1
THE CORRELATION OF THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS TO JOB PERFORMANCE
A Meta-Analysis Presented to Dr. Maria Niña Howard of the Ateneo de Naga University
In partial fulfilment Of the requirements of the course Human Behavior in Organizations with Ethics
Almarez, Maria Julien C. Arenque, Cyril F. Blasco, Jaselle P. Bueza, Mary Joy C. Castillo, Nikka Angeli Y. Estorpe, Lily Chel R. May 12, 2011
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
I.
Background of the Study
3
A. Statement of the Problem
5
B. Significance of the Study
5
III.
Review of Related Literature and Studies
6
IV.
Summary of Findings
20
V.
Conclusion and Recommendations
20
VI.
Bibliography
22
II.
3
Background of the Study The idea of personality traits may be as old as time. Aristotle (384-322 BC), writing the Ethics in the fourth century BC, saw dispositions such as vanity, modesty and cowardice as key determinants of moral and immoral behavior. He also described individual differences in these dispositions, often referring to excess, defect and intermediate levels of each. His student Theophrastus (321-287 (321-287 BC) wrote a book describing thirty ‗characters‘ or personality types, of which a translator remarked that Theophrastus‘s Theophrastus‘s title might better be rendered ‗traits‘ (Rusten, Cunningham & Knox, 1993). Basic to his whole enterprise was the notion that individual good or bad traits of character may be isolated and studied separately. Organizations are human systems. As such, each member of these systems bear a wide range of psychological and emotional behavior while also emerging themselves to their work which is highly regulatory and apparently rational. Because of this, human systems undergo incompetence as emotions; personality and unconscious impulse interfere with the objectivity and logical processes at work. In today‘s high competitive business industry where investors stipulate increasingly precise liability and value, hiring managers needs to avoid usual practice of relying on ―gut instinct‖ toward structured justifiable recruitment and selection practices. Studies of human performance provide one of the most important methods for investigating associations between traits and objective indices of behavior. This notion had led to the development of personality tests, which has long been useful for employees especially in selection of job applicants. For example, in some airlines personality questionnaires are used to screen out applicants who may be susceptible to mental illness. Specific types of tests like the Big Five Model have become increasingly popular as a selection and evaluation guide in
4
occupational studies of personality. Many different traits, both broad and narrow, have been studied in relation to performance. These studies in turn had been used by companies or employees to assess their applicants and ensure that their emplo yees will be productive. Job performance concerns the knowledge, skills and attitudes that are required to enable an individual to perform the activities listed in the job portrayal as for each the competency profile that a human resource or similar professional may have developed through job investigation. Performance review is used in organizations worldwide as a means to ensure the (at least) satisfactory performance of employees. It is linked to the entire human resource cycle in that it informs the training and development plan, is a factor in the pay calculation and is inextricably coupled with and derived from job analysis, which itself feeds into the recruitment and selection process. Ultimately, assuming both reliability and validity of performance appraisal systems, organizations require firm evidence that candidates for job vacancies will score highly on appraisal dimensions once present in the job. That is, the incumbent will consistently demonstrate competent and high levels of performance as defined by the organization within the appraisal system. Job performance can be affected by many things. An individual employee's performance can wax and wane significantly over any given period. Looking at the factors that can have an impact on job performance can help managers to plan in advance for the slow times. Job performance can be affected by 2 main factors: internal and external events. Internal events will be things that happen while at work to the employee. External event are much harder for a manager to plan for as by their nature they happen away from the workplace. Internal factors can be real or perceived. An individual can either be directly affected by an event at work, or they
5
can feel and respond to tension or a triumphant atmosphere. These can in turn affect an individual's performance.
Statement of the Problem This study aims to determine the effect of personality factors and traits to the performance of the employees. Specific Problems: 1. What are the demographic profiles of the employees emplo yees in the Philippines? 2. What are the dominant factors and traits of the employees that affect their performance? 3. How do personality factors and traits affect the performance of the emplo yees in the organization as a rule?
Significance of the Study This research was conducted in order to critically evaluate and examine the status and role of personality in the selection, retention and recruitment of employees. This paper explores how personality can identify the different abilities and behaviours of job applicants. The role, benefits and downsides of personality are also discussed in this study. The conduction of this meta-analysis is likely to benefit both employers and applicants. Specifically, this study highlights the important points that employers must consider in order to use personality as job performance indicator. On the other hand, this paper helps applicant obtain a clearer understanding on the purpose of understanding the effects of personality on job p erformance.
