• Learn how your personality may influence the way you interact with the people in your academic and professional life.
• Learn to recognize your workstyle preferences and how they compare to others around you 

“Getting my PhD was not just about becoming an expert in astrophysics. I had to become an expert in understanding myself and the people who held my future in the palms of their hands.”

“I worry about angering people in my lab. We don’t work well together and without the ability to collaborate with my labmates, I will never complete my research.”

“I don’t feel very comfortable talking to my advisor. I don’t know what it is, but I just feel uncomfortable around him; he never really listens to my concerns.”

Every exchange between two or more people involves a complex mingling of two distinct personality styles. The way you each think about the world, react to struggles, and handle stress varies widely from others. 

For decades, psychologists have conducted research to understand just what makes people unique and different from each other, and how they approach each other. As you learn more about yourself in regard to coping styles, thinking habits, and stress triggers, consider how these personal characteristics affect your interpersonal life, or how you interact with others. 

Given that you are not the only person involved in your success in graduate school (see Stakeholders), this module is designed to help you learn more about how your dispositions may influence the way you interact with people in your program environment. These include faculty members, classmates, co-workers, advisors, committee chairs, labmates, undergraduates, and administrators.

Researchers suggest that your personality is made up of a variety of factors. These factors include aspects of yourself that are inherent to being human and are shared by everyone, individual patterns of behavior that are unique to you and mostly stable throughout your adult life, the ways in which you adapt to different situations and become motivated, the stories you tell that give your life meaning, and how you're shaped by your culture. 

Personality can be defined as an individual’s characteristic and relatively enduring patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving. Here we describe two major paradigms of personality that have been the subjects of decades of research.

The five-factor model of personality is the most widely accepted way of explaining individual differences in personality (McAdams & Pais, 2006). According to the Big-Five theorists, the degree to which you vary on the following traits makes up your personality:

• Extraversion (talkative, sociable, assertive, energetic)
• Agreeableness (cooperative, good natured, trusting)
• Conscientiousness (orderly, dependable, persistent)
• Emotional stability (not easily upset, rational)
• Openness to experience (intellectual, curious, appreciate new experiences) 

REFLECTIONS

Rank the options from what describes you the MOST (1) to the one that describes you the LEAST (5).

In the lab ...

1. You are usually the one coming up with creative solutions to your group's typical problems. __
2. You are definitely the most organized person in your lab group. __
3. Even though you're the only woman in your lab, you're definitely the most social. __
4. You are everyone’s “helper,” and your colleagues are always asking for your assistance. __
5. When crises occur, you are typically the only one not panicking. __

In your life outside of school ...

1. You love to go out with your friends and make it a top priority. __
2. You really enjoy trying new things. __
3. You like to plan way ahead of time and make sure things are done in a thorough fashion. __
4. Your friends usually think of you as the logical one. __
5. You consider yourself to be kind and affectionate. __

Now see how each answer matches up with your personality (five-factor) 

In the lab ... (1) O; (2) A: (3) Ex; (4) C; (5) ES

In your life outside of school ... (1) Ex; (2) O; (3) C; (4) ES; (5) A

Do you see a discrepancy between how you are in the lab and how you are outside of school?

Noticing discrepancies is important for two reasons:

1. You don’t want to drift too far away from your “true” self, or the person you enjoy being and the things you find fulfillment in doing. Taking notice of these types of changes early on can help you build a more balanced life plan (see Balance for more).
2. School does not completely define you. Remember that, indeed, there is life outside the lab and it’s OK to take the academician hat off once in a while. In fact, it may be a sanity-saver to do so in a regular fashion.

Psychological Type

Another way of describing personality differences is with the concept of psychological type, derived from the early work of Carl Jung. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is an inventory that was created to make a specific theory of psychological types understandable and useful in people’s lives. Psychological type refers to people who have a pattern of preferences in common. 

The MBTI is made up of 16 dichotomous types (Myers & Briggs, 2003):

Favorite World: Do you prefer to focus on the outer world (e.g., social interactions or external stimuli) or the inner world (e.g., your own thoughts)? Are you energized by being around other people or do you need to be by yourself to re-group and gain energy for the day? This is called Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I).

Information: Do you prefer to focus on the basic information you take in or do you prefer to interpret and add meaning? The former is called Sensing (S)—paying attention to physical reality—what you hear, see, touch, etc. The latter is Intuition (N)—paying attention to the impressions or the meaning and patterns of the information you receive.

