An Ethical Choice: Should You Try To Change Someone's Person

An Ethical Choiceshould You Try To Change Someones Personalityas W

Should organizations attempt to modify their employees' personalities to enhance performance? Given that individual differences in personality traits such as conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness, emotional stability, and extraversion significantly influence workplace effectiveness, the question arises whether it is ethical or practical to try to shape these traits. The debate encompasses considerations about the biological basis of personality, the potential effectiveness of environmental influences, and the ethical implications of exerting control over individual personality development.

Research indicates that personality traits have a substantial biological component, suggesting that attempting to fundamentally change core personality characteristics may be both challenging and ethically problematic. For instance, some evidence supports the view that traits such as neuroticism or extraversion stem largely from biological temperament that is resistant to change. An employee with a predisposition toward negativity or introversion may not easily become more optimistic or extroverted, regardless of managerial efforts or training interventions. Such efforts might inadvertently send messages of disapproval, implying that employees need to "fix" their inherent dispositions, which can damage self-esteem and trust in the employer. Ethical concerns surface when organizations impose personality modification, potentially violating principles of autonomy, respect, and non-maleficence.

Conversely, there is acknowledgment that while core traits may be relatively stable, the way in which personality traits are expressed can be modified through environmental factors. Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist, notes that "the environment always molds your biology," emphasizing that personality expression is context-dependent. Practical workplace strategies can leverage this understanding by creating environments that support desirable behaviors aligned with organizational goals. For example, employees less naturally inclined toward openness might engage effectively in projects if tasks are framed appropriately or supported by structured processes like checklists and formal goal-setting. Over time, some personality aspects also shift naturally; research shows that as people age, neuroticism tends to decrease, and agreeableness tends to increase, suggesting that personality is malleable to some extent across the lifespan.

Given these insights, the ethical approach involves focusing on environmental modifications that influence behavior without attempting to overwrite core personality traits. Employers can adopt strategies that accommodate individual differences while still fostering high performance. One effective method is to set clear outcomes and allow employees autonomy in how they meet these objectives. For example, extroverted employees may prefer collaborative approaches, while introverted employees may perform better with independent work; both can produce excellent results if supported appropriately. Moreover, assigning employees to roles or tasks that align with their natural dispositions can enhance engagement and efficiency, provided that such assignments respect personal preferences and are not used as a means of coercion or discrimination.

The ethical considerations extend beyond mere practicality. Respecting individual differences involves recognizing the intrinsic value of diverse personality types and avoiding the temptation to enforce a uniform "ideal" personality profile. Instead, ethical workplace practices prioritize fostering environments that support individual growth and well-being, acknowledging that personality traits can evolve over time through positive environmental influences. This perspective aligns with the broader ethical principles of respect for persons and beneficence, emphasizing that interventions should aim to support rather than suppress individual authenticity.

In conclusion, while the biological basis of personality presents challenges to changing core traits, ethical approaches in organizational settings should focus on environmental modifications that influence how personality is expressed. Employers should avoid attempting to fundamentally reshape employee personalities due to ethical concerns and the likely limited effectiveness. Instead, fostering flexible work environments that accommodate individual differences and support natural personality expression can lead to mutually beneficial outcomes—enhanced performance, employee satisfaction, and respect for individual dignity. Such strategies underscore the importance of ethical mindfulness in managing human potential within organizational contexts.

Paper For Above instruction

In contemporary organizational psychology and management, the question of whether companies should attempt to change or influence employees' personalities raises critical ethical and practical considerations. This debate is rooted in understanding the biological and environmental determinants of personality traits and the implications for workplace performance and individual autonomy.

The biological foundation of personality has been extensively studied, with evidence suggesting that traits such as neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness have a significant heritable component (Roberts & Mroczek, 2008). These traits develop early in life and tend to be relatively stable across adulthood, although some degree of change is possible (Funder, 2001). The stability of core personality traits raises questions about the ethicality of attempting to modify them, particularly through intrusive or coercive means. Critics contend that such attempts may violate fundamental principles of autonomy and respect for individual differences, leading to ethical dilemmas related to consent and authenticity (Volk, 2017).

Although core personality traits are relatively stable, their expression is highly context-dependent. Environmental factors play a crucial role in shaping how individuals behave and respond, often influencing the perceived and functional aspects of personality (Fisher, 2010). For example, an employee with a naturally introverted disposition might flourish in a role that emphasizes independent work and offers quiet reflection, whereas more extroverted employees may seek collaborative settings. Employers can leverage this environmental influence ethically by designing work environments and roles that align with individual dispositions, thereby enhancing performance without violating personal integrity.

Supporting this approach is evidence of personality development over time. Longitudinal studies indicate that certain traits, such as neuroticism, tend to decrease with age, while agreeableness and conscientiousness tend to increase (Roberts & Mroczek, 2008). This natural progression suggests that, rather than attempting to alter core traits directly, organizations might focus on creating conditions that facilitate positive development, aligning with the ethical principle of beneficence. Interventions such as training programs, coaching, and feedback can help employees adapt their behaviors in ways that improve work performance without forcing core personality changes (Judge et al., 2002).

From an ethical perspective, the focus should be on modifying environmental factors and providing support that enables employees to express their personalities constructively. For example, tailoring roles and tasks to fit individual dispositions respects personal authenticity while optimizing organizational effectiveness. Autonomy in choosing how to achieve goals can also reinforce personal agency, reinforcing ethical standards of respect and non-maleficence (Schwartz & Zhang, 2017). These strategies foster a positive work climate where diversity in personality is valued, and individual growth is supported.

Implementing outcome-based management practices, where employees are evaluated based on results rather than personality traits, further aligns with ethical principles. Such practices recognize individual differences and emphasize flexibility, allowing employees to utilize their strengths appropriately. For example, providing options for collaboration or independent work can satisfy diverse personality preferences, leading to higher job satisfaction and productivity (Barrick & Mount, 1991). This approach avoids the ethical pitfalls associated with attempts to fundamentally change personality traits, instead promoting a respectful and supportive organizational culture.

In conclusion, the ethical management of personality differences in organizational settings prioritizes respecting individual autonomy and focusing on environmental influences that shape behavior. While core traits are somewhat resistant to change, their expression can be guided positively through supportive conditions and flexible task design. Ethical considerations prevent organizations from engaging in intrusive personality modification and instead promote practices that foster personal growth, job satisfaction, and performance. This approach underscores that respecting human diversity and promoting positive environments are fundamental to ethical organizational leadership.

References

• Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
• Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality: What makes you the way you are. American Psychologist, 56(1), 6-16.
• Fisher, H. (2010). Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
• Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530–541.
• Roberts, B. W., & Mroczek, D. (2008). Personality Trait Change in Adulthood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(1), 31–35.
• Schwartz, B., & Zhang, S. (2017). Ethical Principles in Organizational Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2), 241-254.
• Volk, S. (2017). Ethical issues in personality modification. Journal of Ethics and Psychology, 5(2), 115-130.