This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Chong Chien Fatt B.Sc (Mech. Eng.) Honours, M.Eng. (Ind. Eng. and Mgmt.)
This dissertation is submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Business Administration, University of Newcastle, Australia
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP
I hereby certify that the work embodied in this dissertation project is the result of original research and has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other University or Institution.
CHONG CHIEN FATT January 2006
I am sincerely grateful to all the following people who have assisted and encouraged me throughout this research programme. My wife, Lee Sock Hiah, sons Ming Hoong and Yao Hoong, my mother and relatives for their support and understanding during this period. Dr Gian Casimir, for his dedication, commitment and friendly supervision of this research programme. Dr Nik Rahimah Yacob for her invaluable advice at any time of the day. Mr Bernard Tan, A.T., for allowing some of the concepts and items of the K.Y.K.O. Instrument to be used in the research. Mark Loon Kong Chew, for his various ideas in my research and assistance in the report preparation. Cik Rohana Haron, for her diligent data entry and report preparation. My numerous friends, who have consented and assisted in the data collection from their organisations and their moral support. The dedicated personnel (Alex, Connie, Grace, Iris, Winnie and others) in Segi.
Madam Yew Hor. iii . who always gives her undivided love and care to her 11 children. May God bless her with good health and happiness.DEDICATION I dedicated this work to my beloved Mother.
....................................3.........................................5..............................................7........................ I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .........................7...............5.............................. PERSONALITY AND WORK PERFORMANCE .................................... 2.......... CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION .. IX 1................ 42 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator........... 2.......................................... 46 Definition of Behavior ...... 27 Behaviorist/Cognitive and Social Cognitive Theories....2.............. 2......1................3............................................................................6...8......3...6.....2................................................................................................................4.....................3............... 1... 11 Research Design ......................................................... 12 Measurement. 2........................41 2....4................................ 1........................ 2...........2..8..47 2.............................................. CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW ..............2... 12 Sampling and Sample Size ..........6 1.......13 1.........4..4..................2...... TYPES OF PERSONALITY MEASURES .................................... 2.............. 2......................42 2.............7............... 29 2...........5.................................1....... RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES ....................................... 2...................... INTRODUCTION ......... The Five Factor Model .... 1..8............2 1...... 2..................................11 1.......................................4..3................................. 17 How Stable are Personality Traits?.................... Research Philosophy..........................2..............0........... Uniqueness of the CASES Personality Measure ......................1............ RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..........14 1.... III ABSTRACT......3..... 2....................1................................62 2................................................................................II DEDICATION .................................................................... 13 1................2........3.......1... 2...........7.......4.........................................1..............7.. 66 Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure ........1.3...1........................................2.........2....................................5....1..................... THEORIES ON PERSONALITY ............................ 37 2....... 25 Traits Theories ................6.......4............................................... THE THEORIES AND CONSTRUCTS OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE .33 2............ 48 Current Theories of Work Motivation .............................................................. 50 The Constructs of this Proposed Model...................................... 2..........................................................1. 20 Psychodynamic Theories ......... 68 2..................................21 2....2....................2...............................1............................................0.................4.................. iv .......... SHORTCOMINGS OF FFM AND MBTI MEASURES ..................................2..... THE ROLE OF PSYCHOMETRIC TESTS.3..........7...........................................................7...............................................56 The Second Premise: The Accuracy of Predicting Behavior Depends on Complexity .............................................................................. THE PREDICTIVE POWER OF FFM/MBTI ON PERFORMANCE..................... WHY DOES PERSONALITY MATTER TO ORGANISATIONS? ...........16 What is Personality? ..................1..... 19 The Objective of Psychometric Instruments.......................... 1.................................. 2.........2................16 2............3................................................................................... 23 Humanistic Theories ..................................... 34 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.................... 61 Prediction of Performance by the FFM Personality Measure........................ LIMITATIONS .7....................................................................TABLE OF CONTENT STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP .....................................................................1...6............ ETHICS ..... Five Factor Model........1 1............................................................ 2............................... 47 Factors Influencing Behavior............................. 2...................................................4................3............................... 2.......... ANALYSES ... 56 The First Premise: Behavior is Motivated by Needs ................................59 2............32 2............. 11 Survey Instrument....................................................15 2...............................2.
....92 Reliability ................ 77 Researcher’s Interference .......2.........................................3....2...... 99 Stability of Work Performance ..... Purpose of the Study .......................3..84 Key Variables ............................................................................. 3..........8............................................................................5..... CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...97 Categorising............5.......................5............................3....5..........7...........................4..................114 v .........4... 4......2................................... 3. Response Distortions ..... 3.............................................. RESEARCH PLAN ....... 81 Selection of Survey Method ......................................................................... 3..... 94 3....................................... 3........................................................................................................................ Implementation ......................................... 107 Principal Components Analysis of RBPS Performance Measure.........92 Principal Components Analysis................6...........................................2......................................4..........5........................97 3........... RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................3..............................2......5..2......................................... RESEARCH DESIGN ...... RESEARCH PARADIGMS .............................................................. 99 Personality Scales .....................................1.............................4............................................ 4.......................... ETHICAL CONSIDERATION .........0....................1....................................4.............. 3.......5...82 3.......... 3..............5.......5.....................4........................6..................... CHAPTER FOUR – DATA ANALYSIS ..........................2.......................5..............5.......................................2......................3.................................3..........93 Hypothesis Testing ............................ 3........ 100 Work Performance...........8....................................................................................2.............. 3.5................ 3..................................................................... LIMITATIONS ...................................4............... 81 Unit of Analysis ..1................................7......................... 3...2................ Principal Components Analysis of the FFM Personality Measure .......3... 2....5......8....5......... 3..... CONCLUSION .................103 4.........6... DEMOGRAPHICS .................... 82 Selection of Measurement Techniques .............5..........................4................................... 3........................................ INTRODUCTION ...............72 3.......................1.............. 3........................................ 3......92 Validity.....................................86 3................102 4..... 77 Research Method ...........84 Self Report.........1....................72 3.................2.....3..... 3..............8......72 3...4...............................................8..................................................................................1...............................3................................. 79 Study Setting............... 90 Selection of analytical approach ....................................................................... RESULTS FROM TESTING OF THE HYPOTHESES ......................6......6....... 4........ 99 Self Rating ..........1.....1........... 84 Personality and Work Performance Measures..........5.....................5...................101 4..6...... 3....................... 89 Selection of Sample and Sample Size.....................................5.... 75 Type of Investigation ................................. 3........... SURVEY RESEARCH ............96 Data Entry ..........2.......................3.... INTRODUCTION ..........8..75 3.................................4.............5..............4...............................5.....................................2............................... 103 Principal Components Analysis of the CASES Personality Measure...........4........... 3.................5.....9...............5..............................................................98 3......................2................................................................................................ 3.......................... 80 Time Horizons .......................................................... 3.......5.......................... Selection of Survey Layout... 109 The Relationship between the FFM Dimensions and the CASES Dimensions111 4....... 101 3............................ 71 3.....8.................2....................................................................2......5.................................................74 3............5..94 Data Collection..................................6.................. 3.84 Scales....................................... The Relationships between FFM and CASES ........ 92 Central Tendency and Dispersion............5.................................0..94 Cost and Time Estimates ......5..........................................................4. 3............................................. 3..99 3...........2......................................................................................................5..........5.......................1........102 4....102 4.......................4...... 69 Hypotheses...........4.....................................2.... 3....... RESULTS FROM PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS.................4.....8..................................... 3.....................................2................... 3..........98 3...................
..........1....... 143 Main Findings for Research Question Three ..3...............3......................3................................ 4............1..3..6...... CHAPTER FIVE – CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ...........128 FFM and CASES Predicting the Career Component of the RBPS........3........186 vi ....2........ 114 Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure ...................2. Prediction of Performance by the FFM Personality Measure........................2...........................................3.. 138 Main Findings for Research Question Two ................................ 4................................ CONCLUSION .................................................184 APPENDIX THREE – QUESTIONNAIRE ..........138 5............ INTRODUCTION ... 4.................................154 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ......................................3.138 5....4.................................. LIMITATIONS ....................................152 5.. 5........................5.0............... 151 5.......2............... FUTURE RESEARCH ..................... 4....................3........135 5....... 5... 128 FFM and CASES predicting the Job Component of the RBPS ........ 4.......................2............................4........................ 4.............................................................3.. 4....3.1.....................3...4.............3.........................2................................. CONCLUSION ..3.... IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS ........ 120 FFM and CASES predicting performance.133 4........ 149 Implications on Theory.....3....................................2... 4............ 5....129 FFM and CASES Predicting the Innovator Component of RBPS....3........3.........................3......130 FFM and CASES Predicting the Team Component of the RBPS ....132 FFM and CASES Predicting Total RBPS Performance ................................1.............131 FFM and CASES Predicting the Organisation Component of the RBPS........................ DISCUSSION OF THE MAIN FINDINGS ... Main Findings for Research Question One..............2..........149 5.........................138 5......... 147 Implications on Professional Practice..................3..........................3........ 5.................................................................................182 APPENDIX TWO – CONSENT SEEKING LETTER TO COMPANY ....................6............4........................................................................153 5..................5....3.............................3...158 APPENDIX ONE – INFORMATION SHEET ................................1................
...............................................................................106 Table 13: Rotated Component Matrix of CASES..............104 Table 12: Items of FFM after Principal Components Analysis ...........................88 Table 8: The Breakdown of Companies to be Surveyed Based on Industry (developed for this study) ....................................96 Table 10: Breakdown of Costs on Survey (developed for this research) ............................................................................................................................. 2000) .................................6 Table 3: The 16 Personality Types with Cognitive Characteristics and Occupational Tendencies .........96 Table 11: Rotated Component Matrix of FFM .............4 Table 2: Six of the Most Commonly Used Personality Instruments (Dent and Curd...........................................................115 Table 18: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM ..................70 Table 5: Four Categories of Non-experimental Techniques (Grace...............................................95 Table 9: Total Time Estimated for the Survey (developed for this research)...........................................117 Table 20: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM.................................................... 1999)................... 1998) ...............117 Table 21: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on FFM ............107 Table 14: Items of CASES after Principal Components Analysis..........................................................................................................................................113 Table 17: Correlations of the Components of FFM and RBPS ...................................78 Table 6: Merits of the Four Survey Methods (Grace....................................... 1999)........LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Predictors of Work Performance (Yancey and Austin.........................................................116 Table 19: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on FFM .........................................................................................118 vii ..........40 Table 4: The Possible Associations of Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM with Complexity and Self-Actualisation of the CASES ............................110 Table 16: Correlations between the Components of FFM and CASES.........109 Table 15: Rotated Component Matrix of RBPS .............................83 Table 7: Role-Based Performance Scale’s Items (Wilbourne et al....................... 2004) ........................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................122 Table 25: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on CASES .....129 Table 32: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on the FFM and CASES .........................................................................................................................................126 Table 30: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on CASES................................119 Table 24: Correlations of the Components of CASES and RBPS...................................................Table 22: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on FFM..................................................................................119 Table 23: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on FFM .......127 Table 31: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES ...................................................................................................132 Table 35: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES .......130 Table 33: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES ....................125 Table 29: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on CASES ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................133 Table 36: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on FFM and CASES ...................123 Table 26: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on CASES .........................................124 Table 27: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on CASES ......................................134 viii .....................124 Table 28: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on CASES ..........................................131 Table 34: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of the RBPS on FFM and CASES .......................................................
The results confirmed relationships between the dimensions of the new personality measure (i. CASES) and the FFM.e. Practical and theoretical implications. personality provides insight on how well a person will perform a given task. recent studies using fundamental dimensions of personality have shown the predictive power of personality for work performance. this new personality measure can be offered as a useful instrument for both practitioners and researchers. limitations and possible areas for future research are discussed. Both of the personality measures support existing literature which claims that personality can predict work performance with several dimensions of the new personality measure predicting work performance over and above the FFM. However. Besides providing a theory-grounded measurement tool which contributes to research on personality measures and the prediction of work-related performance. Hence. personnel selection specialists generally did not use personality testing in employee selection due to the perception it has low validity.ABSTRACT “Does personality predict work performance” is a question that many researchers have addressed over the past few decades.. the more recent studies have focused on demonstrating the incremental gain in predicting work performance that can be attained using personality as a predictor. Prior to the 1990s. Research on the significance of personality suggests that even though other factors are important in determining the performance of an individual in a given task. The study explores the predictive utility of a personality measure that is based on the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the social cognitive theory of “If-Then” and the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality with regards to a multidimensional measure of work performance. ix .
The third chapter of this dissertation outlines the research methodology and design of the study that will be 1 . people. many organisations pay only lip service to the adage that “people are our greatest asset” (Yancey and Austin. For the top companies in the world. CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION Companies spend large amounts of money. The first objective of this study therefore is to develop a new measure of personality based on two theories (i. Nevertheless. Empowerment. time and energy to improve their business performance by adopting different management philosophies and initiatives such as SixSigma. the efforts invested to identify and select the right employees and to motivate them to give their best to the organisation is an ongoing management initiative.1. Basically.. A second objective is to examine the criterion utility of this new personality measure with regards to a self-report multi-dimensional measure of work performance. the incremental criterion utility of the new measure over the Five-Factor Model of personality. all of these have one thing in common. The validity of the current measures of personality is questionable given that each of them is based on a single-theory of personality. A background of the various perspectives of personality and the rationale for the new personality measure is provided in the second chapter of this dissertation. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Social Cognitive Theory) rather than on a single theory.e.0. Learning Organisation. Investors in People. Furthermore. Employees are indisputably the most essential resource in any organisation and are the key to attaining and maintaining competitive advantage. and Relationship Management. will be examined. 2000). which is a wellestablished personality measure.
work-samples.used. Although personality tests rank higher than other employment tests such as job-knowledge tests.1. 2004). 1995). Personality tests with no right or wrong answers attempt to measure how little or how much a candidate possesses a specific personality 2 . taking into account all expenditure. employment checks and job probation in the recruitment and selection process. the more effective we can manage. it is estimated to cost an average of US$15. implications and limitations of this study are presented in the fifth chapter of this dissertation. Personality tests are popularly used by organisations as part of selection. Table 1 provides a list of various sources of information that are used to predict work performance. recruitment and development processes as they are able to explore a broad range of personality characteristics that are relevant to the workplace. 1. references. The conclusion on the various findings. Moreover. THE ROLE OF PSYCHOMETRIC TESTS The more we know the people we employ. Hence. resume. and honest/integrity tests. matching and recruiting people to jobs to reduce the possible financial losses incurred by recruiting employees who are incompatible with the organisation. encourage and harness them. Personality tests only provide an additional tool for recruitment and are not replacements for interviews. cognitive ability test. they are not a panacea for selecting the best candidates (Dent and Curd.000 to recruit one executive or middle manager in United States of America (Melamed and Jackson. it takes only a modest improvement in selecting. The fourth chapter contains the analyses of the survey data.
personality tests can assist individuals to understand the significant aspects of their personality and behavior in a wide variety of work and social situations.characteristic relevant to the needs of the organisation. individuals would be able to take advantage of the positive aspects of their personalities and/or take steps to mitigate potential problems arising from any undesirable aspects which could affect their relationships.000 million tests are administered annually in the United States of America alone and some 700 of the Times Top 1000 companies use them for personnel selection (Coull and Eary. their significant others and their related job-relevance. Exploring these characteristics during an interview to more closely examine the candidate can provide valid and real evidence to support the final selection decision (Coull and Eary. 2001). The purpose of conducting personality tests is to gather information and highlight issues for further exploration at interviews. By understanding their behavior. Psychometric assessment is big business in the 21st century as approximately 2. As part of a development process in organisations. work performance and careers. 2001). Non-exempt staff Source of information Interview Resume Application form References Employment check Best Predictor 75% 29 31 35 33 Middle management Best Predictor 67% 42 20 44 40 Senior management Best Predictor 66% 40 22 44 47 3 . Personality tests have been in the market for more than 50 years and their popularity has increased significantly in recent years.
recruit. For example. From their traditional use as a tool for selection and recruitment. management development programmes. there is no evidence to indicate a positive relation between specific MBTI types with career success (Pittenger.Credit check Job trial/probation Personality tests Job knowledge test Work sample Cognitive ability test Assessment centre Honesty/integrity test Drug screen Perceptual/physical abilities test Polygraph test 13 20 13 11 11 9 4 4 0 0 0 11 20 13 6 2 7 2 2 0 0 0 9 18 11 6 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 Table 1 – Predictors of Work Performance (Yancey and Austin. career guidance and training needs analysis (Dent and Curd. 2000) The increasing pressure on organisations to identify. psychometric tests have expanded their functionalities to many other areas such as appraisals. develop. The most commonly used personality instruments are shown in Table 2 but they are not necessarily valid or useful. 1993). 2004). Test Name Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Description Probably the most popular and wellresearched personality instrument used in business today. It looks at an individual’s preferences on four dimensions: • • How you relate to the world How you gather information Common Uses • • • • Raising self –awareness Identifying strengths and development needs Understanding own behavior and that of others Team building 4 . and retain critical personnel has fuelled the desire for more information on current employees as well as potential recruits.
. it helps individuals to understand the various facets that determine their personality.Test Name Description • • How you make decisions. In particular. the feedback from which defines a person’s perception of his/her behaviors at work. Designed by Saville and Holdsworth to provide information on personality characteristics. Another of the best-researched and most widely used tools available today. and Affection-which is about being close to individuals • • • • • • • • Team building and development Self-awareness Individual development Individual development Leadership development Team development Relationship counselling Career counselling and development Strength Deployment Inventory (SDI) This is an incredibly versatile instrument. and Feelings and emotions • • • • • • • • • • • The Belbin Team Role SelfPerception Inventory Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship OrientationBehavior (FIROB) One of the few UK instruments on the market. Developed by Raymond B. which was developed by Elias Porter in the 1960s. 2004) Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) This questionnaire measures an individual’s personality against 16 different personality dimensions. the dimensions measured fall into three categories: • • • Relationships with people Thinking style. and How you organise yourself Common Uses • • • Career development Relationship development Selection Selection Individual development Career development and counselling Leadership development Selection Career development Assessment centres Team building Individual development Change management Relationship awareness 16PF Questionnaire (Equivalent to the NEO PI-R of the Big Five (Rossier et al. It provides users with a development tool that helps them to learn about themselves and others in the context of relationship awareness • • • • Individual motivational awareness Team building and development Relationship management Assertiveness training 5 . Developed by Meredith Belbin to help team members identify their preferred roles in teams This inventory looks at a person’s interpersonal style and how he/she relates towards others in three specific areas: • • • Inclusion-which is the need to be part of a social group Control-which is the need for control or influence over others. Cattell.
ii) The traits perspectives of Allport. Skinner. and Adler. 1937).Test Name Description Common Uses • • • • Leadership development Sales training Customer relations training Supervisory skills development Table 2: Six of the Most Commonly Used Personality Instruments (Dent and Curd. Personality theories may be classified into five categories (Ryckman. PERSONALITY AND WORK PERFORMANCE The fundamental objective of personality psychology is to understand how personality can be used to predict behavior (Mayer. 2004) 1. and Rotter. iii) The cognitive perspectives of Pavlov. which are biological in nature and based on the premise of the unfolding of stages where the particular behaviors occur. which assume personality is never completely determined and that people are always changing and free to reinterpret their experiences idiosyncratically. thought.2. 1997): i) The psychoanalytic perspectives of Freud. and Eysenck. Cattell. which assume there are dispositional factors that determine behavior in various situations. Individuals display consistent patterns of behavior. and emotion that are relatively stable and which form the basic conception of personality (Allport. Jung. 2003). 6 .
1990. 2004). Maslow. This perspective is similar to the trait perspective as it also refers to consistencies and regularities in the behavior of individuals but differs as it asserts that behavior and personality are learned. and McCelland. Paunonen and Ashton. Although the FFM. The psychometric instruments in Table 2 are all based on single theories. Goldberg. These traditional models of personality cannot explain the diversity of behavior as human behavior cannot be explained by a single perspective. 1977a. which postulate the presence of an innate need for growth which moves individuals towards achieving their potentialities given the right environmental conditions. and v) The social behavioristic or interaction perspectives of Bandura and Mischel. which assume most behavior is learned and purposive and that people are guided by motives to achieve certain goals. McCrae and Costa. 2003. de Stadelhofen and Berhoud. Paunonen. 1977b). Rossier.iv) The existential or humanistic perspectives of Rogers. which is based on 7 . 1996. In other words. 1999). Unlike the psychoanalytic and existential perspectives. 1998. There is a large body of evidence that the domain of personality can be well represented by the Five-Factor Model’s (FFM) superordinate constructs (Digman. rather than innate as people’s interactions and experiences continually influence each other. 1993. behavior arises as a result of a complex interaction between environmental influences and inner processes (Bandura. De Raad. the social or interaction perspective excludes the growth stages. Beauvais and Scholl. Human behavior is a multifaceted phenomenon and any theory attempting to explain normal human behavior must reflect its multidimensionality (Leonard. 1999. 2001.
1981). 1993). is able to describe consistent features of the behavior of an individual it does not address the key drivers or motives of behavior (Fletcher. Individual functioning is a continuous interaction between environmental. ultimately leading to self-actualisation (Osteraker. 2003). Social cognitive theory takes into consideration environmental and internal forces that shape behavior (Bandura. Interest in the motivation that drives behavior rekindled in the 1990s. attempts to explain human behavior according to key motivators. Maslow posited that needs act as motivators (Arnold. the power of the Hierarchy of Needs Theory is its ability to identify a range of needs. 1988). which is based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and social cognitive theories. behavioral. The proposition that human beings exhibit needs for development and growth is generally accepted by practitioners due to the intuitive and face validity of this argument. Motives are only one of the determinants of behavior as behavior is also determined by other factors that are biologically. 1999. and cognitive factors (Fedor and Ferris.personality traits. Hence. which may be classified as deficit or homeostatic theories of motivation. Chung. including growth needs. 1997). or has to (Nikolaou. 1969). which motivate behavior (Wiley. Variability in responses across situations are not dismissed as errors but are regarded as a distinct characteristic of the individual’s ability to either consciously or unconsciously behave differently simply because the individual wants to. likes to. culturally and situationally determined (Fletcher. 8 . the Hierarchy of Needs Theory by Maslow advocates the dynamic processes of need satisfaction. 1977a). 1993). Unlike most need theories. The personality measure proposed in this dissertation.
Nikolaou. 2003. 2003). Stewart and Piotrowski. Nikolaou. have demonstrated that certain aspects of personality are useful predictors of work performance. Complexity. 2003). Salgado. 2002. 2000. This. The other four dimensions are based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs with the exclusion of the physiological needs which are unlearned and assumed to be of relatively low importance in current organisational settings.. Prior to the 1990s. personnel selection specialists generally did not use personality testing in employee selection due to its low validity.The new personality measure proposed in this dissertation is termed CASES because it comprises five dimensions: i) Complexity. It is inevitable and advantageous that researchers will attempt to compare the predictive utility of the FFM with other models of personality with respect to work performance (Robertson et al. is based on the social cognitive theory of “IfThen”.. “inventory” level instead of the construct level. There are good reasons to believe that some dimensions of the CASES measure will be related to some dimensions of the FFM. Does personality predict work performance? Although there are many factors besides personality that affect work performance. and v) Social. such as those of the FFM. Personality traits can be conceptually and empirically related without being redundant (Judge et al. Kieffer. ii) Actualisation. this question has received considerable attention in the literature (Barrick. iii) Safety. The first dimension. One of the reasons for this low validity is that many studies focused mainly on personality traits at the molecular. 2003. Schinka and Curtiss.. Recent investigations using higher order personality constructs. 2002. Barrick et al. iv) Ego. which explains the variability of an individual’s behavior in different situations. however. 2004). does not 9 .
Research Question 2: Does the CASES measure predict work performance? The second research question is addressed by the second hypothesis. H1: The FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.necessarily indicate that some of the dimensions of the CASES measure are the same as some of the FFM dimensions. 10 . One way to examine whether or not the dimensions of the two measures of personality are distinct is to examine the incremental criterion validity of the two personality measures. H3: The FFM and CASES will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance. Research Question 3: What is the relationship between the FFM and CASES measures? The third research question is addressed by the third hypothesis. The following research questions and hypotheses underlie the current research: Research Question 1: Does the FFM predict work performance? The first research question is addressed by the first hypothesis. H2: The CASES measure will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.
Remenyi. Research Philosophy The study uses the positivistic paradigm with the hypothetico-deductive approach as it seeks to explain the relationship between personality. Lewis and Thornhill. Furthermore.3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 1. Furthermore.3.3. Money. 2001). hypotheses can be empirically substantiated which is essential for such psychometric tests (Cavana. Research Design This study uses hypothesis testing as there is information available on the variables involved to enable hypothesis formulation. Williams. and Swartz.1. Delahaye and Sekaran.1. 11 . The study setting is a non-contrived setting. 1997. The investigation is a correlational study as the main interest is to examine the associations between dimensions of personality and work performance. this survey method is efficient and practical (Saunders.2. Minimal or no interference in a natural environment by the researcher is adopted as analytical research requires precision and the control of extraneous variables is performed via statistical techniques (Gill and Johnson. 1. 1998). need-induced behaviors and performance. This quantitative research method adopts a non-experimental technique of survey research whereby information about the variables is collected from a large number of cases to address the research questions.
perceptions and attitudes (Lindell and Whitney. and the work performance measure of Welbourne. 2001).3. 1. Although mail surveys tend to yield a relatively low response rate. Furthermore. specifically their perceptions of their own behavior. they allow the targeting of specific respondents in various organisations and are cost effective. 12 . Johnson and Erez (1998) will be used for this research. The research also adopts a cross-sectional study and takes a snapshot of the situation like most behavioral studies that focus on individual’s beliefs. 2004. the new personality measure. Nikolaou. 2003). Measurement Five-point Likert scales will be used for all of the items related to personality and performance. Survey Instrument Data will be collected via a mail survey. 2003.4.3. 1999).2002). The FFM (Goldberg.3. 1. Salgado. The unit of analysis is the individual.. CASES. mail surveys are the most commonly used survey method in studies of personality (Kieffer et al.
The minimum targeted number of respondents is 500 as the personality measures have 50 items each (minimum of 10:1 subject to items ratio.4. as recommended by Nunnally.1. years of working. gender. 1.5. Confirmatory factor 13 . The respondents will be given a week to answer the questionnaire at a place of their choice and return the questionnaire in the self-addressed stamped envelope. Sampling and Sample Size Convenience sampling is used due to the time constraints placed on this research and to the unknown probability of selecting elements of the population (Cavana et al.e. level of education... will be invited to participate in this research. ANALYSES Data analyses will be conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 13. A total of 40 commercial organisations of various sizes and from various industries. and years in current job). known to the researcher. which ensures the anonymity and confidentiality of responses. age. The questionnaire uses the Likert scale to collect interval-scaled data for each of the variables involved in the hypotheses. 2001). 1978).3. Descriptive statistics will be computed for all of the demographic variables (i. Each participating organisation will be given 40 or more questionnaires to distribute to all or part of their white-collar staff by their respective Human Resource Managers.
