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.
iii . May God bless her with good health and happiness. Madam Yew Hor.DEDICATION I dedicated this work to my beloved Mother. who always gives her undivided love and care to her 11 children.
.....4.............................................. 34 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.......2........................................................ Uniqueness of the CASES Personality Measure .....................................7..............................1............................... RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....56 The Second Premise: The Accuracy of Predicting Behavior Depends on Complexity .............................. 61 Prediction of Performance by the FFM Personality Measure...........................................7...16 What is Personality? ......3........................................2......4..........7...47 2............ 27 Behaviorist/Cognitive and Social Cognitive Theories.................2................................................7..........................1............ WHY DOES PERSONALITY MATTER TO ORGANISATIONS? ............... 2.............. 47 Factors Influencing Behavior............1.............. 2. 2............................................................................ THEORIES ON PERSONALITY .................................4.. 2....41 2...... 23 Humanistic Theories .....2. Five Factor Model........1........................13 1.................................3.......................6...2...................................... 2........................ 37 2....1..............33 2.... 29 2....... RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES ............. THE ROLE OF PSYCHOMETRIC TESTS...........................................................5... 1...II DEDICATION ......................................................14 1................... 2...................................................... 12 Measurement. 19 The Objective of Psychometric Instruments.................42 2..2.....................................2..................2.................2..62 2................. 66 Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure .....................2...1.2....................TABLE OF CONTENT STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP ... 11 Survey Instrument........................2......................... THE PREDICTIVE POWER OF FFM/MBTI ON PERFORMANCE.............................. 2............3.........................................8..................................... 1............................... 2...................1.4......... SHORTCOMINGS OF FFM AND MBTI MEASURES ...................................... 68 2............6................... 12 Sampling and Sample Size ................2 1.......................3........... iv ............ 2.......................5........ 25 Traits Theories .......................................................1... The Five Factor Model ...................32 2........... ETHICS ... I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................2.......................................................... III ABSTRACT.............................................................. 48 Current Theories of Work Motivation ........7..16 2.............4....... ANALYSES ...........................................................................................1..5.............................................3...........................................7................................. 2.......................................................4.............................................................59 2............. IX 1.. 50 The Constructs of this Proposed Model....... 13 1............................ TYPES OF PERSONALITY MEASURES ...................................... 2...............1 1....... LIMITATIONS ................................... THE THEORIES AND CONSTRUCTS OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE .3...........6.. 2.....................................................7..15 2............. CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW ...........6............4....................................................................................... INTRODUCTION ................ 11 Research Design ................2.........7.. 17 How Stable are Personality Traits?.................4..................................................................8................ 2.........1....................11 1.................. CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION .......................0.......... PERSONALITY AND WORK PERFORMANCE ....4.....21 2..................................................................8.................................................................................................. 46 Definition of Behavior ..............................3...... 1.. 2...........0...........1..................................3................................................................ 2....................... 1......... Research Philosophy.................... 56 The First Premise: Behavior is Motivated by Needs ...5........................... 42 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator................... 2.......6 1..........................3.......3......... 20 Psychodynamic Theories ....................1.................................................................................3.......1.........................
.... 3..............................3..............................................................1...4............................... 3...101 4............................................5.......5............5.5......2.......5..................102 4....................................5.. 89 Selection of Sample and Sample Size......... CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.......4..6................................... DEMOGRAPHICS ........ 4.... 99 Stability of Work Performance .......5............................................................6.............................3....92 Reliability .......4. 3................93 Hypothesis Testing ...............4.................................5............................ 3......................5..............................................5............1..................................4....... 3......................................................72 3....... 77 Research Method ......98 3....................................................... 71 3...................................99 3..................5........................................... 79 Study Setting. 3.. Purpose of the Study .......................102 4..6....... 3...................... 3......................... 3...4.2........5.....2.............................................................5.......................................4.............84 Self Report....................... SURVEY RESEARCH ...............2.................................................4............................................................ 2............................................102 4..........7..............................92 Validity.... 75 Type of Investigation ......3......................................1.......... 101 3......... 3......2................................... RESULTS FROM PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS.................5.....................1.....8..........4...........................................2.. 99 Self Rating .82 3.........................................................4.........................5........................... 3........... CONCLUSION ...........................5......................97 Categorising................................................. 3.8.......................... The Relationships between FFM and CASES .................................................4..... 92 Central Tendency and Dispersion....103 4................................................2................................................ 69 Hypotheses...4.................................................................................5..............114 v .... 3........................ 3..........1.......... 3................................................1.... INTRODUCTION .................... 77 Researcher’s Interference . 81 Unit of Analysis ............ 3.....................2........................... LIMITATIONS ........ 3................................ 3.........................................8............74 3.....................................................2.............................97 3..................................0....2.......96 Data Entry .......................5....5.................................................. RESEARCH PLAN ..... 3...........5........ Selection of Survey Layout.....3......................................................................................... 80 Time Horizons ......... 3................. 3..0...................2..............................................75 3........................8.......1...........................................3. 3......... Principal Components Analysis of the FFM Personality Measure ........4.....................................84 Scales... CHAPTER FOUR – DATA ANALYSIS .....8..........6........................................ 3....98 3....... 103 Principal Components Analysis of the CASES Personality Measure............2.......................5.........................................2...........................2....................... RESEARCH PARADIGMS .8.... 107 Principal Components Analysis of RBPS Performance Measure............................94 Cost and Time Estimates .......5...........2...................5................................... 81 Selection of Survey Method .......................... RESULTS FROM TESTING OF THE HYPOTHESES ...................2....................................................................................1........84 Key Variables .........2..............5............................................................................ 99 Personality Scales ....................................4.3...... Implementation .................................. 94 3..........................................3......5..................................... 3............ ETHICAL CONSIDERATION ...8............ 4.............92 Principal Components Analysis............................................................................72 3.............8...... INTRODUCTION .3...........................................5...............................6................ 90 Selection of analytical approach ...6........... 4........................................................................ 100 Work Performance...2................................4....................................... 82 Selection of Measurement Techniques .1....................................... RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .. 3...............7.................5..4.................................9.......................................................................... RESEARCH DESIGN ................... 109 The Relationship between the FFM Dimensions and the CASES Dimensions111 4.................5..86 3.......................5.3.......................... 3......... 84 Personality and Work Performance Measures....................... 3.2. Response Distortions ..............3....................94 Data Collection.................................6................................................................72 3.
..129 FFM and CASES Predicting the Innovator Component of RBPS........................................................... IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS ..130 FFM and CASES Predicting the Team Component of the RBPS .....6........................................3. 120 FFM and CASES predicting performance............................133 4.................... 143 Main Findings for Research Question Three ..1......... CHAPTER FIVE – CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ..... LIMITATIONS ................... CONCLUSION ............................. 149 Implications on Theory..... 128 FFM and CASES predicting the Job Component of the RBPS ................................ 114 Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure ........3......1...................................................... 4...........1...................... 4.........................................138 5..........................................3....184 APPENDIX THREE – QUESTIONNAIRE ......3........... DISCUSSION OF THE MAIN FINDINGS ..153 5......3..............................3..138 5...............................2............................................... FUTURE RESEARCH ....5...................................................128 FFM and CASES Predicting the Career Component of the RBPS.......................................2......... INTRODUCTION ..........138 5................2.......................................................... 4.........135 5............................ Main Findings for Research Question One..............2.........3.............. 5...................2......................... 5...........2..3..........3......................3.2..4...2..............152 5................... 147 Implications on Professional Practice.................................................................................3.. 5........ 4..3....3................. 4.....3................ 4............1...131 FFM and CASES Predicting the Organisation Component of the RBPS...1........149 5......4........3.........158 APPENDIX ONE – INFORMATION SHEET ............................3.... 4.......3.............6. 4.......4.............3.. 151 5...................132 FFM and CASES Predicting Total RBPS Performance ...................................................186 vi ......3. 5.................... CONCLUSION ...................... 138 Main Findings for Research Question Two .............................3............5...... Prediction of Performance by the FFM Personality Measure.......................................................3.....4..................0...154 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ........182 APPENDIX TWO – CONSENT SEEKING LETTER TO COMPANY ......
.............................. 1999)..........................96 Table 10: Breakdown of Costs on Survey (developed for this research) .................116 Table 19: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on FFM .....................................................................................40 Table 4: The Possible Associations of Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM with Complexity and Self-Actualisation of the CASES ..115 Table 18: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM ......................................................................................................................................... 2004) ................................................................. 1999).....................................................................................................................88 Table 8: The Breakdown of Companies to be Surveyed Based on Industry (developed for this study) ................................................................117 Table 20: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM.....................83 Table 7: Role-Based Performance Scale’s Items (Wilbourne et al...........................113 Table 17: Correlations of the Components of FFM and RBPS ............. 2000) .................... 1998) ..............................70 Table 5: Four Categories of Non-experimental Techniques (Grace...........................................................6 Table 3: The 16 Personality Types with Cognitive Characteristics and Occupational Tendencies .....95 Table 9: Total Time Estimated for the Survey (developed for this research)...............................4 Table 2: Six of the Most Commonly Used Personality Instruments (Dent and Curd.........................................................78 Table 6: Merits of the Four Survey Methods (Grace.................................110 Table 16: Correlations between the Components of FFM and CASES...107 Table 14: Items of CASES after Principal Components Analysis....................106 Table 13: Rotated Component Matrix of CASES.....117 Table 21: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on FFM ........................LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Predictors of Work Performance (Yancey and Austin.........109 Table 15: Rotated Component Matrix of RBPS ....................................................................118 vii ........................104 Table 12: Items of FFM after Principal Components Analysis ....................................................................96 Table 11: Rotated Component Matrix of FFM ..............................
......................................................129 Table 32: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on the FFM and CASES ....................................................................................................................................133 Table 36: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on FFM and CASES .......................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 ...............125 Table 29: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on CASES ....................130 Table 33: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES ..............................................122 Table 25: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on CASES .....................................................124 Table 27: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on CASES ..............................................................................................................................................................................119 Table 24: Correlations of the Components of CASES and RBPS.............................................................................................134 viii ....................................................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 ...........................................................................................................................................................126 Table 30: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on CASES.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................132 Table 35: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES ...........123 Table 26: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on CASES ..........................................Table 22: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on FFM.....................
ix . Besides providing a theory-grounded measurement tool which contributes to research on personality measures and the prediction of work-related performance.e. 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. Hence. However.. personnel selection specialists generally did not use personality testing in employee selection due to the perception it has low validity. the more recent studies have focused on demonstrating the incremental gain in predicting work performance that can be attained using personality as a predictor. limitations and possible areas for future research are discussed.ABSTRACT “Does personality predict work performance” is a question that many researchers have addressed over the past few decades. personality provides insight on how well a person will perform 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. Practical and theoretical implications. recent studies using fundamental dimensions of personality have shown the predictive power of personality for work performance. The results confirmed relationships between the dimensions of the new personality measure (i. 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. CASES) and the FFM. this new personality measure can be offered as a useful instrument for both practitioners and researchers.
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. and Relationship Management. 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.0.e.1. Furthermore. The validity of the current measures of personality is questionable given that each of them is based on a single-theory of personality. people. The first objective of this study therefore is to develop a new measure of personality based on two theories (i. which is a wellestablished personality measure. 2000). all of these have one thing in common. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Social Cognitive Theory) rather than on a single theory. Empowerment. CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION Companies spend large amounts of money. Employees are indisputably the most essential resource in any organisation and are the key to attaining and maintaining competitive advantage. 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. time and energy to improve their business performance by adopting different management philosophies and initiatives such as SixSigma. Learning Organisation. Nevertheless. Basically. Investors in 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.. will be examined. the incremental criterion utility of the new measure over the Five-Factor Model of personality. The third chapter of this dissertation outlines the research methodology and design of the study that will be 1 .
cognitive ability test. it is estimated to cost an average of US$15. 1. encourage and harness them.used.1. Hence.000 to recruit one executive or middle manager in United States of America (Melamed and Jackson. and honest/integrity tests. Personality tests with no right or wrong answers attempt to measure how little or how much a candidate possesses a specific personality 2 . the more effective we can manage. recruitment and development processes as they are able to explore a broad range of personality characteristics that are relevant to the workplace. work-samples. The conclusion on the various findings. Table 1 provides a list of various sources of information that are used to predict work performance. Although personality tests rank higher than other employment tests such as job-knowledge tests. taking into account all expenditure. Moreover. 1995). it takes only a modest improvement in selecting. The fourth chapter contains the analyses of the survey data. employment checks and job probation in the recruitment and selection process. 2004). THE ROLE OF PSYCHOMETRIC TESTS The more we know the people we employ. they are not a panacea for selecting the best candidates (Dent and Curd. implications and limitations of this study are presented in the fifth chapter of this dissertation. Personality tests only provide an additional tool for recruitment and are not replacements for interviews. Personality tests are popularly used by organisations as part of selection. references. resume. matching and recruiting people to jobs to reduce the possible financial losses incurred by recruiting employees who are incompatible with the organisation.
personality tests can assist individuals to understand the significant aspects of their personality and behavior in a wide variety of work and social situations. 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 . 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. work performance and careers.characteristic relevant to the needs of the organisation. Personality tests have been in the market for more than 50 years and their popularity has increased significantly in recent years. their significant others and their related job-relevance. 2001). The purpose of conducting personality tests is to gather information and highlight issues for further exploration at interviews. By understanding their behavior.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. Psychometric assessment is big business in the 21st century as approximately 2. As part of a development process in organisations. 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.
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. management development programmes. develop. there is no evidence to indicate a positive relation between specific MBTI types with career success (Pittenger. recruit. For example. 2004).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. 2000) The increasing pressure on organisations to identify. psychometric tests have expanded their functionalities to many other areas such as appraisals. The most commonly used personality instruments are shown in Table 2 but they are not necessarily valid or useful. career guidance and training needs analysis (Dent and Curd. From their traditional use as a tool for selection and recruitment. Test Name Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Description Probably the most popular and wellresearched personality instrument used in business today. 1993).
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 . Cattell. 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. Developed by Raymond B. which was developed by Elias Porter in the 1960s. the dimensions measured fall into three categories: • • • Relationships with people Thinking style. In particular.Test Name Description • • How you make decisions. it helps individuals to understand the various facets that determine their personality. and Feelings and emotions • • • • • • • • • • • The Belbin Team Role SelfPerception Inventory Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship OrientationBehavior (FIROB) One of the few UK instruments on the market. 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. 2004) Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) This questionnaire measures an individual’s personality against 16 different personality dimensions. 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. the feedback from which defines a person’s perception of his/her behaviors at work. Another of the best-researched and most widely used tools available today.. Designed by Saville and Holdsworth to provide information on personality characteristics.
1937). thought. PERSONALITY AND WORK PERFORMANCE The fundamental objective of personality psychology is to understand how personality can be used to predict behavior (Mayer. Jung. and Eysenck.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. 2004) 1. 6 . 1997): i) The psychoanalytic perspectives of Freud. and Adler. and Rotter. which assume personality is never completely determined and that people are always changing and free to reinterpret their experiences idiosyncratically. Personality theories may be classified into five categories (Ryckman. ii) The traits perspectives of Allport. iii) The cognitive perspectives of Pavlov. Cattell. which assume there are dispositional factors that determine behavior in various situations. and emotion that are relatively stable and which form the basic conception of personality (Allport. 2003). Individuals display consistent patterns of behavior. Skinner. which are biological in nature and based on the premise of the unfolding of stages where the particular behaviors occur.2.
iv) The existential or humanistic perspectives of Rogers. 1999. 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. 1977a. 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. McCrae and Costa. 2001. Maslow. In other words. Rossier. 2003. rather than innate as people’s interactions and experiences continually influence each other. Paunonen. which is based on 7 . Paunonen and Ashton. 2004). de Stadelhofen and Berhoud. Beauvais and Scholl. Unlike the psychoanalytic and existential perspectives. the social or interaction perspective excludes the growth stages. 1998. 1999). De Raad. 1996. 1977b). Although the FFM. 1990. which postulate the presence of an innate need for growth which moves individuals towards achieving their potentialities given the right environmental conditions. which assume most behavior is learned and purposive and that people are guided by motives to achieve certain goals. Human behavior is a multifaceted phenomenon and any theory attempting to explain normal human behavior must reflect its multidimensionality (Leonard. Goldberg. 1993. behavior arises as a result of a complex interaction between environmental influences and inner processes (Bandura. These traditional models of personality cannot explain the diversity of behavior as human behavior cannot be explained by a single perspective. The psychometric instruments in Table 2 are all based on single theories. and v) The social behavioristic or interaction perspectives of Bandura and Mischel.
or has to (Nikolaou. 1993). 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. is able to describe consistent features of the behavior of an individual it does not address the key drivers or motives of behavior (Fletcher. the Hierarchy of Needs Theory by Maslow advocates the dynamic processes of need satisfaction. the power of the Hierarchy of Needs Theory is its ability to identify a range of needs. Maslow posited that needs act as motivators (Arnold. Social cognitive theory takes into consideration environmental and internal forces that shape behavior (Bandura. Chung. likes to. Individual functioning is a continuous interaction between environmental. which motivate behavior (Wiley. 1997). 1993). attempts to explain human behavior according to key motivators. Interest in the motivation that drives behavior rekindled in the 1990s. Unlike most need theories. and cognitive factors (Fedor and Ferris. culturally and situationally determined (Fletcher. 1981). 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. The personality measure proposed in this dissertation. including growth needs. 2003). 1977a). 1988). ultimately leading to self-actualisation (Osteraker. Hence. 1969). 8 . 1999. behavioral. which may be classified as deficit or homeostatic theories of motivation.personality traits. Motives are only one of the determinants of behavior as behavior is also determined by other factors that are biologically. which is based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and social cognitive theories.
iv) Ego. Salgado. 2000. Does personality predict work performance? Although there are many factors besides personality that affect work performance. does not 9 . 2002. Schinka and Curtiss.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. Personality traits can be conceptually and empirically related without being redundant (Judge et al. 2003). 2003. There are good reasons to believe that some dimensions of the CASES measure will be related to some dimensions of the FFM. and v) Social. such as those of the FFM. this question has received considerable attention in the literature (Barrick. have demonstrated that certain aspects of personality are useful predictors of work performance. is based on the social cognitive theory of “IfThen”.. iii) Safety. “inventory” level instead of the construct level. Kieffer. 2004). The first dimension. Nikolaou. 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.. One of the reasons for this low validity is that many studies focused mainly on personality traits at the molecular. This. however. which explains the variability of an individual’s behavior in different situations. 2003. 2003). Prior to the 1990s. 2002. Nikolaou. personnel selection specialists generally did not use personality testing in employee selection due to its low validity. ii) Actualisation. Stewart and Piotrowski.. Barrick et al. Recent investigations using higher order personality constructs. Complexity.