6
This study will help identify the benefits:
To the Students. This proposed study will help them understand fully the relationship between personality and performance. This will serve as their reference or guide in their future careers.
To the Employees. This proposed study will help them know themselves more and to use their strengths so that they will be more e ffective in the workplace.
To the Employers. This proposed study will help them, especially the human resource management in the selection of job applicants.
Review of Related Literature and Studies Personality and Job Performance As we learned in class, personality encompasses a person‘s relatively stable feelings, thoughts, and behavioral patterns. Every one of us has different and unique personalities that distinguish us from other people. In a classroom setting, students each have unique personality from their classmates thus resulting to misunderstandings. This situation is also more likely to happen in the workplace. Employees tend to disagree with their bosses and co-workers because their personalities differ. They hold opposing views on how they likely to act and feel in a variety of situations. Therefore, in order to manage effectively, it is helpful to understand the personalities of different employees. By doing so, it will also help in placing people into jobs and organizations. On the other hand, job performance concerns the knowledge, skills and attitudes that are required to enable an individual to perform the activities listed in the job description. Furthermore, this job description is developed through job analysis by a human resource or
7
similar professional. Organizations worldwide used the performance appraisal in order to ensure the adequate performance of employees.
Effects of the Stability of Personality to the Behavior in Organizations
If personality is stable, does this mean that it does not change? Actually, personality does really change over long periods of time. This is proven by how we have changed and evolved as a result of our own life experiences. These life experiences involve the parenting style and attention we have received in early childhood, successes and failures we experienced over the course of your life, and other significant events. (Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. 2006) One example is when we were still young, we tend to be careless, unorganized and dependent to our parents and always feel insecure, whereas we learned the opposite of such attitudes as we age. In short, change really happens though we treat personality as relatively stable. Moreover, even our personality in childhood matters because it has lasting consequences for us. Some studies show that part of our career success and job satisfaction later in life can be explained by our childhood personality. (Judge, T. A., & Higgins, C. A. 1999)
Is our behavior in organizations dependent on our personality? The answer is partly, yes, and partly, no. As the effects of personality for employee behaviour are being discussed, you must remember that the relationships we describe are modest connections. For example, having a sociable and outgoing personality may encourage us to seek friends and prefer social situations. But this does not mean that our personality will immediately affect our work behavior. At work, we have a job to do and a role to perform. Therefore, we will behave based on what is expected of us, as opposed to how we want to behave. (Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 1993)
8
Big Five Personality Traits
We will probably ask how many personality traits are there. A person‘s personality can be described in every language. In fact, in the English language, more than 15, 000 words describing personality have been identified. Becau se of the abundance of words, researchers tried to analyze the traits describing personality. They realized that many different words were actually pointing to a single dimension of personality. When these words were grouped, five dimensions seemed to emerge explaining much of the variation in our personalities. (Goldberg, L. R. 1990) These five dimensions are not necessarily the only traits out there. There are still other specific traits that represent other dimensions that are not captured by the Big Five. Understanding them will give us a good start for describing personality.
In present-day psychology, the Big Five, also known as the Five Factor Model, of personality are five broad domains or dimensions of personality which are used to describe human personality. The Big Five dimensions are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and Neuroticism. In order for us to easily remember it, we can put the initials together. By doing so, we will get the acronym OCEAN. Some also use the acronyms NEOAC and CANOE. Everyone has some degree of each of these traits. They just vary in how high a person rates on some traits and how low on others. The variation produces the so-called personality.
Effects of Big Five to Job Performance
Openness. Openness is the degree to which a person is curious, original, intellectual, creative,
and open to new ideas. People high in openness seem to thrive in situations that require
9
flexibility and learning new things. They are highly motivated to learn new skills, and they do well in training settings. (Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 1991) They also have an advantage when they enter into a new organization. Their open-mindedness leads them to seek a lot of information and feedback about how they are doing and to build relationships, which leads to quicker adjustment to the new job. (Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. 2000) When given support, they tend to be creative. Open people are highly adaptable to change, and teams that experience unforeseen changes in their tasks do well if they are populated with people high in openness. (LePine, J. A. 2003) Compared with people low in openness, they are also more likely to start their own business. The potential downside is that they may also be prone to becoming more easily bored or impatient with routine.
Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness refers to the degree to which a person is organized,
systematic, punctual, achievement-oriented, and dependable. Conscientiousness is the one personality trait that uniformly predicts how high a person‘s performance will be ac ross a variety of occupations and jobs. (Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 1991) In fact, conscientiousness is the trait most desired by recruiters, and highly conscientious applicants tend to succeed in interviews. (Dunn, W. S., Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Ones, D. S. 1995) Once they are hired, conscientious people not only tend to perform well, but they also have higher levels of motivation to perform, lower levels of turnover, lower levels of absenteeism, and higher levels of safety performance at work. (Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J, & Thoresen, C. J. 1997) One‘s conscientiousness is related to career success and career satisfaction over time. Finally, it seems that conscientiousness is a valuable trait for entrepreneurs. Highly conscientious people are more likely to start their own business compared with those who are not conscientious, and their firms
10
have longer survival rates. A potential downside is that highly conscientious individuals can be detail-oriented rather than seeing the big picture.
Extraversion. Extraversion is the degree to which a person is outgoing, talkative, sociable, and
enjoys socializing. One of the established findings is that they tend to be effective in jobs involving sales. (Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., & Roth, P. L. 1998) Moreover, they tend to be effective as managers and they demonstrate inspirational leadership behaviours. Extraverts do well in social situations, and, as a result, they tend to be effective in job interviews. Part of this success comes from preparation, as they are likely to use their social network to prepare for the interview. (Caldwell, D. F., & Burger, J. M. 1998) Extraverts have an easier time than introverts do when adjusting to a new job. They actively seek information and feedback and build effective relationships, which helps them adjust. Interestingly, extraverts are also found to be happier at work, which may be because of the relationships they build with the people around them and their easier adjustment to a new job. (Judge, T. A. Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. 2002) However, they do not necessarily perform well in all jobs; jobs depriving them of social interaction may be a poor fit. Moreover, they are not necessarily model employees. For example, they tend to have higher levels of absenteeism at work, potentially because they may miss work to hang out with or attend to the needs of their friends. (Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. 1997)
Agreeableness. Agreeableness is the degree to which a person is affable, tolerant, sensitive,
trusting, kind, and warm. In other words, people who are high in agreeableness are likeable people who get along with others. Not surprisingly, agreeable people help others at work consistently; this helping behavior does not depend on their good mood. (Ilies, R., Scott, B. A.,
11
& Judge, T. A. 2006) They are also less likely to retaliate when other people treat them unfairly. This may reflect their ability to show empathy and to give people the benefit of the doubt. Agreeable people may be a valuable addition to their teams and may be effective leaders because they create a fair environment when they are in leadership positions. (Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B., & Goldstein, H. 2007) At the other end of the spectrum, people low in agreeableness are less likely to show these positive behaviors. Moreover, people who are disagreeable are shown to quit their jobs unexpectedly, perhaps in response to a conflict with a boss or a peer. pee r. (Zimmerman, R. D. 2008) If agreeable people are so nice, does this mean that we should only look for agreeable people when hiring? You might expect some jobs to require a low level of agreeableness. Think about it: When hiring a lawyer, would you prefer a kind and gentle person or someone who can stand up to an opponent? People high in agreeableness a greeableness are also less likely to engage in constructive and change-oriented communication. (LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. 2001) Disagreeing with the status quo may create conflict, and agreeable people may avoid creating such conflict, missing an opportunity for constructive chan ge.