5 to 0. Cavana et al. 1. 14 . stamped and self-addressed envelopes will be provided to the respondents. 2001). no demeaning questions will be asked and the respondents will not be subjected to any mental or physical stress in answering the questionnaire as they are given a week to complete the questionnaire at their own free will at a place of their choice. ETHICS It is stated explicitly in the information sheet that is provided to all potential participants that participation is voluntary and that participants can withdraw at anytime during the research without any obligation or disadvantage. An alpha coefficient of 0.analysis is a method for assessing construct validity and will be used to test the structures of the personality and performance measures (Schwab. Finally. 1980. Anonymity and confidentiality are ensured as the questionnaires have no personal identifiers and only the researchers will have access to the completed questionnaires and data files.7 is considered adequate for initial investigations (Nunnally.. 1978). Multiple linear regression analyses will be used to test the hypotheses. Cronbach’s alpha is an internal reliability coefficient that shows how well the items belonging to a set are correlated to one another.5. Cronbach’s alpha will be calculated for each subscale to test its internal reliability. Furthermore.
Furthermore. 1996). motivation level and role clarity may influence self-reported performance ratings (Kieffer et al. as this study uses a convenience sampling. Additionally. the effect of leniency associated with selfassessment could raise concerns about the legitimacy of the data collected. 2004) as job satisfaction. blue-collar and clerical employees). or different countries. 2004). LIMITATIONS The research relies on self-report data that can be affected by response distortion (Barrick and Mount.g. different types of jobs (e. 1996) and social desirability bias such as “telling the way they like to be seen” (Hogan.6.. Finally.1.. cognitive ability. the stability of work performance as a construct may not be totally valid (Thoresen et al.. 15 . organisational hygiene. Hogan and Roberts. its findings may not be generalisable to different types of organisations such as public sector or non-profit organisations.
2. The increasing pressure on organisations to select/recruit. training needs analysis.1. psychometric assessment will be a major business sector in the 21st century (Coull and Eary. Many organisations use psychometric testing as part of their recruitment and development processes to select candidates who will excel in their jobs. develop and retain key employees has increased the interest of managers for more information on current employees and potential recruits alike.. However. 2001). 1999).0. 2004). management development programmes. and appraisals. are not able to explain the diversity of behavior. INTRODUCTION Psychometric tests have been used by organisations as part of their development and recruitment processes. as human behavior cannot be fully covered by any one single theory (Leonard et al. which are normally based on a single theory. the functionality of such personality tests is becoming more widespread and they now have an integral place in many human resources activities such as career guidance. the debate on the reliability and 16 . With some 2.000 companies in United States of America using such instruments.000 million tests administrated yearly and 700 of the Times Top 1. Although such instruments are traditionally used as a tool in the selection and recruitment processes. The number of such psychometric instruments has increased considerably in the last few decades and has led to confusion and increased complexity in selecting an appropriate instrument (Dent and Curd. CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW 2. These tests.
validity of such instruments and the value of such concepts such as personality traits continues in the academic literature (Fletcher.e. The concept of personality can be traced to the work of Allport. “caveat emptor” should still be applied. What is Personality? Personality can be broadly defined as the durable characteristics of an individual. Robbins (2001. 2. 92) takes personality as “the sum total of ways in which an individual reacts to and interacts with others. Hence.. Personality is conceptualised as a stable system which influences how an individual construes.1. 1992). 43) defined personality as “the pattern of relatively enduring ways in which a person feels. beliefs. dispositions and needs (Gelso and Fassinger. p. for example. which are the building blocks of personality (Marsella et al. It is most often described in terms of measurable traits that a person 17 . selects and processes information and generates social behaviors (Mischel and Shoda. traits. 2000. attitudes. The continuing debate may be due to the fact that although some instruments may be found to be valid predictors of work performance. Also. 1995). who assumed the presence of “neuropsychic” structures (i. it does not mean that all such instruments are.1. George and Jones (2002. thinks and behaves”.. when using psychometric instruments. p. traits). using well-proven instruments do not confer automatic validity on their application in an organisation. p. 1993). values. 45). The construct of personality is based on the assumption that an individual can be characterised by distinctive qualities that are relatively invariant over time and across situations.
Personality is too vast a field and differentiated for a single approach. Hence. Personality is explained as existing in the individual as opposed to outside the person and focuses on overall psychological trends. 1975). p. For example. 2001). when describing someone’s personality. extraverted. 1999). 2) defined personality in two ways.” Hogan et al. we are trying to explain the differences of that person from others. and so on. introverted. This aspect is called individual differences whereby we categorise people as neurotic. one is the “factors” inside a person that explain the behavior while the other refers to the person’s distinctive interpersonal characteristics in a variety of situations. and (iii) individual behavior is consistent across situations (Pervin. The four structural divisions of personality which are repeatedly used to classify traits are: (a) Freud (1960)’s structural 18 . (ii) individual behavior is relatively stable over time. Personality can also be defined as an organised and dynamic set of characteristics of a person that influence cognitions. most personality researchers divide personality into different areas or divisions and try to explain how each area works individually and with others. Hence.exhibits. personality is explained based on overall motivation rather than the understanding of neural pathways of motives (Mayer. Personality psychologists postulate that personality or individual dispositions are significant determinants of behavior with the following underlying assumptions: (i) there are individual differences in ways of behaving. motivations and behaviors (Lau and Shaffer. (1996.
Another study by Bouchard (1994) showed that about 66% of the reliable variance in the personality traits is due to genetic influence while Zawadzki et al. individuals are significantly consistent across time and place. Pervin.2.division of id. (1998) revealed that some 20%-50% of variation in the dimensions is attributable to genetic sources. The more developed approaches use traits in the personality structure. ego and superego. 1993. Costa and McCrae (1995) posited that personality is heritable and highly stable over time while Jang et al. Costa and McCrae. The contents of consciousness change rapidly. 40% of the phenotypic variance of given traits is attributed to genetic sources while 60% is accounted for by the environment. 2003. (b) the trilogy of mind (Hilgard. Emotions and actions shift in response to the environment. 1937). (2002) posited that the transition during adulthood is often marked by substantial affective and personality changes caused by environmental changes. that appear to contradict each other (Cervone. 1980).1. These 19 . They display unique patterns of emotions. (c) the five factor model (Goldberg. 2004). and (d) the systems set (Mayer. 2001). 2. 1985). How Stable are Personality Traits? Psychological experience is made up of two features. Yet. 2001. However. 1997). change and consistency. behavior and thought that are relatively consistent to form the basis of the conception of personality (Allport. genes do not influence behavior directly but instead influence physiological structures (Brody. (2001) revealed that on average. Vaidya et al.
Beauvais and Scholl. There is a growing realisation that traditional models of personality do not explain the diversity of behavior found in organisational settings. The Objective of Psychometric Instruments The field of psychology has tried to define human behavior with the same accuracy that scientists use to describe the motion of atoms and stars. 2004).environmental changes. that is. Human behavior is 20 . as human behavior cannot be explained by any one factor (Leonard. Such changes or variations in personality traits can be explained by the fact that we are adapting to life in face-to-face groups (Bouchard. stimulation for the intellect as well as new outlets for emotions.3. the measurements are temporally stable and credible evidence linking the measure to meaningful non-test behavior (Hogan et al. 1994). A good personality measure. 1999). most organisational and personality researchers agree that individual behavior involves both variable and stable aspects but there still remains disagreement regarding this quantum (Wright. Nevertheless. could account for much of the psychological change that occurs during early adulthood. 1998). Many theories of personality rely excessively on behavioral models. 1996). such as a strong peer culture. Cropanzano and Meyer. which conform to statistical theories to explain these complexities rather than on behavioral realities (Wolfe. Human behavior is difficult to describe with such precision since it has a large number of causes.1. however.. 2. independence from protective shelter and parental control. should have at least two features.
1998. 2003. 1996. which could affect their work performance and careers (Hogan. If personality does change. humanistic. Tett and Burnett. 2004a). it is unlikely that any instrument can claim to be the best as the usefulness of an instrument is also situational and contextually specific (Tett and Burnett. 2000). Psychoanalytical approaches were the first theories followed in the early part of last century by behavioral approaches. 1992). Hence. 2003). it changes gradually. et al. THEORIES ON PERSONALITY The history of personality psychology has been dominated by several theoretical paradigms (Cervone. Hunton and Bryant. Gruys and Ellingson. Behavior is used to interpret and evaluate people’s personalities. Sackett. These personality theories 21 . 2. changing from context to context and from moment to moment but personality is consistent and stable over time. and behavioral doctrines were particularly influential in the past but social-cognitive and trait theories predominate today. the stable components affect our lives. the typological and trait-factor theories.clearly a multivariate phenomenon and a theory trying to explain normal human behavior must reflect this multidimensionality. What people do—their behavior—is a function of their personalities. the cognitive and the social cognitive approaches were developed (Gelso and Fassinger. Psychoanalytical.2. In the mid 1950s. Behavior is like the weather. It will be useful for people to know their personalities so that they can take advantage of the positive aspects of their personalities or steps to mitigate potential problems arising from any undesirable aspects. the humanistic approaches of the 1950s and almost at the same time.. Wheeler.
Personality psychologists have to address a wide range of phenomena and it could be impossible to identify an overarching mission in this field. humanistic and trait approaches (Marsella et al. Nevertheless. Levin. for example. 2000). and Murray all emphasised the coherence and consistency of normal personality and perceived the individual organism as a complex but organised structure. behavioral. This emphasis on the individual is dominant in the psychodynamic. Murphy. In essence. 1997). 22 . some German personality descriptors contained abilities and temperament terms while others such as Goldberg uses attitude and mood terms like conservative. the various “grand theories” of Allport. cultural and cognitive factors in the West emphasise the forces within the individual as the important determinant of behavior rather than the forces within the situations. Allport differentiated descriptors of social evaluation and temporary states from those traits descriptors which were considered to be more personality relevant. they adopt different units of analysis for conceptualising and explaining intraindividual coherence and individual differences in personality functioning (Allport. jealous and anxious as dispositions (Saucier. Eysenck emphasised biologically-based disposition variables but excluded abilities. The various historical. 1939).. Cattell.differ from each other in fundamental ways as they have different categories of personality variables. attitudes and intelligence. Other researchers cast wider nets.
Id. 2000). Freud. were more concerned with the interplay of conscious awareness and unconsciousness to explain personality (Coan. When we 23 . Jung. Ego is the conscious part and is responsible for the individual’s behavior and understanding of the outside world. and social ideals (Mayer. These stimuli are subsequently stored as information in the pre-conscious level and they become our experiences. the ego and the superego. The superego is the overseer of the ego which ensures it is morality and strives for ideals (Mayer. Psychodynamic Theories Psychodynamic psychologists (e. It explains our mental activity in which all thought processes occur. Adler). One takes in the stimuli using our five senses. 2001). When we select the stimuli. Freud’s structural set is the id. 2003).2. we have three levels of consciousness: conscious. described as a boiling and bubbling cauldron of aggressive and animal-like urges.g.1. Another takes in the stimuli. We select and respond to the stimuli that we perceive can satisfy our personal goals. rational understanding or expectations. The conscious level deals with that part of our awareness which is in touch with the reality of our life. They explained personality in terms of mental mechanisms and drives that seek satisfaction within the boundaries of reality (Cervone.2. two mental processes take place. This set represents the struggles among bodily desires. the animalistic part of personality.. The pre-conscious level is where information of our past is stored which could be called “available memory”. 1987). processes them and sees many different ways of responding to them. The ego does the systematic trial and error thinking and seeks to ensure the survival of the individual. According to Freud (1960). pre-conscious and unconscious.
g. they do not have a choice. 2000). It is this dynamic and active 24 . which are neurologically represented by the physical needs in the life and death instincts. when they use their thinking (mental faculty). and crimes) are due to the repression of pain or instinct by the superego contents. they have many choices of responding to it. Freud posits that all human behavior is motivated by instincts or drives. Alternatively. mental illness. Generally. The unconscious is believed to be the source of our motivations such as desires for sex or food and neurotic compulsions or ambitions. Apparently. The other is to use our thinking (intellect) at the conscious level to process the stimuli and see alternative responses to them. Freud discovered the unconscious level as a source of motivation and a way of hiding thoughts and desires from awareness (Gabriel and Carr. They explain personality in terms of the mental drive mechanisms that try to satisfy the drives within the boundaries of reality (Cervone. Hence. One is to act on the stimuli using our feelings by retrieving the information from our past experiences at the preconscious level. The unconscious has all the things that are not easily accessible to the awareness level such as our drives or instincts which originate from there and others that are put there such as bad memories or emotions associated with trauma because we cannot bear to look back.. when people act on a particular situation using their feelings. child abuse.respond and act on the stimuli two mental activities take place. The psychodynamic psychologists believe that behavior is a function of psychological processes operating within these three levels of consciousness. the distress and miseries in modern life (e. 2002). they agree that personality patterns can be best understood from the dynamics of the psychological processes acting on the unconsciousness within the context of an individual’s phenomenal field.
Mayo’s work paved the path for more humanistic theories. a major contemporary champion was Abraham Maslow with his Hierarchy of Needs Theory whereby he posited that human beings are motivated by basic needs that are species-wide. 2003. 80). 2003). Humanistic Theories Humanistic psychologists (e.view of the unconscious which is the heart of the field of psychology known as psychoanalysis (Gabriel and Carr. in all forms. 1976). to its fullest extent (Mele. 25 . They believe that people are responsible for their life. Humanistic psychologists emphasise learning from one’s subjective past experiences to develop and actualise one’s potentials. Carl Rogers. growing. Mayo showed that an employee’s psychological and social desires play an important role in production efficiency based on social aspects of human behavior. Given reasonable and conducive life conditions. becoming and being a better person or developing the human virtue. For Maslow.. Self-actualisation can be defined as the process of learning. becoming and being a perfect person (Franken. Although Mayo may be considered the pioneer of the “humanistic” approach. 1998). they assume that people will be positively motivated to actualise their potential.g. 2. The Mayo-Hawthorne studies demonstrated that the hourly paid employee was motivated by other needs besides economic rewards (Gallagher and Einhorn. self-actualisation is achieving “what a man can be. growing. p. The joy of living is to prepare oneself for experiencing and progressing towards higher levels of functioning. Abraham Maslow. he must be” (Mele. David McClelland) view existence as a process of learning. 2002).2.2. 1976). apparently unchanging and instinctual or genetic in origin (Kaufman.
The hierarchy has five categories, ascending from “physiological” to “safety”, “social”, “social and self esteem” and culminating to “self actualisation”. Maslow enlarged the concept of human personality by capturing the higher levels of needs in human. This model is applicable to any industrial setting (Mele, 2003). Drawing from Maslow’s ideas, Douglas McGregor developed his Theory X-Theory Y model of behavior whereby the “carrot and stick” theory was effective if employees were at the subsistence level of survival. McGregor in Theory Y postulated that human talent and potential are greater than usually assumed. Furthermore, the need for self-actualisation is also an important factor of the Theory Y where the satisfaction of the individual’s needs for self-actualisation is the best method to obtain commitment. He posited that human beings will, under conductive conditions, accept and even seek responsibility and contribute creatively to the organisation (Mele, 2003). Herzberg, another contributor to humanistic theories, made a distinction between rewards to workers that facilitate personal growth and those that alleviate discomfort. They are termed as motivators and hygiene factors respectively. All of these humanistic psychologists believed that human behavior is motivated by needs. This phenomenological approach has contributed immensely to personality psychology in the U.S., which promotes the individual based on the concepts of self-actualisation and oneself (Lombardo and Foschi, 2002).
Trait theories conceptualise personality as an individual-difference construct which explains an individual’s average tendency to manifest one versus another type of behavior (Cervone, 2000). Common traits are produced by both cultural contexts and by biological variation in the population in general using the nomothetic approach while the individual traits or personal dispositions are the domain of the idiographic approach (Lombardo and Foschi, 2002). Traits describe the thematic tendencies of a person: intelligence, emotionality and the like. They tend to omit consideration of other structures such as self-regulation, selfconcept, characteristic adaptation, significant other schemas, and similar entities (Mayer, 2001). Traits are the foundation of individuality. Personality traits are considered as behavioral constants which emphasise individual differences in response to identical situations or stimulation. Trait psychologists normally seek to uncover the psychological dimensions along which individuals differ and the manner in which traits group within individuals. The main focus is on enduring or lasting behavior and attention is on the content of behavior rather than the psychological processes causing the behavior. Hence, its emphasis is on the outcomes instead of the process itself (Buss, 1989). Traits can also be inferred as a quality or dimension that can be used to identify a unique pattern of how a person behaves, thinks, and feels. Narrow behaviors or specific responses of a person define a characteristic mode or habitual response pattern of behavior. Paunonen (1998) defined trait as a combination of several such habitual response tendencies while Marsella et al. (2000) postulated that traits are inferred through observed similarities in behavior across various situations.
Traits are relatively independent from each other; they can be empirically measured and evaluated; rooted in the “neuropsychic” systems. Hence, traits are useful for describing one’s personality and statistically defining the distribution of these characters in a larger population. Nevertheless, if a trait measure is linked to past behavior, then trait-performance correlations would involve the prediction of current behavior from past behavior. In this case, traits would predict but not explain behavior (Locke and Latham, 2002). Trait psychologists studied what makes us recognisably the same and different from each other; what our unique behavior patterns and their characteristics are and how settings may influence them. Trait theories of Allport (1937) and McCrae and Costa (1996) conceptualise personality as small sets of inferred structures which manifest themselves as behavioral dispositions or tendencies (Cervone, 2000). Cattell (1943) sought to organise and reduce the thousands of personality traits into clusters (i.e., factors) using quantitative methods. The architecture of personality traits postulated by Allport includes cardinal, superordinate, central, and peripheral traits. These structures are domain general which have constructs such as “agreeableness” (McCrae and Costa, 1996), a unit of analysis which does not make any distinction between being agreeable toward one’s date and towards one’s child. Both are agreeable acts. Performing both of them would move the scale up on an inferred structure of agreeableness. Individuals can be characterised in terms of a comprehensive but small set of factors or dispositions which are stable over decades of adult life, across different situations and can explain a wide spectrum of behaviors (Idson and Mischel, 2001). Furthermore, Allport posited that to understand personality, it is necessary to study
1989).2.4. strength of excitation. and balance. Based on the deductions from their experiments. mobility of nervous processes. Behaviorist/Cognitive and Social Cognitive Theories Stimulus-Response or Behavioral Theorists posit that behavior is a function of our past experiences. The famous Pavlovian typology of temperament posits that there are four properties of the central nervous system that are responsible for individual differences in reacting to conditioning: strength of inhibition. 29 . Using traits to predict behavior in the past has yielded mixed results partly because of methodological problems. 2003). One of the problems of the trait theories is that personality is not able to explain all variation in behavior as the environment does have a significant effect on behavior (Sanders. often not exceeding 0.the inter-relationships of the traits and that the “whole personality” is different from the sum of these individual traits (Lombardo and Foschi. 2003). This finding has been used to support critics who claim that personality traits are unimportant (Buss. 2. Generally. 2002). they found that there are some similarities in human and animal behavior where “motivation” is externally generated in the form of punishers and reinforcers (Locke and Latham. correlations between laboratory behavior and personality traits tend to be modest. 2000). Behavior can be repeatedly reinforced or diminished through the use of reward and punishment and is one explanation of why certain dimensions of personality are dominant (DeGrandpre. They use classical and operant conditioning to understand animal and human behavior.4.
This set of personal standards is unique in each person and grows out of one’s life experiences (Andersen and Chen. 2000). 2000. cognitive and motivational mediators in the stimulus-response relationship due to the fact that such constructs were not measurable independently by an outside disinterested party (Bargh and Ferguson. conscious deliberation and perception) which mediate between stimuli and responses. 1977a). We learn that both pleasurable and painful experiences can lead to positive and negative outcomes. 2002). The old axiom of StimulusResponse Theory that pleasure begets pleasure and pain begets pain becomes unresolved and mooted. expectations and goals to guide and direct their behavior. Integrating the behavioral and cognitive perspectives with respect to motivation produces the social cognitive theory (Bandura. psychological explanatory mechanisms such as memory. Bargh and Ferguson. 2004). the intraindividual. Radical behaviorists such as Skinner and Watson ruled out emotional. We begin to use our intellect to process the stimuli and anticipate the outcomes of our behavior before we respond to pains and pleasures. Bauer and McAdams. individual functioning is considered as a continuous interaction among behavioral.g. They assert that people organise their values. Moreover. 2002. Cognitive psychologists view behavior as a function of cognition. Behaviorists denied the existence of the complex higher-order factors (e.This typology has a strong influence on personality psychology (Lombardo and Foschi. which does not overly emphasise either environmental or internal forces when explaining behavior. learning and experiences.. cognitive and 30 . We learn from our experiences.
Over the past few decades. and cognitive constructs used to give meaning to events) possesses a spectrum of possible inputs. 2000). self-reflective capabilities. social cognitive psychologists have been developing theories in an attempt to explain the complexities by careful observation of the human behaviors with the environment and their relations. 2000). 1981). The three overarching principles of the social cognitive approach are. and c. which cause some inputs to become particularly salient to an individual or are grouped with other inputs into an equivalent class and are domain-specific (Cervone.environmental factors (Fedor and Ferris. how people establish causal linkage over their lives through self-reflective and selfknowledge processes. Furthermore. These mechanisms are contextualised by these social-learning processes. how people organise disparate and multiple experiences and life events within a larger cognitive framework of goals. (i) personality is a complex system. They posit that each of the mechanisms (e. social cognitive theorists postulate that the intuitive and perceived sense of coherence and consistency in personality/self/character can arise from three sources: a. expectation and aspirations (Marsella et al. and (iii) personality variables (Cervone. b.g. (ii) reciprocal interactionism. 2004).. how people assign meanings to social information. selfregulatory and goals mechanisms.. 31 .
interest. mental ability. WHY DOES PERSONALITY MATTER TO ORGANISATIONS? For several decades prior to the 1990s. Hurtz and Donovan (2000) show that the Conscientiousness dimension has a moderate impact on performance and appears rather stable and generalisable across occupations and criteria. personality measures can predict work performance quite accurately and a given trait value is situational specific (Tett and Burnett. Another study by Judge. “Getting Along” and “Getting Ahead”. Martocchio and Thoresen (1997) revealed that conscientious and introverted employees are less likely to play truant or to be absent. As these traits are considerably stable and probably genetic in origin. By paying attention to the psychological processes where traits can be expressed in work performance. knowledge of the 32 . In a Thinking and Judging consulting world. are more potent predictors of occupational performance although other factors such as values. a more beneficial strategy for an organisation is to select relatively more conscientious and less extroverted employees to reduce absenteeism and improve productivity. personnel selection specialists generally did not use personality testing in employee selection due to pessimistic conclusions drawn by researchers that resulted in a perception that “personality tests have low validity” (Hurtz and Donovan. 2003). Nevertheless.2.3. the selection/recruitment systems would be more beneficial and can provide practitioners greater advantage in utilising trait information in work settings. Hogan and Holland (2003) found that the measures of Emotional Stability. 2000). opportunities and health are also important determinants. Meta-analyses have consistently and repeatedly shown that under specific conditions.
personality types of the clients could be used to enhance communication. Groups comprising members with Sensing and Intuition preferences outperformed groups with only Sensing-preference members. The satisfaction derived from achievement is what stimulates their performance (Arnold. Hunton and Bryant (2004a) found homogeneity of personality types that are attracted and retained in accounting firms. 1993). Similarly. 1998) with individuality as its object of study (Pelham. jobs and technologies. Wheeler. which in turn saves money via the reduction of errors/mistakes and improved morale. He found that extrinsic rewards such as money are only one form or method of “keeping score” for high achievers. 2000). the presence of some Thinking types may provide some structure to decision-making in a group of all Feeling types. TYPES OF PERSONALITY MEASURES Historians recognise the year 1937 to be the birth of personality psychology by its founder. Such knowledge also assists management on how to understand and express feeling so as to minimise conflicts and to see their differences as an asset instead of as a liability (McCaulley.4. Allport (Nicholson. 2. a group of Introverts may benefit from the presence of an Extrovert for better communication. Gordon W. 1988). certain traits correlate with higher performance for certain tasks. termed 33 . Personality theorists began to focus more on the differences within persons. Also. McClelland conducted a study of the phenomenon of constructive activity beyond the physiological or survival requirements and classified the traits as “need for achievement”.
career development. Furthermore. which is essentially a smaller set of trait variables derived from the 16-Factor Model of Cattell (1943) (Rossier et al. Kwiatkowski. Extraversion. 2003). 2004. 2004).as idiographic. Agreeableness and Neuroticism) which represent the highest levels of a personality hierarchy (Paunonen and Ashton.. Conscientiousness. posits that there are five personality dimensions (i.. 2. Toomela.1. No discussion or critique is carried out on the other instruments as there is very little publicly available research on them. Nomothetic is the other term that refers to the classical. There are many approaches to the measurement of personality (see Table 2)) but this discussion will be restricted to the Five Factor Model (FFM) by Tubes and Christal (1961) and McCrae and Costa (1996). they are the most researched psychometric instruments according to a search conducted in PsycINFO (981 articles on FFM and 540 on MBTI as at October 2004). Openness to Experience. also known as the Big Five. and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) which is based on Jungian theory.4. 2001. occupational selection. The Five Factor Model The Five Factor Model (FFM).e. These psychometric instruments have been selected as they are the most popular instruments used by commercial organisations for personal development. and for developing more effective teams (Dent and Curd. Allport’s idea of personality is a psychology of the mature and normal personality (Lombardo and Foschi. between subject analyses of personality. 2003). The anagram of the FFM is 34 . 2003).
represents the tendency to be creative. Paunonen (2003) revealed that the construct validity of these 35 . b. These factors represent a continuum. Emotional Adjustment. perceptive and thoughtful. gentle. active and excitement seeking. fearful.A. (De Raad. Individuals scoring high on Extraversion are strongly predisposed to the experience of positive emotions. a. types of assessment and cultures (Hogan and Holland. is indicated by two facets: achievement and dependability. Agreeableness. Neuroticism. Factor 3.E.C. Openness to Experience (sometimes labelled as Intellectance). Openness to Experience is the only trait to display appreciable correlations with intelligence. depressed and moody.O. imaginative. Emotional Adjustment is the principal trait that leads to life satisfaction and freedom from depression and other mental ailments. often labelled by its opposite. languages. Consciousness is the trait that best correlates with work performance. represents the tendency to be outgoing. Factor 4. trustworthy and warm. which is the tendency to be anxious. consists of tendencies to be kind. Extraversion. c. 1998). There is considerable debate regarding how many personality factors are needed to understand and predict behavior although the generalisability and robustness of FFM has been shown across different rating sources. assertive. Conscientiousness. trusting.N. e. As defined by Judge and Bono (2000). Factor 2. 2003). moderate or low degree of each quality. Factor 1. d. Factor 5. where people exhibiting a high.
Hogan and Holland. 1996. 1997. Paunonen and Aston.. Judge et al. 2004). Hurtz and Donovan. Allik and McCrae. Toomela. 2004. MBTI. 2003). the FFM seems to dominate not only the theory but also the evaluation of personality (Goldberg. 36 . 2003) and are endogenous and biologically determined (McCrae and Costa. (1988) showed that about 20% to 55% of the trait variation in personality dimensions is linked to genetic sources. Although there is no universal agreement among theorists and researchers on the comprehensiveness of the five dimensions (Tett and Burnett. After five decades of research on personality psychology (i. other researchers are of the opinion that virtually all traits of personality are reasonably contained in the factor space of the FFM (e. 2003. 2001. It has reached somewhat of a consensus that the FFM is an appropriate taxonomy of personality (Burke and Witt. Several studies have shown that the well-known instruments for personality assessment (Eysenck Personality Inventory. these studies also revealed substantial variation due to non-genetic factors (Toomela.g.inventories is supported by the consistency and strong convergence in their predictions and measurements. 2003. et al. 2004). Ashton et al. The identification of these factors is based on principal components analyses (Burke and Witt. Gallucci and Livi. 1998. Although studies by Jang et al. McCrae. 2004. 2000. 2000). 2002. Hogan and Holland. 1997). These dimensions are cross-culturally generalisabled (Perugini. the way one describes oneself and others in everyday life transactions). 2004). 1993. California Personality Inventory) may be assumed to be part of the FFM (Salgado.. Martocchio and Thoresen.. 1997). 1998.e. Judge. (1998) and Pedersen et al. Judge and Bono. 2003.. 1999). Tsaousis. Saucier and Goldberg..