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. Research Question 2: Does the CASES measure predict work performance? The second research question is addressed by the second hypothesis. H3: The FFM and CASES will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance. 10 . H1: The FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. H2: The CASES measure 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. 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.
2001). this survey method is efficient and practical (Saunders. Williams.3. 11 .3. Remenyi.3.1. Research Design This study uses hypothesis testing as there is information available on the variables involved to enable hypothesis formulation. and Swartz. Furthermore. Delahaye and Sekaran. 1997. 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. Lewis and Thornhill. Furthermore. 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. need-induced behaviors and performance. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 1. hypotheses can be empirically substantiated which is essential for such psychometric tests (Cavana. 1.1. 1998).2. The investigation is a correlational study as the main interest is to examine the associations between dimensions of personality and work performance. Money. The study setting is a non-contrived setting. Research Philosophy The study uses the positivistic paradigm with the hypothetico-deductive approach as it seeks to explain the relationship between personality.
CASES. 1. 2001). perceptions and attitudes (Lindell and Whitney. 12 . Although mail surveys tend to yield a relatively low response rate.4. specifically their perceptions of their own behavior. 1999). The FFM (Goldberg. Nikolaou. the new personality measure. 2003). The unit of analysis is the individual.3.2002). 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. 1. Measurement Five-point Likert scales will be used for all of the items related to personality and performance. they allow the targeting of specific respondents in various organisations and are cost effective. Salgado..3. Survey Instrument Data will be collected via a mail survey. Furthermore. mail surveys are the most commonly used survey method in studies of personality (Kieffer et al. 2003. 2004.3. and the work performance measure of Welbourne. Johnson and Erez (1998) will be used for this research.
gender. which ensures the anonymity and confidentiality of responses. years of working. Confirmatory factor 13 . A total of 40 commercial organisations of various sizes and from various industries. 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. 1978). will be invited to participate in this research. 1. age. level of education.4. Descriptive statistics will be computed for all of the demographic variables (i. 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. The minimum targeted number of respondents is 500 as the personality measures have 50 items each (minimum of 10:1 subject to items ratio... and years in current job).5. known to the researcher. as recommended by Nunnally.3. The questionnaire uses the Likert scale to collect interval-scaled data for each of the variables involved in the hypotheses.1.e. 2001). ANALYSES Data analyses will be conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 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.
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.5 to 0. 1978).7 is considered adequate for initial investigations (Nunnally. 2001).. Furthermore. 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. 14 .5. Cronbach’s alpha will be calculated for each subscale to test its internal reliability. An alpha coefficient of 0. 1980. Cavana et al.analysis is a method for assessing construct validity and will be used to test the structures of the personality and performance measures (Schwab. stamped and self-addressed envelopes will be provided to the respondents. Cronbach’s alpha is an internal reliability coefficient that shows how well the items belonging to a set are correlated to one another. 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. Multiple linear regression analyses will be used to test the hypotheses. Finally. 1.
the effect of leniency associated with selfassessment could raise concerns about the legitimacy of the data collected. 2004) as job satisfaction.6.. 1996) and social desirability bias such as “telling the way they like to be seen” (Hogan. as this study uses a convenience sampling. 15 .g.1. the stability of work performance as a construct may not be totally valid (Thoresen et al. Furthermore.. Additionally. its findings may not be generalisable to different types of organisations such as public sector or non-profit organisations. Finally. LIMITATIONS The research relies on self-report data that can be affected by response distortion (Barrick and Mount. different types of jobs (e. 1996). or different countries. motivation level and role clarity may influence self-reported performance ratings (Kieffer et al.. organisational hygiene. blue-collar and clerical employees). Hogan and Roberts. cognitive ability. 2004).
which are normally based on a single theory. Although such instruments are traditionally used as a tool in the selection and recruitment processes. develop and retain key employees has increased the interest of managers for more information on current employees and potential recruits alike. The increasing pressure on organisations to select/recruit.000 million tests administrated yearly and 700 of the Times Top 1. psychometric assessment will be a major business sector in the 21st century (Coull and Eary. 2004). 1999). training needs analysis. and appraisals.1. 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. However. 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. With some 2.2. 2001).0.. CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW 2. management development programmes. are not able to explain the diversity of behavior. as human behavior cannot be fully covered by any one single theory (Leonard et al. These tests.000 companies in United States of America using such instruments. INTRODUCTION Psychometric tests have been used by organisations as part of their development and recruitment processes. the debate on the reliability and 16 . Many organisations use psychometric testing as part of their recruitment and development processes to select candidates who will excel in their jobs.
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. values. 2. thinks and behaves”. 43) defined personality as “the pattern of relatively enduring ways in which a person feels. traits. selects and processes information and generates social behaviors (Mischel and Shoda. What is Personality? Personality can be broadly defined as the durable characteristics of an individual. George and Jones (2002. p. p. beliefs. “caveat emptor” should still be applied. 45). traits). dispositions and needs (Gelso and Fassinger. when using psychometric instruments. which are the building blocks of personality (Marsella et al. it does not mean that all such instruments are. The concept of personality can be traced to the work of Allport. using well-proven instruments do not confer automatic validity on their application in an organisation. The continuing debate may be due to the fact that although some instruments may be found to be valid predictors of work performance. 1995). Robbins (2001. for example. Also. 2000. 1993). who assumed the presence of “neuropsychic” structures (i.. Personality is conceptualised as a stable system which influences how an individual construes. Hence.validity of such instruments and the value of such concepts such as personality traits continues in the academic literature (Fletcher.. It is most often described in terms of measurable traits that a person 17 .1. 92) takes personality as “the sum total of ways in which an individual reacts to and interacts with others.1.e. 1992). p. attitudes.
personality is explained based on overall motivation rather than the understanding of neural pathways of motives (Mayer. Hence. 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 so on. 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.” Hogan et al. 2) defined personality in two ways. 1975). we are trying to explain the differences of that person from others. introverted. 1999). motivations and behaviors (Lau and Shaffer. when describing someone’s personality. (1996.exhibits. 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. Personality can also be defined as an organised and dynamic set of characteristics of a person that influence cognitions. This aspect is called individual differences whereby we categorise people as neurotic. Hence. For example. extraverted. 2001). Personality is explained as existing in the individual as opposed to outside the person and focuses on overall psychological trends. p. Personality is too vast a field and differentiated for a single approach. and (iii) individual behavior is consistent across situations (Pervin. most personality researchers divide personality into different areas or divisions and try to explain how each area works individually and with others.
ego and superego. How Stable are Personality Traits? Psychological experience is made up of two features. Yet. (b) the trilogy of mind (Hilgard. 40% of the phenotypic variance of given traits is attributed to genetic sources while 60% is accounted for by the environment. The more developed approaches use traits in the personality structure. 2004). 1937). behavior and thought that are relatively consistent to form the basis of the conception of personality (Allport. 1997). change and consistency. 1985). individuals are significantly consistent across time and place. 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. However. They display unique patterns of emotions. 1980). 1993. genes do not influence behavior directly but instead influence physiological structures (Brody. that appear to contradict each other (Cervone. 2.2. 2003. (c) the five factor model (Goldberg. Costa and McCrae (1995) posited that personality is heritable and highly stable over time while Jang et al. (1998) revealed that some 20%-50% of variation in the dimensions is attributable to genetic sources. 2001). Pervin. These 19 . Vaidya et al.division of id. 2001. Emotions and actions shift in response to the environment. (2002) posited that the transition during adulthood is often marked by substantial affective and personality changes caused by environmental changes. Costa and McCrae. (2001) revealed that on average.1. The contents of consciousness change rapidly. and (d) the systems set (Mayer.
most organisational and personality researchers agree that individual behavior involves both variable and stable aspects but there still remains disagreement regarding this quantum (Wright. Human behavior is 20 . could account for much of the psychological change that occurs during early adulthood. as human behavior cannot be explained by any one factor (Leonard. independence from protective shelter and parental control. A good personality measure. 1994). 1996). There is a growing realisation that traditional models of personality do not explain the diversity of behavior found in organisational settings. Cropanzano and Meyer.. Many theories of personality rely excessively on behavioral models. such as a strong peer culture. Beauvais and Scholl.1. 1999). the measurements are temporally stable and credible evidence linking the measure to meaningful non-test behavior (Hogan et al. should have at least two features. 2004). Human behavior is difficult to describe with such precision since it has a large number of causes. which conform to statistical theories to explain these complexities rather than on behavioral realities (Wolfe. Nevertheless. 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. 1998). that is. however.environmental changes. 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. 2.
clearly a multivariate phenomenon and a theory trying to explain normal human behavior must reflect this multidimensionality. which could affect their work performance and careers (Hogan. the typological and trait-factor theories. 1996. 2004a). 2000). 2003). Wheeler. the humanistic approaches of the 1950s and almost at the same time. the cognitive and the social cognitive approaches were developed (Gelso and Fassinger. Hunton and Bryant. Tett and Burnett. the stable components affect our lives. These personality theories 21 . humanistic. and behavioral doctrines were particularly influential in the past but social-cognitive and trait theories predominate today. Hence. Gruys and Ellingson. If personality does change. What people do—their behavior—is a function of their personalities.2. Sackett. In the mid 1950s. 1992). 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. it changes gradually. 2003. Psychoanalytical. et al. changing from context to context and from moment to moment but personality is consistent and stable over time. THEORIES ON PERSONALITY The history of personality psychology has been dominated by several theoretical paradigms (Cervone. Behavior is like the weather. 1998. Behavior is used to interpret and evaluate people’s personalities. Psychoanalytical approaches were the first theories followed in the early part of last century by behavioral approaches. 2.. 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.
Nevertheless. they adopt different units of analysis for conceptualising and explaining intraindividual coherence and individual differences in personality functioning (Allport. the various “grand theories” of Allport. Allport differentiated descriptors of social evaluation and temporary states from those traits descriptors which were considered to be more personality relevant. 1939). Cattell.. 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. for example. behavioral. 1997). Murphy. The various historical. attitudes and intelligence. some German personality descriptors contained abilities and temperament terms while others such as Goldberg uses attitude and mood terms like conservative. This emphasis on the individual is dominant in the psychodynamic. humanistic and trait approaches (Marsella et al. Eysenck emphasised biologically-based disposition variables but excluded abilities. Personality psychologists have to address a wide range of phenomena and it could be impossible to identify an overarching mission in this field.differ from each other in fundamental ways as they have different categories of personality variables. Levin. Other researchers cast wider nets. 2000). 22 . jealous and anxious as dispositions (Saucier. and Murray all emphasised the coherence and consistency of normal personality and perceived the individual organism as a complex but organised structure. In essence.
. According to Freud (1960). This set represents the struggles among bodily desires. were more concerned with the interplay of conscious awareness and unconsciousness to explain personality (Coan. rational understanding or expectations. and social ideals (Mayer. 2003). The ego does the systematic trial and error thinking and seeks to ensure the survival of the individual. Jung. 1987). 2000). 2001). Freud. The pre-conscious level is where information of our past is stored which could be called “available memory”.2. They explained personality in terms of mental mechanisms and drives that seek satisfaction within the boundaries of reality (Cervone. When we select the stimuli. the animalistic part of personality.g. Freud’s structural set is the id.1. Adler). we have three levels of consciousness: conscious. It explains our mental activity in which all thought processes occur. Id. The superego is the overseer of the ego which ensures it is morality and strives for ideals (Mayer. One takes in the stimuli using our five senses. When we 23 . Another takes in the stimuli. We select and respond to the stimuli that we perceive can satisfy our personal goals.2. Psychodynamic Theories Psychodynamic psychologists (e. Ego is the conscious part and is responsible for the individual’s behavior and understanding of the outside world. the ego and the superego. two mental processes take place. These stimuli are subsequently stored as information in the pre-conscious level and they become our experiences. The conscious level deals with that part of our awareness which is in touch with the reality of our life. processes them and sees many different ways of responding to them. pre-conscious and unconscious. described as a boiling and bubbling cauldron of aggressive and animal-like urges.
they do not have a choice. They explain personality in terms of the mental drive mechanisms that try to satisfy the drives within the boundaries of reality (Cervone. when people act on a particular situation using their feelings. Generally. mental illness. 2002). when they use their thinking (mental faculty). which are neurologically represented by the physical needs in the life and death instincts. The unconscious is believed to be the source of our motivations such as desires for sex or food and neurotic compulsions or ambitions. Hence. Freud posits that all human behavior is motivated by instincts or drives.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 other is to use our thinking (intellect) at the conscious level to process the stimuli and see alternative responses to them. Apparently.. 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. they have many choices of responding to it. the distress and miseries in modern life (e. child abuse. 2000). It is this dynamic and active 24 . and crimes) are due to the repression of pain or instinct by the superego contents. Freud discovered the unconscious level as a source of motivation and a way of hiding thoughts and desires from awareness (Gabriel and Carr. Alternatively.g. 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.
Carl Rogers. The joy of living is to prepare oneself for experiencing and progressing towards higher levels of functioning. 1976). growing. self-actualisation is achieving “what a man can be. growing. 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). Mayo showed that an employee’s psychological and social desires play an important role in production efficiency based on social aspects of human behavior.2.2. 1976). They believe that people are responsible for their life. to its fullest extent (Mele. becoming and being a better person or developing the human virtue. 1998). Mayo’s work paved the path for more humanistic theories. apparently unchanging and instinctual or genetic in origin (Kaufman. David McClelland) view existence as a process of learning. Self-actualisation can be defined as the process of learning.view of the unconscious which is the heart of the field of psychology known as psychoanalysis (Gabriel and Carr. Although Mayo may be considered the pioneer of the “humanistic” approach. Given reasonable and conducive life conditions. 80).. becoming and being a perfect person (Franken. 2. Humanistic psychologists emphasise learning from one’s subjective past experiences to develop and actualise one’s potentials. he must be” (Mele. For Maslow. p. 2002). 25 .g. they assume that people will be positively motivated to actualise their potential. in all forms. The Mayo-Hawthorne studies demonstrated that the hourly paid employee was motivated by other needs besides economic rewards (Gallagher and Einhorn. Humanistic Theories Humanistic psychologists (e. Abraham Maslow. 2003.
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
Based on the deductions from their experiments. Behaviorist/Cognitive and Social Cognitive Theories Stimulus-Response or Behavioral Theorists posit that behavior is a function of our past experiences. 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. 1989). correlations between laboratory behavior and personality traits tend to be modest.4.the inter-relationships of the traits and that the “whole personality” is different from the sum of these individual traits (Lombardo and Foschi. 2000). 2003). They use classical and operant conditioning to understand animal and human behavior. strength of excitation. 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. Using traits to predict behavior in the past has yielded mixed results partly because of methodological problems.4. 2003). 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. and balance. Generally. 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. 29 . 2. 2002). This finding has been used to support critics who claim that personality traits are unimportant (Buss. often not exceeding 0.2. mobility of nervous processes.
