Individual Differences
Individual Differences = personal attributes — physical, psychological, and emotional — that vary from one person to another. These differences are why no two employees behave identically, even when they have the same job and the same incentives.
Ch9 LO9.2 lists a specific set of personality traits as exam-targetable individual differences. Each is a distinct construct with its own research history and workplace implications.
graph TD ID["Individual Differences"] ID --> P["Personality<br/>(Stable psychological attributes)"] ID --> A["Attitudes<br/>(Beliefs and feelings about<br/>specific things)"] ID --> EQ["Emotional Intelligence<br/>(EQ)"] P --> LOC["Locus of Control<br/>Internal vs External"] P --> SE["Self-Efficacy<br/>Belief in own capability"] P --> AU["Authoritarianism<br/>Acceptance of hierarchy"] P --> MA["Machiavellianism<br/>Manipulation orientation"] P --> ES["Self-Esteem<br/>Self-worth"] P --> RP["Risk Propensity<br/>Willingness to gamble"]
How It Appears Per Course
ADMN 201
LO9.2 explicitly lists these traits as the “individual differences” that affect employee behaviour. 34% of hiring managers prioritize emotional intelligence when making hiring decisions — the textbook flags EQ as especially exam-relevant.
Why Individual Differences Matter
A single motivation strategy or leadership style does not work uniformly. The same management technique may energize one employee and frustrate another, because the two people differ on these underlying dimensions. Effective managers diagnose the trait, then tailor the approach.
Exam framing: Individual differences are the why behind why motivation theories are not one-size-fits-all.
The Big Five Personality Traits (OCEAN)
A broad personality model widely used in psychology and organizational behaviour research. Describes personality along five dimensions:
| Trait | High end | Low end |
|---|---|---|
| Openness | Curious, creative, imaginative, open to new ideas | Conventional, prefers routine and familiarity |
| Conscientiousness | Organized, dependable, disciplined, goal-directed | Disorganized, impulsive, spontaneous |
| Extraversion | Outgoing, talkative, energetic, draws energy from others | Reserved, reflective, prefers smaller settings |
| Agreeableness | Cooperative, trusting, empathetic, helpful | Competitive, skeptical, challenging |
| Emotional Stability | Calm, resilient, handles stress well | Anxious, moody, emotionally reactive (high neuroticism) |
Mnemonic: OCEAN — Openness · Conscientiousness · Extraversion · Agreeableness · Neuroticism (Emotional Stability is the positive pole of Neuroticism; the textbook uses the positive framing)
The Big Five describes what a personality looks like. The six ADMN 201 traits below describe how specific dimensions of personality play out in workplace behaviour.
graph LR BIG5["Big Five (OCEAN)<br/>Broad personality description"] SIX["Six ADMN 201 Traits<br/>Workplace behaviour implications"] BIG5 -->|"informs"| SIX SIX --> LOC["Locus of Control"] SIX --> SE["Self-Efficacy"] SIX --> AU["Authoritarianism"] SIX --> MA["Machiavellianism"] SIX --> EST["Self-Esteem"] SIX --> RP["Risk Propensity"]
The Six Key Personality Traits
1. Locus of Control
The extent to which a person believes their behaviour has a real effect on what happens to them.
| Type | Belief | Workplace Behaviour |
|---|---|---|
| Internal locus of control | ”My outcomes depend on my own efforts” | Pursues promotions, takes initiative, reacts to setbacks by working harder |
| External locus of control | ”Outcomes are controlled by fate, luck, or other people” | Less likely to seek promotions, attributes failures to “bad luck,” accepts circumstances |
Manager’s lever: People with an internal locus respond well to performance-based incentives (Expectancy Theory works for them). People with an external locus need help seeing the effort→reward link before any incentive system motivates them.
2. Self-Efficacy
A person’s belief about their capabilities to perform a task.
- High self-efficacy = “I can do this.” Confident, focused, persists through obstacles.
- Low self-efficacy = “I’m not capable of this.” Doubts ability, gives up easily, may avoid challenging tasks even when objectively qualified.
Self-efficacy is task-specific. A person can have high self-efficacy in coding and low self-efficacy in public speaking. It is also trainable — small wins build it; repeated failures erode it.
Connection to motivation: Self-efficacy directly affects the Effort → Performance link in Expectancy Theory. Low self-efficacy breaks the chain at step 1.
3. Authoritarianism
The extent to which a person believes power and status differences are appropriate within social systems.
- High authoritarian = accepts directives from authority figures without question; comfortable with rigid hierarchy
- Low authoritarian = more likely to question, push back, express disagreement with the boss
Neither extreme is “right.” High-authoritarian employees fit well in military or strict-compliance environments. Low-authoritarian employees fit well in collaborative, flat organizations where pushback is valued.
4. Machiavellianism
Behaviour designed to gain power and control through manipulation of others.