(2000) claimed that the FFM can only satisfy the nomothetic. explanatory and molecular contextual accounts of personality are still subjects of debate. ethnicity.. That is. the 37 . Extroversion and Introversion.Allick and McCrae (2004) posited that the FFM personality structure is biologically determined and universal. Nevertheless. age. socio-economic background and country of origin.e. religion. There is still a lack of evidence to support the notion that culture shapes personality. Personality is the mediating and integrating factor in numerous psychological processes (e. the traits are rooted in biology and transcultural universals.g. Saucier and Goldberg (1996) and Digman (1997) postulated the FFM model to be descriptive summaries while Marsella et al. Jung’s typology assumes that people differ in their choice of two attitudes. 2004a). information processing and the role of the unconscious) (Wheeler. 2. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a psychometric instrument developed from Jung’s theory of personality and is designed to sort human beings into different personality types..2. McKenna. It postulates three bipolar dimensions and the fourth bipolar. The idiographic. race. 1971) posits that variation in human behavior is due to basic and observable differences when people use their minds to gather and process information. Shelton and Darling (2002) posited the FFM model is applicable to all people regardless of the gender. descriptive and molar goals of Allport. and their preferences for four mental functions (i. Allick and McCrae (2004) did not claim that the environment is irrelevant to personality functioning but rather that personality is manifested through culture. Sensing/Intuition and Thinking/Feeling). Hunton and Bryant. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Jungian theory (Jung.4. individual development.
d. b. 1998. c. The judgmental person uses a combination of thinking and feelings when making decisions whereas the perception person uses the sensing and intuition processes. McCaulley. Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F): A preference for thinking indicates the use of logic and rational processes to make deductions and decide upon action. 38 .Judgement/Perception dimension. 2000). looks inward to their internal and subjective reactions to their environment. Extroversion (E) versus Introversion (I): This dimension reflects the perceptual orientation of the individual. Sensing (S) versus Intuition (N): People with a sensing preference rely on that which can be perceived and are considered to be oriented towards that which is real. however. resulting in four dimensions with 16 distinct personality types as shown in Table 4 (Myers et al. People with an intuitive preference rely more on their non-objective and unconscious perceptual processes. Introverts. The 4 dimensions (Pittenger. Extroverts are said to react to immediate and objective conditions in the environment. a later addition by Myers and Briggs. Feeling represents a preference to make decisions that are based on subjective processes that include emotional reactions to events. Judgment (J) versus Perception (P): The judgment-perception preferences were invented by Briggs and Myers to indicate if rational or irrational judgments are dominant when a person is interacting with the environment. 1993) are: a..
The Judging types are described as organised.. more factual and observant). Hunton and Byrant. The scores from the MBTI test are used to determine the person’s type and labels are attached based on one’s primary preferences for the four dimensions (Pittenger. one can have only one preference. Intuition types “see the forest” (i. ThinkingFeeling may not be directly comparable to Agreeableness but it does clearly measure a similar dimension. 1995).Since MBTI is a theory of types... Although there is insufficient evidence that the MBTI is a valid instrument. Lindon. 39 . Similarly. more idealistic and compassionate) (Wheeler. spontaneous and flexible.g. The MBTI does not cater for the neuroticism dimension which is certainly an important variable (McC Dachowski. logical and rational natures) while Feeling types incorporate personal and group values in the decision-making process (i. Sensing-Intuition is comparable to the Openness factor.e. an introvert can become more extroverted when in groups).e. The Judging types are more committed and decisive while the Perceiving types are more questioning and open-minded. 1993). Thinking types connect ideas and experiences by logic. its popularity has not diminished despite research which shows it has low validity (McKenna. Extroverted types are more outgoing while introverted types are deemed to be more detached and contemplative. 2002).e. structured (like Conscientiousness) whereas Perceptive types are adaptable. Metaphorically. more insightful and creative) while Sensing types “see the trees” (i. Shelton and Darling. Extroversion-Introversion of the MBTI is comparable with McCrae and Costa’s Extraversion. Similarly. the primary preference always dominates the person’s personality. self disciplined.. 2004a. (i.. 1987).e. Although people can develop a complimentary style (e.
Table 3: The 16 Personality Types with Cognitive Characteristics and Occupational Tendencies 40 .
1990). 1994. (1990). Sensing type students outperformed the Intuition students in certain subjects and in an overall accounting grade (Nourayi and Cherry. Satava (1996) and Schloemer and Schloemer (1997) found that accountants. Both of these dimensions are dominant in predicting work performance across a variety of work (Kichuk and Wiesner. Moreover.. Agreeableness via its main effect and extraversion and openness via their interaction are associated with work involvement while openness correlates with support for innovation (Bozionelos. A study on the relationship between need for achievement and need for power with six measures of life success revealed that need for achievement had a high correlation with 41 . 2004). 1998). 2004). Mount and Barrick (1994) found that conscientiousness has the strongest correlation with work performance and is positively correlated with task orientation while neuroticism has a strong negative correlation with task orientation (Burch and Anderson. THE PREDICTIVE POWER OF FFM/MBTI ON PERFORMANCE Judge and Ilies (2002) found that neuroticism and conscientiousness were the most consistent and most strongly correlated with performance motivation.5. Neuroticism primarily influences performance through motivation while conscientiousness influences performance by being decisive and orderly. 1993). 1996. Kovar et al. Jocoby (1981).. Descouzis (1989). Shackleton (1980). 2003).2. Kreiser et al. Sensing and Thinking type students perform better with a lecture mode while Intuition and Feeling types prefer and perform better under a computerassisted method (Ott et al. Landry et al.. Otter (1984). audit partners and managers are predominantly STJ in the MBTI matrix and another set of studies reveal that the STJ type is dominant in accounting undergraduate students (Laribee.
Five Factor Model The FFM.. De Raad.success strivings for professional fulfilment.. 1998). Hogan et al. 2. The lexical method hypothesises that the significant individual differences are encoded in single-term descriptors of underlying traits that find their expression in language (De Raad. and Berhoud. 2001). Furthermore. If personality requirements are derived for an individual job. Its disadvantages are that numerous traits are motivational in nature (Buss. Hence. 2004. is unusual as its contents are defined by the lexical hypothesis instead of primary parts (Mayer.6. which has the advantage of getting around the problem of breaking personality into areas. The need for power was highly correlated with professional fulfilment and status-wealth but was negatively related with family relationships (Parker and Chusmir. 1992). 1998). contribution to society and status-wealth. This structure is essentially derived from an atheoretical trait factor approach (Gelso and Fassiinger.1. personality can provide an incremental validity over ability in picking the optimal candidate (Day and Silverman. 1996). SHORTCOMINGS OF FFM AND MBTI MEASURES 2. measures of personality based on the lexical method consist of adjectives that are representative subsets of terms describing people in a given language (Cellar et al. Rossier. a widely used trait group. need for achievement was negatively related to security and personal fulfilment. 1989. 1989) and hence other good dimensions of 42 .6. 1996. de Stadelhofen. 1991).
The FFM is not universally accepted as the integrative model of personality (Cellar et al.. Aston et al. 1997. Mayer. 2001.. It may 43 . Toomela (2003) finds that due to the scientific word meaning structure used. Digman. 2001. Hence.personality may have been omitted (Paunonen and Aston. 2003. over-reliance on the adjectival approach may limit the cross-cultural generalisability of the FFM. 2004. the FFM may only be “universal” for that specific stratum of society. Cellar et al.. Mayer. Toomela. 2003) as well as its focus on narrow aspects of personality (Paunonen and Aston. It is fair to argue that adjectives are the most appropriate and versatile class of personality descriptors in English and languages linguistically linked to English but many languages do not have a big adjectival word-class. the exceptions which depart from the usual due to situational effects. 2004b. 2003). 2004. 1996) and is criticised for its questionable conceptual and methodological assumptions of the lexical hypothesis (Wheeler. That is. 1997. Hunton and Byrant. and (ii) it cannot account for exceptions to the typical behaviors on which it is based. Digman. Moreover. Tett and Burnett. Cervone. 1996). 2003). 2001. it has nothing to say about personality development. A better approach is to use noun factors that provide a well-delineated and more coherent description and represents the more extreme meanings of the adjective dimensions (Saucier. 2003. Paunonen. the debate on cultural specificity and the universality of personality structure continues. Moreover. 2004. Aston et al.. Digman (1990) highlighted two basic weaknesses of the FFM: (i) it is descriptive in nature and as such does not provide any possible causes to personality. Furthermore.
(iii) concern only in giving the right instead of the accurate answer. introversion-extroversion) but cultural variations may shape: (i) their display patterns. It is further complicated when the questions are applied in different cultures since these people may have different reasons to participate and perceptions of the task from those on whom the concept and the scale were constructed. (ii) desire to conform socially. (iv) the meanings they are assigned. many non-Western societies are unfamiliar with linear or graduated scales like the Likert scales as they do not see their world in that fashion. (ii) the interpersonal responses to them. Chinese respondents. the conceptual equivalence (i. For example. dependency in Western culture implies childishness.be accepted that there are a relative small number of socially or biological determined behavioral dimensions (e.g.. and (vii) confusion with the implication of words and terms used in the question as well their perceived meaning (Marsella et al.. 2000). (iv) limited insight and self-awareness. 2000). These motivational and perceptual differences are: (i) fear of possible persecution. immaturity and many other derogatory terms but can be viewed positively in the Japanese culture. for example. Finally. the similarity in the meaning and nature of a concept) may differ. In addition. the norms of a particular instrument that are based on Western culture may give rise to questionable conclusions if applied to. and (v) the value or utility of behavioral descriptions (Marsella et al.. Furthermore. (v) desire to please authorities. Some cultural groups have problems with Likert scales and they tend to take the middle position. (iii) the situations where they are elicited. helplessness. 44 . The adoption of self-report questions is already a complex task.. in terms of normative equivalence.e. (vi) variation in the construction of personality and personhood.
The development of a descriptive typology such as the FFM can be done without a clear knowledge of the causal relationships of things but the proof or validation of the structure falls on that theoretical construct (Stelmack. 1997). Furthermore. 2003). Unfortunately. Nevertheless.g. the FFM does provide an initial structure of human individuality. (ii) it provides a structure for integrating results from studies carried out to investigate personality as well as the relationships between personality and other variables such as job performance. characteristic adaptations like developmental tasks and motives fill in the details. Several studies have found the FFM to be unrelated to cognitive ability (Sanders. trait ratings provide only a “first read” on an individual as people seek information which is contextualised as they get to know each other better. 2001). that is. Idson and Mischel (2001) postulated that traits cannot provide the psychologist with more than a psychology of a stranger. 1997). 2003). In the final analysis. 1997). while life stories provide the meaning and integration (McAdams. performance) by linking them to personality dimensions (Salgado. the FFM’s taxonomy has been criticised by some researchers as being incomplete because important relationships may be obscured under the five factor model but not under a seven-factor model (Hogan and Holland.. the FFM has the following advantages: (i) it has a parsimonious taxonomy. and (iii) it can advance our understanding of work-related variables (e. 45 . the FFM does not offer answers to the causes of personality nor accounts for exceptions to the selected dimensions and has no link to personality development (Digman.
that is. Hunton and Bryant. wrong or right (i. 2004). no value judgment attached). The type preferences are dichotomous (i.. If the number of traits is large. measuring the concepts the measurement instrument is designed to measure (Dent and Curd. 1998). it is not suitable for analysis looking for before and after treatment effects (Wheeler. Hence. 2004b). Hunton and Bryant. 2001). the correlations between these orthogonal factors will tend towards zero even though they are highly correlated in the population. The formulae for these reliability estimates based on the 46 . Each dichotomy is a selection between qualities of equal value. The most common one is the forced-choice ipsative data (FCID) as employed in MBTI. 2004a). Although this hypothesis has received empirical support with temporal stability studies.2.2.. the true and error scores of the FCID’s ipsative data are contaminated across scales at the outset which do not provide any legitimate justification in conducting factor analysis (Meade. The notion of estimating reliability is based on the assumption that the reliability indices estimate that part of the variance that is due to true scores. 2004. Data are described as ipsative when a given group of responses always add to the same total. it does not capture the strength of a preference but its direction which is only appropriate for sorting (Wheeler. Reliability is defined as the consistency in measurement of a test while validity tests are for goodness of the measure.6. Cavana et al. with no intrinsic bad or good.e. a forced-choice format) (Rings.e. The correlations between ipsative factors are negative. Furthermore. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Jung’s (1971) hypothesis states that types and preferences are invariant and innate in individuals. Factor analysis will not be appropriate..
In general. Hence. it is regarded as any activity of a human being (The World Book Encyclopaedia) which is partly determined by heredity and environment but can be modified through learning (Plomin. THE THEORIES AND CONSTRUCTS OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE 2. In addition. there is no data that show certain types are more contented in specific occupations than others or stay longer in one occupation. Furthermore. behavior is interpreted as conduct by most people but in the fields of psychology and behavioral science. Behavior is used to evaluate and interpret one’s personality (Hogan et al. 2. Any single behavior is a narrow bandwidth. 1989). ESFPs are neither better nor worse salespeople than INTJs.classical test theory are simply not applicable or tenable with ipsative data. there is no evidence to indicate a positive relation between specific MBTI types with career success. What 47 . Similarly. 1996). high fidelity expression of a personality disposition. Definition of Behavior Behavior is the way organisms like human beings act.7.7.1. Pittenger (1993) finds large variances as much as 50% in some “test-retest” personality studies while the “factor analysis” of the four dimensions of MBTI theory identifies six different factors and shows significant correlations of these dimensions which are supposedly independent of each other..
Extrinsic motivation. motivation is a process that moves a person towards some action (Arnold. Karageorghis and Terry.7. Amotivation is the lack of intent to engage in a specific behavior. 48 . intrinsic motivation and amotivation are three distinct motivational forces that can influence behavior (Vlachopoulos. 1988). Motivation is not behavior itself and is not performance. The objective of motivation theories is often to predict behavior. In most cases. 2004).an individual does is a function of the kind of person he or she is – that is. On the other hand. the motive of participation lies in the process of participation instead of the derived external reward or avoidance of possible negative consequences for non-participation (Pincus. Behavior is the criterion which is chosen. 1982. it would be extrinsic motivation when the person participates in the activity to avoid negative consequences or gain external rewards. An example of an intrinsic motivation is the participation in some activities for the satisfaction and pleasure derived from it. 2. the chosen actions are good reflections of performance (Mitchell. 2003). 1982). which represents a lack of motivation. Pincus (2004) defined motivation as a desire or an emotion operates willingly and causing it to act. his or her personality.2. 2000). The word “motivation” suggests energised behavior directed towards some goals that is. that is. Factors Influencing Behavior Motivation is fundamental to behavior as most behavior is influenced by it (Mitchell. Cesare and Sadri.
In this respect. That is. values. Motivational theorists have different ideas on where the source of energy is derived from and the particular needs which an individual is trying to fulfil. not the amount. “motivations provide the motor for behavior” (Pincus. reinforcement histories.Mitchell (1982) postulated motivation as those psychological processes that cause the arousal. 2004). As human needs are psychological or physiological deficiencies. Nevertheless. It is generally accepted that motivation is (Mitchell. and goals. motivation is the degree to which an individual wants and chooses to engage in certain specific behaviors (Mitchell. 1982). Motivation is to do with the quality and direction of the effort. under the individual’s control) (Tubbs and Ekeberg. personality traits accounted for little variance in 49 . 1982): (i) an individual-level phenomenon. these needs can be weak or strong.e. and (iii) multifaceted. Hence. Motivational theories are used to predict behavior as motivation is about the actions and the external and internal forces that influence an individual’s choice of action.. Different people have different needs. others believe that behavior is determined by environmental or situational factors and that similarity in behavior is a result from similarity of environmental or situational circumstances. (i. 1991). which arouse behavior. persistence of voluntary actions and directions that are goal directed. (ii) intentional. and can vary over place and time due to environmental influences (Ramlall. need theories identify the internal factors which energise behavior. Contrary to the dispositional view. attitudes. expectations. 2004).
That is.. p. there are no external forces regulating the behavior. 1999. Individuals who perform a behavior because it is “fun” are said to be motivated intrinsically.7. there are some studies that are able to support the predictive validity of the personality/dispositional view (Leonard et al.. and Etzioni point to three sources of motivation: motivation based on goal internalisation.. which assumes behavior is a function of both personality and the environment (Pervin. when shifting from one situation to another. 1994.. Furthermore. most researchers have adopted an interactionist view. Deci. models are developed which can explain why people. 1999). The theories proposed by deCharmes. directed and sustained in organisational settings” (Leonard et al.behavior across situations. In recent years. Rothbart and Ahadi. 1975). 1989. not personality or dispositions (Marsella et al.3. Nevertheless. the person has a dynamic reciprocal interaction with the situation/environment. The other source of 50 . 2000). Hence. 970). 2. The trait-situation debate peaked with the works of Mischel (1968) and Mischel and Shoda (1995) which posited that situational factors determine behavior. the individual enjoys the work and feels rewarded by just performing the task. are able to exhibit different patterns of behavior yet are able to retain a recognisable personality structure (Pervin. Current Theories of Work Motivation Work motivation is defined as “the process by which behavior is energised. Katz and Khan. According to this view. and extrinsic or instrumental motivation. intrinsic process motivation. Leonard et al. 1999).
. 1995). 1998). Murray posited that human being can be characterised by a set of needs and that individual differences in behavior can be explained by individual differences in the strength of the needs (Franken. 1998). 1958). the need for cognition (Cohen et al. there is considerable variability in the conversion of needs into action. and (iv) the difference in reactions by individuals for the fulfilment of needs. the 51 . Nevertheless. and (iv) the need for power (Atkinson. Such motivation is referred to as legal compliance and external rewards by Katz and Khan (1978) or alienative or calculative involvement by Etzioni (1975). (iii) the need for affiliation (Atkinson. 1961). The more psychologically immature a person is.motivation stems from external forces. Needs can be requested or expressed in immature or mature ways. 2004). There exist several “mini” theories of individual difference in motivation which suggest the existence of motivational traits (Pincus.. motivation is complex in that: (i) (ii) the needs of individuals differ. (i) (ii) the need for achievement (McClelland. Murray’s “variables of personality” theory adopts motives as the fundamental element of personality (Winter et al. (iii) there is inconsistency in the final action taken. 1958).
1997). The Theory of Human Motivation postulated by Maslow (1943). 2003).more literal is the gratification of the needs. 1969) and has the dynamism of Adler and Freud. Leonard et al. 1999). These needs are instinctually weak and their effect on behavior can be 52 . Values are motivations and the gratification of a need is a value (Jolibert and Baumgartner. however. As values determine our needs. Maslow claimed that the five needs are universal and innate. 972). Frank (2003) maintained that the characteristics of triebe characterise the vicissitudes of needs. which is in the functionalist tradition of James and Dewey. 1999.. Behavior is motivated by goal internalisation when an individual adopts behaviors and attitudes because they are congruent with one’s value system. These theories are. or compromised. denied or turned into the opposite. and are termed instinctoid. Wertheimer and Gestalt Psychology (Chung. For the more psychologically mature person. (1999) posited that individual disposition or personality is a significant determinant of behavior. most needs can be satisfied or expressed symbolically (Frank. needs can be unconscious and repressed or disavowed and conscious. Needs can also be sublimated and gratification can be delayed. p. is fused with the holism of Goldstein. unable to account for the complete range of motivated behavior. such as changes in behavior across situations when valences and expectancies remain constant. our needs determine our behavior or acts (Osteraker. Hence. The expectancy and equity theories focus on extrinsic motivational factors and assume that individuals are “rational maximiser(s) of personal utility” (Leonard et al.
This may be true for lower-order needs and less so of higher-order needs. 1969). and (iii) higher needs are different from lower needs as they can never be completely satisfied. 1989).to find self-fulfilment and realise one’s potential. According to Maslow: (i) human beings are demanding beings.to feel secure. all other behaviors are learned (Buttle.to affiliate with others. Even though the needs are innate. (ii) the five needs exist in a hierarchy of significance or importance. desirability or importance. only those behaviors that satisfy the physiological needs are unlearned that is. their behavior is determined by unsatisfied needs and satisfied needs do not motivate behavior. and (e) self-actualisation needs . inhibited or modified by the environment. The upper levels of the Needs Hierarchy attempt to explain why an individual continue to strive for excellence when the lower needs are met. (b) safety needs .to achieve. be competent and gain approval and recognition.accelerated. Based on the premise that motivation comes from within an individual and cannot be imposed. thirst and so forth. consisting of: (a) physiological needs . 1997. Hence.for hunger. (d) esteem needs . (c) belongingness and love needs . it is a dynamic model that posits multiple needs operating simultaneously (Herbig and Genestre. the higher its strength. It is shown that the greater a need’s deprivation. safe and out of danger. Chung. be acceptable and belong. 53 . Maslow proposed a hierarchy of needs. 1988). Maslow postulated that an individual’s needs act as motivators and are the centre of motivation (Arnold.
self-actualisation may mean different things to individuals from collectivistic cultures than it does to individuals from individualistic cultures (Cesare and Sadri. 2003). More like piano keys than stairways. For example. 2003). Maslow’s need hierarchy is generally applicable to all with regards to cultural differences. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory advocates the dynamic processes of need satisfaction which leads towards the ultimate goal of self-actualisation.Alderfer (1969) modified Maslow’s Theory by suggesting there are only three needs (i. be concerned with needs on other levels of the primary need (Townsend and Gebhardt.e. related and growth). move on to the next need. This Hierarchy of Needs is claimed to be a universal theory of human motivation and the needs or motives are identified to human behavior (Iachini. 1993). At any instant. Needs are constantly changing within the individual (Osteraker. Maslow’s theory is dynamic in the sense that human beings are postulated as wanting beings that search constantly for the fulfilment of their needs in an expanding needs system (Chung. Tests have shown that people across the world are essentially motivated by the same fundamental needs.. Unlike most of the above traditional need theories that can be classified as homeostatic or deficit theories of motivation. it must be repeated that an individual does not concentrate all energies on one need and then when that need is fulfilled. an individual may concentrate mostly at one level but at the same time may. The major difference lies in the definition of need satisfaction. 1999). to a lesser degree. existence. 1969). Alderfer argued that people can move up and down the hierarchy and can be motivated at any time by multiple needs. 54 .
a particular behavior may be caused by many needs. Its structure is appealing in terms of its simplicity and apparent completeness (Gallagher and Einhorn. they do provide an understanding of what motivates or energises the individual. The power of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory is the identification of the needs of each individual that motivate behavior (Wiley. a specific behavior can meet more than one need. The Needs Hierarchy is also elegant and parsimonious. Behavior is almost always motivated by other factors that are culturally.Maslow proposed that needs must be studied in totality or holistically rather than independently as needs are seldom found in isolation but in a variety of combinations (Chung. 1976). Motivations are only one group of determinants of behavior. The adoption of Maslow’s needs is appropriate for the CASES personality measure as it has face validity with plausible explanatory power. In additional. 1969). Conversely. 55 . For example. the scope of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is broad and is able to explain a wide range of behaviors. Although personality-based theories may not necessarily predict behavior or motivation. Workplace behavior is posited to be influenced by a person’s existing state of needs in a certain universal needs taxonomy. Maslow (1943) postulated that the theories of motivation are not synonymous with theories of behavior. 1997). biologically and situationally determined. Mustafa (1992) postulated that the significance of the needs hierarchy lies in understanding the motivational factors for the individuals. Furthermore.
2. The psychological needs are based on the motivational underpinnings of the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory and the environment/situation interactions are explained by the social cognitive theory. existing psychometric instruments have personality dimensions which are temporally stable over various situations. may desire the money to purchase health insurance (instrumental motive) and hopes that the health insurance will benefit the person and family (end goal). Most. The end goals are classified as drives and intrinsic motives by social 56 .1. The Constructs of this Proposed Model Most broad-based personality theories have assumed that specific motivations determine how personality and self develop function. The First Premise: Behavior is Motivated by Needs An analysis of a person’s behavior can produce a range of instrumental motives with end goals.7. if not all.7.2.4. A person taking up a second job for the extra money (instrumental motive).4. Any adequate model must therefore address motivation. This model of personality (CASES) postulates that personality is a function of psychological needs and their interactions with the environment/situation. which complete the “behavior chain”. The variability of these dimensions from the Needs theory is explained by the complexity dimension based on the social cognitive theory of “If-Then”. The proposed personality model of CASES attempts to explain personality with dimensions from the Hierarchy of Needs theory.
1998). 1981). Furthermore. (iii) the need for interpersonal boundaries. Motives are reasons a person holds for initiating and performing voluntary behavior. 2003. incentives. and (iv) the need for a resilient responsiveness by one's love objects. Motives refer to people’s desire. They provide the meaning of human behavior. Freud wrote. skills and other motives. Motives can be ends-based or means-based 57 . 2004).psychologists (Reiss. expectancies. recognition and affirmation. However.e. may enjoy the feeling of self-importance and may think of issues pertaining to wealth (Reiss. wishes and goals. (v) the need for optimal emotional availability of a love object. Although Freud did not elaborate further on the idea of needs. triebe) is need” (Frank. A person with a motive to gain social status may behave in ways linked with upper class status. particular actions or behaviors associated with a certain motive may not have high correlations with the motive behaviors because they can vary according to the situation. the need for identity. “A better term for an instinctual impulse (i. the need definition should be given more consideration as postulated: (i) (ii) the need for one's physical needs to be deemed legitimate. 2004). needs have been equated with “drive” in experimental psychology (Fedor and Ferris. p. 694). (iv) the need for understanding the causes of events.. Motives are the “why” of behaviors (Winter et al..
their needs are fewer. Hence. Ends-based motives are indicated when one engages in a behavior because one desires to do so with no other apparent reason. salary or degree). Wants and needs are based on both inherited characteristics and environmental conditions and behavior is motivated to satisfy needs and wants (Koltko-Rivera. 2004). interactional and societal needs. 2004). Similarly. In these examples. Drive theories define drives as psychological states that move the organism towards a goal whereas needs are physiological states of deprivation (Pincus. 2003). Our values determine our needs and our needs influence 58 . the behavior is enacted as it is a means to obtain something else (e. For example. For example. Human wants can be regarded as specific desires for these deeper needs.g. These wants are shaped and reshaped continuously by the institutional and social forces. Maslow (1970) posited that the gratification of any need is a value while Murray (1951) claimed that needs operate in the service of values. motives involve wishes. 1998). needs are socially constructed and historically situated (Buttle. 1989). desires or goals (Winter et al. Needs that people desire and require vary according to the value system in which they are oriented as different values systems induce different needs (Yamaguchi. a student reading a textbook out of curiosity or a child kicking a ball just for the fun of it. Values are cognitive representations of biological.. a professional footballer playing the game for a salary or a student studying diligently to obtain a degree. On the other hand..depending on the individual’s objective for performing the behavior. means-based motives are indicated when one performs an act for a specific instrumental value. While people’s wants are many.
