Work and Home Personality: Final Report

Personality at work and home: differentiation or integration?

FINAL REPORT

Dr Anna Sutton

Manchester Metropolitan University

Background

Personality is reasonably consistent across different situations, yet there are also significant differences in how people behave when fulfilling different roles at work and home (Heller, Watson, Komar, Min, & Perunovic, 2007). And while global or generalised personality traits have been shown to predict such workplace outcomes as performance or job satisfaction (e.g. Furnham, Petrides, Jackson, & Cotter, 2002; Judge & Ilies, 2002), contextual personality (personality within a particular context) is a promising avenue of further research in increasing the predictive validity for personality constructs. For example, work personality predicts job satisfaction (Heller, Ferris, Brown, & Watson, 2009) and organisational citizenship behaviours (Small & Diefendorff, 2006) more accurately than global personality does, and providing respondents with a clear context when they complete personality questionnaires improves prediction of performance (Bing, Whanger, Davison, & VanHook, 2004).

Work personality has been found to be consistently more Conscientious and less Extraverted (Heller et al., 2009; Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997) than various home roles but results for other traits have been somewhat inconsistent, with some researchers reporting that people are more Open to Experience at work than home (Heller et al., 2009) while others report the opposite (Sheldon et al., 1997). It is highly likely that these inconsistencies are due to the flaws in research design and Heller et al (2007) have called for future research to employ more innovative methods. It is common for researchers to “evoke” role personality simply by asking respondents to complete the questionnaire according to how they perceive themselves in that particular role (e.g. Bing et al., 2004; Small & Diefendorff, 2006), meaning that respondents may be influenced by their role stereotypes or respond in a more socially desirable way (Heller et al., 2007). In addition, respondents usually complete all the questionnaires at the same time (e.g. Donahue & Harary, 1998) and may therefore exaggerate or attenuate differences in roles depending on their wish to appear consistent or flexible. This research seeks to address these methodological concerns by using more robust methods: participants completed the work and home role personality questionnaires while actually in the appropriate context and separated in time by at least two weeks to mitigate against memory or direct comparison effects.

This leads to the following Research Question:

Can the differences between role personalities reported in the literature be replicated using more innovative methodologies?

Not only is contextual personality better at predicting role-related outcomes but consistency between different contextual personalities, and between role and general personality, has been found to be associated with higher performance (Young & Dulewicz, 2009), greater satisfaction (Donahue & Harary, 1998) and better psychological and physical well-being (Sheldon et al., 1997). Inconsistency between role personalities on the other hand is associated with greater inter-role conflict: it seems that the strain of maintaining role personalities that differ too greatly impacts negatively on the individual (Sheldon et al., 1997). This strain may be mitigated somewhat by the feeling of authenticity that the individual has, as Sheldon et al also found that while consistency was related to well-being and satisfaction at the “person” level of analysis, it was unrelated to either at the “role” level of analysis. Instead, at this level, authenticity (the feeling of being true to oneself) was related to both outcomes. This intriguing finding deserves further exploration, as it could provide the means for reducing the negative impact of the “necessary evil” of maintaining differing role personalities. This exploration needs to be done at the individual level, using in depth studies of how individuals experience the inconsistency between role personalities and what strategies they employ to reduce the strain it apparently causes, as it is here that the role personality inconsistency is seemingly contrasted with a feeling of personal authenticity.

This leads to further Research Questions:

Are individual differences in differentiation of role personalities related to authenticity?
To what extent do individuals perceive differentiation between their role personalities as a source of distress and is this related to their feelings of authenticity?
Do respondents try to integrate or differentiate their role personalities and what strategies might they employ?

Method

Quantitative

Participants in full time employment (defined as 37.5 hours a week or more) completed a series of questionnaires contextualised for either work or home.Two weeks later, they completed the same series for the second context. Administration order was counter-balanced over the group. Online questionnaires were hosted on Surveymonkey and a unique link emailed to each participant. The following precautions were taken to ensure that, as far as possible, the participants completed the questionnaire while in the appropriate context (either work or home):

Participants provided both a work and a home email address. The work-context questionnaire was emailed to their work address while the home-context questionnaire was sent to their home address.
Both the invitation and the first page of the survey stated that participants should only complete the questionnaire while actually at work or home, as appropriate.
The initial invitations and subsequent reminders were sent at times that would maximise the chances of arriving while participants were in the appropriate context. Work-context emails were sent in the middle of the working week while home-context emails were sent on Friday evenings.

A total of 213 participants completed the first questionnaire, with 191 completing the second. The following analyses are based on those participants who provided a complete data set.The questionnaire collected demographic information (including hours worked per week, job tenure, sex and age) and consisted of the following scales:

Personality was measured using the IPIP 50-item Big Five personality inventory (IPIP, 2001) and a 5-point Likert-type scale.In addition to work personality and home personality scores, differentiation scores were calculated using the absolute difference between the trait scores for each role. Finally, an overall personality differentiation score was calculated for each participant from the mean of these five differentiation scores. This score was used to select participants for the next phase of the research (described below).