They assert that people organise their values. psychological explanatory mechanisms such as memory. We learn that both pleasurable and painful experiences can lead to positive and negative outcomes. 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.. Integrating the behavioral and cognitive perspectives with respect to motivation produces the social cognitive theory (Bandura. the intraindividual. Bargh and Ferguson. Bauer and McAdams. Behaviorists denied the existence of the complex higher-order factors (e. The old axiom of StimulusResponse Theory that pleasure begets pleasure and pain begets pain becomes unresolved and mooted. This set of personal standards is unique in each person and grows out of one’s life experiences (Andersen and Chen.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. conscious deliberation and perception) which mediate between stimuli and responses. 2002). expectations and goals to guide and direct their behavior. 2000). We begin to use our intellect to process the stimuli and anticipate the outcomes of our behavior before we respond to pains and pleasures. Moreover. We learn from our experiences. cognitive and 30 . 2000. Radical behaviorists such as Skinner and Watson ruled out emotional. learning and experiences.g. individual functioning is considered as a continuous interaction among behavioral. 2004). Cognitive psychologists view behavior as a function of cognition. 2002. 1977a).
and cognitive constructs used to give meaning to events) possesses a spectrum of possible inputs. expectation and aspirations (Marsella et al.environmental factors (Fedor and Ferris. and c. 2004). selfregulatory and goals mechanisms.. (ii) reciprocal interactionism. (i) personality is a complex system. social cognitive theorists postulate that the intuitive and perceived sense of coherence and consistency in personality/self/character can arise from three sources: a. how people organise disparate and multiple experiences and life events within a larger cognitive framework of goals. 31 . self-reflective capabilities. 2000). 1981). These mechanisms are contextualised by these social-learning processes. b. 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. Furthermore. 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. how people establish causal linkage over their lives through self-reflective and selfknowledge processes. how people assign meanings to social information.g. and (iii) personality variables (Cervone. The three overarching principles of the social cognitive approach are. Over the past few decades. 2000). They posit that each of the mechanisms (e..
3. 2003). Another study by Judge. knowledge of the 32 .2. WHY DOES PERSONALITY MATTER TO ORGANISATIONS? For several decades prior to the 1990s. a more beneficial strategy for an organisation is to select relatively more conscientious and less extroverted employees to reduce absenteeism and improve productivity. “Getting Along” and “Getting Ahead”. Nevertheless. 2000). In a Thinking and Judging consulting world. Meta-analyses have consistently and repeatedly shown that under specific conditions. Martocchio and Thoresen (1997) revealed that conscientious and introverted employees are less likely to play truant or to be absent. By paying attention to the psychological processes where traits can be expressed in work performance. mental ability. As these traits are considerably stable and probably genetic in origin. personality measures can predict work performance quite accurately and a given trait value is situational specific (Tett and Burnett. interest. 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. the selection/recruitment systems would be more beneficial and can provide practitioners greater advantage in utilising trait information in work settings. 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. opportunities and health are also important determinants. are more potent predictors of occupational performance although other factors such as values. Hogan and Holland (2003) found that the measures of Emotional Stability.
a group of Introverts may benefit from the presence of an Extrovert for better communication. TYPES OF PERSONALITY MEASURES Historians recognise the year 1937 to be the birth of personality psychology by its founder. Gordon W. Similarly. Hunton and Bryant (2004a) found homogeneity of personality types that are attracted and retained in accounting firms.4. which in turn saves money via the reduction of errors/mistakes and improved morale. 1988). 1998) with individuality as its object of study (Pelham.personality types of the clients could be used to enhance communication. 2. 2000). 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. jobs and technologies. Allport (Nicholson. The satisfaction derived from achievement is what stimulates their performance (Arnold. Personality theorists began to focus more on the differences within persons. McClelland conducted a study of the phenomenon of constructive activity beyond the physiological or survival requirements and classified the traits as “need for achievement”. He found that extrinsic rewards such as money are only one form or method of “keeping score” for high achievers. the presence of some Thinking types may provide some structure to decision-making in a group of all Feeling types. 1993). Groups comprising members with Sensing and Intuition preferences outperformed groups with only Sensing-preference members. termed 33 . certain traits correlate with higher performance for certain tasks. Wheeler. Also.
These psychometric instruments have been selected as they are the most popular instruments used by commercial organisations for personal development. between subject analyses of personality.. and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) which is based on Jungian theory. occupational selection.e. also known as the Big Five. 2004. Extraversion.as idiographic. Kwiatkowski. 2003). 2. 2003).. Agreeableness and Neuroticism) which represent the highest levels of a personality hierarchy (Paunonen and Ashton. Openness to Experience. and for developing more effective teams (Dent and Curd. 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). which is essentially a smaller set of trait variables derived from the 16-Factor Model of Cattell (1943) (Rossier et al. The anagram of the FFM is 34 . 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). 2001. 2004). 2003). Nomothetic is the other term that refers to the classical. Conscientiousness.1. posits that there are five personality dimensions (i. career development. Allport’s idea of personality is a psychology of the mature and normal personality (Lombardo and Foschi. Toomela. Furthermore. The Five Factor Model The Five Factor Model (FFM). No discussion or critique is carried out on the other instruments as there is very little publicly available research on them.4.
Emotional Adjustment.E. b. Paunonen (2003) revealed that the construct validity of these 35 . Agreeableness. d. c. depressed and moody. fearful. Consciousness is the trait that best correlates with work performance. assertive. Individuals scoring high on Extraversion are strongly predisposed to the experience of positive emotions. Openness to Experience is the only trait to display appreciable correlations with intelligence. represents the tendency to be outgoing. 1998). consists of tendencies to be kind. Neuroticism. Factor 1. trusting. These factors represent a continuum. represents the tendency to be creative. trustworthy and warm. which is the tendency to be anxious.N. Openness to Experience (sometimes labelled as Intellectance). gentle. e. 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. As defined by Judge and Bono (2000). 2003). Factor 3. perceptive and thoughtful. imaginative. active and excitement seeking.C. is indicated by two facets: achievement and dependability. Conscientiousness. where people exhibiting a high.O.A. types of assessment and cultures (Hogan and Holland. Factor 4. often labelled by its opposite. moderate or low degree of each quality. (De Raad. Emotional Adjustment is the principal trait that leads to life satisfaction and freedom from depression and other mental ailments. a. Factor 5. Factor 2. languages. Extraversion.
. These dimensions are cross-culturally generalisabled (Perugini. McCrae. 2004). 1997. Ashton et al. Saucier and Goldberg. 1998. 2004. 1997). California Personality Inventory) may be assumed to be part of the FFM (Salgado. 2000. other researchers are of the opinion that virtually all traits of personality are reasonably contained in the factor space of the FFM (e. MBTI. Although there is no universal agreement among theorists and researchers on the comprehensiveness of the five dimensions (Tett and Burnett. Gallucci and Livi. 2003. 36 . 2003) and are endogenous and biologically determined (McCrae and Costa. Toomela. Allik and McCrae. 2000). It has reached somewhat of a consensus that the FFM is an appropriate taxonomy of personality (Burke and Witt. 2003. 2001. 2004. 2003). et al. 2004). 1998.inventories is supported by the consistency and strong convergence in their predictions and measurements. Hogan and Holland. Paunonen and Aston. the way one describes oneself and others in everyday life transactions).. the FFM seems to dominate not only the theory but also the evaluation of personality (Goldberg. Hogan and Holland. 1993. 1999). (1988) showed that about 20% to 55% of the trait variation in personality dimensions is linked to genetic sources. Several studies have shown that the well-known instruments for personality assessment (Eysenck Personality Inventory.. 2004). 2002. 1996. After five decades of research on personality psychology (i.g. Judge et al. The identification of these factors is based on principal components analyses (Burke and Witt..e. Martocchio and Thoresen. Although studies by Jang et al. Judge and Bono. 2003. 1997). these studies also revealed substantial variation due to non-genetic factors (Toomela. Judge. Hurtz and Donovan. (1998) and Pedersen et al.. Tsaousis.
religion.. the traits are rooted in biology and transcultural universals. information processing and the role of the unconscious) (Wheeler. There is still a lack of evidence to support the notion that culture shapes personality. ethnicity. Hunton and Bryant. age. race. (2000) claimed that the FFM can only satisfy the nomothetic. individual development. Allick and McCrae (2004) did not claim that the environment is irrelevant to personality functioning but rather that personality is manifested through culture. Extroversion and Introversion. It postulates three bipolar dimensions and the fourth bipolar. 2004a). Nevertheless. Jung’s typology assumes that people differ in their choice of two attitudes. and their preferences for four mental functions (i.2. That is. Saucier and Goldberg (1996) and Digman (1997) postulated the FFM model to be descriptive summaries while Marsella et al.Allick and McCrae (2004) posited that the FFM personality structure is biologically determined and universal. Shelton and Darling (2002) posited the FFM model is applicable to all people regardless of the gender. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Jungian theory (Jung. 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. explanatory and molecular contextual accounts of personality are still subjects of debate. the 37 . 1971) posits that variation in human behavior is due to basic and observable differences when people use their minds to gather and process information. descriptive and molar goals of Allport. The idiographic..e.g. Sensing/Intuition and Thinking/Feeling). McKenna. Personality is the mediating and integrating factor in numerous psychological processes (e. socio-economic background and country of origin. 2.4.
. 1993) are: a. resulting in four dimensions with 16 distinct personality types as shown in Table 4 (Myers et al. Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F): A preference for thinking indicates the use of logic and rational processes to make deductions and decide upon action. Feeling represents a preference to make decisions that are based on subjective processes that include emotional reactions to events. b. d. Extroversion (E) versus Introversion (I): This dimension reflects the perceptual orientation of the individual. The judgmental person uses a combination of thinking and feelings when making decisions whereas the perception person uses the sensing and intuition processes. Introverts.Judgement/Perception dimension. 2000). 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. c. however. 1998. 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. 38 . McCaulley. a later addition by Myers and Briggs. The 4 dimensions (Pittenger. looks inward to their internal and subjective reactions to their environment. Extroverts are said to react to immediate and objective conditions in the environment. People with an intuitive preference rely more on their non-objective and unconscious perceptual processes.
Sensing-Intuition is comparable to the Openness factor.. more idealistic and compassionate) (Wheeler.g. structured (like Conscientiousness) whereas Perceptive types are adaptable. Extroversion-Introversion of the MBTI is comparable with McCrae and Costa’s Extraversion.e. Thinking types connect ideas and experiences by logic.e. 1987). the primary preference always dominates the person’s personality. Lindon. Shelton and Darling. Although people can develop a complimentary style (e.Since MBTI is a theory of types. 2004a. 2002).e.. Although there is insufficient evidence that the MBTI is a valid instrument. ThinkingFeeling may not be directly comparable to Agreeableness but it does clearly measure a similar dimension. self disciplined. its popularity has not diminished despite research which shows it has low validity (McKenna. more insightful and creative) while Sensing types “see the trees” (i. 1995). Similarly.. 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. 39 . (i. an introvert can become more extroverted when in groups). Metaphorically. The Judging types are described as organised.. more factual and observant). Extroverted types are more outgoing while introverted types are deemed to be more detached and contemplative.e. 1993). one can have only one preference. The Judging types are more committed and decisive while the Perceiving types are more questioning and open-minded.. spontaneous and flexible. Similarly. logical and rational natures) while Feeling types incorporate personal and group values in the decision-making process (i. Hunton and Byrant. Intuition types “see the forest” (i. The MBTI does not cater for the neuroticism dimension which is certainly an important variable (McC Dachowski.
Table 3: The 16 Personality Types with Cognitive Characteristics and Occupational Tendencies 40 .
Moreover. 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. 2004). 1998). Kovar et al.. Otter (1984). Jocoby (1981). 1990). Satava (1996) and Schloemer and Schloemer (1997) found that accountants. 2004). 1996. Shackleton (1980). 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.. 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. Descouzis (1989). 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. 2003). Sensing type students outperformed the Intuition students in certain subjects and in an overall accounting grade (Nourayi and Cherry.. 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 .5. 1994.2. (1990). 1993). Kreiser et al. Neuroticism primarily influences performance through motivation while conscientiousness influences performance by being decisive and orderly. 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. Both of these dimensions are dominant in predicting work performance across a variety of work (Kichuk and Wiesner.
de Stadelhofen. Hogan et al. 1989) and hence other good dimensions of 42 . This structure is essentially derived from an atheoretical trait factor approach (Gelso and Fassiinger. 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. a widely used trait group. The need for power was highly correlated with professional fulfilment and status-wealth but was negatively related with family relationships (Parker and Chusmir. Its disadvantages are that numerous traits are motivational in nature (Buss. 1989. 1996. 1998). SHORTCOMINGS OF FFM AND MBTI MEASURES 2. 2001). 1992). Furthermore. and Berhoud.6. need for achievement was negatively related to security and personal fulfilment.6.. De Raad. Hence. contribution to society and status-wealth. Five Factor Model The FFM.success strivings for professional fulfilment. 1998). 2004. 1996). is unusual as its contents are defined by the lexical hypothesis instead of primary parts (Mayer. 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. Rossier.1. If personality requirements are derived for an individual job. 1991). which has the advantage of getting around the problem of breaking personality into areas.. personality can provide an incremental validity over ability in picking the optimal candidate (Day and Silverman.
Aston et al. Aston et al. 1996) and is criticised for its questionable conceptual and methodological assumptions of the lexical hypothesis (Wheeler. Moreover. 1997. The FFM is not universally accepted as the integrative model of personality (Cellar et al. 2001. and (ii) it cannot account for exceptions to the typical behaviors on which it is based. Furthermore. it has nothing to say about personality development. That is. 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. Toomela (2003) finds that due to the scientific word meaning structure used. the FFM may only be “universal” for that specific stratum of society.. 2003) as well as its focus on narrow aspects of personality (Paunonen and Aston. 1996). Digman. 2003. Mayer.. 2001. It may 43 . 2004. 2004. Tett and Burnett. 2001. Paunonen.personality may have been omitted (Paunonen and Aston. 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. 2004b. Mayer. 2003). 2004. the exceptions which depart from the usual due to situational effects. 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. Hence. over-reliance on the adjectival approach may limit the cross-cultural generalisability of the FFM. Toomela. Hunton and Byrant. the debate on cultural specificity and the universality of personality structure continues.. Cellar et al. Digman. Moreover. 2003). 1997. Cervone.. 2003.
in terms of normative equivalence... for example. (ii) desire to conform socially. 2000). In addition. immaturity and many other derogatory terms but can be viewed positively in the Japanese culture.. (vi) variation in the construction of personality and personhood.e. (ii) the interpersonal responses to them. and (v) the value or utility of behavioral descriptions (Marsella et al. 2000). introversion-extroversion) but cultural variations may shape: (i) their display patterns. Some cultural groups have problems with Likert scales and they tend to take the middle position. the norms of a particular instrument that are based on Western culture may give rise to questionable conclusions if applied to. These motivational and perceptual differences are: (i) fear of possible persecution. (v) desire to please authorities. (iii) the situations where they are elicited. (iii) concern only in giving the right instead of the accurate answer.. 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. (iv) the meanings they are assigned. Finally.be accepted that there are a relative small number of socially or biological determined behavioral dimensions (e. The adoption of self-report questions is already a complex task. the similarity in the meaning and nature of a concept) may differ. 44 . the conceptual equivalence (i.g. Furthermore. and (vii) confusion with the implication of words and terms used in the question as well their perceived meaning (Marsella et al. (iv) limited insight and self-awareness. For example. 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. Chinese respondents. dependency in Western culture implies childishness. helplessness.
the FFM has the following advantages: (i) it has a parsimonious taxonomy. Unfortunately. 1997). the FFM does provide an initial structure of human individuality. 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..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. that is. 2003). and (iii) it can advance our understanding of work-related variables (e. 1997). Several studies have found the FFM to be unrelated to cognitive ability (Sanders. In the final analysis. 1997). 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. performance) by linking them to personality dimensions (Salgado. Nevertheless. (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. 2001). 2003).g. Idson and Mischel (2001) postulated that traits cannot provide the psychologist with more than a psychology of a stranger. 45 . 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. Furthermore. characteristic adaptations like developmental tasks and motives fill in the details. while life stories provide the meaning and integration (McAdams.
Although this hypothesis has received empirical support with temporal stability studies. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Jung’s (1971) hypothesis states that types and preferences are invariant and innate in individuals. The formulae for these reliability estimates based on the 46 . Data are described as ipsative when a given group of responses always add to the same total. wrong or right (i. Factor analysis will not be appropriate. Each dichotomy is a selection between qualities of equal value. Hunton and Bryant. a forced-choice format) (Rings. 2004b). 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. 2004. no value judgment attached). The most common one is the forced-choice ipsative data (FCID) as employed in MBTI. that is. Furthermore. 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.. 2004a).6.. measuring the concepts the measurement instrument is designed to measure (Dent and Curd. Reliability is defined as the consistency in measurement of a test while validity tests are for goodness of the measure. the correlations between these orthogonal factors will tend towards zero even though they are highly correlated in the population. with no intrinsic bad or good. it is not suitable for analysis looking for before and after treatment effects (Wheeler. If the number of traits is large. The correlations between ipsative factors are negative.2. Cavana et al. Hence. 2004). 2001). 1998). it does not capture the strength of a preference but its direction which is only appropriate for sorting (Wheeler. The type preferences are dichotomous (i.e.e.2.. Hunton and Bryant.
