Personality And Workplace Performance | Jordan Peterson

Summary

In this engaging discussion, Walter Mischel's groundbreaking critique of personality psychology is explored, highlighting how traditional personality measures predict only a small fraction of performance outcomes. The video outlines how, despite challenges, personality testing evolved in the 1990s to prove effective in predicting employee performance, yet faced significant resistance when marketed to corporations. The difficulties of implementing accurate psychological tests in large organizations are discussed, including issues with decision-makers, corporate budgets, and internal politics. The real-world complications reveal the gap between theoretical advancements and practical application in business environments.

Takeaways

• 😀 Walter Mischel's 1968 review of personality literature revealed that typical personality measures only predict performance at a weak correlation of 0.2, which has remained stable over time.
• 😀 Despite the low predictive correlation, personality psychology was revived in the 1990s after researchers realized that a 0.2 correlation is strong by social and health science standards.
• 😀 Performance measurement in organizations is complex due to subjective evaluations from peers, subordinates, and supervisors, which may not accurately reflect the true impact on company outcomes.
• 😀 The relationship between individual actions and company profitability becomes blurred as layers of hierarchy increase in large corporations, leading to inefficiencies.
• 😀 Predictive tests for hiring can significantly improve company outcomes, with some tests achieving up to a 0.6 correlation with performance, making a substantial difference in hiring above-average employees.
• 😀 Surprisingly, companies are more likely to buy less accurate tests because they avoid conflict and make employees feel good, whereas more accurate tests may be harder to sell.
• 😀 A major challenge in selling psychological tests to corporations is that many decision-makers have poor statistical reasoning skills and misunderstand the difference between percentiles and percentages.
• 😀 Managers often resist taking predictive tests themselves because they fear performing poorly, not realizing that scoring in the 50th percentile is actually quite good in relative terms.
• 😀 Large corporations are slow-moving, and it can take years just to get access to the right decision-makers, often wasting time on individuals without decision-making power.
• 😀 Even after securing access to decision-makers, internal marketing, budget constraints, and organizational restructuring can prevent the successful implementation of new tools, leading to lost opportunities.

Q & A

What was Walter Mischel's 1968 conclusion regarding personality measures?

Walter Mischel concluded that typical personality measures predicted job performance with a correlation of only around 0.2, which he believed was so low that it rendered personality testing largely ineffective for predicting performance.

How did Mischel's critique impact the field of personality psychology?

Mischel's critique led to a decline in interest in personality testing from a psychometric perspective for nearly 25 years, as researchers were disillusioned with its low predictive power.

Why did the predictive power of personality tests seem relatively good by social science standards in the 1990s?

In the 1990s, researchers realized that while personality tests had a 0.2 correlation with job performance, this was actually quite good compared to other fields like social and health sciences, where typical predictive measures often showed even weaker correlations.

What challenges do corporations face when measuring employee productivity?

Corporations face significant challenges in measuring employee productivity, especially for managerial roles, because the link between individual actions and the overall company's profit becomes blurred as the organizational structure grows more complex.

What role does profit play in measuring productivity within a company?

In a free market economy, profit often serves as a proxy for productivity, meaning that the financial outcome (profit) is used as the primary measure of whether employees or managers are effectively contributing to the company’s success.

Why are less accurate personality tests like Myers-Briggs more commonly used in companies?

Less accurate tests like Myers-Briggs are more popular because they are easier to sell, non-threatening to employees, and do not disrupt corporate harmony. Despite their lack of predictive validity for job performance, they provide an accessible and comfortable tool for both employers and employees.

What challenges did the speaker face when trying to sell scientifically validated performance tests to companies?

The speaker encountered several challenges, including resistance to accurate tests due to budget constraints, decision-makers’ lack of statistical understanding, and corporate reluctance to adopt measures that might disrupt the status quo or create discomfort for employees.

How does misunderstanding statistical concepts, such as percentiles and percentages, impact the adoption of performance tests?

Misunderstanding statistical concepts like percentiles (ranking) versus percentages (score accuracy) can lead managers to incorrectly assess their performance, resulting in resistance to tests that are based on statistical principles. This confusion often makes managers unwilling to adopt scientifically validated tools.

What is the relationship between the accuracy of performance tests and their likelihood of being adopted by corporations?

The likelihood of a corporation adopting a performance test is inversely related to its accuracy. In other words, more accurate tests are harder to sell because they tend to highlight uncomfortable truths, while less accurate tests are easier to market and more readily accepted.

Why are large corporations difficult to sell to, according to the speaker's experience?

Large corporations are difficult to sell to because of their slow decision-making processes, hierarchical structures, and the complexity of navigating layers of approval. Often, the people who are initially interested in a product have little decision-making power, and even if a relationship is established, company reshuffles or changes in priorities can derail the process.