Jolibert and Baumgartner. 1999.7. and fulfilment. and (iv) Sociocentric self. image. which represents the needs for growth. care. desires. which represents the needs for love. companionship. structure. 2004). achievement. which represents the needs for power. and affiliation. which represents the needs for security. the four dimensions of self are proposed as follows: (i) Self-Actualising self. CASES posits that the needs subsume motives (implicit and explicit). Based on these factors. CASES’s first premise is that personality dimensions can be represented by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. self development. Physiological needs.our acts (Osteraker. The Second Premise: The Accuracy of Predicting Behavior Depends on Complexity “Complexity” reflects the extent to which people are complex and difficult to understand (Koltko-Rivera. drives and values. are not considered as they are unlearned and assumed to be of relatively in low importance in current organisational settings. Social cognitive theorists postulate that human beings are neither mechanical 59 . however. and control.2. Hence. 2. 1997). progress.4. system. To explain why some individuals are highly predictable and some are unpredictable. order. (ii) Safety self. and protection. the model uses the social cognitive theory to provide an explanation for complexity. (iii) Egocentric self.
such as when the threat is insufficiently threatening or when the individual lacks the motivation or necessary cognitive resources to deal with the threat. active construal of the environment. 1977a). 1995: Anderson and Chen. “then”) that an individual displays in various classes of situations (i. Complex behavior is believed to be mediated by the individual’s current purposes and intents. The capacity to control one’s action. Not all threats require adjustments. Even though the contents and processes by which self-regulation occur are multifaceted.. “if”). This approach assumes that every individual possesses an idiosyncratic constellation of “if-then” relations and the overall pattern of “if-then” responses of the individual reflects the individual unique “personality signature” (Mischel and Shoda. 2002).. self-regulation is activated by a threat indicating that something is not “normal” and that adjustment may be needed. 60 .e.e. This self-regulation involves overriding an individual’s responses or modulating them on the basis of some threatening experience such as a disturbing emotional state.conveyors of animating influences of the environment nor autonomous agents. 2000). Human behavior is purposive. Andersen and Chen (2002) posited that personality and self are largely shaped by experiences and personality is a function of the different situations individuals encounter. and by the exercise of conscious decisions and choices based on these purposes and construals (Bargh and Ferguson. motivation or thought processes is a unique human characteristic (Bandura. The “If-Then” approach defines personality based on different responses (i.
(i) Complex self. representing the need to adapt. For example. then he/she will tend to be gullible at all times and situations. but at another situation and time. a low complexity person would normally manifest the traits of the other four dimensions consistently and persistently over time and across situations. at a particular situation and time. The traits of the other four dimensions are dynamic and are manifested on the need to suit a purpose. Low complexity traits describe the characteristics of people who are predictable. The nature of low complexity behavior is conditioned while the nature of high complexity behavior is cognitive. being hard or soft is a person’s choice and is manifested with intent to achieve a purpose. CASES’s second premise states that human beings can be placed on a complexity continuum thereby producing a fifth self-dimension known as the Complexity Dimension. the person can be soft. 2.No two human beings are alike. Complex people are harder to predict. viz. Uniqueness of the CASES Personality Measure The notion that humans exhibit needs for growth and development has traditionally enjoyed considerable acceptance by practitioners owing possibly to the face validity and intuitive 61 . Complex people have dynamic personalities.7. For example. a person can be hard. Evidently. CASES postulates that people with a low complexity have relatively static personalities.5. if an individual with low complexity is gullible. change and be flexible to survive in a turbulent dynamic environment. Apparently.
variations in responses are not assumed to be an error. focused on personality traits at the molecular. or has to (Nikolaou. “inventory” level instead of the construct level. competence.appeal of the arguments. wants to. From this approach. Defining personality with these theories allows for variability in personality across various situations while maintaining stability at the level of the individual’s “personality signature” (Mischel and Shoda. however. however. 2. Furthermore. The CASES model of personality recognises the idiographic differences in how human beings make sense of varying situations and their responses to them.. 62 . These tests. CASES posits that an individual is not a “hostage” of his/her traits but rather is an active personality which has stable. 1995). There has been a resurgence of interest in the role of personality in work performance (Robertson et al. The individual. experience. motivation. That is. personnel selection specialists did not generally use personality testing in employee selection due to the perception it had low validity.8. There are many other possible factors that influence work performance such as intelligence. 2000). has the ability either unconsciously or consciously to alter his/her behavior simply because he/she likes to. 2003). variability in an individual’s responses across situations will not be dismissed or averaged over. “Does personality predict work performance?” is a question that many researchers have addressed over the past few decades. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES Prior to the 1990s. dispositional personality characteristics.
self management and motivation. interpersonal. 2003). work attitude. 1997.. peer or supervisor reports on the job or failure 63 . Hence. work orientation. Mellissa and Ellington. administration. Research on the significance of personality suggests that even though other factors are important in determining the performance of an individual in a given task. 1998).. 2004). Schmit et al. (2000) posited that the core work performance factors are thinking. leadership. oral and written communication task proficiency. Recent studies using more fundamental dimensions of personality have shown the predictive power of personality for work performance (Kieffer et al. more recent studies are focusing on demonstrating the incremental variance in work performance with the use of personality predictors (Sackett. and interviews. Mellissa and Ellington. job-specific task proficiency. motivation and satisfaction levels. Performance is often measured as training academy performance. and motivation). 2004). and ability (Carmeli and Freund. results from multiplicative combination of declarative knowledge. 1993. 2002. Burke and Witt (2004) postulated that personality tests account for a certain unique variance in work performance’s measures beyond the variance accounted for by mental ability tests. Sackett.e. Tett and Burnett (2003) used a work performance taxonomy that had eight categories (i. Work performance is affected by role clarity. personality provides very little insight on what and why the person will do in a given job.satisfaction. and organisation (Barrick et al. Barrick and Mount. 1998). Sanders. Several studies have shown that all personality dimensions or factors are valid predictor of work performance (Salgado. procedural knowledge. assessment centre ratings..
To ensure a full representation of work performance. Several researchers have stressed that other factors such as occupational socialisation. Mount and Strauss. work stress. 1994). 1990).. Furthermore. Schweiger and Sumners. work performance comprises “will-do” and “can-do” components where the former are best predicted by personality measures (Barrick. These two dimensions of performance show little correlation when measured objectively but exhibit high correlation when measured subjectively. where one person assessing another person’s work tends to rate all aspects of it as good or all aspects as poor (Cook et al. 2000. Global measures of work performance and personality measures often correlate poorly (Cook et al. beside the worker’s productivity (Hunter and Schmidt. a measure should include variables in citizenship behavior and productivity as well as steps to prevent the “halo” effect. and helpfulness. 64 . 1993). 2003). This could be due to the confusion of the two dimensions of personnel performance evaluation: (a) citizenship behavior (social behavior at work) and (b) performance in productivity. and the work environment can significantly influence an individual’s behavior. Another contributing factor is when supervisors evaluate their subordinates. A contributing factor for the poor correlation between personality and work performance is the “halo” effect.. 2000). they also rely on other factors such as pleasant disposition. There exists some degree of difficulty in measuring work performance and linking specific work tasks to personality dimensions. cooperativeness.measures such as being fired or quitting (Sanders.
Subjective self-performance appraisal is the performance rating conducted by the ratee. This system of self-assessment of work performance is emerging as a popular trend in performance appraisal although it has not yet gained wide acceptance because of the general unfavourable research findings that individuals generally rate themselves higher than others do. Some studies of self-assessment also showed that self-ratings do not correlate with counter-position ratings and more halo (less differentiation). The strong standing taken by Campbell and Lee (1988) with regards to the limited usefulness of self-ratings as an evaluation tool has elicited doubts on its use in the performance appraisal process. The effect of leniency associated with it raises concerns about its legitimacy. Questions of response bias arise when self-ratings are used (Inderrieden, Allen and Keaveny, 2004). Lester and Kickul (2001) highlighted the concerns of the presence of common method variance. Participants are giving the survey responses to both the outcome measures as well as the psychological contract items. It is likely that these participants may exhibit a social desirability bias when assessing their behavior. This may have a confounding effect on the correlations found between the constructs. However, other researches produced conflicting findings which indicated that the two forms of ratings demonstrated significant correlation and self-ratings are significantly lower than counter position ratings (Nhundu, 1992). Self-rating has one distinctive advantage on the study of work performance and personality as they are less subject to “halo” but more “lenient” than other measures of performance (Cook et al., 2000). Respondents have no obvious reason to “fake good” since the assessment does not have any career implications.
Self-rating may be skewed towards the favourable end of each dimension. This may restrict the range of responses and thereby reduces correlations with the personality dimensions. This research uses self-ratings rather than ratings by superiors. Although few studies have used self-ratings, they have become popular in more recent research as it has been validated against other work performance measures (Cook et al., 2000). Difficulties such as selfenhancement, reliability and objectivity may be an issue; several studies have shown that such self-evaluation measures are more valid than originally perceived (Carmelli and Freund, 2004). Although self-evaluation may have a bias of general method variance and be susceptible to percept-percept inflation than others, the adoption of usable and validated measures can reduce method variance (Carmelli and Freund, 2004). A study showed correlations of 0.4-0.5 between objective measures of clerical ability and self-ratings while another reported a correlation of 0.5 for self assessment with measures of leadership (Cook et al., 2000). To ensure a relatively good representation of work performance, the Role-Based Performance Scale (RBPS) by Wilbourne, Johnson and Erez (1998) based on self-appraisal is adopted. The RBPS has five variables or components consisting of job, innovator, career, team, and organisation.
Prediction of Performance by the FFM Personality Measure
There has been a revival of interest in the prediction of work performance using personality measures due to the emergence of the FFM (Barrick and Mount, 1993). Numerous studies
have validated the FFM in predicting work performance and its cross-cultural generalisability (Burke and Witt, 2004). In general, many studies indicate that Conscientiousness, one of the dimensions of the FFM, is a valid predictor for all job-related criteria and occupational groups (Barrick and Mount, 1993; Barrick et al., 2002; Crant, 1995; Sanders, 2003; Salgado, 1997; Vinchur et al., 1998; Hurtz and Donovan, 2000). Conscientious people are reliable, hardworking, self-disciplined, determined, achievement oriented (Barrick et al. 2002); dependable, persistent, responsible (Barrick and Mount, 1993); and also motivated in goal-directed behavior (Crant, 1995). Over the past few decades, many studies have shown that personality can be fairly represented by the FFM and that the FFM is an effective predictor of work performance (Salgado, 1997; Stewart, 1999; Tett and Burnett, 2003). Hurtz and Donovan (2000) showed that Conscientiousness is stable and generalisable across criteria and occupations and has a moderate influence on performance. Other factors of the FFM have also been shown to predict work performance. Judge, Martocchio and Thoresen (1997) found that conscientious and introverted employees are less likely to be absent or play truant. Hogan and Holland (2003) found that the measures of Emotional Stability are good predictors of occupational performance while Tett and Burnett (2003) revealed that personality measures predict work performance satisfactorily and is situationally specific. This view is further supported by the body of FFM research revealing the existence of a personality-work performance relationship but other factors such as job requirements, personality interactions and aspects of the occupational environment may influence the relationship’s nature and strength (Kieffer et al., 2004). As the FFM reveals the existence of a personality-work performance
are predictors of work performance. 1999).. have moderating effects on the relationship between personality and performance. Furthermore. Beadles II and Krilowicz (2004) revealed that the need for achievement and creativity. Since the CASES model measure contains the dimension of complexity which has facets of volition. and the dimension of self-actualisation which has facets of self 68 . low impulsivity and self-regulation. people’s high expectations guide their actions to produce high performance (Lau and Shaffer. (2002) and Lowery. Nikolaou (2003) and Lowery et al. High performers perceive that events as determined by themselves while low performers perceive events as controlled by chance. McCelland identified traits for “need for achievement” and it is this satisfaction of achievement that facilitates high performance (Arnold. Behavior is a function of expectancy of actions which will lead to certain reinforcement. 1988). The second research question is whether the CASES measure of personality is able to predict work performance.8. (2004) postulated that cognitive ability and volition.2. In Bandura’s view. the research question posed is “Does the FFM predict work performance?” 2. Studies by Barrick et al. which are facets of self-actualisation.relationship in other countries but not done in Malaysia. Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure It is inevitable that researchers will attempt to examine the relationship between the FFM and other personality measures/models. which are facets of the complexity dimension based on Vancouver and Scherbaum (2000) and KoltkoRivera (2004).
Conscientiousness in the FFM comprises competence. impulsivity. planful.fulfilment. positive mental health. low confidence/self esteem. realisation of one’s potential. responsible. need for achievement. Similarly. Barrick and Mount (1991) posited that Conscientiousness is associated with volition variables such as persevering and conforming which is similar to the complexity dimension of the CASES.8. achievement-striving. anxious. the research postulates that the CASES model will predict work performance. and realisation of one’s potential in the self-actualisation dimension and the facets of selfregulation and volition in the complexity dimension of the CASES are related to the facets of achievement-striving. self-discipline. Furthermore. 2. dutiful. deliberation. As personality traits can be conceptually and empirically related without being redundant. as shown in Table 4. dependable. and hostility (Judge et al. creativity. passion.. determined. deliberation. passion. order. there are good reasons to believe that the Complexity and Self-actualisation 69 . and planfulness of the Conscientiousness dimension in the FFM. not resilient. and self esteem. depressed.3. and hard working (Costa and McCrae. 1992) whilst Neuroticism comprises fearful. internalisation. persistent. The Relationships between FFM and CASES The third research question considers how the CASES measure of personality compares with the FFM with respect to predicting work performance. The facets of positive mental health and self -esteem in the self-actualisation dimension and low impulsivity in the complexity dimension of the CASES are inversely related to the Neuroticism dimension of the FFM. determined. the facets of need for achievement. reliable. persistent. 1997).
However. this assumption will be tested and raised in the third research question.dimensions of the CASES are related to the Conscientiousness and Neuroticism dimensions of the FFM. “What is the relationship between the CASES model and the FFM model?” 70 . conforming) Realisation of one’s potential ii) Passion iii) Need for achievement i) Positive mental health i) i) Low impulsivity Self-esteem i) Table 4: The Possible Associations of Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM with Complexity and Self-Actualisation of the CASES This does not necessarily imply that the CASES model includes the Neuroticism or Conscientiousness. Dimensions of the FFM Conscientiousness Neuroticism i) Reliable ii) Self discipline iii) Deliberation iv) Planful v) Dependable vi) Order vii) Dutiful viii) Perseverance i) Responsible ii) Hardworking iii) Determined iv) Achievement striving i) Fearful ii) Anxious iii) Depressed i) Low confidence ii) Low self-esteem i) Impulsivity Dimensions of CASES Complexity Self-Actualisation i) Self-regulation ii) Volition (persevering.
H2: The CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. The third research question is addressed by the third hypothesis. Hypotheses The first research question is addressed by the first hypothesis. H3: The CASES and the FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance.4. H1: The FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. 71 .8.2. The second research question is addressed by the second hypothesis.
are discussed before proceeding to the research method adopted and the administration and development of the data collection processes. RESEARCH PARADIGMS The structure. INTRODUCTION The previous chapter analysed and reviewed the relevant literature on personality theories with respect to predicting work performance. 3. and process of social science are linked to assumptions about ontology. which give rise to various theoretical perspectives or paradigms ranging from phenomenology to positivism. they do not account for the variations in behavior due to environmental factors and the complexity of an individual. positivism and phenomenology.0. CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.2. 1980). and on the social-cognitive construct of “IfThen” was used to explain why some individuals are more predictable than others.3. human nature and epistemology (Morgan and Smircich. A new personality measure with five dimensions based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. specifically. direction. It highlighted the shortcomings of various existing personality measures. The two broad social science perspectives or paradigms of research. This chapter covers the selected research methodology and design that will be used to obtain data to examine the research questions. 72 .1. which postulates that behavior is motivated by needs.
As this research seeks to explain the relationships between need-induced behavior. 1980). relationships and the precise nature of laws among the phenomena measured. The possible shortcomings of this approach would be the apparent loss of richness of concepts due to the mechanisation of variables and concepts. positivism views reality as a concrete structure and is objective whereby human beings are rational responders (Morgan and Smircich. 73 . This approach uses a statement of a hypothesis and conclusions may be drawn from it via the analysis of quantitative data (Baker. Positivism emphasises empirical facts. causal relationships and predictions. From this point of view. According to phenomenology. this study adopts a positivistic paradigm with a hypothetico-deductive approach. 2001). and work performance. 1980). humans are transcendental beings and are not restricted by external laws. personality. Its basic epistemological stance is to obtain information on how individuals interpret the world. On the other end of the continuum. the knowledge of the social world would imply a need to map out and understand the social structure. The view that the social world is a concrete structure taken by objectivists encourages an epistemological approach that stresses the significance of studying the relationships among those elements forming that structure. giving rise to positivism which emphasises the empirical analysis of relationships (Morgan and Smircich. Positivism also provides an objective form of knowledge which specifies the regularities.Phenomenology views reality as a projection of human imagination.
By manipulating data with various sophisticated quantitative tools. Assessment tools are developed with the aim of facilitating the optimal utilisation and development of human capital where measures of individual differences are the most common criteria of interest. Human beings are assumed to be products of external forces in the environment. Lubinski. It is a structure comprising of a network of finite relationships between constituent parts. 1996). the social world can be “frozen” into structured immobility and the role of human beings is reduced to 74 . are appropriate to capture a view of the social world or reality as a concrete structure. with surveys as the main research method (Morgan and Smircich. and abilities) that have real-world significance. vocational preferences. people always respond to the situation in a lawful manner. 1980. Causal relationships link all aspects of behavior to the specific context.3. The aim of such research is to assess human variations in factors (e. Stimuli from the environment condition them to respond to events in determinate and predictable ways. Gliner and Harmon.3. 1996). Although human perception or cognition may influence the process. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Most research in the social science disciplines is conducted using quantitative methodologies. Reality can be found in the relationships between these components and concrete behavior. The quantitative methods.. Morgan. which are principally drawn from natural sciences.g. The psychology of individual differences has a number of empirically established foundations on which a more scientific foundation may be built for a better understanding of human behavior (Lubinski. personality. 1999.
exploratory.. Any generalisation is inductive which comprises nomothetic statements. the nature of the study depends on how far the knowledge on the research subject has advanced. Moreover. Based on these grounds. 2001). the types of investigation. a quantitative methodology has the ability to provide an objective view of the various external factors. as mentioned in the previous chapter. promotes value-free inquiry. An 75 . This quantitative methodology based on the positivist paradigm is objective.1. Hence. case study or hypothesis testing). case study or hypothesis testing. adheres to strict rules and uses statistics extensively. 3. the time horizon and the unit of analysis (Cavana et al. the extent of researcher interference. Purpose of the Study Studies can be descriptive. various studies.4. have used this approach effectively. RESEARCH DESIGN Research design involving a series of logical decision-making steps basically comprises the purpose of the study (descriptive. 3. a quantitative methodology is adopted and provides the framework for the research design.4. Although the processes in research design are depicted in distinct sequential activities.elements which are subject to deterministic sets of forces. these activities often interact or occur at the same time. From the framing of the research questions and hypotheses. exploratory.
or race. Hypothesis testing is employed in studies that seek to establish the independence of various factors in a situation or the differences among groups or to explain the nature of relationships. 76 . information and variables on the topic to enable the formulation of hypotheses as articulated in Chapter 2. educational level.exploratory study is carried out when little or no information is known about the subject. Descriptive studies are carried out to ascertain and describe the characteristics of the variables studied but no associations or comparisons are made as only one variable is considered at a time (Morgan.. This study uses hypothesis testing as there is extensive knowledge. critical and revelatory are met (O’Cass.. 2001). gender. It is generally qualitative in nature and used as a managerial decision-making tool (Cavana et al. 2004). It provides an enhanced understanding of the various relationships between variables as well as establishing their causalities (Cavana et al. Such studies are appropriate to obtain an initial grasp of the phenomena of interest (Cavana et al. 1999). 2001.. Such an undertaking is appropriate when the three criteria of uniqueness. The case study method involves a systematic gathering of in-depth information on an organisation or entity. The purpose of descriptive studies is to describe aspects of the situation from an organisational. 1999). Gliner and Harmon. 2001). Morgan et al. industry or individual perspective such as age.
experimental and non-experimental. Research Method When the purpose of the study and the type of investigation has been determined.4. This can be done with a correlational or causal approach. 3. Quantitative research methodology. Clarification investigation is used to gain a better understanding of the phenomena or concepts under investigation. that is. the next step is to decide on the type of research method that will be used. Experimental research involves the manipulation of one or more variables in order to study the effects of such manipulations on the subjects 77 . Exploratory and descriptive studies using qualitative methods follow this approach as it allows the researcher to be flexible in exploring the issues being studied.3. The investigation carried out in this study is a correlational study as the interest is to delineate the variables which are associated with the problem (Cavana et al.. Type of Investigation There are three approaches of investigation: clarification. correlational and causal. Quantitative methods may be used to give a more definite answer.4. as adopted for this research. the next stage is to determine the relationships between the variables or concepts.3. consists of two distinct collection methods.2. A causal relationship occurs when one variable or concept causes a change in another whereas a correlational relationship only indicates that two variables or concepts are associated. A causal study delineates the cause of one or more problems whereas a correlational study delineates the variables or concepts that are associated with the problem. 2001). With a better understanding of the concepts.
Since the research questions posted for this study are on behavior. case study. 1999) It is clear that observational research is not appropriate as some of the variables are not observable. Method Observational Research Description Observation of subjects in their own environment or researcher participating in naturally occurring groups and recording observations. this study is not case-specific. and the work performance of individuals. Non-experimental research does not involve the manipulation of variables or assigning subjects to groups and requires minimal interference from the researcher. Hence.under study and is generally applied to answer the questions of why and how (Grace. What. there are four broad categories of non-experimental techniques: observational. which rules out case study. nor is it 78 . As shown in Table 5. the non-experimental research is considered the more appropriate approach to adopt in this study. How Much and How Many? Case Study Research Research investigates a particular situation or problem. Where. and survey. archival. Table 5: Four Categories of Non-experimental Techniques (Grace. personality. Where. it is not possible to manipulate these variables or assign participants to groups. Survey Research Goal is to collect information about the same variables or characteristics from a number of cases where the end result is a data matrix or a structured or rectangular set of data. Using data that were collected for a purpose other than the problem at hand. 1999). Is case-specific. Similarly. What. Answers How and Why? Archival Research Who. How Much and How Many? How and Why? Who.
the survey method is the most appropriate method for data collection in this study because of its ability to address the research questions as well as its efficiency and practicality. 79 .4. The adoption of nil or minimal interference for this study is supported by Gill and Johnson (2002) who postulated that analytical studies require precision and the control of extraneous variables can be handled via statistical techniques. moderate to excessive. 3. Hence. such studies have considerable interference with the normal or natural settings. This approach facilitates the external validation and generalisability of the findings within similar environments (Baker. The extent of interference by the researcher in the flow of work in the workplace has an important bearing on the research decisions. An excessive interference occurs especially in a causal study whereby an artificial setting is created and manipulated in a laboratory environment. Researcher’s Interference There are varying degrees of interference in research ranging from minimal. For a causal study. 2001).suitable for archival research as there are new personality variables to be measured. Hence. manipulation of the variables may be done to study the effects of such manipulation on the dependent variables. There is minimal interference in an exploratory or descriptive study conducted in an organisation.4. This study does not require interference as the objective is to collect data on the personality of individuals and their work performance.
A contrived environment.3. Study Setting The setting of the study can be either contrived or non-contrived. it is more important to capture the variables or concepts in the study than to establish the cause and effect relationships (Saunders. there are tradeoffs between internal and external validities.. Hence. the research is conducted whereby the work proceeds normally in the natural environment. may reduce the external validity due to “reactivity” (Baker. 2001). This research will be conducted via a survey with minimal researcher interference in a natural environment as the variables under investigation are the personality dimensions of individuals and their perceptions of their own work performance within their 80 . Control imposed on a study gives it better internal validity as the extraneous variables are removed or controlled in order to facilitate investigation of the variables of interest. 2001). however. Efforts to strengthen internal validity will diminish external validity and vice-versa (Cavana et al. A laboratory experiment is one with a contrived setting and considerable interference by the researcher (Cavana et al. Correlational or causal studies which use environmental settings where the employees usually function are known as field experiments. Furthermore.5. Exploratory or descriptive studies usually fall under this category whereas rigorous causal studies are often undertaken in contrived settings. Lewis and Thornhill. Exploratory or descriptive studies carried out in organisations are known as field studies. 2001)..4. 1997). (1998) postulated that the level of control is least relevant for research methods using surveys. External and internal validities are competing aspects. In a non-contrived setting. Remenyi et al.
and external validities and plausible explanations of the variances of the independent and dependent variables (Remenyi et al.normal work environments. valid and unambiguous will be included after proper screening by subject matter experts (SME) to ensure content. dyads. Moreover. organisations. Lindell and Whitney (2001) postulated that most behavioral studies are cross-sectional as such studies focus on individual’s attitudes.7. As this research is on the measurement of personality dimensions of individuals and their work performance. internal. groups. 3. variables which are reliable. Unit of Analysis The research objective determines the unit of analysis. the data collected will be the 81 .. Time Horizons This research adopts a cross-sectional study instead of a longitudinal study as it will take a snapshot of the situation under study (Remenyi et al.4. or cultures.6. the passage of time is inconsequential.4. 1998). 3. This method is appropriate as the objective of this research is to examine whether a new personality measure will provide incremental validity over and above that of the FFM in the prediction of work performance. 1998). To control for extraneous and irrelevant factors.. which can be individual. Hence. beliefs and perceptions.
and their perceptions of their behaviors and work performance (Cavana et al. 3. and time.1. Hence. effort. The personal interview method provides an excellent response rate but can be costly in terms of finance.individuals’ demographics. 82 . 2001). mail. these data can be obtained by using one or a combination of methods that include personal.5. 1980). telephone. 3.. and also has the problem of the interviewer’s influence on the interviewee’s responses. Together with the inherent costs as well as the time constraints of this research. The personal interview method is not used on topics of personality and work performance as these topics lie in the positivism paradigm (Morgan and Smircich. SURVEY RESEARCH The survey research consists of several steps as listed below. the unit of analysis is at the individual level.5. Selection of Survey Method As survey research has been selected as the appropriate method for collecting data. this method is considered inappropriate for this study. The merits of these methods are shown in Table 6. or computer interviews.
Although mail survey does not provide a good response rate. 2003.. 1999) Computer and telephone interviews offer expedient and low-cost options but they are not appropriate for reaching the targeted potential respondents in the organisations. al.Criterion Ability to handle complex questionnaire Ability to collect large amount of data Accuracy of sensitive questions Control of interviewer effects Degree of sample control Time required Probable response rate Cost Mail Poor Fair Good Excellent Fair Fair Fair Good Telephone Good Good Good Fair Excellent Excellent Fair Good Personal Excellent Excellent Fair Poor Fair Good Fair Fair Computer Good Good Good Excellent Fair Good Fair Fair Table 6: Merits of the Four Survey Methods (Grace. 83 . these two interview methods are also considered to be inappropriate for this study. 2004). it is cost effective and allows specific respondents in various organisations to be targeted. Nikolaou. Barrick et al. Salgado.. Hence. Mail survey is commonly used in studies of personality and work performance (Robertson et. the mail survey is considered the most appropriate method for this study.. 2003. 2002. 2000. Hence. Kieffer et al.
