural and environmental factors, interpersonal relationships, education level, personal interests and choice all play a part in shaping personality (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). There is no single paradigm or theory that adequately explains everything about personality (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). One can generalize on personality characteristics and one can study a single individual but there will likely never be a method to accurately predict human behavior based on personality (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). Nonetheless, individuals can be taught to change behavior; often a change in behavior can affect a change in personality (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). It is better to augment changes in behavior with cognitive factors regarding behavioral change; this creates a higher likelihood of permanent change throughout the entire personality, in and out of the workplace (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). The study of personality theories relative to the paradigms helps to clarify why people are the way they are in general and within society itself (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). The workplace environment is one of many social environments; social issues such as aggression; prejudice and bias; the need for resources inside and out of the workplace; a desire for meaning in ones life; coping with workplace stress and living up to self perceptions and the expectations of others all play a part (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). How well individuals understand themselves; relate to others, have an ability to work cooperatively and productively can depend heavily on personality (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). Essential to the workplace environment is the ability to either prevent or resolve personality conflict (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). Effective Interactions with Employees of Different PersonalitiesResearch applications of personality theories in the workplace: Research applications of psychoanalysis and the neo-analytic paradigms are useful to the workplace in consideration of aspects of personality that deal with anxiety, feelings of inferiority, aggression, ego defense mechanisms, neuroticism, levels of extroversion and introversion, social interest; and self-regulation (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). Understanding these paradigms can provide insight into workplace aggression; humor; and coping skills of individual employees and provide new strategies for detecting and addressing individual behaviors that may be counter-productive in the workplace environment (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). The trait, evolutionary, behavioral-cognitive and learning paradigms offer insights into putting together work teams likely to be more effective in the workplace; increase competency and self-esteem of individuals; create opportunities for more challenging work; and modifying problematic behaviors in the workplace without resorting to termination of employees (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). The existential-humanistic paradigm can offer insight on how to more effectively maintain morale in the workplace by making work and work relationships more meaningful; combined with behavioral-cognitive and learning paradigm, behaviors can be more effectively changed for the better by making better use of reward systems that have real value to employees and the workplace (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). Effective use of personality assessments and inventories in the workplace: personality assessments and inventories can be useful or detrimental to an organization depending on how they are used particularly in screening potential employees in the hiring process (Berens, 2011; Daw, 2001). If used for this purpose it is critical that the personality assessment or inventory be investigated for scientific reliability and validity; human resource personnel should not be gullible regarding marketing claims on personality assessments or inventories (Berens, 2011; Daw, 2001). Equally critical is that organizations put such tools in the hands of only highly qualified individuals; those trained extensively in the personality theories such tests are based on; trained on administering such tests; interpreting such tests and giving accurate and correct feedback on results (Berens, 2011; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). Such tests in the hands of unqualified individuals can be highly detrimental to an organization; wasting resources and stereotyping employment candidates to such a degree that only certain preferred personality types are granted jobs; the problem is a lack of correct determination regarding if an individual truly is or is not the preferred personality type (Berens, 2011; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). Furthermore incorrect interpretation of such tests may result in misplacement of employees in jobs that may not suit their true personality type; resulting in conflict and counterproductive behavior in the workplace (Berens, 2011; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). Well known and available personality assessment tests and inventories: some of the better known and most widely used tests are the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI); the Sixteen Personality Factor Test (16PF); Keirsey Temperament Sorter II; The Big Five Personality Assessment; the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Berens, 2011; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.; TypeLogic, n.d.). The MMPI is used in mental health diagnosis and treatment; in hiring processes for critical job industries such as law enforcement, public safety and infrastructure (Pearson Education Inc., 2012). The Sixteen Personality Factor Test or 16PF was developed by Raymond Cattell utilizing both his own theories and that of Sigmund Freud (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The Keirsey Temperament Sorter II; the MBTI; and the Big Five are personality inventories and assessments based on the personality theories of Carl Jung (Berens, 2011; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.; TypeLogic, n.d.). Because the MBTI; the Big Five