Trait activation theory

History

The principles of trait activation can be traced back as early as 1938, when Henry Murray described that situations "press" individuals to exhibit traits. Tett, Simonet, Walser, and Brown (2013) summarized the key contributions of others' ideas that preceded and influenced trait activation theory with the following quotes:

However, three primary researchers, Robert P. Tett, Hal A. Guterman, and Dawn D. Burnett, are associated with introducing the theory through two focal papers.

Key principles

According to the trait-based model of job performance introduced in Tett and Burnett (2003; see Figure 1), trait activation theory suggests three overarching principles (p. 503):

Trait activation theory suggests that employees will look for and derive intrinsic satisfaction from a work environment that allows for the easy expression of their unique personality traits. However, the theory stipulates that only in situations where these personality traits are valued on the job (i.e., expression of traits is beneficial to quality job tasks), does "activating" the trait lead to better job performance and the potential for subsequent increased extrinsic rewards (e.g., pay and other benefits). In a nutshell, "people want to work where they are rewarded for being themselves".

For example, the trait, extraversion, is associated with sociability and seeking out others' companionship. If this trait is activated by interaction with customers while a salesperson is performing work tasks related to sales, one might expect such trait activation to result in good job performance and potential subsequent financial bonuses. However, if extraversion is activated on the job by the presence of coworkers and one becomes overly sociable with coworkers, job performance may suffer if this sociability distracts from job tasks. In this example, the organizational cues of whether a high sociability environment is expected between coworkers would influence the strength of the cue and the level of activation. Note that it is not an assumption of trait activation theory that trait-irrelevant situations result in poor performance. Rather, the theory suggests that a lack of trait activation weakens the trait-performance relationship.

Other relevant concepts

Bidirectionality – a personality trait can positively predict job performance in one situation, and that same trait negatively predicts job performance in another situation. For example: Conscientious individuals tend to be detail-oriented, cautious in their decision making, and generally being conscientiousness is associated with positive job performance behaviors. In contrast, research has shown that organizations selecting for job positions that requires an employee be adaptable to change might not benefit from selecting an individual high in conscientiousness.

Situational strength – is also relevant from the trait activation perspective and refers to cues provided regarding desirability of behavior. So-called "strong" situations involve unambiguous demands (the classic example is a red traffic light), whereas "weak" situations are characterized by more ambiguous expectations for behavior. Situation strength is related to trait relevance insofar as trait relevance is essentially a characteristic of a situation that can lead to the expression of one trait rather than another. To expound upon this relationships, Tett and Burnett (2003) use the metaphor of a radio station and its corresponding volume in order to distinguish between trait relevance and situation strength, respectively. Specifically, they suggest that trait relevance is analogous to the radio station (i.e., channel) and situation strength to the volume at which the station is played. In other words, trait relevance determines if a situation offers the opportunity (based on task, social, and/or organizational cues) to express a certain trait, and the strength of the situation determines the likelihood that individuals will express the relevant trait or not.

For example, a strong situation might include an interdisciplinary work team where there is a common organizational expectation that all team members will help each other, as each member depends on other team member's expertise and experience. In this situation, the agreeableness trait might be activated by the tasks and the organization cues, but even individuals lower on agreeableness will likely help others. 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. In this situation, the agreeableness trait might be activated by knowledge he can help a coworker with a task, but generally without other cues present, it is more likely that those high in agreeableness will offer to help.

Tests of the theory

Trait activation theory makes an argument for situational specificity; that is, whether a trait leads to better performance depends on the context; or, alternatively, whether the context is relevant for performance depends on the trait. Thus, proponents of the theory argue that trait-relevant situations result in better performance than situations that are trait-irrelevant.

Since its introduction, several researchers have sought to test this idea. Tett and Gutterman (2000) conducted one of the first large-scale tests via an investigation of the impact of situation trait relevance on the relationship between traits and behaviors. 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. Results of this tests support notion that traits are expressed to the degree that the situation offers opportunities for their expression. In addition, the study found support for the idea that situations can be assessed for the degree to which they are relevant to certain traits (even those targeting the same trait).

Kamdar and Van Dyne (2007) 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. With respect to agreeableness, for example, the authors hypothesized that, relative to those high in agreeableness, less agreeable employees do not have natural inclinations for tolerance and empathy, and therefore "need other incentives to motivate helping such as the sense that relationship partners are trustworthy"(p. 1290). Similar conclusions were drawn with respect to employees who scored relatively low on conscientiousness.

Most recently, Judge and Zapata (2015) developed and tested an interactionist framework of the personality to job performance relationship, focusing on both general (situation strength;) and specific (trait activation; Tett & Burnett, 2003) situational influences. In doing so, they integrated both perspectives and compared the predictive validity of both perspectives, concluding that trait activation theory may be relatively more important than situation strength theory in explaining when and how personality is more predictive of job performance (p. 1167). However, the authors are careful to note that the variance attributable to situational strength is not inconsequential. These authors also note that the study was limited due to its focus on job and task-based cues (to the explicit neglect of social cues) which could also impact the personality-job performance relationship.

Role in explaining situational specificity

Although not an explicit test of the theory's principles per se, scholars have frequently drawn from trait activation theory to account for inconsistencies in the relationship between personality and work behavior such as performance. For example, personality traits like agreeableness may be key for performance in jobs that require helping others, but less predictive of performance in jobs that do not require the provision of help to others. 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.

Criticism

Despite receiving considerable empirical support, trait activation theory is not without its shortcomings. The theory does not appear to address how trait-relevant behavioral tendencies are converted into work behaviors. Some scholars have attempted to address this gap by suggesting higher-order goals, such as the motivation to experience meaningfulness at work, play a role in how trait relevant tendencies are translated into relevant work outcomes (see).

Practical implications

When organizations understand how different organizational cues lead to expression of traits, this knowledge allows organizations the opportunity to create situations that "activate" the traits they most value, and to select employees based on those traits. 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.

Trait activation theory can also help an organization understand how to optimally motivate workers by offering them rewards suited to their individual traits (e.g., introverts will likely not be motivated by rewards involving public recognition such as "employee of the month" but extraverts will be).