Just Like Me

Are we really all the same?

There is a great deal of interest in behavioral research over the past several years, and the energy around the topic hasn't waned. From pop psychology books to academic studies of leadership, there is renewed interest in what makes people behave the way they do. To research these differences, large samples are often taken from across several companies and disciplines – this ensures the data is statistically relevant to a larger population.

This practice alone surfaces an implicit assumption that shared behavioral traits exist within certain functions and organizations.

During a guided visit to a busy trading floor, the people there were described as pampered, very hardworking, and compensation driven. A recent stop at a financial advisory office struck me because every person dressed alike, and had shared vocal intonations, mannerisms, and gait. At a recent nonprofit gathering, the similarities in personality were absolutely striking. At a funeral I attended a few years ago, someone looked at my pin-striped suit, cuff-links, and polished shoes and said “oh, you must be a banker” - which I was.

Every day we are able to function more efficiently by thin-slicing parts of our world (nod to Gladwell's book Blink), ascribing characteristics to particular people and things based on our prior experiences with similar people and things. We know that, generally speaking, similar people have similar traits.

Think about these statements, one by one. Likely an image will form in your mind as to characteristics of the people.

• He's a boxer


• She's a ballerina


• He's an administrative assistant


• She's a president

Is it valid to think this way?


The growth in the academic literature related to the topic began growing in the 1960s, and continues today. A man named Benjamin Schneider came up with theory that individuals in organizations have shared personality traits. John Holland, a psychologist by trade, theorized that individuals select occupations that are “congruent” with their personalities. Today, these theories are being blended, restated, extended, and validated across groups.A 2009 study published in the International Journal of Selection and Assessment, entitled “A Case for Homogeneity of Personality at the Occupational Level,” found that “(1) the homogeneity hypothesis was supported both within organizations as well as within occupations; and (2) the homogeneity within occupations was higher than that found in organizations.”

Schneider came up with a model called the attraction-selection-attrition model, or ASA, that describes why we are able to thin-slice with reasonable accuracy some general personality characteristics based on where someone works or the type of work a person does. There are three components of ASA:

• A is for Attraction.  Individuals are attracted to organizations and occupations filled with people of similar personality traits.  Some one extraordinarily extroverted and focused on relationship building may be a great salesperson, working with other extroverted individuals that also place a high value on relationship


• S is for Selection:  Organizations tend to select individuals that are a cultural fit, meaning the new hire has similar personality traits as others already in the group.  This could be considered the flip side of attraction


• A is for Attrition:  If an individual and an organization do not have shared traits, then either the individual or the organization terminates the relationship

While this is a terrifically simplified view presented here, practical applications and conclusions can be made.  These are my conclusions and thoughts, please feel free to drop me a note if you agree or disagree.

• If an organization is seeking cultural change, then individuals joining the organization should be selected that reflect the movement towards the target culture.  If the change is large, then attrition may be avoided by selecting individuals meeting a midpoint cultural target


• If an organization is experiencing high attrition rates, it would be wise to discover the dominant existing traits (remembering that dominant is a measure of efficacy, not number of individuals sharing a particular trait) and adjust cultural focus accordingly.  To expand in a simple example, if high attrition on a team is caused by the ineffective cheer leading of a manager, then the manager's behavior should be addressed to improve attrition rates (as well as associate satisfaction, but that's another discussion).


• If an organization is having trouble attracting appropriate talent, assuming it's available in the marketplace and ceteris paribus, then it would be helpful to understand how that organization recruits, the perception of the organization in the marketplace relative to others that would desire similarly skilled individuals

Quick note of warning about thin-slicing and making generalizations too much - it's easy to miss a diamond in the rough.  In large part these theories are interpreted in a way that assumes more perfect information than reality affords.  Often, individuals don't fully know who they are, or what they may be good at doing, or even identifying traits in other individuals and organizations.  From an employer perspective, recruiters are often looking for identical experience to fill a role when a better fit might be for someone making a developmental turn - or from a different industry that utilizes similar skills.

Been a while, good to post again.

Best,

Bryan