and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter II show correlations in test results in some research indicating that an individual taking all three tests will likely show matching results between the three tests (Berens, 2011; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d. TypeLogic, n.d.). A closer look at the Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory: the key components of the MBTI are first as a means of clarifying and applying the personality theories of Carl Jung in a way that makes sense, encourages individuals to look deeper into their own personalities for self understanding; and grants a context within which to better understand others around them The (Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). The MBTI helps individuals understand variation in the way one looks at the world; externally (extroversion); or internally (introversion); how deeply one processes information; face value (sensing) or connecting the dots (intuiting) (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). What is most important in decision making; logical consistency (thinking) or taking people and situations into account (feeling); what is most important to individuals in terms of structure; quick decisions (judging) or keeping an open mind; (perceiving) (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). In terms the MBTIs applications to the workplace; used correctly this inventory can help an individual determine a career path that best suits their personality and interests, choose jobs that maximize their personal attributes; and even indicate areas for further personal and professional development (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). Finally, the MBTI used effectively within the workplace can breed mutual understanding between individuals; by discussing differences and what they can mean individuals are able to make use of one anothers attributes for a more cooperative, productive work environment (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.).The value of personality assessments and inventories: The greatest value in personality assessments and inventories are in what individuals can learn about themselves as a result of taking the tests particularly if the goal is personal development and self understanding (Berens, 2011; Chen, 2001; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). For this reason, the author of this paper would recommend that rather than using them in the hiring process for new employees; these tests be offered to current employees to promote self understanding and understanding of others within the workplace (Berens, 2011; Chen, 2001; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). These tests could be used as part of a team-building strategy where existing employees learn more effective ways of relating to one another and communicating within the workplace environment (Berens, 2011; Chen, 2001; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). These tests are also useful for helping individuals make decisions in terms of academic pursuits and career development (Berens, 2011; Chen, 2001; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). They may also be useful for organizations in terms of personnel development and matching individuals with more suitable work tasks; an additional benefit is greater discernment between the results of a test and the individual due to long term interaction (Berens, 2011; Chen, 2001; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). Recommendations for improving communications and interpersonal relationships within the workplace: When approaching the hiring process determine the best match between the job description and work tasks and personality type; do not decide based on what is popularly considered most desirable but on what personality is most effective for the job (Berens, 2011; Chen, 2001; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). Do not use personality assessments in the hiring process unless one has qualified personnel who can distinguish between a valid and reliable test; can administer the test and interpret the results correctly and accurately (Berens, 2011; Chen, 2001; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). Make use of more than one personality assessment or inventory; compare the results; give feedback, provide an opportunity for dialogue that can foster further understanding (Berens, 2011; Chen, 2001; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). Use the personality tests with current employees to foster communications and interpersonal relationships; this can be effective in giving individuals a means of determining common ground (Berens, 2011; Chen, 2001; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). Capitalize on the opportunity to determine if individuals within the workplace may be better suited for other job tasks and have a desire to switch positions that will better suit their personalities and interests (Berens, 2011; Chen, 2001; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.).ConclusionTo effectively understand individual personalities and behaviors within the workplace organizations must first understand there is no single superseding theory of personality (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). There is only a composite view of personality in the form of paradigms; major personality theorists and their theories (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Individual personality is unique; evolving; always becoming; at the same time there is some consistency over time (APA, 2003; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Some elements of personality can be observed through behavior; it is affected by and can affect environment; it can be altered through cognitive processes and education, structured learning; conditioned learning and social learning (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Sussex Publishers LLC, 1969). While personality within individuals is not accurately predictable; instruments do exist with which to make assessments and determine some personality characteristics; how such instruments are used within workplace environments can be either rewarding to organizations and individuals or detrimental to both therefore it is critical to make use of them correctly and ethically (Berens, 2011; Daw, 2001; Chen, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.).