5.5.2. From public opinion surveys to laboratory experiments. Copies of the FFM measure (Goldberg. where minor changes in question format.5. The reduction of such abstract concepts 84 . 1999) and the self-rated work performance measure (RBPS) by Welbourne.1. Personality and Work Performance Measures Several studies on personality measures and work performance that can be used for this study were identified and the respective authors were contacted for copies of their measures.2.2. Scales The measures of personality and performance are nebulous and do not lend themselves to precise measurements due to their subjective nature.5. Selection of Measurement Techniques 3. Although self-reports can be a fallible source of data. this study uses this method whilst recognising factors and processes that affect self-reports to improve the questionnaire design and data quality (Schwarz. and thoughts of participants.2.3. researchers depend on the answers that participants provide in order to learn about the behavior.3. 1999. feelings. 2000). 3.. Marsella et al. Self Report Self-report is a primary source of data in social science research. 3.2. context or wording can cause major changes in the results. Johnson and Erez (1998) were obtained and used in this study.
A response on the disagree side is equivalent to a no response and the response on the agree side is equivalent to a yes response. Such measures use an interval scale as interval scales are able to group respondents into categories. and enable the computation of the means and variances of the measured variables.. 1998). 2001). all the measures use a five-point Likert scale 85 . Neither Inaccurate nor Accurate or Very Inaccurate as the most representative of his/her perceived personality or behavior in terms of direction.to some form of tangible measurements in a continuum is often used for such measures and is an appropriate choice especially for hypothesis testing (Cavana et al. For this study. Likert scales typically have five or seven graduated categories to select from and are anchored with descriptive phases representing the minimum and maximum responses possible (Flynn. a respondent selects a response category ranging from Very Accurate. 2004). The strength or confidence of the measurement is assessed as the distance away from the neutral response (Maurer and Pierce. In using a Likert scale.. Hence. A popular interval scale is the Likert scale which is often used to measure psychometric properties such as personality and performance (Maurer and Pierce. the scale adopted is a five-point Likert scale as a seven-point scale or higher can burden respondents with distinctions that are too fine and that do not have significant impact on the overall results (Grace. tap the order of such groups. Cavana et al. 1998). 1999. 2001). The work performance measure is categorised from Needs Much Improvement to Excellent with Satisfactory as a neutral response. strength and confidence. van Schaik and van Wersch.
5 are obtained from self ratings of 86 .4. (ii) The dependent variable The dependent variable is the self-appraised work performance of the respondents. 1999) measuring Openness to Experience. This measure is regarded as the best measure developed to date and is used for this study (Crant. administration and cost effectiveness. Safety. Self-appraisals or self ratings have significant validation against other work performance measures. 1995. Extraversion. Key Variables (i) The independent variables (a) The Big Five The 50 items for the FFM (Goldberg. 3. Actualisation. have alpha values larger than 0.5.4 to 0. CASES. Conscientiousness. Correlations of 0. 2003).because of the above merits as well as its ease of construction.79 for all five dimensions. Hunthausen et al. contains five personality dimensions of Complexity. Agreeableness and Neuroticism. (b) The new personality measure (CASES) The new personality measure. Egocentric and Socio-centric with each dimension having 10 items..2.
In view of the stance taken by the Ethics Committee in favour of maintaining confidentiality and anonymity of respondents...clerical ability and measures of leadership (Cook et. This self-appraisal performance measure. which is also known as the Role-Based Performance Scale (RBPS). (1998) is used. the self-evaluation work performance measure of Wilbourne et al. “halo-effect” tends to obscure the differentiated relationship between the criteria of personality and work performance. with each having 4 items as shown in Table 7. is developed based on identity theory and role theory in contrast to the traditional. Furthermore. career. The five components of the RBPS are job. job-related employee performance measure. innovator. 87 . Self-rating or selfappraisal also has a substantial advantage in the study of work performance and personality as they are less affected by the “halo-effect” as compared to other measures. and organisation. 2000). al. team.
iii. ii. Table 7: Role-Based Performance Scale’s Items (Wilbourne et al.(a) My Job (doing things specifically related to my job description) i. ii. ii. iii. Coming with new ideas Working to implement new ideas Finding improved ways to do things Creating better processes and routines Working as part of a team or work group Seeking information from others in my work group Making sure my work group succeeds Responding to the needs of others in my group Doing things that help others when it’s not part of my job Working for the overall good of the company Doing things to promote the company Helping so that the company is a good place to be (d) Team (working with co-workers and team members toward success of the firm) i. Quantity of work output Quality of work output Accuracy of work Customer service provided (internal and external) Obtaining personal career goals Developing skills needed for my future career Making progress in my career Seeking out career opportunities (b) My career (obtaining the necessary skills to progress in the company) i. ii. 1998) 88 . iv. iv. iv. iv. (c) Innovator (creativity and innovation in my job and the organisation as a whole) i. iii. iii. iv. iii. (e) Organisation (going above the call of duty in my concern for the firm) i. ii..
For the first personality dimension of Complexity (with 10 items). Safety. Selection of Survey Layout The physical layout of the questionnaire is important as it has influence in inducing potential respondents to participate earnestly and facilitates its administration.3. 2002). the written instructions are screened for clarity in instructional content and presentation. Egocentric and Socio-centric) are placed in the same sequence to reduce the influence of the content of the adjacent similar items in the interpretation of a question by the respondents (Schwarz. Q61.. Q91 and Q96. Q71. The questions are sequenced in the following manner: (i) The 50 items for the FFM (Goldberg. the items are placed in Q51. Q81. Q86. (ii) The second set of 50 items of the new instrument (CASES) is placed as Q51 to Q100. Q56. (1998) are placed from Q101 to Q120. (iii) The twenty items of the RBPS by Welbourne et al. questions and quality of reproduction are addressed. Q66. (iv) Demographic and other classification questions to address over-inflated selfadministrated job performance appraisal are placed at the end of the survey because of their personal nature (Grace. To minimise error. Q76. 1999). The four other dimensions with 10 items each (Actualisation.3.5. 89 . 1999) are placed from Q1 to Q50 in the same order as per the author’s design. The sequence of the instructions.
it will not be carried out due to the study’s time constraints. Selection of Sample and Sample Size Sampling is a process whereby a representative number of elements of the population are selected and through the analysis of the characteristics of the sample subjects.. For the above reasons. Every element or item is judged on its representativeness. These firms are in general manufacturing. 2001). A total of 40 organisations will be invited to take part in this research by means of personal contact with the president or senior managers of the companies concerned. relevance. 1995). Richard and Kubany. Probability sampling is appropriate when statistical generalisation is required. 2001). a generalisation of these characteristics can be made to the population elements (Cavana et al. shipping. The elements in the population under study also must have some known probability of being selected as sample. transportation. convenience sampling is adopted for this study. When time is tight or the probability of selecting elements of the population is unknown and generalisability is not essential or critical. The full questionnaire will be given to the two supervisors of this study for their comments and review for face and content validity as the next best alternative (Cavana et al..5.4.Although pilot testing is recommended for the items to ensure content validity. trading and 90 . legal. a nonprobability sampling method such as convenience sampling can be used. The wordings of several items were changed to reflect the meaning in the local Malaysian context. 3. clarity and specificity for its particular dimension (Haynes.
2002). (ii) Must have been working in the current position for at least one year as personality characteristics show no or little relationship with performance at the initial period of work but significant correlations are found after the probationary or honeymoon period with the job has ended (Helmreich. As the measures of the FFM and CASES have 50 items each. These companies represent a convenient sample and they are invited because their offices are in the Klang Valley. Since English is a second language to many Malaysians. The researcher hopes to get approval from 50% of the 40 companies and to receive on average 25 successful respondents from each of these companies thereby providing a total sample size of 500. white-collar employees are chosen as they are more likely to be literate in English. Besides being white-collared staff. the respondents are also required to fulfil several other essential criteria as follow: (i) Proficient in the English language to ensure that the respondents are able to understand and answer the questionnaires properly. it would need at least 500 responses (that is. Kudisch and Fortunato. Each company will be given 40 questionnaires or more depending on the size of the organisation and will be requested to distribute the questionnaires to all or part of their white-collar staff. Sawin and Carsud.business consulting. 1986). at least 10:1 subject to items as suggested by Nunnally (1978)) to provide sufficient rigour and statistical reliability in the principal components analysis (Avis. 91 .
The principal-component factor will be varimaxrotated as the dimensions are assumed to be uncorrelated 3. standard deviation.. is one reliability 92 .5. means. Central Tendency and Dispersion The range.3.3.1. 2001).5. Principal Components Analysis Principal components analysis will be used to check that the structure of the measures has held true (Cavana et al.5. and variance for each variable will be computed in SPSS. the measurement of internal consistency.5. Selection of analytical approach Data analysis is performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 13.5. 2001). variance. and RBPS will be analysed to determine their structure. Cronbach’s alpha. mean.5. range.5.2. 3.5. The measures for the FFM. CASES. 3. standard deviation and correlation matrix of all the variables will be generated for initial examinations. Reliability Reliability concerns the extent to which a measure is repeatable and consistent (Baker. The frequency distributions of the nominal and demographic variables.
2004). Mellenbergh and van Heerden.5. CASES and RBPS measures will be analysed to ascertain their internal reliabilities.5. Validity Construct validity is the degree to which the assessment instrument measures the proposed construct (Borsboom.coefficient that indicates how well items in a cluster correlate positively with one another.g. criterion-related validity. Content validity gives evidence on the construct validity of an instrument (Haynes. Construct validity subsumes all validities including concurrent. 2003). and factor structure. convergent and discriminant validity.. 1978). Hunsley and Meyer (2003) stressed that if personality inventories do not produce an increment in validity over other inventories that are obtainable freely in the public domain in the World-Wide-Web (e.au:80).7 or more is considered satisfactory (Nunnally.library. predictive and postdictive validity. 3. Richard and Kubany.ori. 93 . Concurrent validity refers to the degree to which a test scores correlates with another test score that is obtained from another source.newcastle.org. 1995).4. Incremental validity essentially means whether a measure adds to the prediction of a criterion above what can be predicted by other variables (Hunsley and Meyer. there is no psychometric rationale in using them. All the predictor variables of the Big Five Factor Inventory. An alpha coefficient of 0.edu. http://0ipip.
5.The research design is one of a criterion-related validity and incremental validity (Nikolaou. The findings from the descriptive statistics.6. known to the researcher. 3.5.6. Implementation The last stage of the survey research is the implementation stage which consists of time/ cost estimates and data collection/administration. the two measures of personality will be entered simultaneously in a stepwise regression analysis. 3.1. Cost and Time Estimates Some 40 companies from various industries. The respondents are asked to complete two sets of personality measures and a set of self-appraisal work performance measure. 3. 2003).5.5. are selected for the survey with an average of 40 questionnaires given to each organisation and are targeted 94 . and the stepwise multiple linear regression results will be used to test the hypotheses. Hypothesis Testing To test the criterion and incremental validities of the new personality measure (CASES) over and above the FFM on work performance. the correlation matrix.5.
A draft letter approving the staff in the organisation to participate is also provided for the companies to complete under their official letter head. Industry 1) Manufacturing 2) Service Total No of companies 27 13 40 Table 8: The Breakdown of Companies to be Surveyed Based on Industry (developed for this study) A wide spectrum of organisations in terms of industry and size is used to attain the required minimum sample size of 500 respondents. Each organisation will be given the Information Sheet and the Consent Seeking Letter. The industry breakdown and the number of companies to be surveyed are shown in Table 9.at white-collared workers from supervisory level upwards. The questionnaires will be given to the Human Resource Department to be distributed to all the white collar staff and instructed to collect them in the selfaddressed envelope a week after distribution. 95 . The total time estimated for the survey is 35 days as shown in Table 9.
Distributing questionnaires to organisations 3.00 Table 10: Breakdown of Costs on Survey (developed for this research) Item 3.04 RM256. Collecting answered questionnaires from organisations 4.2. Costing and Amount Computation Printing the questionnaire (1600 sets 1600*4*RM0. Checking for completeness of answers Total Estimated Times (Days) 5 15 10 5 35 Table 9: Total Time Estimated for the Survey (developed for this research) The cost of the survey is estimated at RM1. which has limitations such as low response rate and the inability of respondents to seek clarification if necessary.00 Travelling expenses RM20 per trip for 80 RM1600.70 RM1120.5. Printing and collating of questionnaires 2. The 96 .6.30 stamp 1600*RM0. Data Collection The survey adopts a self-administered approach.00 trips Total RM2976.Activity 1.00 of 2 pages (double-sided) 2 envelopes and RM0.86 per questionnaire based on the breakdown as shown in Table 10.
the scores will be recoded through a Recode program in the SPSS.4. Hence. The items measuring the variables are grouped together to ensure no mistake is made due to omission or wrong inclusion. Data Entry The data will be entered into SPSS and analysed.6. Incomplete questionnaires will not be considered in the analysis but efforts will be made to ensure the completeness of the questionnaires by conducting briefings in the organisations if permission is granted. 97 . 3.6. the survey is partially personally-administered but self-completed and mail-returned to minimise the effects of low response rates and lack of clarity while maintaining confidentiality and anonymity.5.3.5.researcher will inform the organisations that he will be available in the organisation’s premises at the scheduled time if the need for clarification is required. Categorising For negatively worded questions. 3.
6. RESEARCH PLAN The research plan is based on the timeline provided by the University of Newcastle for this Doctor of Business Administration (DBA). It is estimated that the dissertation can be completed within the time frame based on an average of some three hours of work per day on weekdays and some six hours of work per day on weekends subject to obtaining clearance from the Ethic Committee within the timeframe allowed. Participants can withdraw at anytime during the research without any obligation or disadvantage. no demeaning questions will be asked and respondents are not subjected to mental or physical stress in answering the questionnaire as they are given sufficient time on their own to complete the questionnaire. 3. self-addressed envelopes are provided so the respondents can choose to participate or not.7. Stamped. 98 . ETHICAL CONSIDERATION It is explicitly stated that participation is voluntary.3. Finally. Anonymity and confidentiality of the answers are ensured as the questionnaires do not have any identifiers. The research plan is based on completing the five chapters within the six-month time frame.
Stability of Work Performance Due to the implicit assumption that performance is a stable construct and the reliance on a cross-sectional.3.8. it could be likely that some respondents may try to “beat the test” due to self-deception or impression management. several studies revealed that the distortions by these response deceptions do not attenuate the predictive validity of the personality constructs (Barrick and Mount. 3. 1988). It is widely acknowledged that the self-report a person gives about his/her own personality traits and behavior are related to his/her perception of the acceptability and the desirability of these traits and behaviors (Kagan. Personality Scales Personality scales are often described as self-report measures but could be misleading as respondents may use the item responses to tell who they are and the way they would like to be seen. 1996). LIMITATIONS Response Distortions Given the seemingly straightforward nature of the items. 1996). 3.8.3. item endorsements are not self-reports but self-presentations (Hogan et al. In that case.2.8. one-time measure could lead to erroneous conclusions about the 99 . This may produce a general method variance (Carmeli and Freund. However. 3. 2004).8..1.
3. it is possible that some employees who could have been in the higher end of the work performance are promoted to other positions outside the parameters of the study. it is possible that some employees are removed from the positions due to their inadequate work performance. The requirement to maintain the anonymity of respondents restricted our ability to match the supervisors with the subordinates. Conversely. Since there is no way of estimating what the variance should be.4. Bozionelos. Self-ratings are known to be more “lenient” than other forms of work performance measures. Thus. 2004).. The ratings would be markedly skewed towards the positive end of each item.8. A rudimentary level of work performance is required for the employees to retain employment in a specific position. all information comes from the subordinate. This self rating is also subject to the common method variance or the percept-percept inflation problem (Cook et al. This will restrict the range and reduce the correlations with the personality measures.. it will not be possible to correct or adjust the correlations for the restricted range. These factors may restrict the range of dependent variables and produce attenuated correlations. 2004a). Hence. 2000. Self Rating One limitation is the use of self-ratings and its validity and reliability as an indicator of work performance.personality-performance relationships (Thoresen et al. 100 .
. Convenience sampling is adopted. Cook et al. Hence. These factors have a direct or a moderating influence on work performance. 2002. CONCLUSION Attempts to predict work performance using personality measures have been practised in organisational research for decades. There is an ample body of knowledge on this subject to derive some theoretical framework for hypothesis testing. 101 . ability. a positivist paradigm with a survey instrument via a questionnaire is developed to capture observable behaviors that reflect the dimensions of the variables or constructs. Also. as well as the content and construct validities of the measures. Work Performance Studies have found linkages between work performance and job satisfaction. the adoption of convenience sampling in this study reduces the generalisability of the findings obtained from this study.e.8. Nikolaou. 3.. Further studies will need to be conducted to establish the boundary conditions and generalisability of the findings of this study. 2002).3. There are limitations in this research that may not permit statements of causality.5. 2000. Barrick et al. 2004. role clarity and intelligence (Carmelli and Freund.. motivation level. Various relevant statistical tools are used to calculate inter-item consistency (i.9. internal reliability).
A total of 587 questionnaires were returned (a response rate of 36.4.0. 45. a 97. 49. The results of the analyses which were conducted to test the hypotheses are presented in the third section. and the remaining 107 (i.5%) were school certificate holders. 54.5% rate of participation.2%) of the respondents were degree-holders. 31. The number of companies that responded was 39. 102 .e. A total of 267 (i. 246 (i. 19. 544 were usable.1. 170 (i.e.3%) were diploma holders. 4. The fourth section contains a summary of the main findings.2%) were male and 298 (i.. The second section contains the results of principal components analyses.e.e. which were used to verify the structures of the various scales.8%) were female.. Of the 544 respondents. of these. The descriptive statistics of the demographic variables are presented in the first section..e.2.. DEMOGRAPHICS A total of 1600 questionnaires were distributed to 40 Malaysian companies of various sizes who were invited to participate in this study. CHAPTER FOUR – DATA ANALYSIS 4.. INTRODUCTION This chapter contains four sections.7%) and.
= 5.6 years (s. 25.d.7) while the average number of years that respondents were in their current jobs was 5.e.. 36. The average organisational tenure of the respondents was 7. and Black (1998) was used because of the large number of items being analysed. This analysis yielded five orthogonal factors that 103 .d. The remaining 205 (i.e. Principal Components Analysis of the FFM Personality Measure A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (with suppressed loading less than .d. The recommended cut-off value of .A total of 140 (i. An examination of the skewness and kurtosis statistics as well as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic was conducted to examine the distributions of the variables.1) and the minimum age and maximum age of the respondents were 19 years and 65 years respectively.2).. 37.50 by Hair.. = 6. Tatham.1. Items that did not achieve a primary loading of .8%) respondents were from middle or senior management levels.29 (s. 4. The average age of the respondents was 34. 4.e.50) was conducted on the FFM.2.8%) of the respondents were from non-executive or clerical levels while 198 (i. Anderson.50 or larger on their respective components were eliminated from the solution.2.5%) were from lower management or executive levels. RESULTS FROM PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS Principal Components Analysis with Varimax Rotation was used to examine the structure of the scales. = 9.0 years (s.
66 .67 .54 . Component 1 2 3 4 5 Openness5 Openness8 Openness4 Openness2 Openness6 Conscientious1 Conscientious8 Conscientious7 Conscientious3 Conscientious6 Extraversion7 Extraversion9 Extraversion4 Extraversion2 Agreeableness4 Agreeableness5 Agreeableness9 Agreeableness7 Neuroticism7 Neuroticism1 Neuroticism6 Neuroticism8 .54 Table 11: Rotated Component Matrix of FFM 104 .accounted for 47.63 .64 .60 .62 . The findings from this analysis are presented in Table 11.67 .4% of the variance.54 .70 .57 .60 .72 .65 .55 .59 . five items were eliminated from each of the Openness and Conscientiousness sub-scales while six items were eliminated from each of the Extraversion. Agreeableness and Neuroticism subscales. Using the .68 .64 .74 .71 .61 .50 loading criterion.
and 64 respectively. 105 .6 is acceptable.01 level whilst it was negatively correlated with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness at the 0. 8). Extraversion. The intercorrelations resembled those that have been reported previously.60.01 level. All the components therefore have acceptable internal reliability. a Cronbach’s alpha of . Extraversion was positively correlated with Agreeableness and Neuroticism at the 0.59.001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was greater than the acceptable level of 0. Conscientiousness. .57.The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < .. The Cronbach’s alphas for the remaining items in the Openness. 1997. Hence. . Agreeableness and Neuroticism components were . According to Hair et al.01 level. Conscientiousness was positively correlated with Extraversion and Agreeableness but negatively correlated with Neuroticism at the 0.05 level.63. . The FFM components are distinct but related and “are no more wholly independent than they are redundant” (Judge et al. p.73. The items that were retained after the principal components analysis are shown in Table 12. Openness was positively correlated with Extraversion and Neuroticism at the 0. Agreeableness was negatively correlated with Neuroticism at the 0. factorability was assumed.01 level. (1998).
Big 5 Dimensions Items Openness 2 Openness 4 Openness 5 Openness 6 Openness 8 I am not interested in theoretical discussions I do not enjoy going to art museums I am not interested in abstract ideas I avoid philosophical discussions I do not like art Conscientious 1 Conscientious 3 Conscientious 6 Conscientious 7 Conscientious 8 I am always prepared I pay attention to details I get chores done right away I carry out my plans I make plans and stick to them Extraversion 2 Extraversion 4 Extraversion 7 Extraversion 9 I have little to say I keep a low profile I don’t like to draw attention to myself I don’t talk a lot Agreeableness 4 Agreeableness 5 Agreeableness 7 Agreeableness 9 I believe that others have good intentions I respect others I accept people as they are I make people feel at ease Neuroticism 1 Neuroticism 6 Neuroticism 7 Neuroticism 8 I often feel unhappy I am often depressed I have frequent mood swings I panic easily Table 12: Items of FFM after Principal Components Analysis 106 .
79 . Using the . Safety.62 .2.68 . Actualisation.56 .65 .63 .72 .67 . This analysis yielded five orthogonal components that accounted for 57.54 .74 .68 . Ego and Social sub-scales.4.61 2 3 4 5 .51 .69 .68 .63 . Component Complexity7 Complexity2 Complexity4 Complexity5 Actualisation7 Actualisation2 Actualisation5 Actualisation4 Safety5 Safety3 Safety9 Safety6 Ego8 Ego6 Ego2 Ego1 Social7 Social10 Social6 Social9 1 .68 .61 Table 13: Rotated Component Matrix of CASES 107 .0% of the variance.77 . six items were eliminated from each of the Complexity.50) was conducted on the CASES items. The results from this analysis are presented in Table 13.50 loading criterion. Principal Components Analysis of the CASES Personality Measure A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (with suppressed loading less than .2.55 .
and . .The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < . . all of the CASES sub-scales had acceptable internal reliability. The Cronbach’s alphas for the remaining items in the Complexity. factorability was assumed.48. The items of the sub-scales are shown in Table 14.60.81. 108 .001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was greater than the acceptable level of 0. With the exception of the Ego sub-scale. . Hence. which had marginal internal reliability.74 respectively. Ego and Social components were 73.64. Safety. Actualisation.
This analysis yielded five orthogonal components that accounted for 80.50) was conducted on the RBPS measure of performance.2.3. Principal Components Analysis of RBPS Performance Measure A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (with suppressed loading less than .0% of the variance. Based on the .50 109 .CASES Dimension Complexity2 Complexity4 Complexity5 Complexity7 Actualisation2 Actualisation4 Actualisation5 Actualisation7 Safety3 Safety5 Safety6 Safety9 Ego1 Ego2 Ego6 Ego8 Social6 Social7 Social9 Social10 Item I am good at interpreting things I can spot opportunities a and make use of them I am good at overcoming obstacles to get what I want I am good at persuading others to support me I love to seek experiences in life I find great satisfaction in doing a good job I seek knowledge and skills to improve myself I work towards improving my quality of life I like to do things following the proper channels I am law-abiding I believe in doing things step by step I do not fight with authority I need security I like living in style I can be easily hurt I like to celebrate in a grand manner I like to assist my friends in time of needs I like to visit my friends I enjoy working in groups I greet my friends with open arms Table 14: Items of CASES after Principal Components Analysis 4.
79 Table 15: Rotated Component Matrix of RBPS The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < . Innovator component. and 110 .90. Career component.84 .81 .85 .80 . The results of this analysis are presented in Table 15.85 . Hence.63 . Team component and Organisation component of the RBPS were .81 .77 .91.76 .73 .76 . The Cronbach’s alphas for the Job component. .89.78 .84 .56 2 3 4 5 . . factorability was assumed.73 .75 .75 . Component Job1 Job2 Job3 Job4 Career3 Career2 Career4 Career1 Innovator2 Innovator3 Innovator1 Innovator4 Team2 Team1 Team3 Team4 Organisation3 Organisation4 Organisation2 1 .001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was greater than the acceptable level of 0.loading criterion.60. .76 .90. only one item was eliminated and this was from the organisation component of the RBPS.
and Conscientiousness. The Safety component of CASES was positively correlated with Conscientiousness. Agreeableness and Extraversion but negatively correlated with Neuroticism. The Relationship between the FFM Dimensions and the CASES Dimensions As shown in Table 16.2.. 4. The Ego component of CASES was positively correlated with Neuroticism. The Actualisation component of CASES was positively correlated with Conscientiousness. The five performance sub-scales therefore had acceptable internal reliability. Agreeableness. The Ego component was not correlated with Openness or Extraversion.01 level (one-tailed).93 respectively. The Complexity component was not correlated with Extraversion.4. Agreeableness and Extraversion but negatively correlated with Openness and Neuroticism. 111 . the Complexity component of CASES was correlated positively with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness but negatively correlated with Openness and Neuroticism. All of the components of the RBPS were correlated with each other at the 0. The Safety component was not correlated with Openness.
The Social component of CASES was correlated positively with Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Extraversion but was correlated negatively with Openness. The Social component was not correlated with Neuroticism.
Conscientiousness Openness Neuroticism Agreeableness Extraversion Actualisation Social Complexity Safety Ego -.10* -.22** .48** .15** .56** .38** .58** .51** .08*
.18** -.09* .29** -.21** -.26** -.10** -.01 .03 -.13** 19** -.16** -.04 -.27** -.17** .30** .22** .59** .50** .33** .46** .14** .12** .08* -.07 .26** -.02 .59** .51** .49** .18** .31** .43** .23** .34** .12** .12**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1 – tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1 – tailed).
Table 16: Correlations between the Components of FFM and CASES
RESULTS FROM TESTING OF THE HYPOTHESES
The findings from the hypothesis testing are presented in the same order as were the research questions/hypotheses in Chapter 2. The assumptions of normality and the absence of outliers and singularity underpinning the use of regression were verified by statistical tables and histogram plots of the respective components. The various components of the FFM, CASES and RBPS were found to satisfy the conditions for regression.
Prediction of Performance by the FFM Personality Measure
H1: The FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. The components of the FFM were moderately correlated (the values of the correlation among the five factors are less than .30) with each other at the 0.01 level (one-tailed) except for one correlation of .48. The correlation coefficients did not exceed .70, which indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem (Carmelli and Freund, 2004; Nunnally, 1978). From Table 17, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Neuroticism were significantly correlated to all five components of the RBPS and Total RBPS. Openness and Extraversion were negatively correlated with the Team and Career components of the RBPS respectively.