Decisions: When making decisions, do you prefer to first look at logic and consistency or first look at the people and special circumstances? The former is called Thinking (T)—weighing the pros and cons and then applying logic in order to make decisions. The latter is Feeling (F)—using the points of view of others and values to make decisions about what is best for the people involved in order to make decisions.

Structure: In dealing with the outside world, do you prefer to get things decided or do you prefer to stay open to new information and options? Do you plan ahead and prepare for different types of outcomes or do you prefer to “live in the moment” and solve problems as they arise? The former is called Judging (J)—an inclination toward a planned and orderly life. The latter is Perceiving (P)—an inclination toward a flexible and spontaneous way of life.

Your MBTI Psychological Type: When you decide which end from each dichotomy fits you best, you have your own MBTI psychological type, which can be expressed as a code with four letters.

The creators of the MBTI assert that, depending on your four-letter personality type, you can predict how well you will fit with other types. To get information about which types pair well with yours, you will first have to take the MBTI. However, using the information provided here, you can begin to think about what your own type might be and how it might be compatible/incompatible with other types.

To learn more about the MBTI and where you can take it, visit http://www.myersbriggs.org/

You may have noticed that the Myers-Briggs model of psychological types refers to preferences along four dimensions. Here we use the term "individual preferences" for the different tendencies, patterns, styles, and other features that make people diverse and contribute to their unique ways of doing things and perceiving the world. The word “preferences” was chosen because these are characteristic styles and preferred patterns rather than fixed traits. 

Sometimes your individual preferences clash with those around you, which can lead to rocky professional relationships in graduate school. An interesting phenomenon about personal styles and preferences is that when people find themselves in difficult circumstances or interpersonal conflict, they actually become more tied to their preferred styles. Often that leads to starker contrasts between the players and more conflict. The first step in understanding how you can work best with the people around you is to reflect upon what you bring to the table.

Identify Your Individual Preferences

You have unique preferences about how you like to get your work done, how you choose to interact with others, and how to reach your own professional goals in graduate school. Each of your faculty, classmates, and others you work with in graduate school has individual preferences as well. 

Why is this important to keep in mind? It is important because much of your productivity, satisfaction, and success in graduate school and your career depend upon how effective you are in relating to and working with others.

For example, you might work best under pressure, whereas other members on your research team might prefer to pace themselves. Your officemate might prefer music playing in the background, whereas you might only be able to concentrate in silence. You may not want to submit a paper until it’s perfect, while your group wants to just get it in. 

Many types of individual preferences that contribute to the climate of your work environment are less obvious. For example, differences in individual preferences have been known to contribute to the demise of many advisor-advisee relationships. 

Here are some examples of how your individual preferences might conflict with those of your advisor. You:

• Desire constant feedback
• Desire positive reinforcement
• Desire to be personal with your advisor
• Like to go with the flow

Your advisor:

• Takes a laissez-faire approach to advising
• Believes in constructive criticism
• Desires to stay strictly professional with advisees
• Likes to plan ahead

Self-test

When Maki entered her program, she was assigned to an advisor in her department. Maki has been in the program for 2 years now, and she has found working with her advisor to be very difficult. 

Her advisor is rarely in his office, and he often answers his emails days after receiving them. He gives feedback sporadically. 

Maki prefers meeting in person when possible, and she relies on consistent communication and feedback. Lately, she has been very discouraged by her progress, and she is considering talking to someone in her program about it.

Which of the following would be the best option for Maki to do next?

“I am the only woman in my lab. There are six to seven students, some are international and some domestic. I have daily interactions with peers. I don’t want to talk about sports. I have to talk over everyone to be heard. I don’t feel comfortable in general. I don’t feel comfortable sharing my feelings.” 

Recognizing how you may be different from others in preferences and personality dimensions might give you a better understanding of and patience for the behaviors and work styles of others. Not only will your individual preferences influence how you work with each individual in your program, but they also will affect how you fit in with your program as a whole. 

