Since time immemorial, we have used adjectives to describe ourselves and others. But only towards the end of the 19th century did researchers start talking about our personality, or our characteristics. The purpose was to more easily describe and measure differences between us humans. Discussing the characteristics of the person made the descriptions more comparable.
But there was no uniform definition of how our personality should be described. One of the first researchers who tried to bring order to the description of human personality was Gordon Allport, a professor at Harvard University. Already in 1936, he and a colleague made a compilation and concluded that man could be described with 17,953 adjectives.
The spread when it came to the description of our personality was enormous. For a long time, "all" researchers created their own personality tests that purported to measure a variety of personal characteristics. The question became how to reduce all these descriptions to a manageable number. By removing synonyms, repetitions and far-fetched adjectives, the researchers reduced the number to just over 4,000 words. After various groupings, the number could be further reduced to roughly 30 traits.
The big breakthrough for today's personality tests came in connection with the launch of the so-called Five Factor Model (Big Five), which was introduced in the 1980s. The American researchers Paul T. Costa and Robert R. McCrae then took a comprehensive approach to the personality issue, with the ambition of finding forms to measure normal personality. They created a model with five overarching psychological dimensions, a kind of basic structure in us humans. According to them, the human being can be described based on the following characteristics, regardless of culture, where one comes from or situation:
Outgoing orientation. To be socially outgoing and contact-seeking. People with a high extrovert orientation get stimulation and energy from the company of others, something that is prized, for example, in Western culture. Often one is then experienced as energetic, happy and vital. They are visible and often take place in a group. The opposite, when people are low in extraversion, then they are introverts. You don't need as much external social stimulation, but you prefer more time for yourself. You get more energy from your own ideas, thoughts and projects; something that is supposed to be valued in Japanese culture.
Openness to experience. To be open to new thoughts, ideas and experiences. People with high in Openness are open to both their own and other people's feelings, appreciate variety, are curious about many different things and are often creative. They can also be unconventional and question authority. Conversely, when people score low in Openness, they dislike change and prefer to stick to routines. They prefer the known and safe to the new and unknown. You are then often more conventional in your values and outlook on life.
Agreeableness. To be accommodating and cooperative. People with high Social Flexibility have an optimistic and positive view of other people. They are sensitive to other people's needs and involve themselves in their problems. You are willing to compromise to maintain the good atmosphere. On the contrary, when people are low in Social Flexibility, they often prioritize their own well-being and mainly proceed from their own perspectives. You can be skeptical of other people's motives and are not afraid of potential conflicts.
Conscientiousness. To be orderly and organized. People with high sense of purpose are often loyal and conscientious. They are disciplined, not only at work, but also well-structured and organized in their free time or with the family. They carefully check all important details and do not let go of carelessly done tasks. On the contrary, when people score low in Consciousness, then one is more easy-going, spontaneous, and flexible in their approach to promises or rules. They can also be perceived as careless and perhaps unreliable.
Emotional stability. To be emotionally stable and safe. People with high Emotional stability are emotionally stable, they can be calm and patient even when problems arise. They do not allow themselves to be provoked but trust others and can manage their emotions and impulses. On the contrary, when people are low in Emotional Stability, they easily feel worry and anxiety, as well as other negative emotions. They may have difficulty tolerating both external and internal stress.
The advantage was that researchers could now agree on a common description of human personality based on these five different factors. It is a simple model to describe human behavior, and for what we basically call personality, regardless of cultural background, etc. But to create the Five Factor Model, you were forced to define the characteristics very broadly at the same time. Therefore, the five factors necessarily become a bit vague and diffuse in their definition. Nowadays, it basically dominates all popular science research around us humans.
At the same time, the Five Factor Model is beginning to receive criticism from the research community. Partly because the five factors - necessarily - are "fuzzy" in their definitions. For one thing, the model is not adapted to today's working life. In addition, researchers are increasingly interested in other factors that seem important for success in today's working life. A factor that has received a lot of attention since the 1990s is our emotional ability (EQ). From the beginning, EQ was only used as a self-assessment test. But today's researchers have increasingly switched to measuring people's EQ through various performance tests, which we at Psykometrika also do.
There are also more general criticisms of personality tests. In her highly regarded book "Grit", for example, the American psychology professor Angela Duckworth writes that success in working life really depends on the individual's "fighting spirit ", or "sisu". Decisive is the ability to stick to long-term goals and not give up, not just the individual's personality or talent. Persistence matters more than talent. Success is created by a combination of passion for what you are interested in and perseverance. An example of the same theme is the late Swedish researcher Anders Ericsson (died 2020). In his acclaimed book “Peak”, he writes how basically anyone can become excellent in their field of interest through hard and purposeful training. Based on his internationally recognized research, he launched the 10,000-hour rule, that everyone can get better at almost anything. Only you practice many hours and push yourself outside your own comfort zone. It is more about motivation to train than talent and innate qualities.
The lines of thought agree well with the results from our own surveys. There, certain factors have repeatedly been decisive for success: Work motivation – the will to work and perform; Conscientiousness – how purposeful, focused and disciplined one is; Emotionally stable – being emotionally secure; Stress tolerance - how stress resistant you are; Self-responsibility – to take responsibility for one's actions in good times and bad. Even in our own studies, we can thus state that the most important success factors in today's working life are a combination of motivation, personality, and responsibility. You can probably translate this with "Grit".
Strikingly often, it also seems that people's intelligence does not play a big role in success in professional life. For most roles, even at management level, it seems to be enough to be normally gifted. The tragic thing is, however, that it also seems that - regardless of professional role - there is a lower limit. Even for relatively unqualified professional roles, there seems to be a lower limit to whether one should be able to do the job well.
Comments