64** .29** .20** Career RBPS 1 .63** .02 -.19** 1 .82** .05 -.32** .02 1 .80** .13** .10** -.09* -.17** Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Conscientiousness Openness Neuroticism Agreeablenes s 1 .03 1 -.Job RBPS Career RBPS Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Conscientiousness Openness Neuroticism Agreeableness .62** . * Correlation is significant at the 0.41** -.33** -.06 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.08* -.05 -.54** .03 1 .42** -.07 -.22** 1 .46** .50** .55** .29** 0.13** .35** -.74** .18** -.70** .48** .25** .15** 1 .21** .22** Extraversion -.87** .0 -. Table 17: Correlations of the Components of FFM and RBPS 115 .05 level (1 – tailed).01 -.32** .22** .30** -.82** .32** -.29** 1 -.32** .28** .79** .53** .09* .01 level (1 – tailed).
010 10.051 .25 respectively (Table 18).041 -. The R-square value was .000 .000 a.259 .12.390 . the Job component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.445 9.20 respectively (Table 19).469 .000 . The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Career component of the RBPS and had beta values of .229 . The R-square value was .36 and -.051 .411 2.000 . 116 .502 10. .25 and -.358 -.246 t 8.000 .353 Sig.537 .192 . the Career component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.238 -6.539 .Using a stepwise regression analysis. a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. Dependent Variable: Perform2Job Table 18: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis.23. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS and had beta values of . Error Beta 1.
055 .000 .655 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Car Table 19: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis.500 7.767 7.a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. Error Beta 1.000 .060 .055 .060 .000 .044 -.271 .422 .249 .188 9.246 -.858 Sig. Dependent Variable: Perform2In Table 20: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM 117 .965 -4. the Innovator component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.000 . .359 . .034 -5.235 .045 9. The R-square value was .22 respectively (Table 20).16.048 -. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Innovator component of the RBPS and had beta values of . Error Beta 1.993 8.000 .332 2.389 .049 5.000 .224 .456 .436 .683 .207 .337 Sig.000 .237 .285 -.000 a.000 .200 t 7.000 a.216 t 7.29 and -. a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.453 .290 2.
259 .138 t 11.400 .000 .16.040 -. Error Beta 2. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness.541 7. The R-square value was .000 .035 .056 .225 .000 .050 .058 .187 .000 .203 -.20 respectively (Table 22).122 .15.264 .207 2.Using a stepwise regression analysis.983 7.20 and -.220 . The R-square value was .575 . Agreeableness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS and had beta values of . a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Agree 3 (Constant) Conscientous Agree Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.058 .000 .936 4.000 .000 .056 . 118 .000 .256 . the Team component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM. the Organisation component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.001 a.942 4. . Dependent Variable: Perform2Tm Table 21: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis.242 .277 .498 -3.405 Sig.197 .164 4.20.25 and .14 respectively (Table 21).335 7.290 4.137 . The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Agreeableness were the only significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS and had beta values of .324 1. .
000 .207 .348 1.a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Agree Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.366 . Total RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.163 .283 7.000 .474 -5.370 -. -.415 .064 .000 .504 .044 2.065 .724 .108 .000 .23.253 .000 .188 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Total Table 23: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on FFM 119 . . The R-square value was .140 .068 . a Coefficients Model 1 2 3 (Constant) Conscientous (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Agree Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.049 -.044 -.464 .811 Sig.348 .000 .196 .198 t 7. Error 1.744 .222 . The regression revealed that Conscientiousness.595 4.256 .050 Standardized Coefficients Beta . Neuroticism and Agreeableness were the only significant predictors of Total RBPS and had beta values of .630 12.910 8.324 5.005 a.000 .058 .31.312 -.12 respectively (Table 23).297 .121 t 10.035 2.335 2.031 9.035 . Error Beta 1.186 .648 4.000 .000 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Org Table 22: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis.210 .000 .218 .413 .373 9.000 a. .385 Sig.103 -5.000 .364 .21 and .000 .692 10.
Hence. Career component. is supported. each component of the RBPS as well as Total RBPS had a significant proportion of variance explained by the FFM components. Team component. and Total RBPS. and Total RBPS. Innovator component. The R-square values ranged from . From Table 24. 1978). which indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem (Carmelli and Freund. Organisation component. The CASES components are distinct but related and. Furthermore.12 to .23. 2004.Conscientiousness was the best predictor of all of the RBPS components and the Total RBPS. the CASES components were positively intercorrelated. Nunnally.3.70. The Ego component correlated significantly with only the Job and Organisation components of the 120 . Neuroticism was a significant predictor of the Job component.2. The Complexity. Actualisation and Safety components of the CASES correlated significantly with all five components of the RBPS as well as with Total RBPS. The correlation coefficients did not exceed the value of . 4. like the FFM components. are no more wholly independent than they are redundant. Agreeableness was a significant predictor of Team component. which states that the FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. the first hypothesis. Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure H2: The CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.
except for the Career component.RBPS. and with Total RBPS. The Social component correlated significantly with all of the RBPS components. 121 .
40** .24** .08* -0.32** Career RBPS .01 level (1 – tailed).0 -.82** .82** .36** .39** .05 level (1 – tailed).12** .36** .50** .07 .28** .01 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.74** .55** .46** .10* .01 .70** .27** .Job RBPS Career RBPS Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Actualisation Social Complexity Safety .20** Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Actualisatio n Social Complexit y Safet y .87** .23** .34** .19** .51** .38** .79** . Table 24: Correlations of the Components of CASES and RBPS 122 .37** .37** .53** .54** .46** . * Correlation is significant at the 0.59** .62** .31** .14** .12** Ego -.11** .40** .64** .34** .25** .07 .31** .49** .37** .80** .18** .45** .43** .34** .63** .
000 .413 .470 8.429 .000 .044 Standardized Coefficients Beta .128 .991 4.394 5.862 Sig. The regression revealed that Complexity.057 5. 123 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Job Table 25: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on CASES Using a stepwise regression analysis.15 respectively (Table 25).217 -.238 .499 .000 .000 .397 . Safety and Ego were the only significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS and had beta values of .15.755 .264 .179 .34.205 .350 -3.328 .051 . The R-square value was . The R-square value was .050 1.052 . the Career component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.050 1.22 and -.049 -. the Job component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.169 . The regression revealed that Complexity was the only significant predictor of the Career component of the RBPS and had a beta value of . .000 .809 10.234 7.38 (Table 26).000 a. a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex 2 (Constant) Complex Safety 3 (Constant) Complex Safety Ego Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.994 6.22.000 . Error 1.149 t 9. .249 .000 .215 .540 .341 .000 .Using a stepwise regression analysis.
013 a.a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.10 respectively (Table 27).127 .358 .000 .222 .051 . a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex 2 (Constant) Complex Safety Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. . The R-square value was .686 4.000 a.201 .101 t 6. The regression revealed that Complexity and Safety were the only significant predictors of the Innovator component of the RBPS and had beta values of .765 9.21. Error 1. Dependent Variable: Perform2In Table 27: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on CASES 124 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Car Table 26: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on CASES Using a stepwise regression analysis.182 .481 Sig.379 t 6.125 10.000 .589 .218 2.239 .917 . .530 Sig.449 .531 .42 and .000 .544 .050 .000 .053 . the Innovator component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.056 Standardized Coefficients Beta . Error Beta 1.415 .000 .822 11.
049 .127 4.19. Error Beta 1.351 . the Organisation component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.000 .958 6.298 . .053 Sig.22.261 .196 .217 .17 and .240 . the Team component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES. 125 .170 .047 .020 4.325 .908 .654 6.000 .23.010 .050 .048 . .203 .049 .000 . The R-square value was .17 respectively (Table 29).657 7.929 4.202 .174 t 11.371 .17 and . The R-square value was .26 and .12.202 1. Safety.045 .086 9. The regression revealed that Safety.000 a. .000 . Complexity and Social were the only significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS and had beta values of .449 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Tm Table 28: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on CASES Using a stepwise regression analysis.000 .000 .000 . Complexity and Social were the only significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS and had beta values of .172 .912 4.Using a stepwise regression analysis.17 respectively (Table 28).000 .393 1. a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Safety 2 (Constant) Safety Complex 3 (Constant) Safety Complex Social Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. The regression revealed that Actualisation.
250 .296 1.059 .199 .26.263 .274 .000 .000 .002 . The R-square value was .069 .060 .880 3.000 .031 .314 9.166 . .908 3.057 .391 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Org Table 29: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on CASES Using a stepwise regression analysis.183 5.281 .062 .553 .186 .000 .24 respectively (Table 30).164 .120 2.911 4.000 .217 .767 .315 .000 .063 Standardized Coefficients Beta .293 .116 . Total RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Actualise 2 (Constant) Actualise Safety 3 (Constant) Actualise Safety Complex 4 (Constant) Actualise Safety Complex Social Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.291 .250 .000 . The regression revealed that Complexity and Safety were the only significant predictors of Total RBPS and had beta values of .493 .067 6.262 .262 .076 .38 and .000 .166 t 5.101 4.060 . Error 1.235 .063 .062 .161 4.495 Sig.000 .233 . 126 .167 .180 3.389 .782 3.238 .001 a.704 1.056 .220 .230 .258 .
247 . the Innovator component.147 . Social was a significant predictor for the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. the Innovator component.a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex 2 (Constant) Complex Safety Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. the second hypothesis. 127 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Total Table 30: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on CASES Complexity was the best predictor of the Job component.239 t 11. The R-square values ranged from . which states that the CASES model will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.459 1.000 a.032 6. the Organisation component. the Career component. each component of the RBPS as well as Total RBPS had a significant proportion of variance explained by the CASES components.15 to . Actualisation and Safety were the best predictors of the Organisation component and Team component of the RBPS respectively.084 .000 .378 .041 . Hence.176 .709 . Error Beta 1. Furthermore. and Total RBPS. is supported.171 9. and Total RBPS.000 . .098 Sig. Ego was a significant predictor for only the Job component of the RBPS.041 .26.406 .644 6.587 12.493 .000 . Safety was also a significant predictor of the Job component.042 .000 .
8%. FFM and CASES predicting the Job Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.4. Safety . Safety. Complexity .22.20. the Job component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of the CASES. 4. Safety and Social.15.3.3. from the CASES. and Social were the only significant predictors. accounted for 4. From Table 31. FFM and CASES predicting performance H3: The CASES and FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance. The factors of Complexity. Conscientiousness explained 16.3.11. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness.9% followed by Neuroticism with 5. These two factors were from the FFM.1.3. Neuroticism. the beta values are: Conscientiousness . 128 .20. Complexity. Neuroticism -.2% of the variance of the Job component of the RBPS. and Social -.
001 .191 1.109 t 8.058 .221 .333 .469 .578 4.946 5.374 -5.2.000 .241 .a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic 3 (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Complex 4 (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Complex Safety 5 (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Complex Safety Social Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.217 .246 1. .180 .000 .000 . FFM and CASES Predicting the Career Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.259 .200 -.233 .537 .219 -.000 .297 3.238 -6.139 .3.428 4.539 .390 . The regression revealed that Complexity and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors. the Career component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of the CASES.969 .000 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Job Table 31: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES 4.051 -.066 .041 -.264 .114 1.251 .486 4.002 2.502 10.148 -.411 2.041 -.358 -.947 4.041 -.010 a.287 .881 .000 .051 .026 -5.000 .060 .000 .010 10.3.263 .192 .000 .176 4.058 .000 .065 .000 .131 .715 .000 . 129 .000 .041 -.353 7.445 9.000 .228 .185 .000 .648 6.211 .581 Sig.000 .271 .055 .113 6.052 .000 .008 .199 .058 .229 .302 -2.545 -5.200 .248 . Error Beta 1.210 .051 .254 -.
191 .7%) and Safety accounted for 0.469 .258 . From Table 33. Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.000 . .531 .201 .163 Model 1 2 (Constant) Complex (Constant) Complex Neurotic t 6.000 .000 .827 8.017 . The regression revealed that Complexity.4% of the variance.34 and for Neuroticism it was -. 130 . and Social .208 -3. Error 1.The Complexity component from the CASES model.379 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Car Table 32: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on the FFM and CASES 4. which explained 2. the Innovator component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES.3. From Table 32.3.530 7.000 a.4% followed by Neuroticism from the FFM. Complexity and Safety were from the CASES while Neuroticism was from the FFM.3.765 9.358 .6% of the variance in the Innovator component of the RBPS.38.048 Standardized Coefficients Beta .996 Sig. explained 14. Neuroticism -. FFM and CASES Predicting the Innovator Component of RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.056 2. the beta value of the Complexity was .16. the beta values are: Complexity .057 -.000 .1% followed by Neuroticism (2.335 -. The Complexity component explained 20.09.16. Neuroticism and Safety were the only significant predictors.
5% followed by Complexity (3.a Coefficients Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients Model B Std.12. .000 .287 3 (Constant 1. Error Beta t 1 (Constant 1.043 -.086 2.232 8.161 -4.573 . Complexity. The Safety component explained 15.052 .822 Complex .25.000 .054 . Dependent Variable: Perform2In Sig.3.19. 131 . The regression revealed that Safety.376 9.14.000 .493 . the Team component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES. and Neuroticism accounted for 1.589 .6%).109 .070 Complex . Social . From Table 34.529 . FFM and CASES Predicting the Team Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.793 Complex . the beta values are: Safety .051 .449 11.000 .050 .043 -.3% of the variance in the Team component of the RBPS.000 .185 .403 10. Safety.3.876 .033 Table 33: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES 4.3%). Complexity and Social factors were from CASES while Neuroticism factor was from the FFM.4.000 . and Neuroticism -.000 . Social (2.272 5.239 .000 .168 -4. Complexity .177 .142 Neurotic -.182 6. Social and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors.141 a.258 Neurotic -.093 Safety .686 2 (Constant 1.
908 . and Social (1.000 .170 .958 6.202 .000 . none of the FFM components were significant. The regression revealed that Actualisation.281 .086 9.298 .3.000 .217 .047 .048 -.001 .196 . FFM and CASES Predicting the Organisation Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.202 .010 .1%). 132 .674 3.172 .256 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Tm Table 34: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of the RBPS on FFM and CASES 4.351 .000 .000 .449 .393 .020 4.246 .929 4.127 4.000 . Complexity (2.339 -3.186 -.000 .203 .050 .000 . followed by Safety (4.002 Sig. From Table 35. Complexity .000 .119 Model 1 2 3 4 (Constant) Safety (Constant) Safety Complex (Constant) Safety Complex Social (Constant) Safety Complex Social Neurotic t 11.5. the beta values are: Actualisation .261 .210 .17.049 1.12.050 . Safety .301 4. the Organisation component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES.912 4.000 .139 .045 1.000 . .654 6.174 .003 a.240 . Actualisation explained 15.19.0%).050 .Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.049 .325 .165 . All of these components were from the CASES.8%).000 .371 .048 1.039 Standardized Coefficients Beta .425 . and Social .657 7.17.053 5.3%.118 .567 5. Complexity and Social were the only significant predictors.3. Error 1. Safety.
553 .060 .062 .166 Model 1 2 3 4 (Constant) Actualise (Constant) Actualise Safety (Constant) Actualise Safety Complex (Constant) Actualise Safety Complex Social t 5.263 . FFM and CASES Predicting Total RBPS Performance Using a stepwise regression analysis.293 .186 . Complexity explained 21.13.167 .180 3.274 .250 .262 .258 . Safety . From Table 36.056 .235 .782 3.391 .233 .062 . Complexity and Safety were from the CASES and Neuroticism and Conscientiousness were from the FFM.063 .493 . 133 . Total RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES.002 .Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.262 .059 .069 .000 .908 3.076 . Safety.063 Standardized Coefficients Beta .199 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Org Table 35: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES 4.116 . and Conscientiousness (0.3%).166 . .060 .3.880 3.1% followed by Safety (5.000 .18.000 .164 .3.238 .495 Sig.220 .9%).057 .000 .217 .000 .281 . Neuroticism and Conscientiousness were the only significant predictors.767 .314 9.315 . the beta values are: Complexity .15.000 .031 .161 4.28.230 .389 .001 a.911 4. Neuroticism (2. Error 1. The regression revealed that Complexity. and Conscientiousness .000 .6. Neuroticism -.000 .067 6.250 .1%).101 4.291 .296 1.704 1.183 5.120 2.000 .
000 . 134 .000 . except for the Career component.493 .000 .562 5.587 12.000 . Error 1.225 -.141 .084 .378 .010 a.000 .154 . Safety component of the CASES was the best predictor of the Team component of the RBPS.034 1.239 .176 6. and Total RBPS.283 .186 .304 .692 6.459 .709 .147 .180 -.081 2.522 8.042 .000 .232 . Team and Organisation components of the RBPS.126 Model 1 2 3 4 (Constant) Complex (Constant) Complex Safety (Constant) Complex Safety Neurotic (Constant) Complex Safety Neurotic Conscientous t 11.098 7.176 . .791 -4.271 4.271 -4.171 9.598 Sig.034 .214 .040 -.472 .000 . the Innovator component. Complexity was also a significant predictor of the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS.000 .142 . and Total RBPS.644 6.054 Standardized Coefficients Beta .138 . Safety was also a significant predictor of all five components of the RBPS.000 .Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Social component of the CASES was a significant predictor of the Job.043 .000 .041 1.048 .613 .220 .032 6. Actualisation component of the CASES was the best predictor of the Organisation component of the RBPS.159 .406 .000 .365 .247 .000 .340 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Total Table 36: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on FFM and CASES The Complexity component of the CASES was revealed to be the best predictor of the Career component.044 -.000 .041 1.
The R-square values ranged from . the third hypothesis.29.e.4% of the variance in the FFM items. which states that the CASES and FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance.17 to .01 level (1-tailed). Ego and Social) has 4 items. and Total RBPS. except for the Organisation component.73. Each component of the RBPS as well as Total RBPS had a significant proportion of variance explained by at least one of the components from the CASES and/or the FFM. The original sub-scales had ten items 135 .4. The five factors are all intercorrelated significantly at the 0. Each of the components (i.0% of the variance. Complexity. Agreeableness and Neuroticism components each have four items. The original subscales had ten items each. The Openness and Conscientiousness components each have five items while the Extraversion. The principal components analysis of the CASES yielded a five-component measure that accounted for 57. 4. Hence. Actualisation. Safety. Neuroticism component of the FFM was a significant predictor of all the RBPS components. CONCLUSION The principal components analysis of the FFM yielded a five-component measure that accounted for 47. The Cronbach’s alphas for the FFM components range from .Conscientiousness component of the FFM was the best predictor of the Job component and a significant predictor of Total RBPS.. is supported.57 to .
93.81.48 to . From the stepwise regression. Complexity and Social were significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS.each. and Innovator components of the RBPS. Conscientiousness and Agreeableness were significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS. Agreeableness and Neuroticism were significant predictors of the Team component and Total RBPS. The Cronbach’s alphas for these components ranged from .0% of the variance. All of the components retained their original 4items except for the Organisation component.01 level (1-tailed). which states that the FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. the first hypothesis. Complexity and Safety were significant predictors of the Innovator component and Total RBPS. Safety and Ego were significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS.23. Complexity. Hence. Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM were significant predictors of the Job. Each component of the RBPS had a significant proportion of its variance explained by the FFM components. for which one item was removed. Safety.89 to . Career. All five CASES components were intercorrelated significantly at the 0. is supported. The principal components analysis of the RBPS yielded a five-component measure that accounted for 80. The R- 136 . From the stepwise regression.12 to . Complexity was the only significant predictor of the Career component of the RBPS. Complexity and Social were significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS. The Cronbach’s alphas for the CASES components ranged from . Actualisation. Conscientiousness. Safety. The R-square values ranged from .
The R-square values ranged from . Complexity of the CASES and Neuroticism of the FFM were significant predictors of the Career component of the RBPS. Complexity and Social of the CASES were significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS. Each component of the RBPS. is supported. which states that the CASES and FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. Complexity and Safety of the CASES and Neuroticism and Conscientiousness of the FFM were significant predictors of Total RBPS. is essentially supported. Actualisation. Each component of the RBPS had a significant proportion of its variance explained by the CASES components. which states that the CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. Hence. Safety. the third hypothesis. the second hypothesis. except for the Organisation component which was significantly predicted only by components of CASES.17 to .29. 137 .square values ranged from . Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM and Complexity. From the stepwise regression. Complexity and Safety of the CASES and Neuroticism of the FFM were significant predictors of the Innovator component of the RBPS. had a significant proportion of its variance explained by both the CASES and the FFM components. Safety. Safety and Social of the CASES were significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS. Hence. Complexity and Social of the CASES and Neuroticism of the FFM were significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS.26.14 to .
5.2. the limitations of the study. The original 50-item FFM measure (Goldberg. DISCUSSION OF THE MAIN FINDINGS 5. 1999) was analysed using principal components analysis. INTRODUCTION This final Chapter contains a discussion of the main findings from the study as well as a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of the study.1. which revealed a five-component solution consisting of Openness 138 . 5.1. and finally a conclusion.0.2. CHAPTER FIVE – CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 5. Main Findings for Research Question One Research Question One: Does the FFM model of personality predict work performance? The first research question was addressed by the first hypothesis: H1: The FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. and suggestions for future research.
a correlation coefficient of 0. 139 . hardworking.. The value of the correlation coefficient that can be considered to indicate a useful predictor has been debated over the years. responsible. All of these components were intercorrelated as revealed in past research which showed that they were distinct but related factors (Judge et al. (1984) argued that a correlation of 0.09. Openness (e. purposeful.. artistically sensitive. This finding is not surprising given that conscientious individuals are organised.30 were questionable.30 or greater was therefore considered as indicating a valid predictor of performance. In view of the cut-off value of 0. Of the five FFM components. responsible. Agreeableness (four items) and Neuroticism (four items).20 was too low to accept personality as a predictor of work performance.g. imaginative and intellectual) was found to be negatively correlated to only the Team component of the RBPS with r = -. This finding corroborates the finding of Hogan and Holland (2003). dependable. this factor was considered as an inadequate predictor of any of the RBPS components or of Total RBPS.g. Extraversion (four items). A value of 0. The results of the stepwise regression analyses also did not reveal Openness as a significant predictor of any of the RBPS components. achievement oriented and persistent) had the highest correlations with all of the RBPS components and Total RBPS.20 was considered by Cohen (1988) as meaningful but Schmitt et al.30. Barrick and Mount (1991) also argued that coefficients below . Conscientiousness (e.. achievement oriented.(5 items). For this research. Conscientiousness (5 items). 1997).
talkative.09) with the Career component of the RBPS... This finding is consistent with the results of Avis et al. the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS). Barrick and Mount 1993. Crant 1995. Conscientious individuals perform better because they set goals which help them to direct their effort and achieve challenging goals over a long period of time.dependable. assertive and sociable) was found to be negatively correlated (r = -. Salgado 1997. hard working and thorough will perform better than those who do not have such tendencies. in all occupational groups. Conscientiousness was found to be the best predictor of the components of the RBPS and of Total RBPS.g. From the stepwise regression analysis. persistent. that have been examined (e. From a theoretical perspective. Extraversion (e. the Conscientiousness construct does seem to be logically related to work performance. Hence. and persistent (Barrick et al. and Sanders 2003). the Conscientiousness component also predicted Total RBPS better than contextual work performance (i. 1993).. Conscientiousness has been shown to be a significant predictor of all job-related criteria. dependable. these results demonstrated that being dependable. It makes sense that individuals who have tendencies to be careful. Furthermore. achievement-oriented and responsible (i.e.. Hurtz and Donovan 2000. Such low values of the correlation 140 .g.e. (2002) who posited that the FFM dimensions were better at predicting overall performance measures than those with contextual aspects. high in Conscientiousness) were positively associated with work-related performance..
professional and managerial staff. Hence. Neuroticism was a predictor of the Job component. even though it is significant at the 0. Using a 0. Agreeableness was a significant predictor of all the RBPS components and of Total RBPS. and managers. Since the majority of the respondents (404 or 74. the finding from this study also supported that Agreeableness was a valid predictor of certain aspects of work performance for skilled. 1993). and of Total RBPS. Salgado (1997) revealed that Agreeableness was a valid predictor of work performance for skilled labourers. professionals. Hogan and Holland (2003) reported that Extraversion was a poor predictor of performance and claimed that this was due to the Extraversion being too broad a construct. Agreeableness can be a predictor of certain components of job performance for managerial staff in highly structured jobs. 1993). Employees in these types of jobs who were courteous. soft-hearted. and 141 . the Career component. trusting. Agreeableness was only a valid predictor of the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. In line with the findings of the current study. cooperative and forgiving (which were facets of Agreeableness) might be more cooperative and compliant and therefore would perform better in highly structured organisations where there was little ambiguity in their jobs (Barrick and Mount. Neuroticism was correlated significantly with the Job component of the RBPS and with Total RBPS.coefficient. In the stepwise regression analyses.05 level. the Innovator component.30 cut-off value for the correlation coefficient. the Team component. are often disregarded (Barrick et al. The stepwise regressions revealed that Extraversion as a non-significant predictor of performance.2%) were from the managerial positions in highly structured jobs.
Hurtz and Donovan (2000) postulated that Conscientiousness. the five components of RBPS have components of “getting along and getting ahead”. criteria. employees who are resilient. In the final analysis. The emergence of Conscientiousness and Neuroticism as predictors of performance was not surprising as these two Big Five traits have consistently been found to be the most relevant predictors of work performance (Judge and Ilies. Task performance corresponds to getting ahead while contextual performance corresponds to getting along.Total RBPS. Barrick and Mount.30 was adopted as the standard. agreeableness and neuroticism should predict performance (Hogan and Holland. organisations and countries.. 2002.e. individuals with high neuroticism would be likely to develop negative attitudes towards their work hence resulting in poor performance as they devote less time in their jobs (Bozionelos. Furthermore. Hypothesis One. 2003). the antithesis of Neuroticism) has generalised validity across occupation. Hence. Furthermore. which states that the FFM will predict a significant of variance of performance ratings. These findings supported Salgado’s (2003) argument that emotional stability (i. low Neuroticism) tend to be evaluated more positively than those who are panicky. calm and self-confident (i. 2004a). was supported. tendencies to experience negative emotions and pessimism. low confidence. then conscientiousness. Agreeableness and Neuroticism could be considered as valid predictors of work performance in an absolute sense if 0. This finding was partially reinforced in this study.. If performance criteria are classified as getting ahead and getting along. Neuroticism encompasses traits such as excessive worry.e. 142 . Due to their tendency to construe their experiences in a negative light. 1993).
45 and had the highest correlation with Total RBPS (r = . Ego and Social). Safety. Complexity correlated with the Career component of the RBPS as self-regulation and volition would enhance the attainment of career 143 .31 to .2. Actualisation. The current study has provided a theoretical argument for the development of a personality measure based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the social cognitive theory of “If-Then”.e... CASES) comprised five components (i.g.e.46). which were correlated positively to each other but to an extent that they could be considered as distinct but related components. The new personality measure (i. The Complexity component (e. Main Findings for Research Question Two Research Question Two: Does the CASES model of personality predict work performance? The second research question was addressed by the second hypothesis: H2: The CASES model will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. Complexity correlated with the Job component of the RBPS as the facets of volition and self-regulation in Complexity were related with the facets of customer services in the Job component which required tactful interventions.. self-regulation or low impulsivity and volition) correlated with all of the components of the RBPS with coefficients ranging from .5.2. Complexity.