Behavior is used to evaluate and interpret one’s personality (Hogan et al. Similarly. THE THEORIES AND CONSTRUCTS OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE 2. 1996). high fidelity expression of a personality disposition. What 47 . ESFPs are neither better nor worse salespeople than INTJs. Hence.1. Any single behavior is a narrow bandwidth.classical test theory are simply not applicable or tenable with ipsative data. In addition. Furthermore. 2.7. In general. there is no data that show certain types are more contented in specific occupations than others or stay longer in one occupation. 1989).7. Definition of Behavior Behavior is the way organisms like human beings act. 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.. behavior is interpreted as conduct by most people but in the fields of psychology and behavioral science. 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. there is no evidence to indicate a positive relation between specific MBTI types with career success.
an individual does is a function of the kind of person he or she is – that is. Extrinsic motivation. that is. Cesare and Sadri. intrinsic motivation and amotivation are three distinct motivational forces that can influence behavior (Vlachopoulos.7. 2000). Pincus (2004) defined motivation as a desire or an emotion operates willingly and causing it to act.2. which represents a lack of motivation. Factors Influencing Behavior Motivation is fundamental to behavior as most behavior is influenced by it (Mitchell. 1982. The word “motivation” suggests energised behavior directed towards some goals that is. 1982). the chosen actions are good reflections of performance (Mitchell. 2. 2004). Amotivation is the lack of intent to engage in a specific behavior. his or her personality. An example of an intrinsic motivation is the participation in some activities for the satisfaction and pleasure derived from it. motivation is a process that moves a person towards some action (Arnold. 1988). Motivation is not behavior itself and is not performance. On the other hand. 2003). The objective of motivation theories is often to predict behavior. In most cases. it would be extrinsic motivation when the person participates in the activity to avoid negative consequences or gain external rewards. 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. 48 . Karageorghis and Terry. Behavior is the criterion which is chosen.
2004). reinforcement histories. Nevertheless. expectations. As human needs are psychological or physiological deficiencies.. and can vary over place and time due to environmental influences (Ramlall. personality traits accounted for little variance in 49 . 1982): (i) an individual-level phenomenon. under the individual’s control) (Tubbs and Ekeberg. and (iii) multifaceted. 1991). In this respect. Different people have different needs. which arouse behavior. values.Mitchell (1982) postulated motivation as those psychological processes that cause the arousal. and goals. need theories identify the internal factors which energise behavior. (ii) intentional. attitudes. Motivation is to do with the quality and direction of the effort. 2004). persistence of voluntary actions and directions that are goal directed. not the amount. Hence. 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. “motivations provide the motor for behavior” (Pincus.e. Contrary to the dispositional view. It is generally accepted that motivation is (Mitchell. (i. motivation is the degree to which an individual wants and chooses to engage in certain specific behaviors (Mitchell. these needs can be weak or strong. 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. 1982). 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. That is.
1994. Furthermore. Individuals who perform a behavior because it is “fun” are said to be motivated intrinsically.behavior across situations. The theories proposed by deCharmes. According to this view. are able to exhibit different patterns of behavior yet are able to retain a recognisable personality structure (Pervin. The trait-situation debate peaked with the works of Mischel (1968) and Mischel and Shoda (1995) which posited that situational factors determine behavior. 1999. when shifting from one situation to another. directed and sustained in organisational settings” (Leonard et al. Hence. the person has a dynamic reciprocal interaction with the situation/environment.7. 1999). Rothbart and Ahadi. p. most researchers have adopted an interactionist view. Deci. 1975). Leonard et al. The other source of 50 .. In recent years. and extrinsic or instrumental motivation.3. That is. which assumes behavior is a function of both personality and the environment (Pervin. 970). the individual enjoys the work and feels rewarded by just performing the task. Katz and Khan. not personality or dispositions (Marsella et al.. and Etzioni point to three sources of motivation: motivation based on goal internalisation. Nevertheless. Current Theories of Work Motivation Work motivation is defined as “the process by which behavior is energised. there are no external forces regulating the behavior. models are developed which can explain why people. 2. 2000).. there are some studies that are able to support the predictive validity of the personality/dispositional view (Leonard et al. 1989.. intrinsic process motivation. 1999).
Nevertheless. There exist several “mini” theories of individual difference in motivation which suggest the existence of motivational traits (Pincus. 1958).motivation stems from external forces. 1961). Murray’s “variables of personality” theory adopts motives as the fundamental element of personality (Winter et al.. 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).. (i) (ii) the need for achievement (McClelland. and (iv) the need for power (Atkinson. 1995). The more psychologically immature a person is. there is considerable variability in the conversion of needs into action. 2004). the need for cognition (Cohen et al. 1998). 1958). the 51 . and (iv) the difference in reactions by individuals for the fulfilment of needs. Such motivation is referred to as legal compliance and external rewards by Katz and Khan (1978) or alienative or calculative involvement by Etzioni (1975). Needs can be requested or expressed in immature or mature ways. (iii) the need for affiliation (Atkinson. (iii) there is inconsistency in the final action taken. motivation is complex in that: (i) (ii) the needs of individuals differ.
The Theory of Human Motivation postulated by Maslow (1943). Maslow claimed that the five needs are universal and innate. such as changes in behavior across situations when valences and expectancies remain constant. The expectancy and equity theories focus on extrinsic motivational factors and assume that individuals are “rational maximiser(s) of personal utility” (Leonard et al. Frank (2003) maintained that the characteristics of triebe characterise the vicissitudes of needs. Values are motivations and the gratification of a need is a value (Jolibert and Baumgartner. Hence. 2003).. 1997). As values determine our needs. (1999) posited that individual disposition or personality is a significant determinant of behavior. These theories are. our needs determine our behavior or acts (Osteraker.more literal is the gratification of the needs. p. most needs can be satisfied or expressed symbolically (Frank. and are termed instinctoid. however. denied or turned into the opposite. 1999). Leonard et al. Wertheimer and Gestalt Psychology (Chung. needs can be unconscious and repressed or disavowed and conscious. unable to account for the complete range of motivated behavior. Needs can also be sublimated and gratification can be delayed. is fused with the holism of Goldstein. 972). 1999. Behavior is motivated by goal internalisation when an individual adopts behaviors and attitudes because they are congruent with one’s value system. or compromised. 1969) and has the dynamism of Adler and Freud. For the more psychologically mature person. These needs are instinctually weak and their effect on behavior can be 52 . which is in the functionalist tradition of James and Dewey.
to affiliate with others. 1989). the higher its strength. 53 . and (iii) higher needs are different from lower needs as they can never be completely satisfied.accelerated.to achieve. Chung. 1969). 1997. inhibited or modified by the environment. It is shown that the greater a need’s deprivation. it is a dynamic model that posits multiple needs operating simultaneously (Herbig and Genestre. Maslow postulated that an individual’s needs act as motivators and are the centre of motivation (Arnold. According to Maslow: (i) human beings are demanding beings. This may be true for lower-order needs and less so of higher-order needs.to feel secure. Hence. all other behaviors are learned (Buttle.to find self-fulfilment and realise one’s potential. Even though the needs are innate. thirst and so forth. (d) esteem needs . only those behaviors that satisfy the physiological needs are unlearned that is. be competent and gain approval and recognition. 1988).for hunger. desirability or importance. Maslow proposed a hierarchy of needs. (ii) the five needs exist in a hierarchy of significance or importance. safe and out of danger. (c) belongingness and love needs . consisting of: (a) physiological needs . and (e) self-actualisation needs . (b) safety needs . be acceptable and belong. Based on the premise that motivation comes from within an individual and cannot be imposed. their behavior is determined by unsatisfied needs and satisfied needs do not motivate behavior. The upper levels of the Needs Hierarchy attempt to explain why an individual continue to strive for excellence when the lower needs are met.
Needs are constantly changing within the individual (Osteraker. Maslow’s need hierarchy is generally applicable to all with regards to cultural differences. be concerned with needs on other levels of the primary need (Townsend and Gebhardt. 1999). to a lesser degree. 2003). For example. related and growth). 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. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory advocates the dynamic processes of need satisfaction which leads towards the ultimate goal of self-actualisation. 1993).e. Unlike most of the above traditional need theories that can be classified as homeostatic or deficit theories of motivation. Alderfer argued that people can move up and down the hierarchy and can be motivated at any time by multiple needs. At any instant. an individual may concentrate mostly at one level but at the same time may. 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. 1969). More like piano keys than stairways. self-actualisation may mean different things to individuals from collectivistic cultures than it does to individuals from individualistic cultures (Cesare and Sadri. move on to the next need. it must be repeated that an individual does not concentrate all energies on one need and then when that need is fulfilled. 54 .. Tests have shown that people across the world are essentially motivated by the same fundamental needs. The major difference lies in the definition of need satisfaction. existence. 2003).Alderfer (1969) modified Maslow’s Theory by suggesting there are only three needs (i.
Maslow (1943) postulated that the theories of motivation are not synonymous with theories of behavior. they do provide an understanding of what motivates or energises the individual. Conversely. biologically and situationally determined. 1997). 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. In additional. Motivations are only one group of determinants of behavior. a particular behavior may be caused by many needs. The adoption of Maslow’s needs is appropriate for the CASES personality measure as it has face validity with plausible explanatory power.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. For example. Workplace behavior is posited to be influenced by a person’s existing state of needs in a certain universal needs taxonomy. 1976). The Needs Hierarchy is also elegant and parsimonious. Its structure is appealing in terms of its simplicity and apparent completeness (Gallagher and Einhorn. 1969). the scope of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is broad and is able to explain a wide range of behaviors. 55 . Behavior is almost always motivated by other factors that are culturally. Mustafa (1992) postulated that the significance of the needs hierarchy lies in understanding the motivational factors for the individuals. Furthermore. Although personality-based theories may not necessarily predict behavior or motivation.
2. if not all.4. Most. which complete the “behavior chain”. may desire the money to purchase health insurance (instrumental motive) and hopes that the health insurance will benefit the person and family (end goal).7. 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.1.4. The end goals are classified as drives and intrinsic motives by social 56 . This model of personality (CASES) postulates that personality is a function of psychological needs and their interactions with the environment/situation.7. The variability of these dimensions from the Needs theory is explained by the complexity dimension based on the social cognitive theory of “If-Then”. existing psychometric instruments have personality dimensions which are temporally stable over various situations. The Constructs of this Proposed Model Most broad-based personality theories have assumed that specific motivations determine how personality and self develop function.2. The proposed personality model of CASES attempts to explain personality with dimensions from the Hierarchy of Needs theory. 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. A person taking up a second job for the extra money (instrumental motive). Any adequate model must therefore address motivation.
recognition and affirmation. Motives can be ends-based or means-based 57 . Motives are the “why” of behaviors (Winter et al. However. may enjoy the feeling of self-importance and may think of issues pertaining to wealth (Reiss. (iv) the need for understanding the causes of events. 694). 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. expectancies. p. triebe) is need” (Frank. the need for identity. wishes and goals. incentives.. Motives are reasons a person holds for initiating and performing voluntary behavior. (v) the need for optimal emotional availability of a love object. Motives refer to people’s desire.e. Although Freud did not elaborate further on the idea of needs.. the need definition should be given more consideration as postulated: (i) (ii) the need for one's physical needs to be deemed legitimate. 1998). 2004). 1981). Furthermore. “A better term for an instinctual impulse (i. They provide the meaning of human behavior.psychologists (Reiss. Freud wrote. 2003. 2004). skills and other motives. needs have been equated with “drive” in experimental psychology (Fedor and Ferris. (iii) the need for interpersonal boundaries. and (iv) the need for a resilient responsiveness by one's love objects.
1989). 2004). motives involve wishes. Maslow (1970) posited that the gratification of any need is a value while Murray (1951) claimed that needs operate in the service of values. Similarly. 2004).. desires or goals (Winter et al. For example. 2003). 1998).depending on the individual’s objective for performing the behavior. On the other hand. Drive theories define drives as psychological states that move the organism towards a goal whereas needs are physiological states of deprivation (Pincus. a professional footballer playing the game for a salary or a student studying diligently to obtain a degree. Ends-based motives are indicated when one engages in a behavior because one desires to do so with no other apparent reason. interactional and societal needs.. 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. the behavior is enacted as it is a means to obtain something else (e. their needs are fewer. a student reading a textbook out of curiosity or a child kicking a ball just for the fun of it. Hence. salary or degree). In these examples. For example. These wants are shaped and reshaped continuously by the institutional and social forces. Human wants can be regarded as specific desires for these deeper needs. means-based motives are indicated when one performs an act for a specific instrumental value. Wants and needs are based on both inherited characteristics and environmental conditions and behavior is motivated to satisfy needs and wants (Koltko-Rivera. needs are socially constructed and historically situated (Buttle. While people’s wants are many. Our values determine our needs and our needs influence 58 .g. Values are cognitive representations of biological.
order.2. which represents the needs for growth. are not considered as they are unlearned and assumed to be of relatively in low importance in current organisational settings. system.4. Physiological needs. (iii) Egocentric self. 1997). Jolibert and Baumgartner. 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. self development. 2004). (ii) Safety self. Based on these factors. 1999. and affiliation. structure. and control. which represents the needs for power. companionship. CASES’s first premise is that personality dimensions can be represented by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.7. and fulfilment. progress. achievement. Hence. the model uses the social cognitive theory to provide an explanation for complexity. 2. however. image. which represents the needs for security. drives and values. and (iv) Sociocentric self. CASES posits that the needs subsume motives (implicit and explicit). which represents the needs for love. and protection. the four dimensions of self are proposed as follows: (i) Self-Actualising self. To explain why some individuals are highly predictable and some are unpredictable.our acts (Osteraker. care. Social cognitive theorists postulate that human beings are neither mechanical 59 . desires.
Not all threats require adjustments. “if”).e.. The “If-Then” approach defines personality based on different responses (i. 60 . active construal of the environment.e. Complex behavior is believed to be mediated by the individual’s current purposes and intents. Human behavior is purposive. Even though the contents and processes by which self-regulation occur are multifaceted. 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. such as when the threat is insufficiently threatening or when the individual lacks the motivation or necessary cognitive resources to deal with the threat. 2000). 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. 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. 1995: Anderson and Chen. 1977a). self-regulation is activated by a threat indicating that something is not “normal” and that adjustment may be needed. 2002). The capacity to control one’s action.conveyors of animating influences of the environment nor autonomous agents. motivation or thought processes is a unique human characteristic (Bandura.. and by the exercise of conscious decisions and choices based on these purposes and construals (Bargh and Ferguson. “then”) that an individual displays in various classes of situations (i.
then he/she will tend to be gullible at all times and situations. viz. being hard or soft is a person’s choice and is manifested with intent to achieve a purpose.5. a low complexity person would normally manifest the traits of the other four dimensions consistently and persistently over time and across situations. The traits of the other four dimensions are dynamic and are manifested on the need to suit a purpose. the person can be soft. The nature of low complexity behavior is conditioned while the nature of high complexity behavior is cognitive. at a particular situation and time. change and be flexible to survive in a turbulent dynamic environment. 2. 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 .No two human beings are alike. if an individual with low complexity is gullible. For example. For example. representing the need to adapt. Low complexity traits describe the characteristics of people who are predictable. CASES postulates that people with a low complexity have relatively static personalities. Apparently. Complex people are harder to predict.7. but at another situation and time. Complex people have dynamic personalities. Evidently. 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. a person can be hard. (i) Complex self.
appeal of the arguments. focused on personality traits at the molecular. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES Prior to the 1990s. variations in responses are not assumed to be an error. “inventory” level instead of the construct level. however. 1995). variability in an individual’s responses across situations will not be dismissed or averaged over. competence. There has been a resurgence of interest in the role of personality in work performance (Robertson et al. 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. experience. motivation. personnel selection specialists did not generally use personality testing in employee selection due to the perception it had low validity. These tests. 62 . wants to. or has to (Nikolaou. 2. The CASES model of personality recognises the idiographic differences in how human beings make sense of varying situations and their responses to them. 2003). dispositional personality characteristics. however. The individual. CASES posits that an individual is not a “hostage” of his/her traits but rather is an active personality which has stable. Furthermore. That is.8. has the ability either unconsciously or consciously to alter his/her behavior simply because he/she likes to. From this approach. “Does personality predict work performance?” is a question that many researchers have addressed over the past few decades.. 2000). There are many other possible factors that influence work performance such as intelligence.
motivation and satisfaction levels. Barrick and Mount.. more recent studies are focusing on demonstrating the incremental variance in work performance with the use of personality predictors (Sackett. leadership. oral and written communication task proficiency. 1993. results from multiplicative combination of declarative knowledge. job-specific task proficiency.. and motivation). Work performance is affected by role clarity. Performance is often measured as training academy performance. Tett and Burnett (2003) used a work performance taxonomy that had eight categories (i. and organisation (Barrick et al. and interviews. self management and motivation. work orientation. Hence. personality provides very little insight on what and why the person will do in a given job. Mellissa and Ellington. Several studies have shown that all personality dimensions or factors are valid predictor of work performance (Salgado. Schmit et al. 2004). peer or supervisor reports on the job or failure 63 .e. Sanders. Mellissa and Ellington. 2002. (2000) posited that the core work performance factors are thinking.satisfaction. procedural knowledge. work attitude. 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. 1998). 1997. 2004). Recent studies using more fundamental dimensions of personality have shown the predictive power of personality for work performance (Kieffer et al. 2003). Sackett. administration. 1998). interpersonal. 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. and ability (Carmeli and Freund.. assessment centre ratings.
