Introduction
Memory, intelligence and personality are the three foundations of human character. For effective performance in enterprises, people should have the capacity of recollecting past discussions regarding product quality, be innovative and should have traits that facilitate the development of interpersonal relationships. With these skills, organisations can have a workforce that delivers according to their expectations and satisfies clients.
The limited understanding of the role that human behaviour has on efficiency in workplaces forces the researcher to delve into some relevant theories. From the models, which are PASS and triarchic, individuals get insights into how personality connects with productivity. It is vital to dissect the relationship that exists between performance and employees’ character. Well-mannered workers deliver as per company expectations, whereas those that have unethical conduct underperform. Notably, smart managers need to know that motivation transpires when members of staff have virtues that facilitate excellent relationships, infuse respect and foster teamwork.
However, in as much as organisations require decent workers, some individuals who present themselves in workplaces have conduct deemed by others as unprincipled. Comprehensive knowledge of the theories and their provisions, as well as personalities, is fundamental in addressing behavioural issues that often affect performance. The purpose of this essay is to examine how memory, intellect and personality influence efficiency in product delivery and establish a logical connection by analysing the relevance of PASS and triarchic theories of intelligence on workplace performance.
Justification of the Chosen Topic
Workplace performance has been gaining popularity in organisations over the recent past. Due to the rising competition among firms, managers are always working hard to recruit, develop and retain high performers so that they sustain exceptional productivity and increase their market share. In as much as education plays a pivotal role in improving the capabilities of individuals on a particular task, intelligence, memory, and personality are crucial in the overall productivity.
At times, companies may have skilled human resources who have low levels of expertise. According to Becker, Volk, and Ward (2015), due to the limited knowledge, some employees may not have the smart interpersonal, communication and problem-solving skills required in every enterprise. In such circumstances, teamwork and seamless operations diminish and product quality decline.
Additionally, some workers may not have the ability to recall details of previous discussions. After meetings or conferences, some members of staff may not be in a position of recollecting the resolutions outlined by the management. Poor memory implies that these people require constant repetition so that they deliver as per the company expectations. Imperatively, the time spent in reiterating the details forgotten by these workers could be useful in addressing other initiatives, which are essential for attaining organisational progress. Another factor that has a critical role in influencing workplace performance is a character (Ang & Van Dyne, 2015; Schutte & Loi, 2014).
Smart behavioural traits facilitate the creation of innovative teams, a seamless passage of information in workplaces and the provision of solutions to problems that emerge in the course of production.
Conversely, unfavourable qualities catalyse conflicts, lower efficiency and trigger fragmentation in workplaces. Notably, to understand the issue of productivity and the role played by intelligence, memory and personality, a review of two theories is essential. Ekinci (2014) asserts that the PASS theory of intelligence and Robert Sternberg’s triarchic theory are instrumental in elevating the scale of understanding productivity and human behaviour. The approaches have a close link to the issue under review and unearth the reason why the factors mentioned above are relevant in modern workplaces. The contents of these theories are factual, and scrutiny on their cornerstones justifies their application in the discussion.
Theoretical Background
The PASS Theory of Intelligence
The PASS theory hinges on four foundations that comprise planning, attention-arousal, as well as simultaneous and successive processing. These tenets are paramount in augmenting the knowledge that people have concerning human intelligence. In the arguments presented by scholars like Alexander Luria in 1966, the human mind has various responsibilities segmented in different locations (Bertelli, Cooper, & Salvador-Carulla, 2018; Flanagan & McDonough, 2018).
To justify their arguments, these scholars explain that, in some cases, people may have a section of their brain affected, thereby impairing their ability to communicate. While their ability to communicate is non-functional, the other parts of the mind, such as reading and listening, may be perfect. The realisation led to their conclusion that different sections of the brain have unique and independent roles and that damage on one side may not necessarily affect the entire brain.
In the provisions of the theory, planning is usually the primary stage and ensures that an individual is ready to execute a particular task or acquire skills regarding a respective subject. The next process is attention and helps people to remain alert and keen throughout production or training. The attention-arousal stage is vital because it helps the person to grasp details on particular issues and later utilise them. The two procedures entailed in the third phase take effect concurrently.
These processes, which include simultaneous and successive cognition, help a person to discern objects and recall sequences in numbers or words. Kaufman (2018), as well as Georgiou and Das (2014), explain that while the simultaneous process is useful in enabling people to relate objects, the successive phase is essential in the identification of words and numbers arranged in specific formats. Individuals can recall mathematical formulas and versed statements if they have brilliant successive processes. While the four functions are independent and occur in various parts of the mind, they are essential in the effective execution of daily activities.
Robert Sternberg’s Triarchic Intelligence Theory
The triarchic theory of intelligence is another model that augments the scale of education on human skill, memory and personality. The premise is also crucial in dissecting the relationship between behaviour and performance. In the perspective of Sternberg (2018), people live in particular environments and have the ability to adapt to changes that occur in their habitats. Additionally, Sternberg (2018) asserts that the scale at which people switch their behaviours in line with the societal requirements translates into a particular degree of intelligence. An examination of the theory indicates that it studies the various behavioural changes made by individuals when confronted by diverse situations.