Complexity correlated with the Organisation component of the RBPS arguably because self-regulation and volition would promote the virtues of the organisation. In support of this argument is the finding that high performers perceive events are determined by themselves while low performers perceive events as controlled by chance (Bandura. Actualisation was also correlated with 144 . This aspect of performance can be linked to passion. The Actualisation component (e.30 for the correlation coefficient. the Career component. Actualisation correlated with the Team component of the RBPS. which includes aspects of performance such as ensuring group success and seeking and responding to group’s needs. action and thought. Complexity correlated with the Innovator component of the RBPS as low impulsivity would enable the creation of ideas and improvements to how one does one’s work. which includes doing things outside one’s job scope for the betterment of the company. Actualisation cannot be considered a valid predictor for the Job component. Complexity correlated with the Team component of the RBPS as facets of persevering and conforming in volition would ensure harmonious team formation and group success. passion. Using a cut-off value of 0.opportunities and the advancement of one’s career. Complexity had the highest correlation with Total RBPS arguably because high levels of Complexity enable one to control one’s motivation. Actualisation correlated with the Organisation component of the RBPS. 1977a). self-esteem and needs for achievement.g. all of which are arguably related to the need for growth.. growth and progress) was correlated with all of the RBPS components and with Total RBPS. self-esteem and the need for progress. or the Innovator component of the RBPS.
achievement. Team. The stepwise regression analyses revealed that Actualisation was the best and only predictor of the Organisation component of the RBPS. From a theoretical perspective. the Actualisation construct does seem to be logically related to organisational citizenship and total performance. the need for growth. and progress. The reason could be the age of the respondents (average age was 34. Safety was correlated to the Organisation component of the RBPS arguably because the existence of a good system and structure in the company would provide a good environment to promote the company. This finding reaffirmed Arnold’s (1988) claim that Actualisation is a predictor of job performance. the Safety component is correlated with the Job. At this level. Safety correlated with the Job component of the RBPS arguably because orderly and structured facets are antecedents of high quality and high quantity. security.. Safety correlated with Total 145 . The Safety component of CASES (e. Using a cut-off value of . passionate and creative would perform better than those who do not have these tendencies. and Organisation components of the RBPS and with Total RBPS. orderly and structured) correlated with all of the components of the RBPS and with Total RBPS.Total RBPS. such that the respondents were perhaps too young to be highly motivated to realise their full potential. the drive is to achieve a sense of fulfilment in balancing one’s work and life responsibilities (Stum. 2001). systematic.g.30. which included facets of passion. Safety correlated with the Team component of the RBPS arguably because the facets of the Safety component would provide a sense of security to achieve success. It is reasonable that individuals with tendencies to be achievement-oriented.6 years).
In the stepwise regression analyses. the CASES model. 2000). Based on the preceding discussion of the main findings. Social correlated only with the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. these components of performance are related to facets of teamwork and organisational citizenship. Using the 0.. The stepwise regression analyses also revealed that Social was a significant predictor of the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. companionship and care) correlated significantly with all of the components of the RBPS.g. The Social component of CASES (e.. is a useful predictor of the various components of the 146 . but negatively related. The stepwise regression analyses also revealed that Ego was a significant. affiliation. This finding indicates that the Ego component is detrimental to facets of performance (e. with the exception of the Ego component. Innovator. Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. predictor of the Job component of the RBPS.RBPS arguable because its facets of orderly. The Ego component of CASES did not correlate significantly with any of the RBPS components or with Total RBPS arguably because its facets of good living and celebrating in style are not relevant to work performance. and Total RBPS. structured and systematic are antecedents of productivity (Cook et al. except for the Innovator component. Safety was found to be a significant predictor of the Job. needs for love.g. quality and quantity of work) that constitute the job component of the RBPS. and with Total RBPS..30 cut-off value.
2. a component of the FFM. The stepwise regression showed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism. was therefore supported. This finding might be due to the fact that the Complexity component has facets which included volition (i. to conform and persevere) whereas the Neuroticism 147 . 5. Hypothesis Two.3. This finding is consistent with the findings of Barrick and Mount (1993) and Judge and Ilies (2002) that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were valid predictors of all categories of work performance. The stepwise regression revealed that the Complexity component of the CASES was a better predictor of the Career component of the RBPS than Neuroticism. which states that CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. both of which are components of the FFM. were better predictors of the Job component of the RBPS as compared with the Complexity. Safety and Social components of CASES.RBPS and Total RBPS.e. Main Findings for Research Question Three Research Question Three: Do the two models of personality contribute uniquely to the prediction of work performance? The third research question was addressed by the third hypothesis: H3: The CASES and FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance..
Complexity was the best predictor followed by Safety. Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. which is the essence of the Organisation component of the RBPS. Actualisation was the best predictor. The stepwise regression showed that for the Innovator component of the RBPS.g. Safety. Safety was the best predictor due probably to the fact that Safety includes aspects (e. Complexity. and orderly) that enhance facets of teamwork such as seeking information from others and working with others. both of which are aspects of Complexity. structured.g. The stepwise regression revealed that the Safety. and Social components of the CASES and the Neuroticism component of the FFM were predictors of the Team component of the RBPS. Complexity includes self-regulation and volition and not surprisingly 148 . Complexity was the best predictor followed by Neuroticism and Safety.component comprises facets such as fear and low confidence regarding career progress and development. passion and realisation of one’s potential) that facilitate organisational citizenship. The Innovator component addresses behaviors such as finding new ways to do one’s work and requires risk taking and confidence. Complexity. The stepwise regression revealed that the Actualisation. This was probably due to the fact that Actualisation includes facets (e. and Social components of CASES were predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS. The stepwise regression revealed that the Complexity and Safety components of CASES and the Neuroticism and Conscientiousness components of the FFM were predictors of Total RBPS. protection.
. examining the link between personality and work performance appears to have profound implications for organisations. the proposed CASES model.was a better predictor than Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. These results provide evidence that there are specific aspects of personality that predict work-related performance over and above that provided by the FFM (Salgado. the various components of the CASES and the FFM are significant predictors of the various components of the RBPS and Total RBPS. 5. Hypothesis Three. Implications on Professional Practice From the classical perspective. which is based on 149 .1. From this point of view. 1998. individuals and human resources consultants. 1997.3. If researchers are able to affirm that certain personality traits are related significantly to work performance. then people can learn how to modify their personality to improve their work performance and organisations can benefit by recruiting individuals with personality profiles that may render them as preferred employees.3.. IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS 5. Sackett et al. was therefore supported. Based on the preceding discussion of the main findings. which states that the CASES and FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance. 2004). Kieffer et al.
based on personality traits. The results indicate that the CASES model of personality maybe a useful addition to the array of personality or individual difference measures that are used to predict various facets of work performance. the CASES model did account for significant variance in work performance over and above that accounted for by the FFM. recruiting and promoting personnel. organisations and individuals. for their client organisations. 1999).Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the social cognitive theory of “If-Then”. For organisations. and formulating effective human resources strategies in training. has important practical implications. Although the research methodology and design did not permit statements of causality. The CASES model may also be useful for recruitment consultants in that it may help them to identify effective employees. The knowledge that personality can influence or even be a determinant of work performance is valuable to recruiting agencies. The CASES model provides a means for individuals to assess their personality so as to develop appropriate strategies to improve their performance and hence their vocational endeavors (Lau and Shaffer. 150 . the CASES model is another useful tool for human resource personnel with respect to designing effective job specifications or roles. which is a wellestablished model of personality.
cognition and satisfaction are correlated with work performance. many personality measures are based on single theories and therefore their usefulness for predicting performance in actual workplace settings needs to be examined. There is a lot of debate on whether the role of a person on work performance is sculptor or sculpture. These instruments have predominantly been developed in the Western countries and the question arises as to the generalisability of these instruments to Asian countries. In recent years. 2004) 151 . The level of job complexity may have a role in whether an interaction occurs between personality and ability when predicting work performance.2.5. it is not surprising other factors such as ability. there has been a proliferation of psychometric instruments that have been used as part of organisational development and recruitment processes. personality.3. Two research problems were therefore identified and these guided the current research. Hence. where English is a second language. values. and psychometric measures. Moreover. behavior. The need for achievement is also dependent on the fit between environmental factors and personality. Beadles II and Krilowicz. Furthermore. personality interacts with cognitive ability and appears to influence work performance (Lowery. Implications on Theory The first Chapter provided an outline of this study in the context of motivation. such as Malaysia.
modify their behavior to improve their work performance. there is no way of estimating 152 . However. The predictors and the criteria used in the current study were obtained from self-report data using a single questionnaire.4.46).11. the CASES model suggests that certain personality factors or traits have a greater effect on work performance because people can. which reduces the correlation between items. it seems reasonable to conclude that the measures of personality and work performance were assessing separate constructs (Barrick et al. 5. Furthermore. 2002). public or private) would increase confidence in its validity and generalisability. maximum r = . Given the relatively small correlation coefficients obtained in this study (minimum r = .. LIMITATIONS The study was a cross-sectional sample of some commercial organisations of various sizes in Malaysia which did not allow an assessment of causality. consciously or unconsciously. a convenience sample was used. Self-ratings are influenced by social desirability such that responses tend to be skewed toward the favourable end of the Likert scale for each item.Similarly. which brings into question the representativeness of the sample and therefore the generalisability of the findings.e.. Common method variance and mono-source bias are potential limitations of the current study as they may produce spurious relationships. small or medium or large organisations. A subsequent study designed to assess personality and work performance over time (longitudinally) using a random sample of the population (i. This creates range restriction.
FUTURE RESEARCH The personality measures of the FFM and the CASES and the RBPS performance measure were self-reports. Hence. due to its brevity. For the sake of understanding the impact of personality on work performance. 5. The circumstances of the respondents’ participation did not give any incentive to give inaccurate responses. Consequently. Hence. possible modifications as well as further validation of the CASES. In regards to instrumentation. it is not possible to adjust the correlations for the effects of a restricted range.5. It would be difficult to fathom how the relative validities of the FFM. it would be interesting to explore these relationships using alternative measurements as certain studies had presented evidence that customer. Another impetus for further research is the length of the CASES measure as this personality measure has only 20 items. supervisor or co-worker ratings had equivalent or higher levels of criterion-related validity in comparison with employees’ self-reports. further instrument refinement is recommended. CASES and RBPS would have differed if incentives were provided. organisations may be willing to include the CASES measure in surveys as a preliminary screening for potential employees. FFM and the RBPS is recommended. This study was the first time these measures have been used together in Malaysia.what the variance of the ratings ought to be. 153 .
g.. From a more philosophical angle.Questions about the generalisability of these findings and external validity issues can be addressed through replications of this study. goal-setting motivation. Although face validity may be defined as a “test which looks good for a particular purpose” (Hogan. sales. self-efficacy. Systematic replication integrating a variety of individuals representing various ages. income and educational backgrounds are needed to address concerns about the generalisability of the findings obtained in the current study. Future research can also be conducted to ascertain whether the results reported in this study are generalisable to different jobs (e.6. job satisfaction and other proximal motivation models that include interaction effects should also be encouraged to further enhance the validation of this personality measure. Given that the research on the CASES measure is an initial effort. organisational settings (public. The cross-validation of the CASES with other determinants of work performance such as ability. skilled or semi-skilled. 154 . validity is a long-term process for any research. non-governmental or non-profit organisations) and cultures. Face validity is always a problem in personality measure. CONCLUSION The main objective of the current study was to examine the research question as to whether personality can predict work performance using the FFM and CASES models of personality. job complexity. it should by all means be subjected to replication in various contexts with various work performance measures. 5. management or clerical).
If one is to choose between a test with empirical validity but no appeal to the layman and a test with face validity with no empirical validity. it would be appropriate to explore this relationship using third-party sources (e. 1997).g. Furthermore. there are other dimensions of work performance (e. 474). 1997). motivation. The strength of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory is its ability to identify those needs which motivate behavior (Wiley. Furthermore.Hogan and Roberts. supervisors. one should choose the former. and the work environment (Wiley. A 155 . Face validity would enhance the users’ acceptance of a test method and is definitely desirable but if such a face-valid measure does not predict non-test behavior.. ability. each individual moves through Maslow’s hierarchy at a different rate. Personality measures often have empirical validity but commonly are weak on face validity. 1996. many seemingly appropriate personality tests fail to predict work performance. it is of no use for decision making. Employee performance is basically determined by three things. job-related learning and knowledge sharing) that are not included in the RBPS. changes in one’s life can affect the sequence of meeting these needs. p. to understand the impact of personality on work performance. The categorisation of work performance dimensions based on the RBPS could be criticised on the same grounds that were used to justify the use of the FFM. co-workers. While personality-based theories may not necessarily predict behavior or motivation. or customers) for information on work performance and personality rather than to rely exclusively on self-report data. they can provide a basic understanding of what actually energises or motivates individuals.g.. That is. Because needs are met at different stages.
people are not simply reactors to stimuli in their environment in that they can also organise. Hogan and Roberts.promotion may meet the self-actualisation level for an individual but meeting new people and learning new routines may cause the individual to try to fulfil safety and social needs. for example. 1996). personal development and career advice. studies that have examined the relationship between personality and work performance can be utilised for recruitment. neurotic individuals may learn to adjust their negative outlook of life for better personal success and agreeable individuals can recognise their natural tendency to downgrade and compromise their personal interests. Although personality is significantly inherited and stable in adulthood. A comment on the usefulness of research on personality and work performance should also be made. then the predictive relationship between work performance and personality will improve (Hogan. 156 . With this jockeying to satisfy these needs. If researchers are able to classify jobs by occupation and then consider the performance criteria and the personality dimensional requirements relevant to that occupation. select and transform stimuli. it would be beneficial to individuals to be aware of the limitations and advantages associated with their personality profiles. the individual must balance life and work responsibilities to ultimately achieve a sense of fulfilment. The traditional personality perspectives are hampered by the mechanistic models which posited that people possess dispositions or traits which lead them to behave consistently under changing circumstances. Hence. In reality. Besides their indisputable academic importance.
2003). both situationally and contextually (Wheeler. and Total RBPS as compared to the FFM which was a better predictor of only the Job component of the RBPS. Although the FFM is a well established personality measure. this personality measure. Hence. the researcher believes that it has made a contribution to research on personality measures and the prediction of work-related performance. Hunton and Bryant. CASES.The study has contributed to the literature on personality by providing a new personality measure. CASES. 157 . The researcher hopes that the combination of supportive initial research results and high face validity will encourage use of and research on the CASES model. Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. Although this is a preliminary study of the validity of the CASES model of personality. Tett and Burnett. In addition to providing a theory-grounded measurement tool. Innovator. some components of the CASES model were found to be better predictors of the Career. 2004a. The study also showed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM are valid predictors for all jobs and criteria in the sample used in this study. the CASES model of personality is relatively unique as it is a two-theory model as compared with many one-theory based personality measures that appear to be able to explain the multivariate phenomenon of behavior in a multidimensional manner. Moreover. can be added as a new contribution to the body of knowledge for personality measure especially in relation to the prediction of work-related performance. CASES can be offered as a useful personality measure for both practitioners and researchers.
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
Alderfer, C. (1969). An empirical test of new theory of human needs. Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 142-175.
Allik, J., and McCrae, R.R. (2004). Escapable Conclusions: Toomela (2003) and the Universality of Trait Structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 261265.
Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.
Andersen, S.M., and Chen, S. (2002). The Relational Self: An Interpersonal SocialCognitive Theory. Psychological Review, 109(4), 619-645.
Arnold, V.D. (1988). Motivation: Turning Theory into Practice. Industrial Management, 30(1), 21-22.
Ashton, M.C., Lee, Kibeom, Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R.E., Di Blas, L., Boies, K., and De Raad, B. (2004). A Six-Factor Structure of Personality-Descriptive Adjectives: Solutions from Psycholexical Studies in Seven Languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 356-366.
Atkinson, J.W. (1958). Motives in Fantasy, Action and Society. Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.
Avis, J.M., Kudisch, J.D., and Fortunato, V.J. (2002). Examining the incremental validity and adverse impact of cognitive ability and conscientiousness on job performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(1), 87-105.
Baker, M.J. (2001). Selecting a Research Methodology. The Marketing Review, 1, 373397, (www.themarketingreview.com).
Bandura, A., (1977a), Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall, New York, NY.
Bandura, A., (1977b), “Self efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change”. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175-1184.
Bargh, J.A., and Ferguson, M.J. (2000). Beyond Behaviorism: On the Automaticity of Higher Mental Processes. Psychological Bulletin, 126(6), 925-945.
Barrick, M.R., and Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Barrick, M.R., and Mount, M.K. (1993). Autonomy as a Moderator of the Relationships Between the Big Five Personality Dimensions with Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 111-118.
Barrick, M.R., and Mount, M.K. (1996). Effects of Impression Management and SelfDeception on the Predictive Validity of Personality Constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 261-272.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., and Strauss, J.P. (1993). Conscientiousness and Performance of Sales Representatives: Testing of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 715-722.
Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L., and Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and Job Performance: Test of the Mediating Effects of Motivation Among Sales Representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 43-51.
Bauer, J.J., and McAdams, D.P. (2004). Growth Goals, Maturity and Well-Being. Development Psychology, 40(1), 114-127.
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G.L., and van Heerden, J. (2004). The Concept of Validity. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1061-1071.
Bouchard, T.J. Jr. (1994). Genes, Environment and Personality. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 264(5166), 1700-1701.
Bozionelos, N. (2004a). The big five of personality and work involvement. Journal of Management Psychology, 19(1), 69-81.
Bozionelos, N. (2004b). The relationship between disposition and career success: A British study. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 77, 403-419.
Brody, N. (1997). Dispositional Paradigms: Comment on Eysenck (1997) and the Biosocial Science of Individual Differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1242-1245.
Burch, G. St. J., and Anderson, N. (2004). Measurement person-team fit: development and validation of the team selection inventory. Journal of Management Psychology, 19(4), 406-426.
Burke, L.A., and Witt, L.A. (2004). Personality and High-Maintenance Employee Behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(3), 349-363.
L. 183204. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology.D. 7(3).D. D. 1378-1388. 197-210. 161 .Y. D. 43(6). D. 111(1). Evolutionary Psychology and Explanation in Personality Psychology. Buttle.J.. Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: An Empirical Investigation. 302-314. D. 44(11). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. M. John Wiley & Sons. American Psychologist.. (1988). Cavana. (2001). The Social Construction of Needs.Buss.H. U. Delahaye.. The Architecture of Personality. Personality as Traits. 289-309. Self Appraisal in Performance Evaluation: Development Versus Evaluation. F. The American Behavioural Scientist. Cattell. Academy of Management Review. International Journal of Organisation Theory and Behavior. and Sekaran. 1001-1013. (1989). A.. Psychology and Marketing. R. (1989). and Klawsky. 476-506. (1996). B. Campbell. Psychological Review. Applied Business Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Comparison of Factor Structure and Criterion-Related Validity Coefficients for Two Measures of Personality Based on the Five Factor Model. Cellar. 13. J. (2004). A. (1943). (2004). and Lee.L.F. 81(6). R. Carmeli. 38.. 6(3). 694704..B. Cervone. A. Doverspike. C. Cervone. (2000). and Freund. Work Commitment. Miller. D..
R. (1987). Hillsdale. and McCrae. R. Theoretical Orientation in Psychology and the Traditions of Freud.R. Academy of Management Journal. and Bedford. (1969)... 162 .R. D. Cohen. 18(2). Psychometric assessment under test.T. (2001).Cesare. 291-294. N. 216-220. and Wolfe. D. P... P. Coull. and McCrae.T. Jung and Adler. (2000). Young. R.. 51. A. Stotland. and Sadri. J. NJ: Erlbaum. Solid ground in the wetlands: A reply to Block. M.H. A. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO FFI) professional manual. A. The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Training Journal. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. (2003). (1995).). 1820.. FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Chung. Costa.P. E. (1995). and McCrae. (1992). An experimental investigation of need for recognition. (1988). 16(3). G.T. J. and Eary.D. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. (1985). 12(2).R. Odessa. Coan. Costa. 202-208.W.. 117. Cohen. Costa. Management Research News. 29-40. K.. R. Odessa. A Markov Chain Model of Human Needs: An Extension of Maslow’s Need Theory. P. 26(1). Personality and Self-Rated Work Performance. 134-139. Taylor. Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources. 223-234. Cook. Do all carrots look the same? Examining the impact of culture on employee motivation.. J.
(1990). (1998). 721-739. 532-537. Digman. and Silverman. 417-440). 14-17. CA: Annual Reviews. Journal of Psychological Type. DeGrandpre. Annual review of psychology (Vol. (2004). The Proactive Personality Scale and Objective Job Performance Among Real Estate Agents. (1975). J. Training Journal. 25-36. (1995). (1997). (2000).). 41.M. 17. Porter (Eds.. F..W. Journal of Applied Psychology. De Raad. an overview of an increasingly complex world. 55(7).A. D. (1989). 113-124. New York: Academic Press. Palo Alto. In M. J. Structure. A. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 73(6). J. 3(2). Five Big.).R. and Curd. and Crosscultural Assessment. Descouzis. Etzioni. Personality and job performance: Evidence of incremental validity. Personnel Psychology. Day. 36-38. S. pp.M. Rosenweig & L. 1246-1256. Status. R.M. 80(4). Comparative analysis of complex organisations (enlarged. The Science of Meaning: Can Behaviorism Bring Meaning to Psychological Science? American Psychologist. Content. European Psychologist..J. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. D. Digman. Higher-Order Factors of the Big Five. (1989). J. Psychological types of tax preparers. B. Dent. Psychometric tests.Crant. 42. 163 .R. Big Five Issues: Rationale.
Riviere. (2002). 6(1). (1981). A. van Schaik. 49-58. Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance are correlated? Possible sources of a commonsense theory. Fletcher. Triebe and Their Vicissitudes: Freud’s Theory of Motivation Reconsidered. Human Motivation. 753-777. G. 115-125. Y. 46-50. D. Psychoanalytic Psychology. and Einhorn. Motivation Theory and Job Design. The Academy of Management Review. W. C. 691-697.J.. Gallagher. Gabriel. (2003). Jr. 20(1). Frank. Testing times for the world of psychometrics. A. and van Wersch.. Freud. The Journal of Business. Journal of Organisational Behavior..D. Trans. 17(5). P. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Franken. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. management and psychoanalysis: An overview. S. (1998). (2003). Fisher. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. and Carr. and Ferris. 24(6).B. 20(4). 49(3). New York: Norton. D.). (1993). The ego and the id (J. 348-365. C. 164 . (1976). R.R. A comparison of Multi-Item Likert and Visual Analogue Scales for the Assessment of Transactionally Defined Coping Function. H. Flynn. Personnel Management.Fedor. 358. 4th Edition. (1960). G. (Original work published 1923).E. (2004). 25(12). Integrating OB Mod with Cognitive Approaches to Motivation.R. Organisations...
C. Prentice-Hall.R. Prentice Hall. 238-247. 39(3).N.. Research Methods for Managers (3rd edn. and Black. Multivariate Data Analysis. J. R. George. Ambivalence and Actualisation. Mervielde. Public Domain. Grace.S.. Critical variables in Child care services switching: Contrasting consumer and staff perceptions. Hair. Personality Psychology in Europe. Grace. Tilburg. G. D. (1999). I. Anderson. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Psychological Assessment. Goldberg.R. and Fassinger. 7 (pp. D. R. W. (2002).C. L. New Jersey.. (2002). Exploring the dimensions of service brands: The Service Brand Verdict (SBV) Model. The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. R. A Broad-Bandwidth. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy.). Ostendorf (Eds. Sage Publications. Unpublished Honours Thesis. and Jones. R.. Upper Saddle River. 7(3). Organisational Behavior.. Vol. Tatham. Goldberg.M.A. E. F. De Fruyt.E. In I. L. 7 – 28). 1998.Gelso. & F. Deary. J.). J. S. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Great Britain. Personality Inventory Measuring the Lower-Level Facets of Several Five-Factor models. Content validity in Psychological Assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. and Kubany. (1995). 26-34. NJ. American Psychologist. 275-298. P. (1992). Richard. Griffith University.. D.J. (1999). Griffith University. Gill. (1993). and Johnson. Haynes. Personality... 165 . Development and Counseling Psychology: Depth.A. 48.S. (2002).
Journal of Applied Psychology. Management Decision.W. R. Hogan. 166 .. P. International motivational differences. L. 107-117..T. A.E. methodological and statistical issues. 71(2).L. 469-477.N. (2003). Hilgard. 51(5). Truxillo. 100-112.. J. and Genestre. 35(7). (1990). Using Theory to Evaluate Personality and Job Performance Relations: A Socioanalytic Perspective. 446-455. Hogan. Newbury Park: Sage. Herbig. Hunter. A. J. J. and Roberts. The incremental validity of psychological testing and assessment: Conceptual. B. J.. Bauer. Psychological Assessment. 88(1)..J. E. (2003).. (2003). and Carsrud. 16. and Hammer. J. Journal of Applied Psychology. 15(4).. American Psychologist. (1986). G. and Holland.. 562-571... (1996). B. 545-551. and Meyer. D. L. and Schmidt. Journal of Applied Psychology. 88(3). T. (1980). Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and Answers.B. Hogan. 185-188. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. A Field Study of Frame-of-Reference Effects on Personality Test Validity. Sawin. The Honeymoon Effect on Job Performance: Temporal Increases in the Predictive Power of Achievement Motivation.Helmreich. The trilogy of mind: Cognition. (1997).L.M. Hunsley.L. Hunthausen.L. F.M.R. R. affection and conation. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences..
765-780.. Inderrieden. J..L. Motivations and Personal Goals: Revisited. A. 18-20. Bono. Starting the “Fire” under an unmotivated employee. Journal of Managerial Issues. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2001). A.. Managerial Discretion in the Use of Self-ratings in a Appraisal System: The Antecedents and Consequences. Riemann. 50. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 85(5). Judge. and Mischel. 14(7).E.. J. (2002). XVI (4). Journal of Applied Psychology. W. 869-870.W. 167 .A. R. 72(3). (1997).R.E.. Judge.A. 87(4). Personality and Job Performance: The Big Five Revisited..J. Erez. G. Occupational Health and Safety. T. (1998). and Donovan. W.Hurtz. J. R. G.. Idson... K.. (2003).. (2000).J. J. 675-688.E. Five-Factor Model of Personality and Transformational Leadership. Personnel Psychology. T. and Livesley. 751-765.. 85(6). 460-482. Jang. The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Values. (2003). Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: Support for a hierarchical model of personality.J. 303-331. A. and Gerhardt. and Baumgartner. E. (2004). Angleitner. T. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Jolibert.. McCrae. C. 585-596. M. 1556-1565.C. J. R. R. Ilies. and Thoresen. Allen. and Keaveny. The Personality of Familiar and Significant People: The Lay Perceiver as a Social-Cognitive Theorist.J.A.E. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2000). 80(4).. T.J.M. 74. Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Bono. L.. Psychology & Marketing. Iachini.. Judge. and Bono.