Mount and Strauss. Global measures of work performance and personality measures often correlate poorly (Cook et al. 1993). beside the worker’s productivity (Hunter and Schmidt.measures such as being fired or quitting (Sanders. work performance comprises “will-do” and “can-do” components where the former are best predicted by personality measures (Barrick. they also rely on other factors such as pleasant disposition. To ensure a full representation of work performance.. 2000). 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. 64 . a measure should include variables in citizenship behavior and productivity as well as steps to prevent the “halo” effect. Several researchers have stressed that other factors such as occupational socialisation. 1990). 2000. Another contributing factor is when supervisors evaluate their subordinates. 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. Furthermore. 1994).. work stress. and helpfulness. These two dimensions of performance show little correlation when measured objectively but exhibit high correlation when measured subjectively. 2003). and the work environment can significantly influence an individual’s behavior. There exists some degree of difficulty in measuring work performance and linking specific work tasks to personality dimensions. A contributing factor for the poor correlation between personality and work performance is the “halo” effect. cooperativeness. Schweiger and Sumners.
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
relationship in other countries but not done in Malaysia.2. Furthermore. are predictors of work performance. which are facets of the complexity dimension based on Vancouver and Scherbaum (2000) and KoltkoRivera (2004). Nikolaou (2003) and Lowery et al. 1999). low impulsivity and self-regulation. (2004) postulated that cognitive ability and volition.8. which are facets of self-actualisation. Studies by Barrick et al. 1988). people’s high expectations guide their actions to produce high performance (Lau and Shaffer. have moderating effects on the relationship between personality and performance. In Bandura’s view. Behavior is a function of expectancy of actions which will lead to certain reinforcement. Since the CASES model measure contains the dimension of complexity which has facets of volition. Beadles II and Krilowicz (2004) revealed that the need for achievement and creativity. and the dimension of self-actualisation which has facets of self 68 . McCelland identified traits for “need for achievement” and it is this satisfaction of achievement that facilitates high performance (Arnold. The second research question is whether the CASES measure of personality is able to predict work performance. (2002) and Lowery. High performers perceive that events as determined by themselves while low performers perceive events as controlled by chance. the research question posed is “Does the FFM predict work performance?” 2. 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..
there are good reasons to believe that the Complexity and Self-actualisation 69 . Similarly. As personality traits can be conceptually and empirically related without being redundant. responsible. depressed. anxious. not resilient. realisation of one’s potential. and self esteem.8. 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.3. planful. determined. passion. positive mental health. deliberation. reliable. Furthermore. internalisation. persistent. low confidence/self esteem. passion. 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. Conscientiousness in the FFM comprises competence. persistent. deliberation. and hard working (Costa and McCrae. and hostility (Judge et al. and planfulness of the Conscientiousness dimension in the FFM. creativity. 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.. order. determined. as shown in Table 4. dutiful. 2. 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. self-discipline. 1997). dependable. need for achievement. impulsivity. 1992) whilst Neuroticism comprises fearful. the facets of need for achievement.fulfilment. achievement-striving.
dimensions of the CASES are related to the Conscientiousness and Neuroticism dimensions of the FFM. However. 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. this assumption will be tested and raised in the third research question. “What is the relationship between the CASES model and the FFM model?” 70 .
H2: The CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. The third research question is addressed by the third hypothesis. H3: The CASES and the FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance.2. 71 . The second research question is addressed by the second hypothesis.8. H1: The FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.4. Hypotheses The first research question is addressed by the first hypothesis.
are discussed before proceeding to the research method adopted and the administration and development of the data collection processes. specifically. This chapter covers the selected research methodology and design that will be used to obtain data to examine the research questions. human nature and epistemology (Morgan and Smircich. they do not account for the variations in behavior due to environmental factors and the complexity of an individual. A new personality measure with five dimensions based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. 72 . INTRODUCTION The previous chapter analysed and reviewed the relevant literature on personality theories with respect to predicting work performance. direction. 3. CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3. which give rise to various theoretical perspectives or paradigms ranging from phenomenology to positivism. RESEARCH PARADIGMS The structure. The two broad social science perspectives or paradigms of research. 1980). It highlighted the shortcomings of various existing personality measures. and process of social science are linked to assumptions about ontology.0.3.2.1. which postulates that behavior is motivated by needs. positivism and phenomenology. and on the social-cognitive construct of “IfThen” was used to explain why some individuals are more predictable than others.
73 .Phenomenology views reality as a projection of human imagination. 2001). personality. From this point of view. the knowledge of the social world would imply a need to map out and understand the social structure. humans are transcendental beings and are not restricted by external laws. and work performance. causal relationships and predictions. According to phenomenology. This approach uses a statement of a hypothesis and conclusions may be drawn from it via the analysis of quantitative data (Baker. Its basic epistemological stance is to obtain information on how individuals interpret the world. On the other end of the continuum. 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. As this research seeks to explain the relationships between need-induced behavior. positivism views reality as a concrete structure and is objective whereby human beings are rational responders (Morgan and Smircich. The possible shortcomings of this approach would be the apparent loss of richness of concepts due to the mechanisation of variables and concepts. this study adopts a positivistic paradigm with a hypothetico-deductive approach. Positivism also provides an objective form of knowledge which specifies the regularities. relationships and the precise nature of laws among the phenomena measured. Positivism emphasises empirical facts. 1980). 1980).
Lubinski. Reality can be found in the relationships between these components and concrete behavior. The quantitative methods. Human beings are assumed to be products of external forces in the environment. 1996).. The aim of such research is to assess human variations in factors (e. By manipulating data with various sophisticated quantitative tools. Causal relationships link all aspects of behavior to the specific context. Morgan.g. are appropriate to capture a view of the social world or reality as a concrete structure. and abilities) that have real-world significance. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Most research in the social science disciplines is conducted using quantitative methodologies. vocational preferences. Although human perception or cognition may influence the process. Stimuli from the environment condition them to respond to events in determinate and predictable ways. personality. which are principally drawn from natural sciences. the social world can be “frozen” into structured immobility and the role of human beings is reduced to 74 . It is a structure comprising of a network of finite relationships between constituent parts. 1999. with surveys as the main research method (Morgan and Smircich.3. people always respond to the situation in a lawful manner. Gliner and Harmon. 1996). 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. 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. 1980.3.
various studies. RESEARCH DESIGN Research design involving a series of logical decision-making steps basically comprises the purpose of the study (descriptive. the extent of researcher interference. exploratory. Based on these grounds. promotes value-free inquiry. the time horizon and the unit of analysis (Cavana et al. Although the processes in research design are depicted in distinct sequential activities. the types of investigation.4. a quantitative methodology has the ability to provide an objective view of the various external factors. exploratory.1. 2001). a quantitative methodology is adopted and provides the framework for the research design. This quantitative methodology based on the positivist paradigm is objective. the nature of the study depends on how far the knowledge on the research subject has advanced.4. Any generalisation is inductive which comprises nomothetic statements. these activities often interact or occur at the same time.elements which are subject to deterministic sets of forces. Hence. case study or hypothesis testing. Purpose of the Study Studies can be descriptive. adheres to strict rules and uses statistics extensively. From the framing of the research questions and hypotheses. An 75 . 3. Moreover.. as mentioned in the previous chapter. case study or hypothesis testing). 3. have used this approach effectively.
2001. information and variables on the topic to enable the formulation of hypotheses as articulated in Chapter 2. It is generally qualitative in nature and used as a managerial decision-making tool (Cavana et al. 2001). The case study method involves a systematic gathering of in-depth information on an organisation or entity.. This study uses hypothesis testing as there is extensive knowledge.. Such an undertaking is appropriate when the three criteria of uniqueness. Gliner and Harmon. The purpose of descriptive studies is to describe aspects of the situation from an organisational.. or race. critical and revelatory are met (O’Cass.exploratory study is carried out when little or no information is known about the subject. 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. Morgan et al. 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. 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). 76 . industry or individual perspective such as age. 2004). 2001). 1999). gender. educational level.
Quantitative research methodology. 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. 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. experimental and non-experimental. the next stage is to determine the relationships between the variables or concepts. the next step is to decide on the type of research method that will be used. With a better understanding of the concepts. 3. as adopted for this research. Exploratory and descriptive studies using qualitative methods follow this approach as it allows the researcher to be flexible in exploring the issues being studied.4. correlational and causal.4. Clarification investigation is used to gain a better understanding of the phenomena or concepts under investigation. 2001). This can be done with a correlational or causal approach.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.. Experimental research involves the manipulation of one or more variables in order to study the effects of such manipulations on the subjects 77 . Quantitative methods may be used to give a more definite answer. that is. consists of two distinct collection methods.3. Type of Investigation There are three approaches of investigation: clarification.2. Research Method When the purpose of the study and the type of investigation has been determined.
there are four broad categories of non-experimental techniques: observational. Since the research questions posted for this study are on behavior. which rules out case study. archival. As shown in Table 5. personality. Method Observational Research Description Observation of subjects in their own environment or researcher participating in naturally occurring groups and recording observations. 1999) It is clear that observational research is not appropriate as some of the variables are not observable. What. Answers How and Why? Archival Research Who. How Much and How Many? Case Study Research Research investigates a particular situation or problem. How Much and How Many? How and Why? Who. Similarly. Hence. this study is not case-specific. Table 5: Four Categories of Non-experimental Techniques (Grace. the non-experimental research is considered the more appropriate approach to adopt in this study.under study and is generally applied to answer the questions of why and how (Grace. What. it is not possible to manipulate these variables or assign participants to groups. Where. and survey. 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. case study. Using data that were collected for a purpose other than the problem at hand. nor is it 78 . Is case-specific. 1999). 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. Where.
4. Researcher’s Interference There are varying degrees of interference in research ranging from minimal.4. An excessive interference occurs especially in a causal study whereby an artificial setting is created and manipulated in a laboratory environment. Hence. Hence. 2001). manipulation of the variables may be done to study the effects of such manipulation on the dependent variables. 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. moderate to excessive. For a causal study. 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. The extent of interference by the researcher in the flow of work in the workplace has an important bearing on the research decisions. 3.suitable for archival research as there are new personality variables to be measured. This study does not require interference as the objective is to collect data on the personality of individuals and their work performance. There is minimal interference in an exploratory or descriptive study conducted in an organisation. This approach facilitates the external validation and generalisability of the findings within similar environments (Baker. such studies have considerable interference with the normal or natural settings. 79 .
the research is conducted whereby the work proceeds normally in the natural environment. there are tradeoffs between internal and external validities. 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 . it is more important to capture the variables or concepts in the study than to establish the cause and effect relationships (Saunders. Hence. may reduce the external validity due to “reactivity” (Baker. Exploratory or descriptive studies usually fall under this category whereas rigorous causal studies are often undertaken in contrived settings. Correlational or causal studies which use environmental settings where the employees usually function are known as field experiments. 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.3. however. 2001).4. Study Setting The setting of the study can be either contrived or non-contrived. Remenyi et al. 2001). A laboratory experiment is one with a contrived setting and considerable interference by the researcher (Cavana et al. Efforts to strengthen internal validity will diminish external validity and vice-versa (Cavana et al. A contrived environment. Furthermore. (1998) postulated that the level of control is least relevant for research methods using surveys. Lewis and Thornhill. External and internal validities are competing aspects... Exploratory or descriptive studies carried out in organisations are known as field studies.5. 2001). 1997). In a non-contrived setting.
internal. valid and unambiguous will be included after proper screening by subject matter experts (SME) to ensure content.normal work environments. 3.4. As this research is on the measurement of personality dimensions of individuals and their work performance. and external validities and plausible explanations of the variances of the independent and dependent variables (Remenyi et al.. 1998). Moreover..6. the data collected will be the 81 . Unit of Analysis The research objective determines the unit of analysis. Hence. 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. variables which are reliable.4. dyads. or cultures.7. beliefs and perceptions. 1998). groups. To control for extraneous and irrelevant factors. which can be individual. the passage of time is inconsequential. organisations. 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. 3. Lindell and Whitney (2001) postulated that most behavioral studies are cross-sectional as such studies focus on individual’s attitudes.
The personal interview method provides an excellent response rate but can be costly in terms of finance.1. Selection of Survey Method As survey research has been selected as the appropriate method for collecting data. SURVEY RESEARCH The survey research consists of several steps as listed below. 3. Together with the inherent costs as well as the time constraints of this research. Hence.. The merits of these methods are shown in Table 6. the unit of analysis is at the individual level. 82 . this method is considered inappropriate for this study.individuals’ demographics. or computer interviews.5. and also has the problem of the interviewer’s influence on the interviewee’s responses. 2001). these data can be obtained by using one or a combination of methods that include personal. and their perceptions of their behaviors and work performance (Cavana et al. and time.5. 3. effort. 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. 1980). mail. telephone.
2000.. Although mail survey does not provide a good response rate. Barrick et al. 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.. Hence. 83 . Hence. Nikolaou. the mail survey is considered the most appropriate method for this study. 2004). Mail survey is commonly used in studies of personality and work performance (Robertson et. these two interview methods are also considered to be inappropriate for this study. Salgado. 2002. it is cost effective and allows specific respondents in various organisations to be targeted..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. Kieffer et al. 2003. 2003. al.
3. 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.5. 1999) and the self-rated work performance measure (RBPS) by Welbourne.1.2.2. feelings. Marsella et al. and thoughts of participants. 1999.5. 2000).5. The reduction of such abstract concepts 84 .. 3. context or wording can cause major changes in the results. Although self-reports can be a fallible source of data. Self Report Self-report is a primary source of data in social science research. this study uses this method whilst recognising factors and processes that affect self-reports to improve the questionnaire design and data quality (Schwarz. Johnson and Erez (1998) were obtained and used in this study. Scales The measures of personality and performance are nebulous and do not lend themselves to precise measurements due to their subjective nature. 3.2. Copies of the FFM measure (Goldberg.3. From public opinion surveys to laboratory experiments. researchers depend on the answers that participants provide in order to learn about the behavior. where minor changes in question format.2.5. Selection of Measurement Techniques 3.2.
. 1998). van Schaik and van Wersch. 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. The strength or confidence of the measurement is assessed as the distance away from the neutral response (Maurer and Pierce. 1999. tap the order of such groups. Hence. 2001). 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. 2004). 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. a respondent selects a response category ranging from Very Accurate. The work performance measure is categorised from Needs Much Improvement to Excellent with Satisfactory as a neutral response..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. Such measures use an interval scale as interval scales are able to group respondents into categories. A popular interval scale is the Likert scale which is often used to measure psychometric properties such as personality and performance (Maurer and Pierce. 1998). strength and confidence. In using a Likert scale. Cavana et al. 2001). 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. and enable the computation of the means and variances of the measured variables.
2003). 1995. (ii) The dependent variable The dependent variable is the self-appraised work performance of the respondents. (b) The new personality measure (CASES) The new personality measure. 3.5 are obtained from self ratings of 86 .5.because of the above merits as well as its ease of construction. Safety. Self-appraisals or self ratings have significant validation against other work performance measures. Key Variables (i) The independent variables (a) The Big Five The 50 items for the FFM (Goldberg. administration and cost effectiveness.. CASES. Agreeableness and Neuroticism.4.79 for all five dimensions. 1999) measuring Openness to Experience.4 to 0. Correlations of 0. have alpha values larger than 0.2. Conscientiousness. Extraversion. Egocentric and Socio-centric with each dimension having 10 items. Actualisation. contains five personality dimensions of Complexity. Hunthausen et al. This measure is regarded as the best measure developed to date and is used for this study (Crant.
is developed based on identity theory and role theory in contrast to the traditional. (1998) is used. 87 . The five components of the RBPS are job. job-related employee performance measure. 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. “halo-effect” tends to obscure the differentiated relationship between the criteria of personality and work performance. which is also known as the Role-Based Performance Scale (RBPS).. innovator. In view of the stance taken by the Ethics Committee in favour of maintaining confidentiality and anonymity of respondents. This self-appraisal performance measure. career. Furthermore. and organisation.. 2000). with each having 4 items as shown in Table 7. team.clerical ability and measures of leadership (Cook et. al. the self-evaluation work performance measure of Wilbourne et al.
iv. ii. ii. Table 7: Role-Based Performance Scale’s Items (Wilbourne et al. (c) Innovator (creativity and innovation in my job and the organisation as a whole) i. iii. 1998) 88 . ii. 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. iii. iv. iii. (e) Organisation (going above the call of duty in my concern for the firm) i. iv..(a) My Job (doing things specifically related to my job description) i. iv. ii. iii. iii. ii. 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. iv.