Researchers have tried to understand the individual and environmental characteristics that can predict a good match between an individual and an organization. Person-environment fit is a term researchers use to describe the degree to which an individual’s goals and values are congruent with their organization. There are different ways a person might “fit” with their program:

• By possessing similar characteristics to the overall organization (for example, most research-oriented programs have a strong work ethic, and you fit in better if you possess that characteristic)
• By adding something to the organization that it is missing (for example, if your research team needs a statistician and your background is in statistics)
• When the program fulfills your individual needs (for example, help from your advisor to produce publications)
• When the individual has the ability to meet the demands of the program (for example, being a productive research assistant, teaching assistant, and/or student)

Put simply, the more your organization (or, in your case, academic program) meets your individual needs, and the more you are able to meet the demands of your program, the more satisfied you will be. The idea is that it is not just the job you do that promotes satisfaction but also whether or not the characteristics of and people in your program fit with what you want and need (Guan et al., 2021). 

Experiencing a lack of fit reduces your sense of belonging in the program (Walton & Cohen, 2007) and interferes with developing your identity as a scientist (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). See Climate for more information.

REFLECTIONS: NEEDS ASSESSMENTS

Does your department possess similar characteristics that you have or desire? Yes__ No__

        What are they?__________

Do you feel you add something meaningful to your lab group or departmental mission? Yes__ No__

        What do you add?_________

Are your individual needs being fulfilled? Yes__ No__

        What are your needs?_____________

Do you think you meet the demands of your program? Yes__ No__

        What does your program expect from you?__________

Ahh! What do a bunch of “No’s” mean? And what if I don’t know what I add or what I need? Here are some strategies:

1. Work on Understanding Yourself better.

2. Find strategies to help you get some, if not all, of your needs met. (See Problem-Solving).

3. Acknowledge the strengths and assets that got you into graduate school in the first place. (See Build on Your Strengths).

4. Expand your support system, including finding mentors (See What You Want in a Mentor).

5. Evaluate How You Think and how you cope.

6. Remember to Keep a Positive Perspective.

You got here! You have the skills to make it through, as well.

Keep in mind that knowing yourself, figuring out what you want in the short term and the long term (see Career Goals and Motivation), and getting your needs met are not personality features, they are skills. These skills can easily be learned during your time on this site. They take practice, but it does not depend on some secret knowledge or special genetic gift. Just as in science, it involves logical thinking, planning, and practice.

As you know, preferences do not only vary from person to person. Gender, racial and ethnic identities, and cultural backgrounds contribute to preferences, styles and the way people are treated. 

• Women tend to have a more affiliative, cooperative work style than men who may be more accustomed to independence and competition in the workplace. 
• Latinx individuals may place greater value on close, personal work relationships as opposed to the more rigid, hierarchical relationships that characterize most organizations and institutions.
• International students from cultures in which collective responsibility is valued may feel isolated by the more individualized American work environment.
• Many employers respond better to men than to women who use strong and direct influence techniques for getting their needs met at work.
• Some individuals (e.g., women, people from collectivist cultures) may be less likely to challenge authority figures or to ask for a raise or promotion.

Individual preference is an especially relevant topic with respect to the relationships with your advisor or peers because you will have long-term relationships with them, professionally and socially. Having a strong mentoring relationship is known to be an extremely important factor in your academic persistence and career path. 

Many students, however, report dissatisfaction with their graduate program advisor. Differences in personality, communication style, relationship preference (such as wanting more frequent contact), and career aspirations have been identified as factors that lead to unsuccessful mentoring relationships. See What You Want in an Advisor for more on this topic. 

Advisor-advisee relationships are essentially hierarchical relationships, similar to bosses and employees (Fox, 2000). The power differential between superiors and subordinates implies that the preferences of the person with greater power carry more weight and bring more consequences. So, if the differences between you and a superior are too great, you will want to consider either accommodating their preferences or even changing advisors or positions.

The collegial relationships you create with your academic peers may serve as an important network during, as well as after, your graduate school experience. These relationships can serve as a key source of support for you. Being clear yet flexible with your labmates may ward off future misunderstandings and help create a pleasant, or at least tenable, climate for your day-to-day work.

Recognizing and negotiating differences in individual preferences are activities that do not stop once you graduate. The fit between your preferences and those of people who work with you will influence your comfort in a position. The alignment or misalignment between your goals and values and those of your organization will be an important factor in your satisfaction and plans to continue there (Singh & Fouad, 2011).  

The take-away message here is that we all have values and ways of behaving that we take for granted, and while these may suit us best, they sometimes do not apply to the people around us. Being sensitive to diverse styles and experiences is essential to avoid conflicts and promote a productive working atmosphere.

In each new working relationship in graduate school (such as with a potential new advisor or labmates working on a long-term project), it may be helpful to have an initial conversation about individual preferences. This conversation can help you to prepare for a productive relationship and clear up potential misunderstandings down the line.