Neuroticism. Neuroticism refers to the degree to which a person is anxious, irritable,
temperamental, and moody. It is perhaps the only Big Five dimension where scoring high is undesirable. Neurotic people have a tendency to have emotional adjustment problems and habitually experience stress and depression. People very high in Neuroticism experience a number of problems at work. For example, they have trouble forming and maintaining relationships and are less likely to be someone people go to for advice and friendship. (Klein, K. J., Beng-Chong, L., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. 2004) They tend to be habitually unhappy in their jobs and report high intentions to leave, but they do not necessarily actually leave their jobs. (Zimmerman, R. D. 2008) Being high in Neuroticism seems to be harmful to one‘s career, as
12
these employees have lower levels of career success (measured with income and occupational status achieved in one‘s career). Finally, if they achieve managerial jobs, they tend to create an unfair climate at work. (Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B., & Goldstein, H. 2007)
In contrast, people who are low on Neuroticism — those those who have a positive affective disposition — tend tend to experience positive moods more often than negative moods. They tend to be more satisfied with their jobs and more committed to their companies. (Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. 2000) This is not surprising, as people who habitually see the glass as half full will notice the good things in their work environment while those with the opposite character will find more things to complain about. Whether these people are more successful in finding jobs and companies that will make them happy, build better relationships at work that increase their satisfaction and commitment, or simply see their environment as more positive, it seems that low Neuroticism is a strong advantage in the workplace.
Other Personality Dimensions
In addition to the Big Five, researchers have proposed various other dimensions, or traits, of personality. These include self-monitoring, proactive personality, self-esteem, and selfefficacy.
Self-monitoring. Self-monitoring refers to the extent to which a person is capable of monitoring
his or her actions and appearance in social situations. People who are social monitors are social chameleons who understand what the situation demands and act accordingly, while low social monitors tend to act the way they feel. (Snyder, M. 1974) High social monitors are sensitive to the types of behaviors the social environment expects from them. Their ability to modify their
13
behavior according to the demands of the situation they the y are in and to manage their impressions effectively are great advantages for them. (Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, M. C. 2001) They are rated as higher performers and emerge as leaders. They are effective in influencing other people and are able to get things done by managing their impressions. As managers, however, they tend to have lower accuracy in evaluating the performance of their employees. It seems that while trying to manage their impressions, they may avoid giving accurate feedback to their subordinates to avoid confrontations, which could hinder a manager‘s ability to carry out the Controlling function. (Jawahar, I. M. 2001)
Proactive personality. Proactive personality refers to a person‘s inclination to fix what is
wrong, change things, and use initiative to solve problems. Instead of waiting to be told what to do, proactive people take action to initiate meaningful change and remove the obstacles they face along the way. Proactive individuals tend to be more successful in their job searches. (Brown, D. J., Cober, R. T., Kane, K., Levy, P. E., & Shalhoop, J. 2006) They also are more successful over the course of their careers because they use initiative and acquire greater understanding of how the politics within the company work. (Seibert, S. E. 1999) Proactive people are valuable assets to their companies because they may have higher levels of performance. They adjust to their new jobs quickly because they understand the political environment better and make friends more quickly. (Thompson, J. A. 2005) Proactive people are eager to learn and engage in many developmental activities to improve their skills. For all their potential, under some circumstances proactive personality may be a liability for a person or an organization. Imagine a person who is proactive but is perceived as too pushy, tr ying to change things other people are not no t willing to let go of, or using their initiative to make decisions that do not serve a company‘s best interests. Research shows that a proactive proactive person‘s success depends on his or her understanding of the
14
company‘s core values, ability, and skills to perform the job and ability to assess situational demands correctly. (Chan, D. 2006)
Self-esteem. Self-esteem is the degree to which a person has overall positive feelings about
himself or herself. People with high self-esteem view themselves in a positive light, are confident, and respect themselves. In contrast, people with low self-esteem experience high levels of self-doubt and question their self-worth. High self-esteem is related to higher levels of satisfaction with one‘s job and higher levels levels of performance on the job. (Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001) People with low self-esteem are attracted to situations where they will be relatively invisible, such as large companies. Managing employees with low self-esteem may be challenging at times because negative feedback given with the intention of improving performance may be viewed as a negative judgment on their worth as an employee. Therefore, effectively managing employees with relatively low self-esteem requires tact and providing lots of positive feedback when discussing performance incidents.
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a belief that one can perform a specific task successfully. Research
shows that the belief that we can do something is a good predictor of whether we can actually do it. Self-efficacy is different from other personality traits in that it is job specific. You may have high self-efficacy in being successful academically, but low self-efficacy in relation to your ability to fix your car. At the same time, people have a certain level of generalized self-efficacy, and they have the belief that whatever task or hobby they tackle, they are likely to be successful in it.