5. Q91 and Q96. Q81. the items are placed in Q51. For the first personality dimension of Complexity (with 10 items). the written instructions are screened for clarity in instructional content and presentation. 2002). The sequence of the instructions. Q56. 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. (iii) The twenty items of the RBPS by Welbourne et al. Q61. Safety. The questions are sequenced in the following manner: (i) The 50 items for the FFM (Goldberg. (1998) are placed from Q101 to Q120. Q86. Q76.3. 1999) are placed from Q1 to Q50 in the same order as per the author’s design. (ii) The second set of 50 items of the new instrument (CASES) is placed as Q51 to Q100. 1999).. questions and quality of reproduction are addressed. The four other dimensions with 10 items each (Actualisation. (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. 89 . Q66. Q71. 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. To minimise error.
. clarity and specificity for its particular dimension (Haynes. legal. 1995).Although pilot testing is recommended for the items to ensure content validity. it will not be carried out due to the study’s time constraints. shipping. transportation. trading and 90 . convenience sampling is adopted for this study. Every element or item is judged on its representativeness. 3. 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. relevance.5. a generalisation of these characteristics can be made to the population elements (Cavana et al.4. a nonprobability sampling method such as convenience sampling can be used. Probability sampling is appropriate when statistical generalisation is required. These firms are in general manufacturing. The elements in the population under study also must have some known probability of being selected as sample. For the above reasons. 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. The wordings of several items were changed to reflect the meaning in the local Malaysian context. 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. 2001). When time is tight or the probability of selecting elements of the population is unknown and generalisability is not essential or critical. Richard and Kubany. 2001)..
(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. Sawin and Carsud. 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. it would need at least 500 responses (that is. 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 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. As the measures of the FFM and CASES have 50 items each. 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. Kudisch and Fortunato.business consulting. 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. Besides being white-collared staff. 1986). 2002). 91 .
2001).3. CASES.3.5.5. 3.5. variance. The principal-component factor will be varimaxrotated as the dimensions are assumed to be uncorrelated 3. and RBPS will be analysed to determine their structure. The frequency distributions of the nominal and demographic variables..2. and variance for each variable will be computed in SPSS.5. Selection of analytical approach Data analysis is performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 13. Reliability Reliability concerns the extent to which a measure is repeatable and consistent (Baker.5. the measurement of internal consistency. Principal Components Analysis Principal components analysis will be used to check that the structure of the measures has held true (Cavana et al. is one reliability 92 .1. mean. Central Tendency and Dispersion The range. means. Cronbach’s alpha.5. The measures for the FFM.5.5. standard deviation. range. standard deviation and correlation matrix of all the variables will be generated for initial examinations. 2001). 3.
coefficient that indicates how well items in a cluster correlate positively with one another.5.newcastle. convergent and discriminant validity. and factor structure. 3. 1978). 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. An alpha coefficient of 0. predictive and postdictive validity. there is no psychometric rationale in using them. Richard and Kubany.org. 2004).4.7 or more is considered satisfactory (Nunnally. 93 . Content validity gives evidence on the construct validity of an instrument (Haynes.5.library.edu.ori. CASES and RBPS measures will be analysed to ascertain their internal reliabilities. 1995).g. Mellenbergh and van Heerden. criterion-related validity. Validity Construct validity is the degree to which the assessment instrument measures the proposed construct (Borsboom.au:80). 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. Construct validity subsumes all validities including concurrent. All the predictor variables of the Big Five Factor Inventory. Concurrent validity refers to the degree to which a test scores correlates with another test score that is obtained from another source. http://0ipip.. 2003).
Implementation The last stage of the survey research is the implementation stage which consists of time/ cost estimates and data collection/administration. the correlation matrix. Hypothesis Testing To test the criterion and incremental validities of the new personality measure (CASES) over and above the FFM on work performance. The findings from the descriptive statistics.5. known to the researcher. the two measures of personality will be entered simultaneously in a stepwise regression analysis.1. and the stepwise multiple linear regression results will be used to test the hypotheses. are selected for the survey with an average of 40 questionnaires given to each organisation and are targeted 94 . 2003). 3.The research design is one of a criterion-related validity and incremental validity (Nikolaou.6. The respondents are asked to complete two sets of personality measures and a set of self-appraisal work performance measure.5. 3.5.5. 3. Cost and Time Estimates Some 40 companies from various industries.6.5.
A draft letter approving the staff in the organisation to participate is also provided for the companies to complete under their official letter head. The total time estimated for the survey is 35 days as shown in Table 9.at white-collared workers from supervisory level upwards. Each organisation will be given the Information Sheet and the Consent Seeking Letter. 95 . 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. The industry breakdown and the number of companies to be surveyed are shown in Table 9. 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.
Costing and Amount Computation Printing the questionnaire (1600 sets 1600*4*RM0.70 RM1120. which has limitations such as low response rate and the inability of respondents to seek clarification if necessary. Printing and collating of questionnaires 2.00 Table 10: Breakdown of Costs on Survey (developed for this research) Item 3.04 RM256.2. Collecting answered questionnaires from organisations 4.6.86 per questionnaire based on the breakdown as shown in Table 10.00 Travelling expenses RM20 per trip for 80 RM1600. 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 RM1.00 of 2 pages (double-sided) 2 envelopes and RM0. The 96 .30 stamp 1600*RM0.5. Distributing questionnaires to organisations 3. Data Collection The survey adopts a self-administered approach.00 trips Total RM2976.Activity 1.
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.5. 3.5. 97 .4. Categorising For negatively worded questions.6. 3. 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. 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. the scores will be recoded through a Recode program in the SPSS.6. Hence.3. 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.
Finally. The research plan is based on completing the five chapters within the six-month time frame. Anonymity and confidentiality of the answers are ensured as the questionnaires do not have any identifiers. 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). Participants can withdraw at anytime during the research without any obligation or disadvantage. ETHICAL CONSIDERATION It is explicitly stated that participation is voluntary. Stamped. 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. 98 . self-addressed envelopes are provided so the respondents can choose to participate or not.7. 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.
In that case. 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.2.3. 1996). Stability of Work Performance Due to the implicit assumption that performance is a stable construct and the reliance on a cross-sectional.8.3.8. 1996). 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. However. 3. This may produce a general method variance (Carmeli and Freund. one-time measure could lead to erroneous conclusions about the 99 .8. several studies revealed that the distortions by these response deceptions do not attenuate the predictive validity of the personality constructs (Barrick and Mount.8. 3. 1988).1.. item endorsements are not self-reports but self-presentations (Hogan et al. LIMITATIONS Response Distortions Given the seemingly straightforward nature of the items. 2004). 3. it could be likely that some respondents may try to “beat the test” due to self-deception or impression management.
2004). Thus. 100 . it is possible that some employees are removed from the positions due to their inadequate work performance. Since there is no way of estimating what the variance should be.8.4. These factors may restrict the range of dependent variables and produce attenuated correlations. 3.personality-performance relationships (Thoresen et al. Hence. Conversely. 2004a). Self-ratings are known to be more “lenient” than other forms of work performance measures. The ratings would be markedly skewed towards the positive end of each item. Bozionelos. 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.. 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. it will not be possible to correct or adjust the correlations for the restricted range. This will restrict the range and reduce the correlations with the personality measures.. The requirement to maintain the anonymity of respondents restricted our ability to match the supervisors with the subordinates. Self Rating One limitation is the use of self-ratings and its validity and reliability as an indicator of work performance. A rudimentary level of work performance is required for the employees to retain employment in a specific position. 2000.
as well as the content and construct validities of the measures. There are limitations in this research that may not permit statements of causality.8. CONCLUSION Attempts to predict work performance using personality measures have been practised in organisational research for decades.3. Cook et al. Various relevant statistical tools are used to calculate inter-item consistency (i. These factors have a direct or a moderating influence on work performance. motivation level. 2002.9.. ability. the adoption of convenience sampling in this study reduces the generalisability of the findings obtained from this study. Barrick et al. 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. 2004. Further studies will need to be conducted to establish the boundary conditions and generalisability of the findings of this study. 101 .e. Nikolaou.. Hence. 2002).. 2000.5. internal reliability). 3. Work Performance Studies have found linkages between work performance and job satisfaction. Convenience sampling is adopted. role clarity and intelligence (Carmelli and Freund. Also. There is an ample body of knowledge on this subject to derive some theoretical framework for hypothesis testing.
102 . The second section contains the results of principal components analyses.2%) were male and 298 (i.5%) were school certificate holders.e.e.2%) of the respondents were degree-holders.1.5% rate of participation. 54.. The results of the analyses which were conducted to test the hypotheses are presented in the third section. 31.4. INTRODUCTION This chapter contains four sections.e.3%) were diploma holders. Of the 544 respondents..2. A total of 267 (i.e. 544 were usable. The fourth section contains a summary of the main findings. 246 (i.e.. which were used to verify the structures of the various scales.0. and the remaining 107 (i. a 97. The number of companies that responded was 39.7%) and.. A total of 587 questionnaires were returned (a response rate of 36. of these. 19.. CHAPTER FOUR – DATA ANALYSIS 4. The descriptive statistics of the demographic variables are presented in the first section. DEMOGRAPHICS A total of 1600 questionnaires were distributed to 40 Malaysian companies of various sizes who were invited to participate in this study. 45. 4.8%) were female. 49. 170 (i.
= 9.1) and the minimum age and maximum age of the respondents were 19 years and 65 years respectively.2).8%) of the respondents were from non-executive or clerical levels while 198 (i.d.d. An examination of the skewness and kurtosis statistics as well as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic was conducted to examine the distributions of the variables.50 by Hair. The remaining 205 (i. 37.2. The average organisational tenure of the respondents was 7.0 years (s.1. Tatham.d. and Black (1998) was used because of the large number of items being analysed.50) was conducted on the FFM.e. Anderson. 4. Principal Components Analysis of the FFM Personality Measure A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (with suppressed loading less than ..A total of 140 (i.50 or larger on their respective components were eliminated from the solution. The average age of the respondents was 34.6 years (s. = 5.29 (s.8%) respondents were from middle or senior management levels. 4..2.7) while the average number of years that respondents were in their current jobs was 5.e. 25..5%) were from lower management or executive levels. Items that did not achieve a primary loading of . The recommended cut-off value of . = 6. 36. This analysis yielded five orthogonal factors that 103 . RESULTS FROM PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS Principal Components Analysis with Varimax Rotation was used to examine the structure of the scales.e.
4% of the variance.54 .60 . Using the .70 .65 . 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 .accounted for 47.59 .67 . 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.68 .63 .61 .50 loading criterion.62 .72 .55 .66 .57 .60 .71 .64 . The findings from this analysis are presented in Table 11.74 .64 .54 Table 11: Rotated Component Matrix of FFM 104 .54 .67 .
63. .05 level. . 8).The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < . ..01 level whilst it was negatively correlated with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness at the 0. 105 . Hence. and 64 respectively. The Cronbach’s alphas for the remaining items in the Openness.73. Extraversion was positively correlated with Agreeableness and Neuroticism at the 0. p.01 level. Conscientiousness was positively correlated with Extraversion and Agreeableness but negatively correlated with Neuroticism at the 0.01 level. The FFM components are distinct but related and “are no more wholly independent than they are redundant” (Judge et al. The items that were retained after the principal components analysis are shown in Table 12. Agreeableness and Neuroticism components were . 1997. The intercorrelations resembled those that have been reported previously.001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was greater than the acceptable level of 0. All the components therefore have acceptable internal reliability. Extraversion. Conscientiousness. factorability was assumed. Agreeableness was negatively correlated with Neuroticism at the 0. According to Hair et al. (1998).6 is acceptable.01 level.59.57.60. Openness was positively correlated with Extraversion and Neuroticism at the 0. a Cronbach’s alpha of .
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 .
4.63 .74 . Actualisation.68 .68 . Ego and Social sub-scales. Principal Components Analysis of the CASES Personality Measure A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (with suppressed loading less than .68 .2.67 .65 .61 2 3 4 5 . Safety.72 .2. The results from this analysis are presented in Table 13.51 .77 . Using the .61 Table 13: Rotated Component Matrix of CASES 107 .68 .56 .63 . six items were eliminated from each of the Complexity.62 .79 . Component Complexity7 Complexity2 Complexity4 Complexity5 Actualisation7 Actualisation2 Actualisation5 Actualisation4 Safety5 Safety3 Safety9 Safety6 Ego8 Ego6 Ego2 Ego1 Social7 Social10 Social6 Social9 1 .69 .0% of the variance. This analysis yielded five orthogonal components that accounted for 57.54 .50) was conducted on the CASES items.50 loading criterion.55 .
With the exception of the Ego sub-scale.001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was greater than the acceptable level of 0. factorability was assumed. 108 . The items of the sub-scales are shown in Table 14.48.74 respectively. Ego and Social components were 73. all of the CASES sub-scales had acceptable internal reliability. .81.64.60.The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < . Hence. Safety. which had marginal internal reliability. . The Cronbach’s alphas for the remaining items in the Complexity. Actualisation. and . .
3.50) was conducted on the RBPS measure of performance.0% of the variance.2.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 4.50 109 . This analysis yielded five orthogonal components that accounted for 80. Based on the . Principal Components Analysis of RBPS Performance Measure A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (with suppressed loading less than .
90.80 .77 . Team component and Organisation component of the RBPS were . The Cronbach’s alphas for the Job component.76 .56 2 3 4 5 .loading criterion. factorability was assumed.001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was greater than the acceptable level of 0. .85 .75 .60.81 . .76 . Innovator component. .73 .84 .85 . and 110 .75 . Component Job1 Job2 Job3 Job4 Career3 Career2 Career4 Career1 Innovator2 Innovator3 Innovator1 Innovator4 Team2 Team1 Team3 Team4 Organisation3 Organisation4 Organisation2 1 . Hence.79 Table 15: Rotated Component Matrix of RBPS The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < . only one item was eliminated and this was from the organisation component of the RBPS.63 . The results of this analysis are presented in Table 15.78 .90.91.76 .89.81 .84 . Career component.73 .
The Safety component was not correlated with Openness.4. The five performance sub-scales therefore had acceptable internal reliability. and Conscientiousness. the Complexity component of CASES was correlated positively with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness but negatively correlated with Openness and Neuroticism. Agreeableness. Agreeableness and Extraversion but negatively correlated with Neuroticism.2. The Actualisation component of CASES was positively correlated with Conscientiousness. All of the components of the RBPS were correlated with each other at the 0. The Complexity component was not correlated with Extraversion. The Ego component was not correlated with Openness or Extraversion. 4. The Relationship between the FFM Dimensions and the CASES Dimensions As shown in Table 16. 111 . The Ego component of CASES was positively correlated with Neuroticism. The Safety component of CASES was positively correlated with Conscientiousness.01 level (one-tailed). Agreeableness and Extraversion but negatively correlated with Openness and Neuroticism..93 respectively.
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.
82** .22** .74** .50** .35** -.53** .63** .18** -.41** -.02 1 .22** Extraversion -.20** Career RBPS 1 .03 1 -.33** -.0 -. Table 17: Correlations of the Components of FFM and RBPS 115 .08* -.21** .46** .79** .07 -.48** .32** .05 -.28** .29** 1 -.06 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.Job RBPS Career RBPS Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Conscientiousness Openness Neuroticism Agreeableness . * Correlation is significant at the 0.17** Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Conscientiousness Openness Neuroticism Agreeablenes s 1 .19** 1 .29** 0.64** .10** -.29** .01 -.32** .05 -.05 level (1 – tailed).32** -.03 1 .42** -.09* .80** .87** .15** 1 .25** .13** .01 level (1 – tailed).30** -.54** .32** .62** .82** .13** .22** 1 .70** .55** .02 -.09* -.
the Career component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.010 10.23.192 .445 9.000 .36 and -. the Job component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.000 .229 .390 .358 -.Using a stepwise regression analysis.259 .20 respectively (Table 19). The R-square value was .041 -.000 .051 . The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS and had beta values of .411 2.539 .469 . 116 .537 . Error Beta 1.246 t 8.353 Sig.000 .25 respectively (Table 18).502 10. a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.12.238 -6. . The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Career component of the RBPS and had beta values of .051 .000 a. Dependent Variable: Perform2Job Table 18: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis. The R-square value was .25 and -.
