Trait activation theory
Trait activation theory is based on a specific model of job performance, and can be considered an elaborated or extended view of personality-job fit.
In a nutshell, a workplace environment or job demands that are conducive to the natural and frequent expression of their traits is attractive to people.
[2] Trait expression in the workplace is affected by the day-to-day tasks an employee completes, and the specific demands of the job.
[4] Note that it is not an assumption of trait activation theory that trait-irrelevant situations result in poor performance.
[1] Tett, Simonet, Walser, and Brown (2013)[2] summarized the key contributions of others' ideas that preceded and influenced trait activation theory.
[2] This is an extension of Eysenck's work done 20 years before that sought to reconcile the two warring perspectives of trait theory and situationism.
This can be summed up as the interactionist perspective, which seeks to solve the person-situation debate by explaining behavior with consideration to both situation and stable traits.
[9]: 29 This idea accepts the interactionist perspective, as discussed in the first point, and takes a step further in explaining a way in which traits and situation interact.
They exist as stable qualities, but require the active stimulation of a relevant situation to spurn them into action and influence an individual's behavior.
However, three primary researchers, Robert P. Tett, Hal A. Guterman, and Dawn D. Burnett, are associated with introducing the theory through two focal papers.
The second paper is A Personality Trait-Based Interactionist Model of Job Performance by Robert P. Tett and Dawn D.
This paper introduced 5 more trait relevant scenarios: job demands, distracters, constraits, releasers, and facilitators.
Specifically, they analyzed the relationships between participants' responses to a personality test assessing five personality traits (risk taking, complexity, empathy, sociability, and organization) and responses to a measure about behavioral intentions in multiple scenarios designed to target these same traits.
Kamdar and Van Dyne (2007)[11] also found support for the theory via a field research study in which they examined 230 employees, their coworkers, and their supervisors and found that high quality social exchange relationships at work weakened the positive relationship between personality (specifically, agreeableness and conscientiousness) and job performance.
These results were interpreted to be consistent with trait activation theory because they suggested that high quality social exchange relationships signaled the existence of a norm of reciprocity that subsequently constrained the expression of personality.
However, to understand fully the traits needed for different occupational roles, including team contexts, management scholars recommend organizations conduct Personality-Oriented Work Analyses to improve selection and promotion processes.
Essentially according to Trait activation theory, individuals are happier and can perform better in employment environments where they feel rewarded for being themself.
A 2015 study found that for applicants who were significantly strong in the desirable traits for the position they were being considered for, perceived personality fit with current employees played a large role in their perception of the organization.
One 2017 study discussed how trait activation theory can help guide an organization's assessment of leadership potential among its employees.
Likewise, the theory has been used to explain why relatively extraverted individuals seem to perform better in occupations (i.e., those of managers and sales) that involve high levels of social interaction.
[21] Situational strength is also relevant from the trait activation perspective and refers to cues provided regarding desirability of behavior.
To expound upon this relationships, Tett and Burnett (2003)[1] use the metaphor of a radio station and its corresponding volume in order to distinguish between trait relevance and situation strength, respectively.
In contrast, a weak situation could involve a new employee joining a workgroup where no expectations regarding how people work together have been set.
This employee may realize that he has a unique experience that if shared would help another team member finish his task more quickly.
