??? 個性在某些方面就像一個管弦樂隊。正如一個管弦樂隊擁有打擊、弦樂、木管、銅管和鍵盤等樂器，以及指揮一樣，個性有其動機和情緒，知識和智能，對行動的規劃和自我管理。個性演奏著我們的生活樂章。

????我跟耶魯大學(Yale University)的大衛?卡魯索和北卡羅萊納大學( University of North Carolina)的阿比蓋爾?潘特一起觀察人們理解個性的能力是否始終如一地呈現多樣化。我們測試了人們在12個與個性有關的領域（或更多，這取決于研究階段）解決問題的能力。我們在每一個研究中都發現，擅長解決某一領域問題的人也擅長解決其他大多數領域的問題。例如，一位懂得愛說話與精力充沛往往相依相伴的測試對象也更擅長發現存在問題的目標——比如“永遠講真話”，因為這個目標可能會導致一些不得體或以其他方式造成傷害的言論，具體取決于一個人對真相的認知(personal truths)。那些在某一特定領域的推理能力差強人意的人士，往往也不擅長分析所有其他領域的問題。它表明，人們理解個性的知識能力存在很大差異，一些人在這方面的能力高于其他人。

????現在，讓我們回過頭來談談那位難以想象自己對其他人造成的影響的工程師，以及那位厭倦板凳科學的化學師。

????熟悉那位工程師的人都明白，他并沒有意識到他的選擇引發了其他人的猜疑——他無意妨礙別人，也根本不明白在這件原本很容易解決的人際關系問題上，他已經打亂了其他人的生活。

????讓熟悉那位化學師的人們非常高興的是，她終于意識到，當一個板凳科學家并不是她的人生使命，但出于為她著想起見，他們真希望她能夠在職業生涯的早期就意識到這一點。

????一旦我們認識到，人們理解個性的能力存在顯著差異，我們就可以采用一種新視角來解讀下面這種現象：有些同事表現得非常出色，而其他同事卻時常做出次優選擇，他們的行為總是適得其反。僅僅知道這一點就可以幫助我們應對他們的缺點，同時理解他們可能面對的挑戰。

????企業領導者和人力資源教育者也可以采用一些方式來增強員工對個性的理解：

????1. 我們可以制定培訓項目，向人們傳授涉及人的個性和我們如何看待彼此的知識。這些項目可以包括對個性線索，個性特征及其影響，人們如何設定合理與有問題的個人目標等問題的概述。一些依托于學校開展的社交和情緒學習課程（這些課程經常包括與個性相關的信息）的研究表明，相對于沒有學過這些科目的學生，那些有機會學習的學生往往會表現出行為上的優勢。旨在向成年受眾傳授個性知識的培訓項目或許也可以產生類似的積極作用。

????2. 我們可以讓員工接受有效的人機智商心理測試，比如我正在與卡魯索和潘特開發的“人際智商測試”(TOPI)。這些尺度使得人們用來理解個性的推理類型變得明確可見，有助于確認在這方面表現強勢的人士。無法使用這類尺度之前，我們可以暫且使用那些測量情商的有效工具。研究心理測試的心理學家們現在已經發現，光是接受測試就能帶來一定的好處：平均而言，如果一個人接受優秀的心理測試，得分獲得周到的解釋，他或她的幸福感往往會得到提升。

????3.我們或許可以重構聘請專家幫助那位化學師這類人力資源活動，轉而致力于解決與個性有關的問題。理解個性的規律是一項并非每個人都具備、但人人都需要的技能，需要時尋求這方面的幫助合情合理。

????

????

????Personality is in some ways like an orchestra. Just as an orchestra has its percussion section, strings, woodwinds, brasses, keyboards, and a conductor, personality has its motives and emotions, knowledge and intelligence, plans for action, and self-management. Personality performs the music of our lives.

????I joined with David R. Caruso of Yale University and Abigail T. Panter of the University of North Carolina to see if people varied consistently in their ability to understand personality. We tested people's problem-solving about personality in 12 areas (or more, depending upon the research phase). In each study, we found that people who were good at problem-solving in one area were good at problem-solving in most of the others. For example, a test taker who understood that talkativeness and high energy-level often go to together was also better at identifying problematic goals such as "always telling the truth" -- which can lead to tactless or otherwise hurtful remarks, depending upon one's personal truths. Those who reasoned poorly in a specific area tended to be less good in all the other areas. This suggested that people possess a broad intellectual capacity to understand personality -- and that some people are better at it than others.

????Now, consider that engineer who had trouble imagining his impact on other people and the chemist who had tired of bench science.

????Those who knew the engineer understood that he was unaware of how dubious his choices seemed to others -- he hadn't intended to disturb others and simply didn't appreciate the disruption in their lives he had caused over what might otherwise have been a readily solved personnel issue.

????Those who knew the chemist were delighted she finally realized that being a bench scientist was not her calling, but wished for her sake she had realized it earlier in her career.

????Once we recognize that people vary dramatically in their abilities to understand personality, we have a new explanation of why some of our colleagues do so well, whereas others make sub-optimal choices and behave in counterproductive ways. Just knowing that can help us deal with their shortcomings and understand the challenges they may face.

????There are also ways for business leaders and HR educators to foster understanding in this area:

????1. We can develop training programs that teach people about personality and how we perceive one another. These programs could include overviews of clues to personality, of personality traits and their implications, and of how people set reasonable vs. problematic personal goals. Research on school-based social and emotional learning programs -- which often include information about personality -- indicates that students who have the opportunity to learn these subjects go on to exhibit behavioral advantages relative to those who don't. Programs aimed to teach personality for an adult audience may well have similar positive effects.

????2. We could provide employees access to valid mental tests of personal intelligence like the Test of Personal Intelligence (TOPI) that I am developing with Caruso and Panter. These scales make tangible the kinds of reasoning that people use to understand personality and help to identify people who are strong performers in the area. Pending the availability of such scales, valid measures of emotional intelligence may serve as a stopgap. Today, psychologists who study psychological testing have found that testing alone confers benefits: People who take a good mental test and receive a thoughtful interpretation of their scores benefit on average in their sense of well-being.

????3. We might reframe the relevant HR activities such as the expert who helped the chemist, as problem-solving about personality. Understanding the rules of personality is a skill set not everyone has -- or needs to have -- and it's reasonable for people to seek help in this area when they need it.???