References

American Psychological Association (2003). Personality Is Not Set By 30; It Can Change Throughout Life, Say Researchers. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2003/05/personality.aspx.Berens, L. (2011). The InterStrength Group: Personality Assessment-Instruments and Feedback. Retrieved from http://www.interstrength.com/content/personality_assesment_instruments_and_feedback/Boeree, C.G. (2006). Personality Theories: Alfred Adler. Retrieved from http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/adler.html.Boeree, C.G. (2006). Personality Theories: Carl Jung. Retrieved from http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/jung.html.Boeree, C.G. (2006). Personality Theories: Erik Erikson. Retrieved from http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/Erikson.htmlBoeree, C.G. (2009). Personality Theories: Sigmund Freud. Retrieved from http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/freud.html.Boeree, C.G. (2006). Personality Theories: Karen Horney. Retrieved from http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/Horney.html.Chen, C.P. (2001). On exploring meanings: combining humanistic and career psychology theories in counseling. Counselling Psychology Quarterly (14/4) 317-330. Retrieved from EBSCOHost. Daw, J. (2001). Road rage, air rage and now desk rage: Work stress is leading more people to engage in counterproductive workplace behaviors. Monitor Staff (32/6). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug01/deskrage.aspxDowbiggin, I. (2009). High Anxieties: The Social Construction of Anxiety Disorders. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (54/7) 429-435. Retrieved from EBSCOHost. Dowd, E.T. (2004). Cognition and the Cognitive Revolution in Psychotherapy: Promises and Advances. Journal of Clinical Psychology (60/4) 415-428. Retrieved from EBSCOHost. Dweck, C. (2008). Can Personality Be Changed? The Role of Beliefs in Personality and Change. Association for Psychological Science (17/6) 391-394. Retrieved from EBSCOHost. Furnham, A. & Petrides, K.V. (2003). Trait Emotional Intelligence and Happiness. Social Behavior and Personality (31/8) 815-824. Retrieved from EBSCOHost.Halpern, D.F. (2008). How Much Can Evolutionary Theory Inform the Educational Sciences? Educational Psychologist (43/4) 203-205. Retrieved from EBSCOHost.Heilbron N. & Prinstein, M. (2008). A Review and Reconceptualization of Social Aggression: Adaptive and Maladaptive Correlates. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev (11) 176-217. Retrieved from EBSCOHost. Kinman, J & Jones, F. (2005). Lay representations of workplace stress: What do people really mean when they say they are stressed? Work & Stress (19/2) 101-120. Retrieved from EBSCOHost. Managementstudyguide.com (2012). Trait Theory of Leadership. Retrieved from https://campus.ctuonline.edu.Matthews, G. & Campbell, S.E. (2009). Sustained performance under overload: personality and individual differences in stress and coping. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science (10/5) 417-442. Retrieved from EBSCOHost. Olson, M. & Hergenhahn (2011). An Introduction to Theories of Personality: eighth edition. Upper Saddle River, Pearson Prentice Hall. Retrieved from https://campus.ctuonline.edu.Pearson Education Inc. (2012). MMPI-2: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Retrieved from http://psychcorp.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/Cultures/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=MMPI-2&Mode=summaryShulman, T. & Hemenover S. (2006). Is Dispositional Emotional Intelligence Synonymous with Personality? Self and Identity (5) 147-171. Retrieved from EBSCOHost. Silver, H. (2009). Reflections on Alfred Adler: A Social Exclusion Perspective. The Journal of Individual Psychology (65/4) 319-329. Retrieved from EBSCOHost. Srivastava, S., Oliver, J.P., Potter, J. & Gosling, S.D. (2003). Development of Personality in Early and Middle Adulthood: Set Like Plaster or Persistent Change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (84/5) 1041-1053. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2003/05/personality.aspx.Sussex Publishers, LLC (1969). Psychology Today: Second Nature. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200802/second-nature.The Myers & Briggs Foundation (n.d.). My MBTI Personality Type: MBTI Basics. Retrieved from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/.The Myers & Briggs Foundation (n.d.). Type Use for Everyday Life-Personality and Careers. Retrieved from http://www.myersbriggs.org/type-use-for-everyday-life/personality-and-careers/.The Myers & Briggs Foundation (n.d.). Type Use for Everyday Life-Type in Personal Growth. Retrieved from http://www.myersbriggs.org/type-use-for-everyday-life/type-in-personal-growth/.TypeLogic (n.d.) TypeLogic: BIG 5 and Type. Retrieved from http://typelogic.com/big5.html.