Baker, V. L., Pifer, M. J., & Griffin, K. A. (2014). Mentor-protégé fit: Identifying and developing effective mentorship across identities in doctoral education. International Journal for Researcher Development. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJRD-04-2014-0003

Baker, V., & Pifer, M. (2015). Antecedents and outcomes: theories of fit and the study of doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education (Dorchester-on-Thames), 40(2), 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.823936 

Carlone, H., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237 

Carver, C., Scheier, M., & Segerstrom, S. (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 879–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01.006 

Constantine, M., Anderson, G., Berkel, L., Caldwell, L., & Utsey, S. (2005). Examining the cultural adjustment experiences of African international college students: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.1.57

Fouad, N. A., Singh, R., Fitzpatrick, M. E., & Liu, J. P. (2011). Stemming the tide: Why women leave engineering. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Final report from NSF Award, 827553.

Fox, M. (2001). Women, science, and academia: Graduate education and careers. Gender & Society, 15(5), 654–666. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124301015005002

Gnilka, P., & Novakovic, A. (2017). Gender differences in stem students’ perfectionism, career search self‐efficacy, and perception of career barriers. Journal of Counseling and Development, 95(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12117

Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. Philadelphia, PA: A report for The Pew Charitable Trusts.  www.phd-survey.org. 

Guan, Y., Deng, H., Fan, L., & Zhou, X. (2021). Theorizing person-environment fit in a changing career world: Interdisciplinary integration and future directions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 126, 103557.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103557

Johnson, W., & Huwe, J. (2002). Toward a typology of mentorship dysfunction in graduate school. Psychotherapy, 39(1), 44–55.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.39.1.44

Joy, S., Liang, X., Bilimoria, D., & Perry, S. (2015). Doctoral advisor-advisee pairing in STEM fields: Selection criteria and impact of faculty, student and departmental factors. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 343-363. http://ijds.org/Volume10/IJDSv10p343-363Joy0711.pdf

Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological types. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Lewis, K. L., Stout, J. G., Pollock, S. J., Finkelstein, N. D., & Ito, T. A. (2016). Fitting in or opting out: A review of key social-psychological factors influencing a sense of belonging for women in physics. Physical Review. Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020110–. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020110 

McAdams, D., & Pals, J. (2006). A new big five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. The American Psychologist, 61(3), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.204

Menges, C. (2016). Toward improving the effectiveness of formal mentoring programs: Matching by personality matters. Group & Organization Management, 41(1), 98–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115579567

Moate, R. M., Gnilka, P. B., West, E. M., & Rice, K. G. (2019). Doctoral student perfectionism and emotional well-being. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 52(3), 145-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2018.1547619

Myers and Briggs FOUNDATION (2003), MBTI Basics. https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/

Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127

Roberts, B., & Robins, R. (2000). Broad dispositions, broad aspirations: The intersection of personality traits and major life goals. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(10), 1284–1296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200262009

Schlosser, L., Lyons, H., Talleyrand, R., Kim, B., & Johnson, W. (2011). A multiculturally infused model of graduate advising relationships. Journal of Career Development, 38(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845309359286

Seibert, S., & Kraimer, M. (2001). The five-factor model of personality and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2000.1757

Soto, C., Napolitano, C., & Roberts, B. (2021). Taking skills seriously: toward an integrative model and agenda for social, emotional, and behavioral Skills. Current Directions in Psychological Science : a Journal of the American Psychological Society, 30(1), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420978613

Walton, G., & Cohen, G. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82

Becoming an Independent Voice as a Young Faculty Member

The process of establishing yourself in the same department as your spouse

Leisure Activities

Using leisure activities to relieve stress and build friendships

Interpersonal Satisfaction

The satisfaction that comes from working with colleagues and interacting with others

Practical Satisfaction

Motivation for doing work: interacting with students and doing research that can make a difference in the world

The Joy of Making an Impact

Explains an interdisciplinary branch of physics and the passion for research, service, and teaching

Words of Wisdom: Dr. Lunardini

The importance of finding your own style

The Two-Body Problem

Challenges with being married to a fellow academician and finding faculty positions

The Challenge

The selfish satisfaction of "I did it" as motivation to persist despite obstacles

Words of Wisdom: Dr. Andino

Advice for students: stay focused, ask questions, and remain open-minded when working with others

Time in the Classroom is at the Heart of Motivation

Teaching as the impetus for work