In analysing the three components, Sternberg divided them into componential, experiential and practical (Ekinci, 2014; Miele, 2018; Sternberg, 2017). These tenets are useful in explaining how people live and interact with various complexities that affect their performance in workplaces or learning institutions. The provisions boost the understanding that people have in the areas of cognition, adaptability and introduction of change in a particular environment.
A review of the triarchic components outlined by Sternberg reveals that the componential stage is essential because it concerns how a person deciphers issues and solves them. People who have such skills are productive in organisations, especially when there is a challenge, because they are smart problem solvers. However, placed in a unique context, these people may fail to develop new ideas. The experiential component revolves around the issue of practice (Conway & Kovacs, 2015).
The element examines how people react when they encounter innovative procedures or when they handle conventional activities. In the parameters of the theory, some individuals are brilliant in devising new styles of executing a novel task.
On the other hand, some people need conventional or automated procedures. Remarkably, while several activities executed in organisations follow predefined courses, others require methods that promote efficiency and improve performance. The third element is practical and has three subdivisions that comprise adapting, shaping and selecting. According to Evans and Tully (2016), as well as Chooi, Long and Thompson (2014), the three subsections of the practical component in the triarchic theory reflect how people behave in organisations, societies and homesteads. At times, individuals decide to change their characters to conform to the common styles around them. On the other hand, people may opt to dictate their desires to society with the view of influencing it to match their preferred course.
In some cases, individuals can decide to abandon the typical behaviours and look for new ways of undertaking their activities. Sternberg, Grigorenko and Jarvin (2015) emphasise that in the selection phase of the triarchic theory, the affected individuals do not shape or adapt to the demands advanced by societies or workplaces but instead leave them. For instance, if members of staff notice that they cannot adapt or change the demands prevalent in an organisation to meet their preferences, they may resign. It is worthwhile to elucidate that the three components espoused in the triarchic theory can be utilised by individuals to better their lives in societies and workplaces.
Behaviour and Workplace Performance as well as the Relationship with Intelligence Theories
Changes in client preferences and technological advances have compelled enterprises to develop innovative ways of production. These styles require people who have high levels of intellect, memory and smart personalities. Anitha (2014) asserts that when companies have a set of talented employees, they increase their ability to win and sustain the market share. Notably, to understand the role played by personality in corporations, the study explored the contents of the PASS and triarchic theories of intelligence.
These theories have relevant details on how human intellect influences character, development of teams and the scale at which people address workplace conflicts. According to Judge and Zapata (2015), individual conduct and performance is an outcome of traits that people possess. Therefore, a study of theories that explain the different functions of the mind is instrumental in augmenting the knowledge regarding productivity and behaviour. An examination of the two models reveals that individuals act in a specific manner based on their personalities.
Remarkably, the human character is highly dependent on the traits that individuals possess. While a majority of the virtues that people adopt emanate from imitation and training in an environment, there are traits that a person inherits. A study conducted by Taylor and Millear (2016) on employee behaviour in enterprises indicates that while some people are outgoing and interactive, others prefer solitude. Therefore, the right placement that stems from a comprehensive knowledge of theoretical provisions and diversity is an ingredient that can propel a company to its success. Due to the correct allocation of duties, managers can ensure that employees who love working alone serve as team members.
On the other hand, interactive individuals can take up leadership or supervisory positions. It is paramount to allude that inappropriate distribution of duties can result in poor performance and low quality. Ang and Van Dyne (2015) argue that when silent members of staff serve in demanding positions, they are likely to experience lots of stress and burnout. The anxiety that stems from the demanding tasks allocated to conserved workers resonates well with the assertions outlined in the triarchic theory, which posits that some individuals cannot think critically when they work in complex environments. As such, the relationship evidenced by behaviour, performance and intelligence theories is one that scholars in executive positions cannot underscore as they strive to enhance productivity and excellence.
The realisation that the three aspects have close link calls for continued research with the view of collecting additional information concerning the subject. Remarkably, how people behave is in line with qualities that dictate their livelihoods. As individuals grow, they gradually adopt some orientations that align them with specific religions, cultures and social settings (Guay et al., 2016). These people may conform, shape, or manoeuvre out of the popular provisions, something that coincides with the tenets of intelligence theories. While managers may try to encourage their workers to follow specific executive formulas, they should understand that staff members have values that they believe are ethical. As such, the executive should encourage employees by supporting their values and inspiring them to deliver high-quality products.
When managers understand the theories comprehensively, their approach to their human resources improves significantly. Apart from empowering the executive with the skills concerning the models and their relevance in influencing employee performance, the workers should also receive similar training. The education enables the members of staff to tackle concerns that stem from ideological differences amicably. In some companies, conflicts and personal temperaments take up the time that could be useful in strategising on the future of its productivity. Taylor and Millear (2016) explain that when organisations instil values of assertiveness and esteem on their teams, productivity improves.
