A new study finds that about one in five workers have a personality disorder
that negatively impacts their career. Disorders had a more negative effect on
workplace outcomes for women than for men. Also, dysfunctional personalities
were substantially higher for those with more education and were twice as high
for those living in the South as opposed to the Northeast.
In every office and workgroup, it seems that there is at least one employee who
seems to be at the center of most of the problems.
We've all heard the anecdote that 20 percent of workers account for 80 percent
of the supervisory concerns, and while it's hard to find hard evidence to
support that figure, it persists because it seems to align with most everyone's
experience.
Even when the issues and context change, the difficult employee continues to be
at the center of conflicts and problem.
Is it really the person who is the problem? A new study based on survey data
from the U.S. Census and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
suggests that, yes, it probably is.
In "Does Having a Dysfunctional Personality Hurt Your Career," which was
published this year in Industrial Relations journal, the researchers found that
18 percent of adult men and 16 percent of adult women have personality
disorders.
Such disorders are a form of mental illness defined as "pervasive patterns of
enduring cognition and behavior" (i.e., how you think and act) that deviate from
expectations in society and that cause difficulty and distress when dealing with
others.
Deviation from expectations means that they interpret memos in distorting ways,
seeing conspiracies that don't exist; they interpret innocent comments as
personal slights; and they refuse to accept simple changes in procedures.
Personality disorders are less serious forms of mental illness than "clinical"
illnesses such as bipolar disorder or depression, but they nevertheless cause
real problems for the individuals and those around them.
The study by Susan L. Ettner, Joanna Catherine MacLean and Michael T. French
assessed these disorders in face-to-face interviews using standard diagnostic
tests, although for a variety of reasons, the results probably understate the
true incidents of these problems.
The most common of the personality disorders is obsessive-compulsive behavior,
followed by more general antisocial behavior and paranoia. For reasons that
aren't clear, the incidence of personality disorder seemed to be substantially
higher for those with more education and was twice as high for those living in
the South as opposed to the Northeast. In the context of the workplace, the rate
at which those with personality disorders lost their jobs was roughly double
that of those without disorders, while the incidence of having serious problems
with bosses or other employees in the workplace was three times as high.
When controlling for other factors associated with these disorders, the negative
effects of the disorders themselves on labor-market outcomes and workplace
issues were smaller but still significant statistically and meaningful in terms
of their size.
These disorders had a more negative effect on workplace outcomes for women than
for men. Is that because we expect better social skills from women? That men
cover up problems better? Or is it that the jobs at which women
disproportionately work require more social interaction? Hard to say.
One might imagine that individuals who are anti-social - willing to lie, cheat
and violate social norms -- would have the most problems. But it turns out that
having obsessive-compulsive behavior is associated with the most negative
workplace outcomes.
Perhaps the anti-social people are more skilled at covering up their problems or
at smoothing them over. It might also be that OCB is particularly disruptive in
the modern office because change is constant and individuals rarely have control
over how they do their work.
OK, so what do we do with this information?
I suppose it is some comfort to supervisors to know that at least some of the
difficulties they have with "problem" employees may be related to these
disorders and that inadequate supervision is not the main reason for the
conflicts and disruptions.
No doubt these findings will also be used to support the "War for Talent" notion
that there are "A" players, who are just good performers no matter what, and "C"
players, who are always causing problems, and that the goal is to sort them out
before hiring.
Before we draw that conclusion, though, it is worth remembering that no one
chooses to have a personality disorder. Once they are diagnosed, personality
disorders are covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and other
state-level legislation, and most of these disorders are treatable, some more
easily than others.
Screening applicants for medical conditions will also be a full employment plan
for your legal department.
In addition, many individuals with these disorders may be terrifically effective
performers, especially in tasks where they work independently.
So, supervisors are likely to be on the hook for managing the one-in-five or so
adults who have these personality disorders for the foreseeable future.
What does that mean in practice?
Maybe it means making new and different use of employee-assistance programs to
help these individuals identify their problems and seek treatment. Maybe it
means helping to redesign their tasks and jobs to find those that truly "fit"
what they are capable of doing. And it still means holding them accountable for
dealing with others in ways that meet the norms and expectations of your
organization. Some part of that may ultimately mean meeting with your legal
department to decide how much variation you can live with.
[About the Author: Peter Cappelli is the George W. Taylor Professor of
Management and director of the Center for Human Resources at The Wharton School.
His latest book, with Bill Novelli, is Managing the Older Worker: How to Prepare
for the New Organizational Order.]
For more Articles and Information: http://www.developmentnetwork.co.nr/
No comments:
Post a Comment