Negative well-being was measured using the 4 item Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). Positive well-being was assessed using two questions: satisfaction with role and preference for role based on Sheldon et al (1997), using a 7-point rather than 9-point scale for consistency with other parts of the questionnaire.

The Sheldon et al (1997)Authenticity scale was used to measure participants’ feelings of authenticity within each role, consisting of 5 items with a 7-point response scale. An overall self-integration score was calculated from the mean of these two role scores.

Qualitative

A stratified sample of 48 participants from the first phase of the study (consisting of 12 participants in each of four categories: high or low personality differentiation combined with high or low self-integration) was invited to complete the next phase.They completed a series of six open-ended reflective questions in an online questionnaire, one per week, on the following topics:

A reflection on the extent to which they felt their personality was different in the work and home context
A discussion of the effects of authenticity and inauthenticity on their work and home lives. These two questions used prompts to guide respondents through a critical incident technique structure (Flanagan, 1954).
The personal importance they ascribe to authenticity at work generally.
The role of authenticity in relationships at work.
A reflection on the process of completing the questionnaires and discussion of any further insights into personality differentiation since beginning the series of questionnaires.

Of the original sample, 22 participants completed all 6 questionnaires. Responses were analysed using thematic analysis.

Findings

Table 1 (in appendix) presents the means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations for all measures, along with the alpha reliabilities for all scales. All scales showed high reliability (≥ .75).

RQ1: Can the differences between role personalities reported in the literature be replicated using more innovative methodologies?

Work and home personality traits were significantly and strongly correlated with each other (r=.6 to .7, p<0.01), as would be expected from an understanding that personality shows consistency across situations. To identify whether this consistency exists alongside differentiation between roles, paired t-tests were conducted. Only the Conscientiousness trait showed a difference,being significantly higher at home than work (t190=9.39, p<0.001). An increased level of Conscientiousness has been reported in previous work, however the more robust design of this study failed to replicate other reported differences in contextual personality.

While at the group level, there are minimal differences in contextual personality, examination of the absolute differences between work and home trait scores reveals a different picture. Differentiation scores were calculated for each trait using the absolute value of the difference between work and home scores. Using a one-sample t-test, the differentiation score for each trait was tested against a null hypothesis of zero difference and revealed highly significant differences, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Differentiation between work and home personality traits (i.e. absolute differences)

Mean / SD / T value
(df =190)
Extraversion / .41 / .35 / 16.18*
Agreeableness / .32 / .27 / 15.90*
Conscientiousness / .53 / .45 / 16.26*
Emotional Stability / .51 / .48 / 14.79*
Openness / .30 / .28 / 14.41*

* = p<0.001

RQ2: Are individual differences in differentiation of role personalities related to authenticity?

Participants’ role authenticity scores were significantly positively correlated (r=.26, p<0.01), showing that those reporting high levels of authenticity in one context also felt they were being authentic in the other.Differentiation scores were then correlated with Self-Integration scores to determine whether differentiation in personality is related to authenticity. Self-Integration only correlated to differentiation in Emotional Stability (r=-.16, p<0.05). This indicates that while differentiation in most of the Big Five is unrelated to authenticity, those who have less differentiation between their work and home Emotional Stability also report feeling more self-integrated.

RQ3: To what extent do individuals perceive differentiation between their role personalities as a source of distress and is this related to their feelings of authenticity?

Authenticity at work was negatively correlated with stress (r= -.53, p<0.01) and positively with satisfaction and preference (r= .66 and .44 respectively, p<0.01). The same pattern was found in the home role, though thenegative correlation between stress and authenticity was stronger in this role (r= -.73, .64 and .38 respectively, p<0.01). This indicates that participants who felt able to be themselves in each role had better well-being while inauthenticity was associated with lower well-being.

The impact of authenticity and personality differentiation was further explored using linear regression. Role differentiation scores and self-integration were entered into a regression equation, using the stepwise entry method, to predict cross-role well-being (defined as individuals’ mean stress, satisfaction and preference scores). Results (Table 3 in appendix) indicate that self-integration is a major contributor to well-being, predicting 41% of variance in stress and 48% of variance in satisfaction. It also has an impact on people’s preference for their roles (or, how contented they are with the amount of time they spend in each role), predicting 15% of variance. In contrast, differentiation of personality had rather limited effect on well-being, with the only significant predictor being differentiated Conscientiousness, accounting for an extra 2% of variance in satisfaction.