246 -. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Innovator component of the RBPS and had beta values of .000 . Error Beta 1.044 -.000 .500 7.034 -5.389 .237 .453 .060 .767 7.224 .993 8.048 -.359 .655 .060 .055 .271 . Error Beta 1.285 -.332 2. Dependent Variable: Perform2Car Table 19: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis.456 . .000 .290 2.207 . .049 5.337 Sig.29 and -.000 a.22 respectively (Table 20).436 .055 . Dependent Variable: Perform2In Table 20: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM 117 .858 Sig. a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.000 .683 .235 .045 9.000 .216 t 7.422 .16.188 9.000 .249 .000 .200 t 7.965 -4. the Innovator component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.000 .000 a. The R-square value was .a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.
The R-square value was .164 4. The R-square value was .000 .Using a stepwise regression analysis.575 .324 1.050 .220 .207 2.001 a. .20 respectively (Table 22).000 .400 .122 .20.203 -.983 7.259 .936 4.25 and .000 .056 .15.335 7.000 . a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Agree 3 (Constant) Conscientous Agree Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.000 . the Team component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.137 .14 respectively (Table 21). The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Agreeableness were the only significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS and had beta values of .264 .225 .942 4.187 . The regression revealed that Conscientiousness. 118 . the Organisation component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.138 t 11.256 .040 -.035 .058 .058 .498 -3. .541 7. Dependent Variable: Perform2Tm Table 21: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis.000 .277 .290 4. Error Beta 2.242 .405 Sig.197 .000 .16.20 and -.000 .056 . Agreeableness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS and had beta values of .
256 .324 5.253 .415 .504 .186 .050 Standardized Coefficients Beta .000 .a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Agree Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.000 .312 -.121 t 10.348 .000 .370 -.385 Sig.044 2.000 .207 . The regression revealed that Conscientiousness.196 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Total Table 23: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on FFM 119 .108 . -.035 .068 .744 .910 8.065 .188 .049 -.373 9. Neuroticism and Agreeableness were the only significant predictors of Total RBPS and had beta values of .000 a.31.297 .210 .21 and .044 -.630 12. Dependent Variable: Perform2Org Table 22: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis.058 .000 .064 . .23.000 .198 t 7.222 .005 a.335 2.364 .218 .000 .413 .000 . Error 1.692 10.000 .366 .474 -5.811 Sig.000 .464 .12 respectively (Table 23).283 7. Total RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.595 4.163 . Error Beta 1.035 2.000 .103 -5.348 1. .031 9.000 . a Coefficients Model 1 2 3 (Constant) Conscientous (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Agree Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.140 .648 4. The R-square value was .724 .
The R-square values ranged from . Innovator component.70. 4. Career component. The correlation coefficients did not exceed the value of .2. is supported. The Ego component correlated significantly with only the Job and Organisation components of the 120 . From Table 24. are no more wholly independent than they are redundant. each component of the RBPS as well as Total RBPS had a significant proportion of variance explained by the FFM components. Agreeableness was a significant predictor of Team component. which indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem (Carmelli and Freund.3. Organisation component. the CASES components were positively intercorrelated. and Total RBPS. Actualisation and Safety components of the CASES correlated significantly with all five components of the RBPS as well as with Total RBPS. Neuroticism was a significant predictor of the Job component. which states that the FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. The CASES components are distinct but related and. Hence. 1978).Conscientiousness was the best predictor of all of the RBPS components and the Total RBPS. and Total RBPS. Nunnally.12 to . The Complexity. the first hypothesis. Furthermore. like the FFM components. 2004. Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure H2: The CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. Team component.23.
121 . The Social component correlated significantly with all of the RBPS components. except for the Career component.RBPS. and with Total RBPS.
36** .24** .28** .08* -0.82** .38** .37** .37** .34** . Table 24: Correlations of the Components of CASES and RBPS 122 .53** .07 .62** .10* .50** .23** .31** .46** .20** Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Actualisatio n Social Complexit y Safet y .80** .11** .19** .34** .37** .27** .32** Career RBPS .39** .70** .55** .01 .01 level (1 – tailed).45** .79** .49** .18** .36** .74** .Job RBPS Career RBPS Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Actualisation Social Complexity Safety .07 .46** .0 -.34** .40** .14** .31** .43** .82** .63** .12** .64** .87** .51** .01 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.12** Ego -.59** .40** .05 level (1 – tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.54** .25** .
234 7.179 .397 .328 .000 . .470 8.809 10.862 Sig.050 1.128 .264 .000 a.15 respectively (Table 25). .341 .205 . 123 .22 and -. Error 1. The regression revealed that Complexity.052 .Using a stepwise regression analysis.38 (Table 26). The regression revealed that Complexity was the only significant predictor of the Career component of the RBPS and had a beta value of .000 .000 .394 5.000 .044 Standardized Coefficients Beta .149 t 9.15.755 . a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex 2 (Constant) Complex Safety 3 (Constant) Complex Safety Ego Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.169 .238 . Safety and Ego were the only significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS and had beta values of .22.991 4.051 .217 -. The R-square value was .050 1.000 .249 .049 -.000 .057 5.429 . the Career component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.34.540 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Job Table 25: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on CASES Using a stepwise regression analysis. the Job component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.000 .413 .350 -3. The R-square value was .000 .215 .499 .994 6.
917 .222 .000 a.21.686 4. the Innovator component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES. The regression revealed that Complexity and Safety were the only significant predictors of the Innovator component of the RBPS and had beta values of . Dependent Variable: Perform2Car Table 26: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on CASES Using a stepwise regression analysis. a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex 2 (Constant) Complex Safety Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.544 .218 2. The R-square value was .239 .013 a. Dependent Variable: Perform2In Table 27: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on CASES 124 .056 Standardized Coefficients Beta .358 .182 . Error 1.531 .379 t 6.050 .415 .000 .530 Sig.000 .000 .449 .101 t 6.481 Sig.127 .765 9.589 .000 .42 and .053 .a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. .125 10.822 11.051 .000 . .201 . Error Beta 1.10 respectively (Table 27).
202 .170 .049 .000 . the Team component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.12. .203 .17 and .908 .000 .050 .217 .045 . 125 .261 . Error Beta 1. .325 . The R-square value was .047 . a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Safety 2 (Constant) Safety Complex 3 (Constant) Safety Complex Social Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.26 and .19.196 .393 1.000 a.912 4.17 respectively (Table 29).654 6.202 1.351 .929 4.000 . .240 .000 .958 6.22.086 9.049 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Tm Table 28: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on CASES Using a stepwise regression analysis. Complexity and Social were the only significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS and had beta values of . The regression revealed that Safety.048 .000 . Safety.23.010 .449 .000 .020 4.657 7. The R-square value was .174 t 11. Complexity and Social were the only significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS and had beta values of .298 .371 .053 Sig.17 respectively (Table 28). the Organisation component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.Using a stepwise regression analysis.17 and .172 .000 . The regression revealed that Actualisation.127 4.000 .
235 .26.38 and .167 .263 .495 Sig. Error 1.164 .001 a.258 .031 . .180 3.553 .391 .060 .166 .704 1.161 4. Total RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.782 3.000 .056 .186 .000 .063 Standardized Coefficients Beta .767 .250 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Org Table 29: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on CASES Using a stepwise regression analysis.000 .060 .069 .166 t 5.076 .062 .24 respectively (Table 30).291 . 126 .199 .493 .120 2.059 .000 .000 .314 9.262 .057 .067 6. The regression revealed that Complexity and Safety were the only significant predictors of Total RBPS and had beta values of .000 .281 .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.101 4.220 .217 . The R-square value was .274 .908 3.000 .911 4.063 .230 .262 .233 .389 .293 .000 .116 .250 .296 1.880 3.183 5.238 .062 .315 .002 .000 .
098 Sig.239 t 11.176 .041 . the Career component. the Organisation component.459 1.709 . Ego was a significant predictor for only the Job component of the RBPS. Social was a significant predictor for the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS.26.644 6.032 6. the Innovator component. and Total RBPS.000 . which states that the CASES model will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. each component of the RBPS as well as Total RBPS had a significant proportion of variance explained by the CASES components.042 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Total Table 30: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on CASES Complexity was the best predictor of the Job component.378 .000 .247 .084 . and Total RBPS. the second hypothesis.000 . 127 . Hence.493 .147 . .000 a.a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex 2 (Constant) Complex Safety Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. is supported. The R-square values ranged from . Furthermore.587 12. Actualisation and Safety were the best predictors of the Organisation component and Team component of the RBPS respectively.000 . Safety was also a significant predictor of the Job component.171 9. the Innovator component.406 . Error Beta 1.041 .15 to .
Complexity.3. Safety and Social. and Social -. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness.3.1. 4. Neuroticism -. FFM and CASES predicting the Job Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis. From Table 31. Safety.2% of the variance of the Job component of the RBPS. Conscientiousness explained 16. accounted for 4.9% followed by Neuroticism with 5. Complexity . from the CASES.22. The factors of Complexity.3.3. the beta values are: Conscientiousness . and Social were the only significant predictors.20.8%. 128 . Safety . Neuroticism.15. 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.4.20.11. These two factors were from the FFM. the Job component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of the CASES.
000 .065 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Job Table 31: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES 4.486 4.000 .192 .041 -.191 1.715 .241 .060 .180 .248 .211 .545 -5.969 .176 4.445 9.000 .200 -.002 2.051 .026 -5. The regression revealed that Complexity and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors.302 -2.000 .051 -.000 .058 .041 -.000 .229 .041 -.297 3.502 10. .469 .200 .113 6.000 .238 -6.333 .251 .109 t 8.3.199 .000 .881 .058 .411 2.148 -.263 .946 5.219 -.131 .058 .374 -5.185 .210 .217 .648 6.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.052 .353 7.001 .537 .358 -.578 4. FFM and CASES Predicting the Career Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.3.246 1.051 .066 .000 . 129 .008 .390 .000 .2.947 4.271 .000 .259 .539 .010 a.000 .000 .287 .233 .055 .000 .581 Sig. Error Beta 1.228 .428 4.000 .139 .041 -.254 -.000 .221 .010 10.114 1. the Career component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of the CASES.264 .000 .
335 -. Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. the beta values are: Complexity . Neuroticism and Safety were the only significant predictors. and Social .163 Model 1 2 (Constant) Complex (Constant) Complex Neurotic t 6.379 .6% of the variance in the Innovator component of the RBPS. the beta value of the Complexity was .531 .358 .996 Sig.017 .09.000 .530 7.258 .765 9.000 .000 . 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. FFM and CASES Predicting the Innovator Component of RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.469 .16. which explained 2.38.057 -. Dependent Variable: Perform2Car Table 32: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on the FFM and CASES 4. 130 .3.1% followed by Neuroticism (2.827 8.056 2. The Complexity component explained 20. Error 1. .048 Standardized Coefficients Beta .The Complexity component from the CASES model. explained 14. Complexity and Safety were from the CASES while Neuroticism was from the FFM.3.201 .4% of the variance.208 -3. Neuroticism -.000 a.4% followed by Neuroticism from the FFM.191 . From Table 33. The regression revealed that Complexity.16.34 and for Neuroticism it was -.000 .7%) and Safety accounted for 0.
093 Safety .272 5.000 .686 2 (Constant 1.086 2. Complexity and Social factors were from CASES while Neuroticism factor was from the FFM. Safety. The Safety component explained 15. Social (2.052 . the beta values are: Safety .449 11.182 6.177 .876 . and Neuroticism accounted for 1.25.6%).19.258 Neurotic -.232 8. Complexity .3%).3.a Coefficients Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients Model B Std. FFM and CASES Predicting the Team Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.185 .000 .033 Table 33: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES 4.573 .000 .4. Error Beta t 1 (Constant 1.043 -.070 Complex .161 -4.109 . the Team component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES. The regression revealed that Safety. .000 . From Table 34.529 . Social . Complexity.376 9.141 a.051 .000 . Social and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors.589 .142 Neurotic -.168 -4.000 .3% of the variance in the Team component of the RBPS. and Neuroticism -.14.12.403 10.054 .822 Complex .3.043 -.050 . Dependent Variable: Perform2In Sig.239 .000 . 131 .287 3 (Constant 1.5% followed by Complexity (3.493 .793 Complex .000 .
203 .657 7. Complexity .298 .351 .19.000 . Safety.000 .912 4.086 9.202 .000 .240 . Actualisation explained 15. All of these components were from the CASES.261 .246 .654 6. Safety . The regression revealed that Actualisation.050 .045 1.339 -3.000 .958 6. 132 .118 . Complexity and Social were the only significant predictors.172 .003 a.000 .674 3.3%.020 4. the Organisation component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES. and Social .000 .256 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Tm Table 34: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of the RBPS on FFM and CASES 4.929 4.000 .127 4.000 .053 5.196 . Complexity (2.165 .050 .3.281 .12.567 5. followed by Safety (4.210 .8%).000 .17.049 1.119 Model 1 2 3 4 (Constant) Safety (Constant) Safety Complex (Constant) Safety Complex Social (Constant) Safety Complex Social Neurotic t 11.217 .000 .Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.000 .371 . From Table 35.1%).039 Standardized Coefficients Beta .050 .202 . and Social (1.047 . FFM and CASES Predicting the Organisation Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.5.186 -.17.449 . .3.049 . Error 1. none of the FFM components were significant.002 Sig.393 .908 .000 .048 -.425 .170 .048 1.325 .301 4.010 .174 .001 .139 . the beta values are: Actualisation .0%).
391 .250 .3%).18.000 .250 . Safety .28.063 . The regression revealed that Complexity. From Table 36.296 1.767 .293 . Neuroticism and Conscientiousness were the only significant predictors.001 a.000 .908 3.059 .3.217 .235 . .166 Model 1 2 3 4 (Constant) Actualise (Constant) Actualise Safety (Constant) Actualise Safety Complex (Constant) Actualise Safety Complex Social t 5.120 2. and Conscientiousness . FFM and CASES Predicting Total RBPS Performance Using a stepwise regression analysis.057 . Total RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES.315 .553 .263 .493 .164 . 133 .233 . Error 1.262 .000 . and Conscientiousness (0.063 Standardized Coefficients Beta .15.000 .180 3. Neuroticism (2.076 .6.116 . the beta values are: Complexity .183 5.911 4.062 .Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.031 . Neuroticism -.880 3.060 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Org Table 35: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES 4.274 .000 .782 3.238 .067 6.314 9.9%).000 .000 .002 .062 .291 .495 Sig.167 .060 .101 4.230 .704 1.166 .3.13.262 . Safety.199 .056 .186 .1%).1% followed by Safety (5.258 .069 .389 . Complexity explained 21. Complexity and Safety were from the CASES and Neuroticism and Conscientiousness were from the FFM.000 .220 .000 .281 .161 4.
032 6.220 .034 .247 .141 .283 . Safety was also a significant predictor of all five components of the RBPS. 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.000 .214 . except for the Career component.084 .271 -4.365 .000 .186 .598 Sig.171 9.054 Standardized Coefficients Beta . Complexity was also a significant predictor of the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS.138 . the Innovator component.034 1.000 .098 7. Team and Organisation components of the RBPS.709 .587 12.000 .304 .176 6.000 .180 -.154 . and Total RBPS.692 6.010 a.000 .522 8.142 . and Total RBPS.340 .232 .042 .562 5.225 -.040 -.126 Model 1 2 3 4 (Constant) Complex (Constant) Complex Safety (Constant) Complex Safety Neurotic (Constant) Complex Safety Neurotic Conscientous t 11.176 .000 .459 .000 .000 .041 1.041 1. Safety component of the CASES was the best predictor of the Team component of the RBPS.000 . Social component of the CASES was a significant predictor of the Job.000 .043 .644 6. . Actualisation component of the CASES was the best predictor of the Organisation component of the RBPS. Error 1.000 .044 -.472 .791 -4.239 . 134 .081 2.Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.000 .493 .378 .613 .406 .147 .271 4.159 .048 .
01 level (1-tailed). The Openness and Conscientiousness components each have five items while the Extraversion.e. 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. CONCLUSION The principal components analysis of the FFM yielded a five-component measure that accounted for 47.Conscientiousness component of the FFM was the best predictor of the Job component and a significant predictor of Total RBPS. Safety. is supported. Agreeableness and Neuroticism components each have four items.17 to . Hence. Neuroticism component of the FFM was a significant predictor of all the RBPS components. Ego and Social) has 4 items. 4.4% of the variance in the FFM items. and Total RBPS.73. The Cronbach’s alphas for the FFM components range from . which states that the CASES and FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance. except for the Organisation component. the third hypothesis. Each of the components (i. The principal components analysis of the CASES yielded a five-component measure that accounted for 57. The five factors are all intercorrelated significantly at the 0. Complexity. The original subscales had ten items each.57 to . The R-square values ranged from .. Actualisation. The original sub-scales had ten items 135 .4.29.0% of the variance.