PASS and triarchic intelligence theories have explored aspects that determine how people interact with their societies. The triarchic approach, for instance, revolves around the manner in which individuals address situations when they emerge. In the model, people respond by adapting, shaping, or selecting, a phenomenon that is evident in the daily activities that occur in enterprises.
On the other hand, the PASS theory explains the various phases that constitute a successful process of deciphering and retaining information, which is imperative in the study of intellect, memory and personality. The implication of assessing the issue under review alongside these theories is an elevated knowledge regarding workplace performance. Reb, Narayanan and Chaturvedi (2014), as well as Wang and Li (2015), elucidate that when managers fail to realise that employees have different talents and behaviours, which influence their rate of product delivery, organisational efficiency dwindles.
However, the realisation helps societies to capitalise on the strengths of these individuals and try to improve their areas of weakness. As such, these theories enable firms to boost expertise through the viewpoint of a cognitive setting of their human resources. Instead of using old-fashioned methods to foster performance, the models challenge enterprises to understand their employees and apply the knowledge to inspire them and eventually amplify performance.
Conclusion
The debate concerning personality and performance has been going on for several decades. The constant discussion has compelled researchers to come up with theories that focus on the role of cognition and productivity. The argument revolves around the connectivity presented by human character and product delivery in firms. Over the recent past, managers have tried to unearth the reasons why some members of staff do not deliver according to the expectations regardless of their brilliant qualifications.
Therefore, a study that provides reasoning concerning the uniqueness presented by workers and their productivity is essential and well-timed. Imperatively, an organisation is a composition of people from varying backgrounds and diverse behaviours. While some characters held by individuals are inborn, people acquire others as they grow.
Remarkably, to address the issue of diversity, managers need enhanced expertise on the provisions enshrined in the theories that discuss matters of human intellect. The Pass and the triarchic approaches are among the best models that help organisations to handle workplace problems and encourage employee performance. These theories are crucial because they connect human behaviour with efficiency. By linking the two aspects of productivity, these models provide some answers to the debate concerning the role of human intelligence, memory and personality on workplace performance.
References
Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2015). Handbook of cultural intelligence. New York, NY: Routledge.
Anitha, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(3), 308.
Becker, W., Volk, S., & Ward, M. (2015). Leveraging neuroscience for smarter approaches to workplace intelligence. Human Resource Management Review, 25(1), 56-67.
Bertelli, M., Cooper, S., & Salvador-Carulla, L. (2018). Intelligence and specific cognitive functions in intellectual disability: Implications for assessment and classification. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 31(2), 88-95.
Chooi, W., Long, H., & Thompson, L. (2014). The Sternberg triarchic abilities test (Level-H) is a measure of g. Journal of Intelligence, 2(3), 56-67.
Conway, A., & Kovacs, K. (2015). New and emerging models of human intelligence. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6(5), 419-426.
Ekinci, B. (2014). The relationships among Sternberg’s triarchic abilities, Gardner’s multiple intelligences, and academic achievement. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 42(4), 625-633.
Evans, L., & Tully, R. (2016). The triarchic psychopathy measure (TriPM): Alternative to the PCL-R? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 27(1), 79-86.
Georgiou, G., & Das, J. (2014). Reading comprehension in university students: Relevance of PASS theory of intelligence. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(1), 101-115.
Guay, R., Choi, D., Oh, I., Mitchell, M., Mount, M., & Shin, K. (2016). Why people harm the organization and its members: Relationships among personality, organizational commitment, and workplace deviance. Human Performance, 29(1), 1-15.
Judge, T., & Zapata, C. (2015). The person–situation debate revisited: Effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the Big Five personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1149-1179.
Kaufman, A. (2018). Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and Issues. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Miele, F. (2018), Intelligence, race, and genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen. New York, NY: Routledge, New York.
Reb, J., Narayanan, J., & Chaturvedi, S. (2014). Leading mindfully: Two studies on the influence of supervisor trait mindfulness on employee well-being and performance. Mindfulness, 5(1), 36-45.
Schutte, N., & Loi, N. (2014). Connections between emotional intelligence and workplace flourishing. Personality and Individual Differences, 66(1), 134-139.
Sternberg, R. (2017). Whence creativity? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 289- 292.
Sternberg, R. (2018). Speculations on the role of successful intelligence in solving contemporary world problems. Journal of Intelligence, 6(1), 4.-7.
Sternberg, R., Grigorenko, E., & Jarvin, L. (2015). Teaching for wisdom, intelligence, creativity, and success. New York, NY: Skyhorse Publishing.
Taylor, N., & Millear, P. (2016). The contribution of mindfulness to predicting burnout in the workplace. Personality and Individual Differences, 89(1), 123-128.
Wang, H., & Li, J. (2015). How trait curiosity influences psychological well-being and emotional exhaustion: The mediating role of personal initiative. Personality and Individual Differences, 75(1), 135-140.