Research shows that self-efficacy at work is related to job performance. (Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. 1998) These is probably because people with high self-efficacy actually set higher
15
goals for themselves and are more committed to their goals, whereas people with low selfefficacy tend to procrastinate. (Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997) Academic self-efficacy is a good predictor of your grade point average, as well as whether you persist in your studies or drop out of college. (Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. 2004)
Is there a way of increasing employee‘s self -efficacy? -efficacy? In addition to hiring people who are capable of performing the required job tasks, training people to increase their self-efficacy may be effective. Some people may also respond well to verbal encouragement. By showing that you believe they can be successful and effectively playing the role of cheerleader, a manager may be able to increase self-efficacy beliefs. Empowering people — giving giving them opportunities to test their skills so that they can see what they are capable of — is is also a good way of increasing self-efficacy. (Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. 2005)
Performance in the Workplace Of the five factors, the single factor of conscientiousness is the most predictive of job performance. Absences
Job absence is very much a part of job performance: employees are not performing effectively if they do not even come to work. Introverted, conscientious employees are much less likely to be absent from work, as opposed to extraverted employees who are low on conscientiousness. Interestingly enough, neuroticism is not highly correlated with absence (Judge, Martocchio, & Thoresen, 1997). The Judge et al. (1997) study is interesting considering the Judge et al. (2002) research on job satisfaction and the five-factor model. The results of the
16
latter research suggests that extraverted individuals are more satisfied in the workplace, because work gives them an opportunity to experience an optimal level of arousal, whereas introverted individuals are less satisfied in the workplace due to too much stimulation. Combining the results of these two studies suggests that conscientiousness is the deciding factor regarding job absence.
Perhaps another factor in absenteeism is that, although introverts may be less satisfied in the workplace, they go to work anyway. This behavior might imply either that introverts are more conscientious or simply that introverts have no compelling reason not to go to work (whereas extraverts may have friends who urge them to skip work and go see a movie). This conclusion is debatable, however, because introverts might be tempted to skip work to avoid the extra stimulation and might perhaps stay home and read a book (a book on psychology, no doubt). Judge and his colleagues will likely continue their research and perhaps provide answers in the future.
Teamwork
Oftentimes in the workplace the ability to be a team player is valued and is critical to job performance. Recent research has suggested that conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness are all related to cooperative behavior but that they are not related to task performance. Although this fortifies the case that job performance is related to the five-factor model via increased cooperativeness among co-workers, it lays siege to the role of personality by implying that actual job performance (task performance) is related to cognitive ability and not to personality (LePine & Dyne, 2001).
Leadership abilities are often essential in the workplace, especially for individuals who aspire to move up into the ranks of management. Studies of Asian military units have found that
17
neuroticism is negatively correlated with leadership abilities. Contrary to what the researchers hypothesized, agreeableness is negatively correlated with leadership abilities as well. Openness to experience is unrelated to leadership abilities, but extraversion is positively correlated with leadership abilities (Lim & Ployhart, 2004). This evidence is consistent with the long-standing idea that in teams there are leaders and there are followers; the leaders make decisions and the followers abide by them. Although agreeableness is positively correlated with working with a team, it is negatively correlated with being a leader. Those followers who do not always agree and are willing to voice their own opinions end up moving up the ranks, whereas those who blindly agree are left as followers.
Personnel Selection
Research into the relation between the five-factors model and personnel hiring provides additional evidence that conscientiousness is the most valid predictor of job performance (Schmidt & Ryan, 1993). Given that conscientious individuals have a tendency to perform better as employees; it is easy to believe that employers will seek out that factor or the traits that coincide with it.
