There is no question that you will need to work with others in order to be successful in grad school. If you know a little bit about personality theory, you will not only be able to predict how people will react in various situations, but you will also be able to use your own personality tendencies to increase productivity.




Before you run a personality assessment on yourself or your advisor, you’ll need a little primer on personality theory. The best measure of personality is the Big Five traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992). As a personality test, this measure has stood the test of time. The Big Five traits are highly reliable across the life span and consistent across gender (Specht, Egloff, & Schmukle, 2011; Specht, Luhmann, & Geiser, 2014). In fact, complete strangers guess with surprising accuracy how a person would score on the Big Five by simply looking at their Facebook profile (Back et al., 2010) or their living space (Gosling, Ko, Mannarelli, & Morris, 2002). So what are the Big Five traits and how can you use them to your advantage? Below I briefly explain each trait and give you some pointers on how you can use this knowledge to optimize your interactions and increase your productivity.

Openness to Experience. People who score high on openness tend to be free-thinkers. They are broad-minded, highly imaginative, and have an interest in art and culture. People who score low on openness tend to be more narrow-minded, pragmatic, and traditional/conservative in their thinking. For grad students who score high on openness, the more variety they have in their work, the more likely they are to be satisfied with their jobs (de Jong, van der Velde, & Jansen, 2001). So if you’re high on openness, switch it up a bit. Take a class outside your area of study, or collaborate with someone whom you wouldn’t normally cross research paths.

Conscientiousness is a trait that is probably shared by most people in academia, but you may have the occasional committee member who can’t seem to keep an appointment to save their life. People who score high on conscientiousness are organized, prepared, and punctual. Unsurprisingly, conscientiousness is a strong predictor of graduate school performance (Grehan, Flanagan, & Malgady, 2011). If your advisor is more conscientious than you, you will need to work on some behavioral adjustments to meet your advisor’s expectations. Don’t make any promises that you can’t keep, and buddy up with conscientious friends in exchange for your other qualities that they need (e.g., genius ideas).

Extraversion is the social component to personality. People who score low on extraversion (i.e., introverts) prefer to recharge by spending time alone or with one or two close others. When extraverts work with introverts, their task performance is higher than when they work with like-minded extraverts (Sung, Choi, & Kim-Jo, 2014). So when you are initiating collaborations or delegating tasks, keep in mind that putting two extraverts together may actually decrease their productivity.

Agreeableness doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll agree with everyone. Rather, a highly agreeable person is forgiving, willing to cooperate, and avoids confrontation. Disagreeable people aren’t afraid to speak their minds and tend to be highly critical of things (they’d make great scientists). When your advisor returns your draft dripping in red ink, remember not to take it personally—it’s just their nature to be critical of things. When interacting with others, remember that people are more likely to seek out situations that are congruent with their personality (Ickes, Snyder, & Garcia, 1997). For example, highly agreeable people are more likely to initiate conversations when those conversations contain positive interpersonal characteristics (Frederickx & Hofmans, 2014). If a colleague is high on agreeableness, try to keep the conversation positive so they will be more communicative in the future.

Neuroticism is the anxiety part of personality and involves the constant experience of negative emotions. Neurotic people ruminate about things and have trouble coping with stress (Scheier & Carver, 1993). Understandably, grad school pressures can increase anxiety and nervousness, but these experiences are exacerbated for neurotic people. One study found that highly neurotic people tend to experience more fluctuations of their individual behavior than do people who are more emotionally stable (Judge, Simon, Hurst, & Kelley, 2014). If your advisor tends to be a bit neurotic, try to put them at ease by meeting their deadlines and give them advanced warning if you’re struggling. A highly neurotic advisor will not appreciate surprises!

 

References

Back, M. D., Stopfer, J. M., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S. C., Egloff, B., & Gosling, S. D. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 21, 372–374. doi: 10.1177/0956797609360756
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
de Jong, D. R., van der Velde, M. E. G., & Jansen, P. G. W. (2001). Openness to experience and growth need strength as moderators between job characteristics and satisfaction. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 350–365. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00186
Frederickx, S., & Hofmans, J. (2014). The role of personality in the initiation of communication situations. Journal of Individual Differences, 35, 30–37. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000124
Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E. (2002). A room with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 379–398. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.379
Grehan, P. M., Flanagan, R., & Malgady, R. G. (2011). Successful graduate students: The roles of personality traits and emotional intelligence. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 317–331. doi: 10.1002/pits.20556
Ickes, W., Snyder, M., & Garcia, S. (1997). Personality influences on the choice of situations. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 165–195). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Judge, T. A., Simon, L. S., Hurst, C., & Kelley, K. (2014). What I experienced yesterday is who I am today: Relationship of work motivations and behaviors to within-individual variation in the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 199–221. doi: 10.1037/a0034485
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1993). On the power of positive thinking: The benefits of being optimistic.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 26–30. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770572
Specht, J. Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2011). Stability and change of personality across the life course: The impact of age and major life events on mean-level and rank-order stability of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 862–882. doi: 10.1037/a0024950
Specht, J., Luhmann, M., & Geiser, C. (2014). On the consistency of personality types across adulthood: Latent profile analyses in two large-scale panel studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 540–556. doi: 10.1037/a0036863
Sung, S. Y., Choi, J. N., & Kim-Jo, T. (2014). Personality dissimilarity and work-related outcomes: Asymmetric effects and moderating role of group tenure. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18, 1–19. doi: 10.1037/a0034411

 

Image used with permission by RAW Pixel via iStockphoto .

0 comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.