C. The collected works of C. J.A.L. 3-58.. Martocchio.. G. Psychological types. 1(4). Princeton University Press (Original work published 1921). and Kahn.. S.Hull) Princeton. 745-755. D. Kaufman. Trans. 168 . Kieffer. and Wiesner. 614-620.M. 474-495.. (1997). 23-32. and Ilies. and Thoresen. Bollingen Series XX.G. (2002).. T. K. Revision by R. Journal of Applied Psychology. Group and Organisation Studies. (Vol.Jung. Katz. 797-807. C.A. Judge.G. Person-Environment Congruence and Personality Domains in the Prediction of Job Performance and Work Quality. American Psychologist. 168-177.). 51(2).. The Meanings of Personality Predicates. Kichuk.L.. J. (1988).E. J.H. Journal of Counseling Psychology.J. Canadian Psychology. Koltko-Rivera. The Psychology of Worldviews. (1998).G..6). Organisational Improvement: A Review of Models and an Attempted Synthesis. 8(1).A. T. (1978). R. (2004). Relationship of Personality to Performance Motivation: A Meta-Analytic Review. R. Review of General Psychology.C. (1976). R. and Curtiss. (H. 87(4).Judge. Work Teams: Selecting Members for Optimal Performance. Kagan. The social psychology of organisations (2nd ed.J. New York: Wiley.F. Baynes. M. 82(5). NJ. (1971). W. Schinka. 43(8). Journal of Applied Psychology. Jung. (2004). Five Factor Model of Personality and Employee Absence. 39(1-2).
37-42.swcollege.W. J. 969-983. 24(1). and Kickul. 29-34. S. Beauvais.W. Accounting for Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional Research Designs. Journal of Accounting and Computers. R. and Whitney. 114-121.G. Lindell. 4/4. R. Trends in organisations and selection: An Introduction. Lester. J.L. N.. (1999). The Ohio CPA Journal (Winter). 10-21. Personality preferences of accounting students: A longitudinal case study. M. Career Development International. 225-230.. Work Motivation: The incorporation of self-concept-based processes. S. J. 169 . Ott. Leonard. Human Relations. R. Journal of Managerial Psychology. (1999). 21. (1990).. R. and Harrell. Lau.M.L. L..A..Kovar. S. D. K.html Laribee.. Journal of Applied Psychology.L. A personality profile of CPAs in public practice. 382-394. and Shaffer. Jr. 52(8). (2001). Computer usage and psychological type characteristics in accounting students.com/acct/jac/jac12. A. Kreiser.. 86(1). 75-94. H.H. R.. McKeon.M. M. 28. and Post. Journal of Accounting Education. (2003). (2003)... Available at: http://www. L. Career success: the effects of personality.E.W. Human Resource Planning. (1994). The psychological types of college accounting students. Journal of Psychological Type. V. Landry.. Rogers. and Scholl. 12. Kwiatkowski. 18(5). and Fisher. Psychological contracts in the 21st Century: What employees value most and how well organisations are responding to these expectations.P. D.. (2001). (1996).
Marsella. New York: Harper & Row. A. G.H. G. Dubanoski. 123-142. A.M. Lowery. T. C. The measurement of personality across cultures: Historical. G.N. 705717. (1943). Beadles II. Journal of Managerial Psychology.. 6(2). A Theory of human motivation. Lubinski..J. and Krilowicz. 44. Maslow. Lombardo. 3.J. 7(2). N. A.C. Conceptual and Methodological Issues and Considerations. American Psychologist. E.A. 21. J. 21-29. Lombardo.. (2003). (1995). European Psychologist. and Foschi.). Hamada. 1-10. Locke. The Concept of Personality in 19th Century French and 20th Century American Psychology.P.P. Using Personality and Cognitive Ability to Predict Job Performance: An Empirical Study. (1996).Lindon. H. (2002). Linking an Intervention model to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Psychological Review. The European Origins of “Personality Psychology”.H. 370396. and Morse. Motivation and personality (2nd ed. R.. (2002).. (1970). Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey..P. 50. The American Behavioral Scientist. (2004). 170 ... and Latham. consultancy and managerial roles. History of Psychology. Public Policy and Law. International Journal of Management. L. and Foschi. Bradford. 134-145. D. 2(2). 10(4). W. (2000). 187-203. 57(9). Maslow. Psychology. Applied individual differences research and its quantitative methods. R.
Primary Divisions of Personality and their Scientific Contributions: From the Trilogy-of-Mind to the Systems Set.. (1996). H. New York: Guilford Press.H.J. Wiggins (Ed). (1998). J. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. 83(2). 324-329. (2001). (2000). McCaulley. 886-887.P. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Bridge Between Counseling and Consulting. (1987). Review of General Psychology. A five-factor theory of personality. T.R. Journal of Applied Psychology. 117-132. In J.J. Mayer. Princeton.S.). and Costa. NJ. Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five factor model. McCrae. 171 .R. Mayer. 449-477. (2003). D. M. 5(2). Pervin (Eds. The five-factor model of personality (51-87). 42(9). A Comparison of Likert Scale and Traditional Measures of Self-Efficacy.R. 31. Review of General Psychology.. A Convergence of the Tender-Minded and the ToughMinded? American Psychologist. 100-122. McAdams. McClelland. (1999). (1961).D. and Pierce. The Achieving Society. J. R. Handbook of personality: Theory and research (139153). McCrae. New York: Guilford Press.Maurer. Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior. The Psychology of Life Stories.T. M. Van Nostrand. (2001).T. Lawrence and O. D. In A. 381-401.P.D. 52(2). and Costa. R.C.. Structural Divisions of Personality and the Classification of Traits. P. P. McC Dachowski. 7(4).
and Jackson. A Cognitive-Affective System Theory of Personality: Reconceptualising Situations. Mischel. Mischel. Mele. 531-540. 1595-1597.. J. (1999). T. J. R. (1968). T. R. and Darling. and Parker. G. Shelton. (2004). Dynamics and Invariance in Personality Structure. A. Morgan..H.. Mitchell. W.T.. Motivation: New directions for theory research and practice.McCrae. 27(4). P. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal.. M.W. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. G...R. Psychometric problems and issues involved with creating and using ipsative measures for selection. 23(6). 7(1). del Pilar. (1995).J. Journal of Business Ethics. Psychometric instruments: Potential benefits and practical use. 314-322. W.P. Industrial and Commercial Training. 171-188. (2002). 44(1). 172 . The challenge of humanistic management. 102(2). Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology. The impact of behavioral style assessment on organisational effectiveness: a call for action. D. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. C. The Academy of Management Review. Y. 38(12). McKenna. and Harmon.. 246-268.R. Meade. W.R. Psychological Review.K. 77-88... (2003). Melamed.D. 77. (1998)..A. New York: Wiley. Rolland. 29.D. Dispositions. 80-88. D. Quantitative Research Approaches. Gliner. Personality and assessment. 11-18. (1995). J. (1982).A. Coata. and Shoda. Cross-cultural assessment of the Five Factor Model: The revised NEO Personality Inventory.
1897-1937. Accounting students’ performance and personality types.B. (1994). History of Psychology. Nourayi. (1998). Journal of Education for Business. The Case of Qualitative Research. and Barrick. Some basic psychological assumptions and conceptions. T. The International Journal of Public Sector Management. (2003).. 266-292. 1(1). H. Academy of Management Review.. M. McCaulley. Nicholson.Morgan. Nikolaou. I. 639-648. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. 491-500. MBTI Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Mustafa. 5. Myers. Gordon Allport. Murray. I. M. M.. Character and the “Culture of Personality”.R.A. Journal of Educational Administration.K. (1998). Palo Alto.A. and Cherry. (1992).L. Fitting the person to the organization: Examining the personality-job performance relationship from a new perspective. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Third Edition. 13. and Hammer. A.. Quen. Dialectica.M. The relationship between self and supervisor appraisals with role clarity and job satisfaction. A. 111-115. Nhundu. 5(4). 152-200.C. (Nov/Dec). G. Mount. 15-27. and Smircich. L. (1951). The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resources management. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 5(4).. 18(7). I.. The Contributions of Psychology to the Study of Administrative Behavior. K. 173 . (1980).A. 29-42. (1992). (1993). 52-68. M. 30(1). H.
Mann.T. (1990). New York. Big Five Factors and Facets and the Prediction of Behavior.H. Otter.V. 74(2). C. Do CPAs have a unique personality? Are certain personality types found more frequently in our profession? The Michigan CPA (Spring). 538-556. and Chusmir. J. QUT. Parker.. 11(2). Paunonen. B. Motivtion Needs and Their Relationship to Life Success.Nunnally.V.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 524-539. O’Cass. M. and Moores. 1301-1308. (1991). Big Five Factors of Personality and Replicated Predictions of Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81(3). (1984). S. Paunonen. 17-35.C. 73-79.C. S. 411-424. Political Marketing: The Application of Marketing to Politics. Measuring motivation in a learning organisation.). Psychometric Theory (2nd edn. Unpublished Master of Business Thesis. Ott. An empirical investigation into the interactive effects of student personality traits and method of instruction (lecture or CAI) on student performance in elementary accounting. McGraw-Hill. 29-36. Hierarchical Organisation of Personality and Prediction of Behavior. (2004). 174 . New York: 44(12).H. Paunonen. S. Journal of Workplace Learning. (1978). L. Human Relations.. 84(2). (2003). A. M. Bradford. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. (1998). Journal of Accounting Education. 8. P. and Ashton. (1999). M. (2001).V. Osteraker.M. R.
Pervin. and Livi.W. R. M. Journal of Consumer Behavior. S. European Psychologist. interaction: The history of a controversy and a discussion of theoretical models.A. (2000). Wiley. Perugini... Persons. (1989). Pervin. 665-677. Journal of Career Planning and Placement. Pincus. (2004).Pedersen.A. Extraversion and related traits in adults reared apart and reared together. Academy of Management Review. N. Gallucci. (1989). 172-176. L. 87-97. 44(2). assessment and research. 105-111. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. L. 64(4). G. Pelham. M. Measuring the MBTI And Coming Up Short. 375-387. 55. Environment and Genes: Determinants of Behavior. 14. situations. The Idiographic Nature of Human Personality: Examples of the Idiographic Self-Concept. 175 . 16(2). Plomin.E. B. Pittenger. (2001). 350-360. L. 6(3). J. L.L. (1993). 950-957. 3(4).J. McClearn.. (1988). American Psychologist. A Dynamic Systems Approach to Personality. New York. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Looking for a Simple Big Five Factorial Structure in the Domain of Adjectives... R. and Friberg. D. Plomin. The consequences of unmet needs: The evolving role of motivation in consumer research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Personality: Theory.A. (1993). Pervin. (1975). Neuroticism.
.P.Ramlall.. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Research Report.htm Robbins. S. A review of employee motivation themes and the implications for employee retention within organisations. A. M. Multifaceted Nature of Intrinsic Motivation: The Theory of 16 Basic Desires.T. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Williams. 176 . and Nyfield. R.A. 55-66. P. (2004). NJ. Great Britain.. and Berhoud. Baron. (2000). Sage Publications.. Temperament and the Development of Personality. Theories of Personality. Rothbart. Money. Reiss. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology. Journal of American Academy of Business. 1/2. Robertson. Prentice-Hall.. (1994).M. and Swartz. Organisational Behavior. 20(1). Doing Research in Business and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method.com/~Personality Institute/Myers-BriggsTypeIndicator. B.P. S.K. H. F. S. 52-63. Remenyi. MacIver. http://members.. S.tripod. (2004). Rings. Review of General Psychology. The Hierarchical Structures of the NEO PI-R and the 16 PF 5. D. G.. (1997). S. (2004). 5. de Stadelhofen. Rossier. 179-193. and Ahadi... (1998). B. E. London. (1998). (2001). 27-38.M. Conscientiousness and managerial performance. 73. R. Upper Saddle River. 171-180. 103(1). Ryckman.. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. J. Gibbons. I. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 8(3).
82(1). 36. J. Saunders.L... P. D. L. local firms. Research Methods for Business Students. 323-346. Saucier. Maybe there’s no such thing as a “good cop”. 36-41. G. 1296-1312. J. (1998). (2003). Journal of Psychological Type. An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management.F. (1998).A. P. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Lewis. Journal of Applied Psychology. Saucier. and Goldberg. G. 66. 85(4).E. and Thornhill. J. 73(6). The five factor model of personality (p 21-50). Personality types of CPAs: National vs. Gruys. The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the five factor model. Pitman Publishing. Salgado. M. A.. 76. B. London. New York: Guilford Press.S.. 26(2). (2003). Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality measures. 495-524. L. Satava. Ability-personality interactions when predicting job performance. Saucier. 545-556.Sackett. Salgado.R. Effects of Variable Selection On the Factor Structure of Person Descriptors.. G. 313-328. The Five Factor Model of Personality and Job Performance in the European Community. 30-43. (2003).R. 695-708. Sanders.R.). M. G.. Journal of Applied Psychology. and Ellingson. (1997). 83(4). Factor Structure of English-Language Personality Type-Nouns. and Goldberg. In J. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (1996). Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology. Saucier. (1997). Wiggins (Ed. (1997). 177 . What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of Personality.F. (1996).
Personnel Psychology.E. Personnel Psychology. Research in Organisational Behavior. 54(2). 1238-1241. Schmit. I. The accountant stereotype: Myth or reality? Accountancy (November). Development of a global measure of personality. D.M. Noe. 93-105. Schwarz. (1999). Schwab.. 84(6). M. N. Schmitt. (1994). 73(6). 24-39. 122-123. G.W.P. Accounting Horizons (December).A. Schweiger. P. Managerial Auditing Journal. (1997). Meta-analyses of validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics..L. C.. G. The personality types and preferences of CPA firm professionals: An analysis of changes in the profession. 3-43.G. (1980). and Robie. American Psychologist. V. 407-422. Shackleton. Kihm. Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. R. Stewart. J. 37. M..Schloemer. B.A. Trait Brandwidth and Stages of Job Performance: Assessing Differential Effects for Conscientiousness and its Subtraits. M. and Sumners. Stelmack. and Schloemer. (1984).. Construct validity in organisational behaviour. 3-7. (2000).S. 959-968.Z. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Gooding. (1980). (1999). (1997). 2. Toward a Paradigm in Personality: Comment on Eysenck’s (1997) view. N. Optimising the value of performance appraisals.. 153-160. 178 . Journal of Applied Psychology. 9(8). and Kirsch. R.. 53(1).J.
D. D. and Gebhardt.L.. Tubes . A Personality Trait-based Interactionist Model of Job Performance. (2003). Structure of Word Meaning. D. 88(3). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Stum.. J.D. (2004).16(1). Tsaousis. (2004). 8-11. R. (1991).L.. 89(5). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (Technical Report ASD-TR-61-97). 16(2).D.P. (2001). Badley. TX: U. and Burnett. Thoresen. A. Tubbs. I. Relationships Between Personality Structure. 4-9. The Role of Intentions in Work Motivation: Implications for goal-setting theory and research.E. M. Bliese. (1961). Tett. 85(4).C.E. E. P. Townsend. and Ekeberg.. 500-517. J. P. Strategy and Leadership. C. Air Force. and Cognitive Ability: A Study of Cultural Mechanisms of Personality. and Thoresen. J. Lackland Air Force Base... and Christal. 179 . 20(3).E. The Big Five Personality Traits and Individual Job Performance Growth Trajectories in Maintenance and Transitional Job Stages. What’s in it for me? The Journal for Quality and Participation. 29(4). 180-199. The Academy of Management Review. R. 835-853. (1993).E.J. Maslow revisited: Building the employee commitment pyramid. Journal of Applied Psychology. 180-191.C. Journal of Applied Psychology. Toomela.S. Journal of Psychological Assessment. The Traits Personality Questionnaire 5(TPQue5): Psychometric Properties of a Shortened Version of a Big Five Measure.. (2003). 723-735. S.
3538. Vancouver.A. Motivation profiles in sport: A self-determination theory perspective. Accounting Information Systems Research Opportunities Using Personality Type Theory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. (2000).I. D... (1998). 41(5). Jr. 1469-1484.C.E.G. Welbourne.. and Terry. 83(4).R. S. The Role-Based Performance Scale: Validity Analysis of a Theory-based Measure. S. Johnson. 540-555.. Gray.B. (2002). and Bryant. 180 . Vinchur. 83(6). (2004b). Vlachopoulos. 18(3)... Academy of Management Journal. 71(4). and Roth. and Watson.E.. 18(1). (2004a).R. C.L. A. On the Temporal Stability of Personality: Evidence for Differential Stability and the Role of Life Experiences. American Psychologist.. Wheeler. C. 387-397.S. Hunton.S. Journal of Information Systems. J. (1998). A metaanalytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople. International Journal of Manpower. Journal of Information Systems. J. III.K. 1-19.. Wheeler. P. Wiley. 586-597.. J. Authors’ Reply to Commentary on Accounting Information Systems Research Opportunities Using Personality Type Theory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator...M. P. T. P.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. E. Schippmann. D. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. S. C. Switzer. 763-764.J. J. Automaticity. 18(1).Vaidya. Haig. 263-275. A.. What motivates employees according to over 40 years of motivation surveys.M. J.E. 55(7).. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2000). Goals and Environmental Interactions. P.M. Karageorghis. Hunton.P. and Erez. and Bryant. (1997). and Scherbaum.. F. J.
.G. and Meyer.B. M. W. (1998). 12-18. D. Journal of Managerial Psychology. B. 272-286.E. 105(2). The predictive power of hiring tools.. (2001).A. Cropanzano.. Traits and Motives: Toward an Integration of Two Traditions in Personality Research. D. American Demographics. Yancey. Psychological Review. Zawadzki. 20(2). Credit Union Executive Journal. R. and Austin. The relationships among individual differences. Genetic and Environmental Influences on Temperament: The Polish-German Twin Study Based on Self-Report and Peer-Rating.J. European Psychologist. Wolfe. R. Klohnen. L. John. Journal of Business and Psychology. D. O. (2004). What your customers can’t say. 230-250.Winter. (2003).. and Angleitner. J. T. Onoszczenko. 18(3). 6(4). Stewart. 2429.. E. (1998).G. Riemann. Spring . G.R. A. 40(4)..B. A.C.P. (2000). needs and equity sensitivity. 365-384. and Duncan. Wright. 324-344. State and Traits Correlates of Job Performance: A Tale of Two Perspectives. 18(4).. Strelau.... I. Yamaguchi. 181 .
You are required to complete a questionnaire on personality and work performance. your Organisation will be provided with a report that will be recommended for distribution to staff. The confidentiality of your responses is assured as only Chong Chien Fatt and Gian Casimir will have access to the completed questionnaires. a student in the Newcastle Graduate School of Business at the University of Newcastle undertaking a Doctorate of Business and Administration Degree and Gian Casimir is my research supervisor. 2005 Subject: Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality Measure Dear Potential Participant. I am conducting a research project titled “Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality Measure”. nor your organisation will be named or be able to be identified from the published report.au CHONG Chien Fatt Tel: +60123760133 Fax: +60331602894 Email: chongchienfatt@yahoo. We are interested only in the overall relationships between Personality and Work Performance. As part of my studies. The anonymity of your responses is guaranteed because you are not required to provide your name nor any other information that can be used to identify you. On completion of the study.edu.APPENDIX ONE – INFORMATION SHEET Newcastle Graduate School of Business Faculty of Business and Law Level 3. We are therefore not interested in the specific responses of any particular individual. The findings of this study may be published in a scholarly journal but neither you. You are invited to take part in this research project which examines the relationship between work performance and personality. University House Corner King and Auckland Street Newcastle 2300 AUSTRALIA For further information: Dr Gian Casimir Tel: +61 2 4921 6680 Fax:+61 2 4921 7398 Email: Gian.Casimir@newcastle. 182 . which will be shredded after the data have been entered into a spreadsheet. I am Chong Chien Fatt.com September 15.
will have no effect on your employment and no one will know whether or not you have participated as completion of the questionnaire will be performed at a location of your choice.edu. 2308. Yours sincerely. or you have a complaint about the manner in which the research is conducted. the University’s Human Research Ethics Officer. it may be given to the researcher. The University requires that should you have concerns about your rights as a participant in this research. If you would like more information. your decision to participate. Thank you for taking time to consider this invitation.au) 183 . or to not participate. email HumanEthics@newcastle. Bus-Law/SEGi/1/32:05A). telephone (+61 249 216 333. please contact Chong Chien Fatt or Gian Casimir or if an independent person is preferred. The Chancellery. Research Branch. if an independent person is preferred.edu. University Drive. Approval No . If you want to take part in the study. email: HumanEthics@newcastle. However. Callaghan NSW 2308.au. or. telephone +61 249 216 333. The questionnaire will be distributed by the Human Resources Managers. please complete the questionnaire and return it to the researchers in the stamped self-addressed envelope provided. Research Office. to the Human Research Ethics Officer. The University of Newcastle.Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Mr Chong Chien Fatt Dr Gian Casimir Complaints Clause: This project has been approved by the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee. with return of the questionnaire through stamped and self-addressed envelopes to the researcher. Chancellery. University of Newcastle.
Please see the attached information sheet for participants.com September 15. We are interested only in the overall relationship between personality and work performance and therefore are not interested in the specific responses of any particular individual. Your organisation is invited to take part in a study which is being conducted by Mr Chong Chien Fatt and Dr Gian Casimir from the Newcastle Graduate School of Business. Please note that all potential participants should be informed that participation is voluntary and that they will not be disadvantaged in any way by not participating. We would greatly appreciate your organisation’s participation.edu. Mr Chong is conducting this study as part of his Doctor of Business and Administration Degree and Dr Gian Casimir is his research supervisor. If your organisation is willing to participate. This study examines the relationship between personality and work performance. This questionnaire is a personality and work performance measures and should take approximately twenty minutes to complete.au CHONG Chien Fatt Tel: +60123760133 Fax: +60331602894 Email: chongchienfatt@yahoo.APPENDIX TWO – CONSENT SEEKING LETTER TO COMPANY Newcastle Graduate School of Business Faculty of Business and Law Level 3. University House Corner King and Auckland Street Newcastle 2300 AUSTRALIA For further information: Dr Gian Casimir Tel: +61 2 4921 6680 Fax:+61 2 4921 7398 Email: Gian. After the data have been entered into a spreadsheet. 184 .Casimir@newcastle. Dear Sir. The confidentiality of responses is assured as only Chong Chien Fatt and Gian Casimir will have access to the completed questionnaires. you will be asked to distribute a questionnaire (see attached) to your staff selected by a stratified random procedure that represents a diagonal slice across levels and functional areas. the questionnaires will be shredded. 2005 Subject: Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality Measure.
University Drive. The University of Newcastle. or.edu. Mr Chong Chien Fatt and Dr Gian Casimir Complaints Clause: This project has been approved by the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee. if an independent person is preferred. which we recommend to be made available to all staff.au) 185 . it may be given to the researcher. or you have a complaint about the manner in which the research is conducted. Approval No . telephone (+61 249 216 333. nor your department will be named or be able to be identified from the published report. please reply to us in writing stating your department’s willingness. Bus-Law/SEGi/1/32:05A). Research Office. Callaghan NSW 2308. The Chancellery. please contact Chong Chien Fatt or Gian Casimir. If you agree to take part in the study. The University requires that should you have concerns about your rights as a participant in this research. your organisation will be provided with a report. to the Human Research Ethics Officer. For further information. email HumanEthics@newcastle. Yours sincerely. Thank you for taking time to consider this invitation.On completion of the study. The findings of this study may be published in a scholarly journal but neither you.
Part 2: Please use the rating scale below to describe how accurately each of the following statement describes you. Please tick the answers above and return the full set in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you.APPENDIX THREE – QUESTIONNAIRE Personality Measure Questionnaire Title: Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality Measure Part 1: (i) Are you proficient in English? Yes / No (ii) Have you been working in the same job for more than 12 months? Yes / No If there is a No answer in any one above. Describe yourself as you generally are now. please do not continue with the survey even though you may have consented to participate. 1 Very Inaccurate 2 Moderately Inaccurate 3 Neither Accurate or Inaccurate 4 Moderately Accurate 5 Very Accurate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I often feel unhappy I feel comfortable around people I believe in the importance of art I have a good word for everyone I am always prepared I am very pleased with myself I have little to say I am not interested in theoretical discussions I waste my time I am very direct I dislike myself I make friends easily I have a vivid imagination I am critical of others I pay attention to details I am not easily bothered by things 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 186 . not as you wish to be in the future nor what you were in the past.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 I keep a low profile I do not enjoy going to art museums I find it difficult to focus on work I believe that others have good intentions I seldom feel unhappy I am not interested in abstract ideas I would describe my experiences as somewhat dull I respect others I do just enough work to get by I am often depressed I am skilled in handling social situations I avoid philosophical discussions I insult people I get chores done right away I have frequent mood swings I carry the conversation to a higher level I don’t like to draw attention to myself I accept people as they are I carry out my plans I panic easily I do not like art I get back at others I make plans and stick to them I am the life of the party I get excited by new ideas I avoid carrying out my duties I make people feel at ease I don’t talk a lot I rarely get irritated I don’t see things through I enjoy hearing new ideas I know how to get people’s attention I feel comfortable with myself I suspect hidden motive in others I easily adapt to the needs of the situation I push myself and others to get things done I am a loving person I am careful in my work I like others to empower me to do my work I am good at interpreting things I like living in style I am pleasant to be around with I hold on to traditions and beliefs I love to seek experiences in life I often weigh the pros and cons of a situation before acting I want to take charge of my work 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 187 .
63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 I have a heart for the less fortunate I like to do things following the proper channels I believe in justice I can spot opportunities and make use of them I like to take the lead to get things done I am sensitive to other people’s feelings I prefer to buy things with guarantee I find great satisfaction in doing a good job I am good at overcoming obstacles to get what I want I am good in pressurizing others to get things done I enjoy the company of others I am law-abiding I seek knowledge and skills to improve myself I am flexible in doing things I can be easily provoked I like to assist my friends in time of needs I believe in doing things step by step I do my work enthusiastically I am good at persuading others to support me I am assertive I like to visit my friends I tend to shelter others from harm I work towards improving my quality of life I like to turn issues/situations to my advantage I like to celebrate in a grand manner I can be easily hurt I am serious in whatever I do I am a reasonable person I will do anything to achieve my goals I tend to use more of “I” than “We” I enjoy working in groups I do not fight with authority I am accountable for my mistakes I do not reveal myself too much I am determined to win in any situation I greet my friends with open arms I need security I make decisions based on bottom-lines 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 188 .
For those working for 3 years of more. the rating scales are: 1 Needs Much Improvement 2 Needs Some Improvement 3 Satisfactory 4 Goods 5 Excellent 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 Quantity of work output Quality of work output Accuracy of work Customer service provided (internal and external) Obtaining personal career goals Developing skills needed for my future career Making progress in my career Seeking out career opportunities Coming with new ideas Working to implement new ideas Finding improved ways to do things Creating better processes and routines Working as part of a team or work group Seeking information from others in my work group Making sure my work group succeeds Responding to the needs of others in my work group Doing things that help others when it’s not part of my job Working for the overall good of the company Doing things to promote the company Helping so that the company is a good place to be 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Part 3: Respondent’s Demographic Data 1.For the next 20 items. Are you confirm in your job within the normal time frame? 8. What is your Level in the Organisation? Non-Executive/ Lower Mgmt/Middle Mgmt/ Senior Mgmt 7. How long have you worked in this Organisation? 5. Gender (please circle) Male/Female ____Years____Months ____Years ___ Months Primary School / High School / College / University 4. Between 3% and 6%. What is your last annual increment? Less than 3%. How long have you worked in your current job? 6. have you been promoted? Yes/No Yes/No 9. 189 . More than 10%. Age: ____Years____Months 3. Educational level: 2. Between 7% to 10%.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.