Employment Rate by Age Group, Educational Attainment and Sex, 2005 (in percent) Sex/Educational Attainment by Age
Total
Male
Female
91.3
91.4
91.3
15 - 19 Years
83.2
84.6
80.7
20 - 24 Years
80.4
81.9
78.0
18
25 - 34 Years
91.1
91.3
90.7
35 - 44 Years
95.6
95.2
96.2
45 - 54 Years
95.7
94.8
97.0
55 - 64 Years
95.8
94.8
97.3
65 Years and Over
97.3
97.2
97.6
No Grade Completed
94.9
95.8
93.2
Elementary
95.5
95.3
95.7
Undergraduate
95.8
95.7
96.0
Graduate
95.1
94.9
95.4
High School
90.0
90.1
89.8
Undergraduate
91.5
91.2
92.2
Graduate
89.1
89.5
88.5
College
88.1
87.1
89.1
Undergraduate
87.4
87.3
87.6
Graduate and Higher
88.7
87.0
90.1
By educational Attainment
Source: 2006 Gender Statistics on Labor and Employment
19
Two Dominant Personality Traits Barrick , Mount and Judge (2001) discuss various ‗phases‘ in research assessing the predictive validity of personality instruments in performance. Their paper provides a strong argument for the lack of significant findings in this domain up to the mid-1980s and implicitly cautions researchers not to simply enter all independent variables into an analysis in an attempt to find correlations. They note that, in recent times, the findings have been more positive and that researchers appear to be heeding another of Barr ick, ick, Mount and Judge‘s assertions - to use different levels of personality measurement (see Section 2.8. 4). For example, Timmerman (2004) found significant correlations between NEO-PI-R Conscientiousness (r=.16), Agreeableness (r=.16) and supervisor‘s perf ormance ormance ratings in call-centre staff in the USA. He then went on to examine correlations at the facet level and found that a number of Conscientiousness facets, but only one Agreeableness facet, were significantly correlated with performance. Salgado (1997) reported meta-analytic findings from 36 studies carried out in the European community. Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability were valid predictors across occupational groups, whereas Openness and Agreeableness were more likely to show as valid predictors of training success. This finding was confirmed by Barrick, Mount and Judge (2001). Barrick, Mount & Judge (2001) also noted that Extraversion was related to success in specific jobs such as sales or management, but was less related to performance for skilled workers. From the accumulation of the evidence, it does appear that Conscientiousness is the most consistent predictor of performance. This assertion has been supported by Matthews and Deary (1998) in their assessment of Barrick and Mount‘s (1991) data (Van den Berg & Feij, 2003).
20
Summary of Findings
Personality has been found to account for unique variation in performance, after partialling out the effects of personalities and traits. Conscientiousness and extraversion are the two aspects of the five-factor model that are always associated with positive job performance, although conscientiousness is more positively correlated. Agreeableness is negatively correlated with job performance within a leadership role. Openness to experience, in general, is unrelated. Neuroticism is negatively correlated with job performance. From the accumulation of evidences and findings, it does appear that conscientiousness is the most consistent predictor of job performance. How profound the effect of personality is on job performance depends of course on the unique aspect of an individual's personality.
Job performance and personality as measured in the five-factor model are related. It appears that the relation between job performance and the five factors is more a result of the social aspects of the workplace than of ability.
The five factors are strongly related related with
cooperating with others and enjoying the overall workplace experience, which are key components of long-term job success. Being absent from work or working as a team are correlates of personality that directly affect whether one will succeed in the workplace, and they are strongly correlated with the Big Five.
Conclusion and Recommendations After a thorough analysis of related literature, the following recommendatio ns are hereby made: 1.
As far as the traditional process of evaluating personality, MBTI or the Big Five model create labels which associate stereotypes that do not take in to consideration an
21
individual‘s life experiences. By actively judging an employee‘s ability and personality, a company can gather more information about the actual behaviors of an employee. These new test allow for a precise conclusion of what to expect from an employee. emplo yee. 2. Caution must be well thought-out, however, to avoid discriminating job applicants based on innate personality traits. 3. Since personality difference is an important issue to employees as well as employers, there is a need for effective programs, seminars or workshops, which provide further improvement in handling relationships among members of the organizations despite arising personal difference. 4. A final recommendation is that further study should be done related to personality factors and its effect to job performance to be able to provide a wide range of information possible.
These recommendations, overall, increase companies‘ probability to make informed decisions about employee‘s full qualifications and predict the employee‘s satisfaction and performance in the particular career or field of expertise.