Named after Niccolò Machiavelli, whose book The Prince described amoral political tactics.
| Level | Characteristics |
|---|---|
| High Machiavellianism | Willing to be dishonest; manipulates others; lacks loyalty; treats relationships instrumentally |
| Low Machiavellianism | Values honesty, friendship, ethical behaviour |
Workplace risk: High-Mach employees can be effective short-term — they get things done by playing political games — but they erode trust and culture over time. Counterproductive behaviour (theft, sabotage, harassment) correlates with high Mach.
5. Self-Esteem
The extent to which a person believes they are worthwhile and deserving.
| Level | Pattern |
|---|---|
| High self-esteem | Seeks higher-status jobs, more confident, focuses on intrinsic rewards (personal growth, meaningful work) |
| Low self-esteem | Content with lower-level jobs, less confident, focuses on extrinsic rewards (money, recognition from others) |
Distinction: Self-esteem ≠ self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is task-specific (“Can I do this job?”). Self-esteem is global (“Am I a worthwhile person?”). A person can have high self-efficacy in their craft and low self-esteem overall.
6. Risk Propensity
The degree to which a person is willing to take chances and make risky decisions.
| Level | Behaviour |
|---|---|
| High risk propensity | Willing to experiment with new ideas, gamble on new products, take financial risks, pursue novel solutions |
| Low risk propensity | Reluctant to experiment; prefers established, proven approaches; avoids uncertainty |
Both extremes are dangerous:
- Overly cautious managers miss opportunities
- Reckless managers destroy value through ill-considered bets
The right level depends on context: startups need risk-takers; banks need cautious risk managers. See also RiskPropensity for management-specific framing.
Emotional Intelligence (EQ)
The extent to which people are self-aware, can manage their emotions, motivate themselves, express empathy for others, and possess social skills.
The Five Components of EQ
- Self-awareness — recognizing your own emotions as they happen
- Emotion management — controlling impulses, regulating mood
- Self-motivation — channelling emotions toward goal pursuit
- Empathy — recognizing and responding to others’ emotions
- Social skills — managing relationships, building rapport, navigating conflict
Why EQ Matters Strategically
- 34% of hiring managers prioritize emotional intelligence in hiring decisions
- Emotionally intelligent employees communicate better, work better in teams, handle pressure more effectively
- EQ is trainable — unlike fixed personality traits, EQ can be developed through deliberate practice and feedback
Connection to leadership: EQ underlies most modern leadership approaches (transformational, charismatic, ethical). A leader with high IQ but low EQ frequently fails — they cannot build the trust and influence that leadership requires. See LeadershipApproaches.
How These Differences Interact with Motivation Theories
| Trait | Motivation Theory Most Affected |
|---|---|
| Locus of Control | Expectancy Theory (Effort→Performance link) |
| Self-Efficacy | Expectancy Theory (same link) |
| Authoritarianism | McGregor Theory X/Y (responds differently to each managerial style) |
| Machiavellianism | Equity Theory (frames “fairness” as instrumental, not moral) |
| Self-Esteem | Maslow’s Hierarchy (esteem needs operate differently) |
| Risk Propensity | Goal-Setting Theory (high-risk types need stretch goals; low-risk types need attainable ones) |
Cross-Course Connections
EmployeeBehaviour — these traits explain why employees produce performance, citizenship, or counterproductive behaviours MotivationTheories — individual differences are the moderator that determines which motivation theory applies to which person LeadershipApproaches — EQ is foundational to charismatic and transformational leadership; authoritarianism predicts response to autocratic vs. democratic styles PsychologicalContract — different personalities form different psychological contracts (Mach types treat the contract instrumentally; high-EQ types invest in the relationship) RiskPropensity — Ch6 framing of risk propensity at the manager level RecruitmentAndSelection — assessment centres and behaviour-based interviewing aim to surface these traits during hiring
Key Points for Exam/Study
- 6 personality traits to know: Locus of Control · Self-Efficacy · Authoritarianism · Machiavellianism · Self-Esteem · Risk Propensity
- Plus Emotional Intelligence (EQ) — 5 components, prioritized by 34% of hiring managers
- Internal vs. External locus = “I control outcomes” vs. “Outcomes happen to me”
- Self-Efficacy ≠ Self-Esteem: efficacy is task-specific; esteem is global self-worth
- High Machiavellianism correlates with counterproductive behaviour — beware
- High authoritarianism = comfortable with hierarchy; Low = pushes back
- Risk Propensity: extremes are dangerous; right level is context-dependent
- EQ is trainable (unlike fixed personality) — this is exam-targetable
- These traits moderate which motivation theory applies to which employee
Open Questions
- If EQ is trainable, why don’t more firms train it as a core management competency?
- Is high Machiavellianism ever a competitive advantage, or is it always a long-term liability?