An Integrative Typology, Essay Example

What are the Authors Writing About

The writers, Mark N. Bing, Susan M. Stewart, H. Kristl Davison, Philip D. Green, Michael D. McIntyre, and Lawrence R. James addresses the ability to assess aggression. The study focuses on the capacity to integrate typology for aggression based upon personality assessments. The methodologies in this study are based on the typology of conditional reasoning and self-report. It is used to assess two different however in many cases corresponding components of aggressive personalities. The authors use self-reports in efforts to determine the specific elements of the likelihood of aggressive tendencies and actions. The usage of conditional reasoning’s based upon implicit components; the idea of self-perceived aggression is essentially justified by the individual. The authors dictate that based on certain situations, individuals feel they are entitled to act in an aggressive manner. These components are utilized in a theoretical typology of a personality assessment that is gaged for determining aggression.

The authors proceeded to implement empirical tests of typology in efforts to gather data from three samples. These studies took place in the field settings and the laboratory. As a result, they found that there are both implicit and explicit components of aggression that can intermingle with the prediction of prosocial behaviors, deviant, and counterproductive. The authors found that the empirical tests revealed that when conditional reasoning methodology or a self-report is used in segregation, the assessment results of aggression are found to be incomplete. The authors also discuss the implications for team composition, personal selection, and executive coaching. There are many considerations to the ability to assess the potential for aggressive behavior and the ability to determine the likelihood of this occurring. The tests and assessments show the variation of the individual considerations and how aggression is determined based on these factors.

What were their findings?

The authors found that some of the information and assessment utilized within this study could be considered inconclusive. When employers utilize the information which is readily available through conditional reasoning in the hiring process, they are making decisions which could be based upon incomplete information. In situations when the knowledge and usage of implicit components of aggressive personalities is incomplete the overall personal assessment could be lacking. Employers do not desire aggression and self-reports are only part of the overall outcome of the likelihood of aggression. As a result the decision maker will base their opinions on partial facts and the desire outcome is highly unlikely. The study found that the usage of both self-reports in association with other variable the likelihood of determining both implicit and explicit aggression is far more accurate. The measures of implicit personality create the highest likelihood of determining personality traits based on various criteria, occupations, and settings which are highly relevant to the study. There is more research necessary to the extent of which typologies are necessary. The finding also show that the need for additional research is mandated in efforts to integrate measuring methods for both explicit and implicit aggressions. There are also other traits which serve as motivators and they are relevant to the true and accurate understanding of workplace performance and behavior.

How would you integrate these findings into an employee selection process?

Many organizations utilize some type of personality assessment in the employee selection and hiring process. In many cases employers use self-report personality to weigh the potential fit of the desired individual. The study revealed that there are many shortcomings in the current practice. There is a high likelihood that individuals will say what the employer wants to hear instead of revealing the true nature of themselves. No one wants to be viewed as a difficult employee, lazy, or even aggressive. Therefore the findings of this study show that it is vital to implement more than such a self-report in the employee selection process. There are many different forms of assessment which can be used to determine the likely fit of a new candidate. These assessments are important to ensure the company does not waste money hiring and training employees which will not serve the desired purpose.

There are many arguments as to the effectiveness of such personality tests and prescreening processes. It is time-consuming and costly so many employers turn to utilize self-report personality in efforts to make educated hiring decisions. The research that took place within this study showed that it is not an accurate determination for employee selection and hiring. The amount of money wasted on hiring employees who do not fit the company mold is substantial. The best method for integrating the findings within this study is to incorporate multiple methods of evaluation and personal assessment prior to selecting employees. It will provide a much more accurate outcome and the likelihood of selecting the best potential employee is far higher than with self-report personality alone.

What might be problematic with only using self-report personality?

Self-report personality allows for individuals to misrepresent themselves based upon the ability to say what one wants to hear versus the truth. It is a significant issue that the data consists of the reports are either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting themselves while answering the items in the self-reports. The study showed that the theoretical position is that individuals are unaware of their cognitive ability to be aggressive, and they feel they are nonaggressive. To maintain their credibility and vision of themselves, they are quick to deny any involvement in aggressive behavior. In addition, there are counterproductive activities that occur when doing the self-report meaning that admitting to any engagement in aggressive activities are usually denied. The study also found that there are many that argue the tendency of latent aggressions to be aware of their aggressive nature. However, as which any self-report it is far easier to deny than to take responsibilities for actions that can be viewed as unfavorable.

Another consideration in how self-report personality can be problematic is the nature of the study itself. The majority of individuals know that it is not favorable to show or act with aggressive or counterproductive behavior. The authorities within any organizational setting would not look favorably upon such activities. Therefore asking an individual is they are difficult, lazy, or even aggressive is likely to be answered with rose colored glasses. It means that individuals are not likely to answer questions of this capacity with the complete truth. The most likely event is that they will present themselves in a manner that is favorable to the employer. They will say they get along with everyone, works hard, and will do whatever is asked of them. However, in many situations this is far from the truth. The prediction of implicit or explicit aggressive behavior mandates additional test to dictate the best methods for creating highly accurate outcomes. Self-reports can be used in conjunction with other methods for a favorable results and accuracy in findings.