22
Bibliography Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowe rment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 90, 945 – 955. 955. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 44, 1 – 26. 26. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the big five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 78, 111 – 118. 118. Brown, D. J., Cober, R. T., Kane, K., Levy, P. E., & Shalhoop, J. (2006). Proactive personality and the successful job search: A field investigation with c ollege graduates. Journal graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 91, 717 – 726. 726. Caldwell, D. F., & Burger, J. M. (1998). Personality characteristics of job applicants and success in screening interviews. Personnel interviews. Personnel Psychology, 51, 51, 119 – 136. 136. Chan, D. (2006). Interactive effects of situational judgment effectiveness and p roactive personality on work perceptions and work outcomes. Journal outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 91, 475 – 481. 481. Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: A metaanalysis. Personality Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 29, 265 – 281. 281. (Dr. Graham Tyler. ―Job performance and personality.‖ Personality.Cn. 2002-2011. 6 May 2011. < www.personality.cn/personality_at_work_16.htm >.) Dunn, W. S., Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Relative importance of personality and general mental ability in managers‘ judgments of applicant qualifications. Journal qualifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 80, 500 – 509. 509. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ―description of personality‖: The big-five factor structure. Journal structure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 59, 1216 – 1229. 1229. Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. Academy behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 49, 561 – 575. 575. Jawahar, I. M. (2001). Attitudes, self-monitoring, and appraisal behaviors. Journal behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 , 875 – 883. 883.
23
Jean Franco. ―Exploring Women's Economic Citizenship: P hilippines.‖ Yahoo. 1 May 2011. 10 May 2011 < http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?ei=UTF8&p=Damaso%2C+Jimeno.+%E2%80%9CProblems+Faced+by+Young+Filipino+Work ers%E2%80%9D+.+http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tucp.org.ph%2Fdepartments%2Fyouth%2Fi ndex.htm&rd=r1&meta=vc%3Dph&fr=yfp-t701&fp_ip=ph&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=Damaso%2c+Jimeno.+%E2%80%9 CProblems+Faced+by+Young+Filipino+Workers%E2%80%9D+.+http%3a%2f%2fww w.tucp.org.ph%2fdepartments%2fyouth%2findex.htm&d=4649293703152744&mkt=enUS&setlang=enUS&w=9dc6ddd7,d26b65f8&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=UmVR.SYDMX.f50StstCy1Q-->. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits — — self self esteem, generalized self efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability — with with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 , 80 – 92. 92. Judge, T. A. Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of o f personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 , 530 – 541. 541. Judge, T. A., & Higgins, C. A. (1999). The big five personality personalit y traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 52, 621 – 652. 652. Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). (20 02). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta analytic review. Journal review. Journal of Applied Psychology, Psychology, 87, 797 – 807 807 Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. (1997). Five-factor Five -factor model of personality and employee absence. Journal absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 82, 745 – 755. 755. Klein, K. J., Beng-Chong, L., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in tea m networks. Academy networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47 , 952 – 963. 963. LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and postchange performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members‘ cognitive cognitive ability and personality. Journal personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 88, 27 – 39. 39. LePine, J. A., & Dyne, L. V. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326-336. Lim, B., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational leadership: Relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 610-621.
24
Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B., & Goldstein, H. (2007). The precursors and products of justice climates: Group leader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences. Personnel consequences. Personnel Psychology, 60, 60, 929 – 963. 963. Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievem ent, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 82, 792 – 802. 802. Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level mean -level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 132, 1 – 25. 25. Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A metaanalysis. Psychological analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 130, 261 – 288. 288. Robin Cheung. Cheung. ―Effect of Big-Five Personality Traits on Job Performance. Performance.‖ Academia Edu. 2011. 7 May 2011 . Five_Personality_Traits_on_Job_Performance >. Sarason, Irwin G. (1966) Personality: An Objective Approach. Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Pp. 235-260. Sean P. Neubert. Neubert. ―The Five-Factor Five-Factor Model of Personality in the Workplace.‖ Personality Papers. November 2004. 8 May 2011 . >. Seibert, S. E. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 84, 416 – 427. 427. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 30, 526 – 537; 537; Snyder, M. (1987). Public (1987). Public Appearances/Public Realities: The Psychology of Self-Monitoring . New York: Freeman. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A metaanalysis. Psychological analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 124, 240 – 261. 261. Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 90, 1011 – 1017. 1017. Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, M. C. (2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding und esired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. Journal management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 , 351 – 360. 360.
25
Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process. Journal process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 85, 373 – 385. 385. Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., & Roth, P. L. (1998). A meta-analytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople. Journal salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 83, 586 – 597. 597. Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals‘ turnover decisions: A meta-analytic path model. Personnel model. Personnel Psychology, 61, 61, 309 – 348. 348.