This research question was explored in greater depth in the qualitative part of the research.Firstly, the reasons participants gave for inauthentic behaviour at work were found to be focused around a sense that they were expected to behave in certain ways at work and adapted themselves to meet those expectations. Three sub-themes emerged within this theme:

Acting professionally:many respondents felt they had to display a professional image, being serious and dispassionate, in order to create a good impression to others and to be able to manage people at work.

‘I have learnt to adapt my personality to fit my professional role […] to be professional and taken seriously.’ (P44)

Avoiding conflict:the majority of respondents talked about the efforts they made to avoid disruptingharmonious working relationships and climate.

‘Acting in this way was most effective for not antagonising the situation or causing further problems or an uncomfortable atmosphere.’ (P34)

Keeping the job:a small number of respondents considered that ‘hiding’ their authentic self was part of the job and expressed some fear of negative consequences should they act more in line with their ‘real self’.

‘I acted this way because I still want to be in a job […] In reality I would have liked to tell him what an idiot I think he is, but as I said, I need a job!!! I worked within the constraints of the role to survive.’ (P14)

Secondly, participants reportedon the impact of these inauthentic experiences. The strongest consequences identified by participants were negative and included stress, a sense of discomfort, damaged self-esteem, detachment from work and lower productivity. Illustrative quotes are given below:

‘I found it incredibly stressful and emotionally exhausting as this role was a complete opposite to my natural way of being’ (P28)

‘I think this adversely affects my effectiveness at work’(P19)

While all participants felt that there were negative impacts, a few mentioned a feeling of having ‘learned a lesson’ from the inauthentic behaviour that would encourage them to be more authentic in the future.

‘in the future I am determined to be less obliging where the issue is of importance to me!’ (P42)

Overall, then, participants identify that their work seems to expect a certain level of inauthenticity from them but recognise that adapting themselves in this way has a negative impact on their well-being and, sometimes, productivity.

RQ4: Do respondents try to integrate or differentiate their role personalities and what strategies might they employ?

The thematic analysis identified two different approaches that participants took towards their work and home roles. Some participants described having almost a ‘double self’, with a dichotomy between their work and home personalities. For some, this meant that they were themselves at home and put on an act at work:

‘…my true self comes out at home, whereas my work persona is often an act’ (P12)

For others, it was the work personality that they were more positive about, identifying how the work situation encouraged the expression of more dynamic and socially desirable traits:

‘…work is the priority and that being at work gives my life meaning […]. I feel more alert and motivated at work than at home […] I try to be a better person’ (P2)

Some of those who made this distinction between work and home personality enjoyed the duality, particularly how it helped them to maintain a work/home boundary, while others felt that not having this distinction would be to cause oneself unnecessary stress.

‘…is important for me to have a 'separate' home/work life’ (P17)

‘Sticking by your traits when they don’t really fit with a job is stressful, self-inflicted stress.’ (P47)

A smaller group of respondents felt that their personality remained consistent in both contexts and felt that it was important to be themselves in both situations:

‘I am fairly similar both at work and at home […] it is important to reflect your normal personality at work’ (P37)

When asked about their ‘ideal situation’, participants were unanimous in wishing to bridge the gap between home and work personalities and described an ideal workplace as being one where they could be authentic, without being unprofessional.

‘Ideally I feel that if the gap was smaller I would find it easier to adjust back into each situation.’ (P23)

‘the ideal would be a work place that gives us space to be truly ourselves’ (P47)

Implications

Theory

Previous research on contextual personalities has relied on methods that could be confounded by social desirability or role stereotypes. Using more robust methods, this study supports the finding that, at a group level, people are more conscientious at work than home, but identifies that other differences may be artefacts of the research design.

While group differences are minimal, there isexcellentquantitative and qualitative evidencethat at an individual level, employees adapt their personality to suit their own particular work or home context. Previous work has suggested that personality differentiation is associated with lower well-being but this work demonstrates that the key contributing factor is in fact authenticity. Employees who feel they are being authentic, regardless of the extent of their role personality differentiation, are less stressed and more satisfied with their roles.

Practice

Differentiation between work and home personality was identified by employees as a necessity in many cases, being important in maintaining a sense of professionalism and a harmonious working environment. However, the negative impact of having to behave inauthentically on both well-being and productivity was also made very evident. How then can organisations encourage professional behaviour at work yet still safeguard employee well-being and productivity? The answer lies in the finding that some employees identified their work role as a positive influence on their sense of self and personal development. By encouraging personal development within the work context, organisations and managers can help employees to develop a certain level of integration in role personalities, with all the well-being and productivity benefits that brings.

Future Research

One of the aims of this research was to develop a questionnaire to identify the key features of the work and home context, based on the extent to which the context elicited the Big Five personality traits. Unfortunately, this questionnaire did not have adequate reliability. Future research into creating a reliable questionnaire like this would help to further refine the relationship between context and personality, and develop understanding of the mechanism for the impact of authenticity on well-being.