Arguments for Caution in Using Personality Measurement
Arguments for caution in using personality measurement to make inferences have been presented by Mischell (1977) in an evidence-based framework. In fact, Mischell (1977) is one of the ardent critiques of the social-cognitive hypothesis through the detailed discussion of personality traits. Mischell (1977) asserts that though traits about individuals are true, however, the latter is not in consistency with the behavior of the respective individuals at all times. Therefore, the surrounding environment, and hence the situation at hand majorly influences a person's behavior, as opposed to the trait theories thought of the individual, hence the cognitive-affective model of personality by Mischell (1977). The work by Mischell (1977) therefore lays evidence-based platform to challenge the hypothesis that the social-cognitive theories are unified in explaining human behavior. Therefore, since human development changes across years, and as one age they experience varying physical, emotional, and psychological stimuli that trigger the behavior of their lives, Mischell (1977) is of the opinion that the social character of the human persons cannot be limited to traits in entirety.
Defense of Personality Measurement
Hogan (2005) on his part lays a detailed defence of personality measurement, and hence he takes a stand on the issue of whether personality is a valid predictor of job performance. Hogan (2005) argues that how people respond to questions or how they handle specific situations at a given time differ. Because the variation is adaptations to diverse circumstances, people are therefore vulnerable to faking their answers (Hogan, 2005). Consequently, Hogan (2005) maintains that a large degree of dishonesty is encouraged by determinants of personality. Furthermore, because human nature borders more on optimism success than failure, people will always avoid reality and choose to pretend for the sake of achieving their goals, even in an arbitrary manner. Typically, Hogan (2005) is in defense of personality measurement on the grounds that personality changes from time to time and those tests to determine such person should be reasonable, accurate, and free of bias. On the one hand, personality is a valid predictor of job performance according to Hogan (2005) because such behavior is elaborate to give a predetermined view of the psychological and emotional habits of a person. On the other, personality is not a valid predictor of job performance because it is neutral to human gender, does not observe in detail each person's social experience nor does it embrace the unique nature of individuals among their peers.
Neutral Approach to the Issue
An informed stand on the issue of whether personality is a valid predictor of job performance or not is therefore neutral in approach based on the two evidence-based analyses above, considering that environment, personality, behavior, and mode of action are confounding factors which happen to be the primary variables in the discussions hitherto. Indeed, cognition and learning are essential parameters that emphasize an individual's personality and social habits (Noftle, Schnitker, & Robins, 2011). Furthermore, it becomes inevitable that because the environment influences behavior, therefore people learn from others, and therefore their traits could not be primarily the determinants of one's behavior, but the peer-pressure and skills gained from others could significantly determine the performance of people. Consequently, while people can perform based on their experience, the knowledge and insight acquired from others equally affect how they can deliver. As such, both an individual's personality traits and the environment in which they operate positively or negatively affect their personality development, and hence their performance.
References
Hogan, R. (2005). In Defense of Personality Measurement : New Wine for Old Whiners Robert Hogan Hogan Assessment Systems Tulsa, Oklahoma. Human Performance, 18(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1804
Mischell, W. (1977). On the future of personality measurement. The American Psychologist, 32(4), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1970.tb03500.x
Noftle, E. E., Schnitker, S. A., " Robins, R. W. (2011). Character and Personality: Connections between Positive Psychology and Personality Psychology. In Designing Positive Psychology: Taking Stock and Moving Forward. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195373585.003.0014