12 to . Hence.0% of the variance. From the stepwise regression.each. The Cronbach’s alphas for the CASES components ranged from . The Cronbach’s alphas for these components ranged from . is supported. Complexity and Social were significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS. Safety. which states that the FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. and Innovator components of the RBPS. The R-square values ranged from .89 to . for which one item was removed. The principal components analysis of the RBPS yielded a five-component measure that accounted for 80. Career.81. Complexity and Safety were significant predictors of the Innovator component and Total RBPS. Complexity was the only significant predictor of the Career component of the RBPS. Complexity. the first hypothesis. Each component of the RBPS had a significant proportion of its variance explained by the FFM components. Agreeableness and Neuroticism were significant predictors of the Team component and Total RBPS. The R- 136 .01 level (1-tailed). Safety and Ego were significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS. Complexity and Social were significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS.93.23. Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM were significant predictors of the Job. All five CASES components were intercorrelated significantly at the 0. Safety. Conscientiousness. All of the components retained their original 4items except for the Organisation component.48 to . Conscientiousness and Agreeableness were significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS. From the stepwise regression. Actualisation.
Hence. From the stepwise regression. the second hypothesis. Each component of the RBPS. Safety. Actualisation. Complexity and Social of the CASES and Neuroticism of the FFM were significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS. is essentially supported. had a significant proportion of its variance explained by both the CASES and the FFM components.17 to .29. Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM and Complexity. which states that the CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. except for the Organisation component which was significantly predicted only by components of CASES. The R-square values ranged from . Each component of the RBPS had a significant proportion of its variance explained by the CASES components. Safety and Social of the CASES were significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS. which states that the CASES and FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. the third hypothesis.26. Hence. Complexity and Safety of the CASES and Neuroticism of the FFM were significant predictors of the Innovator component of the RBPS. 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. 137 . is supported.square values ranged from .14 to . Safety. Complexity and Safety of the CASES and Neuroticism and Conscientiousness of the FFM were significant predictors of Total RBPS.
and finally a conclusion. 1999) was analysed using principal components analysis.1. DISCUSSION OF THE MAIN FINDINGS 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.0. which revealed a five-component solution consisting of Openness 138 .1.2. and suggestions for future research. The original 50-item FFM measure (Goldberg.2. CHAPTER FIVE – CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 5. the limitations of the study. 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. 5.5.
imaginative and intellectual) was found to be negatively correlated to only the Team component of the RBPS with r = -.20 was too low to accept personality as a predictor of work performance. All of these components were intercorrelated as revealed in past research which showed that they were distinct but related factors (Judge et al. artistically sensitive. purposeful. this factor was considered as an inadequate predictor of any of the RBPS components or of Total RBPS. 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. achievement oriented. Extraversion (four items).. This finding corroborates the finding of Hogan and Holland (2003). responsible. In view of the cut-off value of 0.. responsible. 1997). (1984) argued that a correlation of 0.30.(5 items). This finding is not surprising given that conscientious individuals are organised. The value of the correlation coefficient that can be considered to indicate a useful predictor has been debated over the years.30 or greater was therefore considered as indicating a valid predictor of performance. Conscientiousness (5 items). dependable. A value of 0. Agreeableness (four items) and Neuroticism (four items). hardworking.g.30 were questionable. 139 . For this research.09. Of the five FFM components. Barrick and Mount (1991) also argued that coefficients below .g.. Conscientiousness (e. The results of the stepwise regression analyses also did not reveal Openness as a significant predictor of any of the RBPS components. Openness (e. a correlation coefficient of 0.
achievement-oriented and responsible (i. From the stepwise regression analysis. Extraversion (e. Barrick and Mount 1993. talkative. Hurtz and Donovan 2000. Conscientiousness was found to be the best predictor of the components of the RBPS and of Total RBPS.. assertive and sociable) was found to be negatively correlated (r = -. Such low values of the correlation 140 . (2002) who posited that the FFM dimensions were better at predicting overall performance measures than those with contextual aspects. Furthermore. 1993). the Conscientiousness component also predicted Total RBPS better than contextual work performance (i. the Conscientiousness construct does seem to be logically related to work performance. dependable. high in Conscientiousness) were positively associated with work-related performance. in all occupational groups. and Sanders 2003).g.dependable.e. persistent. hard working and thorough will perform better than those who do not have such tendencies.e.g. 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. Salgado 1997. that have been examined (e. Crant 1995. From a theoretical perspective.09) with the Career component of the RBPS. and persistent (Barrick et al. Hence.. these results demonstrated that being dependable... This finding is consistent with the results of Avis et al.. Conscientiousness has been shown to be a significant predictor of all job-related criteria. the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS). It makes sense that individuals who have tendencies to be careful.
Since the majority of the respondents (404 or 74. professionals. Using a 0. Agreeableness was only a valid predictor of the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. the Career component. Agreeableness can be a predictor of certain components of job performance for managerial staff in highly structured jobs. The stepwise regressions revealed that Extraversion as a non-significant predictor of performance.05 level. professional and managerial staff. and 141 . trusting. 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 a predictor of the Job component. and of Total RBPS. Employees in these types of jobs who were courteous. Neuroticism was correlated significantly with the Job component of the RBPS and with Total RBPS. and managers. are often disregarded (Barrick et al. 1993). Hence. the Innovator component. In the stepwise regression analyses. 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. the finding from this study also supported that Agreeableness was a valid predictor of certain aspects of work performance for skilled. soft-hearted. even though it is significant at the 0.2%) were from the managerial positions in highly structured jobs. the Team component. 1993). Salgado (1997) revealed that Agreeableness was a valid predictor of work performance for skilled labourers.coefficient. Agreeableness was a significant predictor of all the RBPS components and of Total RBPS.30 cut-off value for the correlation coefficient. In line with the findings of the current study.
then conscientiousness. 2004a). tendencies to experience negative emotions and pessimism. Furthermore.Total RBPS. Neuroticism encompasses traits such as excessive worry. Furthermore. low Neuroticism) tend to be evaluated more positively than those who are panicky. Hence. the five components of RBPS have components of “getting along and getting ahead”. 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. These findings supported Salgado’s (2003) argument that emotional stability (i. Agreeableness and Neuroticism could be considered as valid predictors of work performance in an absolute sense if 0. 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. This finding was partially reinforced in this study. 1993). 142 .e. Barrick and Mount. Due to their tendency to construe their experiences in a negative light. organisations and countries. criteria. low confidence.e.. which states that the FFM will predict a significant of variance of performance ratings. 2002. calm and self-confident (i. the antithesis of Neuroticism) has generalised validity across occupation. In the final analysis. If performance criteria are classified as getting ahead and getting along.30 was adopted as the standard. Hypothesis One. was supported. Hurtz and Donovan (2000) postulated that Conscientiousness. agreeableness and neuroticism should predict performance (Hogan and Holland.. 2003). Task performance corresponds to getting ahead while contextual performance corresponds to getting along. employees who are resilient.
self-regulation or low impulsivity and volition) correlated with all of the components of the RBPS with coefficients ranging from . Safety. Complexity correlated with the Career component of the RBPS as self-regulation and volition would enhance the attainment of career 143 .46).2. The new personality measure (i.31 to . 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. The Complexity component (e. Actualisation.e. 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.. 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”..g. Ego and Social). Complexity.5.2.. which were correlated positively to each other but to an extent that they could be considered as distinct but related components.e. CASES) comprised five components (i.45 and had the highest correlation with Total RBPS (r = .
self-esteem and needs for achievement. 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. 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. growth and progress) was correlated with all of the RBPS components and with Total RBPS. which includes doing things outside one’s job scope for the betterment of the company. which includes aspects of performance such as ensuring group success and seeking and responding to group’s needs. 1977a). Actualisation correlated with the Organisation component of the RBPS. The Actualisation component (e. passion. the Career component.30 for the correlation coefficient.g. This aspect of performance can be linked to passion. 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. or the Innovator component of the RBPS.. Complexity had the highest correlation with Total RBPS arguably because high levels of Complexity enable one to control one’s motivation. all of which are arguably related to the need for growth. action and thought. Complexity correlated with the Organisation component of the RBPS arguably because self-regulation and volition would promote the virtues of the organisation. Actualisation cannot be considered a valid predictor for the Job component. Actualisation was also correlated with 144 .opportunities and the advancement of one’s career. Actualisation correlated with the Team component of the RBPS. self-esteem and the need for progress. Using a cut-off value of 0.
The stepwise regression analyses revealed that Actualisation was the best and only predictor of the Organisation component of the RBPS. systematic. The reason could be the age of the respondents (average age was 34. This finding reaffirmed Arnold’s (1988) claim that Actualisation is a predictor of job performance. the drive is to achieve a sense of fulfilment in balancing one’s work and life responsibilities (Stum. 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. security. It is reasonable that individuals with tendencies to be achievement-oriented. Safety correlated with the Job component of the RBPS arguably because orderly and structured facets are antecedents of high quality and high quantity.. At this level. 2001).6 years). and progress.Total RBPS. the Safety component is correlated with the Job. the Actualisation construct does seem to be logically related to organisational citizenship and total performance. Using a cut-off value of . the need for growth. orderly and structured) correlated with all of the components of the RBPS and with Total RBPS.30. Team. From a theoretical perspective.g. such that the respondents were perhaps too young to be highly motivated to realise their full potential. The Safety component of CASES (e. and Organisation components of the RBPS and with Total RBPS. 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. achievement. Safety correlated with Total 145 . passionate and creative would perform better than those who do not have these tendencies. which included facets of passion.
g. these components of performance are related to facets of teamwork and organisational citizenship. but negatively related. This finding indicates that the Ego component is detrimental to facets of performance (e. 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. Safety was found to be a significant predictor of the Job. structured and systematic are antecedents of productivity (Cook et al. Innovator. Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. The stepwise regression analyses also revealed that Social was a significant predictor of the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS.. and Total RBPS. quality and quantity of work) that constitute the job component of the RBPS. except for the Innovator component.30 cut-off value.RBPS arguable because its facets of orderly.. needs for love. Based on the preceding discussion of the main findings. Using the 0. companionship and care) correlated significantly with all of the components of the RBPS.g. predictor of the Job component of the RBPS. In the stepwise regression analyses. with the exception of the Ego component. affiliation.. The stepwise regression analyses also revealed that Ego was a significant. and with Total RBPS. the CASES model. The Social component of CASES (e. Social correlated only with the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. is a useful predictor of the various components of the 146 . 2000).
This finding might be due to the fact that the Complexity component has facets which included volition (i. Safety and Social components of CASES. a component of the FFM. The stepwise regression revealed that the Complexity component of the CASES was a better predictor of the Career component of the RBPS than Neuroticism. 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. which states that CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.e.. Hypothesis Two. both of which are components of the FFM.2. to conform and persevere) whereas the Neuroticism 147 . 5. was therefore supported. The stepwise regression showed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism.3.RBPS and Total RBPS. were better predictors of the Job component of the RBPS as compared with the Complexity. 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.
and Social components of the CASES and the Neuroticism component of the FFM were predictors of the Team component of the RBPS. Complexity. passion and realisation of one’s potential) that facilitate organisational citizenship. and orderly) that enhance facets of teamwork such as seeking information from others and working with others. The stepwise regression revealed that the Safety. both of which are aspects of Complexity. This was probably due to the fact that Actualisation includes facets (e.component comprises facets such as fear and low confidence regarding career progress and development. and Social components of CASES were predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS. The stepwise regression showed that for the Innovator component of the RBPS. which is the essence of the Organisation component of the RBPS. Complexity. 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. Complexity was the best predictor followed by Safety. The Innovator component addresses behaviors such as finding new ways to do one’s work and requires risk taking and confidence. Safety was the best predictor due probably to the fact that Safety includes aspects (e. Complexity was the best predictor followed by Neuroticism and Safety. Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. Actualisation was the best predictor. structured. protection.g. The stepwise regression revealed that the Actualisation. Safety.g. Complexity includes self-regulation and volition and not surprisingly 148 .
IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS 5. which states that the CASES and FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance. the various components of the CASES and the FFM are significant predictors of the various components of the RBPS and Total RBPS. was therefore supported. 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. examining the link between personality and work performance appears to have profound implications for organisations.was a better predictor than Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. Sackett et al.3. Based on the preceding discussion of the main findings. 1997.1. If researchers are able to affirm that certain personality traits are related significantly to work performance. 5. 1998. Kieffer et al. Implications on Professional Practice From the classical perspective. individuals and human resources consultants. 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. 2004).3.. Hypothesis Three.. which is based on 149 . From this point of view. the proposed CASES model.
organisations and individuals. 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. the CASES model is another useful tool for human resource personnel with respect to designing effective job specifications or roles. Although the research methodology and design did not permit statements of causality. 1999). which is a wellestablished model of personality.Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the social cognitive theory of “If-Then”. for their client organisations. recruiting and promoting personnel. based on personality traits. For organisations. and formulating effective human resources strategies in training. The knowledge that personality can influence or even be a determinant of work performance is valuable to recruiting agencies. The CASES model may also be useful for recruitment consultants in that it may help them to identify effective employees. has important practical implications. the CASES model did account for significant variance in work performance over and above that accounted for by the FFM. 150 . 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.
there has been a proliferation of psychometric instruments that have been used as part of organisational development and recruitment processes. personality interacts with cognitive ability and appears to influence work performance (Lowery. 2004) 151 . The level of job complexity may have a role in whether an interaction occurs between personality and ability when predicting work performance. and psychometric measures. Hence. personality. Moreover. In recent years. 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. The need for achievement is also dependent on the fit between environmental factors and personality. cognition and satisfaction are correlated with work performance.3. Beadles II and Krilowicz. where English is a second language. Two research problems were therefore identified and these guided the current research. many personality measures are based on single theories and therefore their usefulness for predicting performance in actual workplace settings needs to be examined. values. Implications on Theory The first Chapter provided an outline of this study in the context of motivation. Furthermore. it is not surprising other factors such as ability.2. such as Malaysia. behavior.5.
. Furthermore.46). The predictors and the criteria used in the current study were obtained from self-report data using a single questionnaire. However. which brings into question the representativeness of the sample and therefore the generalisability of the findings.e. a convenience sample was used. 2002).11. maximum r = .4. the CASES model suggests that certain personality factors or traits have a greater effect on work performance because people can. modify their behavior to improve their work performance. Common method variance and mono-source bias are potential limitations of the current study as they may produce spurious relationships.Similarly. there is no way of estimating 152 . 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. public or private) would increase confidence in its validity and generalisability. A subsequent study designed to assess personality and work performance over time (longitudinally) using a random sample of the population (i. 5. small or medium or large organisations. it seems reasonable to conclude that the measures of personality and work performance were assessing separate constructs (Barrick et al. This creates range restriction. Given the relatively small correlation coefficients obtained in this study (minimum r = . consciously or unconsciously.. 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. which reduces the correlation between items.
It would be difficult to fathom how the relative validities of the FFM. further instrument refinement is recommended. organisations may be willing to include the CASES measure in surveys as a preliminary screening for potential employees. Another impetus for further research is the length of the CASES measure as this personality measure has only 20 items. In regards to instrumentation.what the variance of the ratings ought to be. it would be interesting to explore these relationships using alternative measurements as certain studies had presented evidence that customer. FUTURE RESEARCH The personality measures of the FFM and the CASES and the RBPS performance measure were self-reports. Consequently. due to its brevity. 153 . CASES and RBPS would have differed if incentives were provided. This study was the first time these measures have been used together in Malaysia. Hence. FFM and the RBPS is recommended. possible modifications as well as further validation of the CASES. Hence. it is not possible to adjust the correlations for the effects of a restricted range. supervisor or co-worker ratings had equivalent or higher levels of criterion-related validity in comparison with employees’ self-reports. The circumstances of the respondents’ participation did not give any incentive to give inaccurate responses. 5. For the sake of understanding the impact of personality on work performance.5.
non-governmental or non-profit organisations) and cultures. Given that the research on the CASES measure is an initial effort. job complexity. Future research can also be conducted to ascertain whether the results reported in this study are generalisable to different jobs (e. Although face validity may be defined as a “test which looks good for a particular purpose” (Hogan.Questions about the generalisability of these findings and external validity issues can be addressed through replications of this study. skilled or semi-skilled.6. Systematic replication integrating a variety of individuals representing various ages.. From a more philosophical angle. 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. income and educational backgrounds are needed to address concerns about the generalisability of the findings obtained in the current study. it should by all means be subjected to replication in various contexts with various work performance measures. job satisfaction and other proximal motivation models that include interaction effects should also be encouraged to further enhance the validation of this personality measure. sales. Face validity is always a problem in personality measure. 5.g. management or clerical). 154 . goal-setting motivation. organisational settings (public. self-efficacy. validity is a long-term process for any research. The cross-validation of the CASES with other determinants of work performance such as ability.
. motivation. A 155 . Employee performance is basically determined by three things. Because needs are met at different stages. it is of no use for decision making. 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. or customers) for information on work performance and personality rather than to rely exclusively on self-report data. there are other dimensions of work performance (e. changes in one’s life can affect the sequence of meeting these needs. job-related learning and knowledge sharing) that are not included in the RBPS. to understand the impact of personality on work performance. Personality measures often have empirical validity but commonly are weak on face validity. it would be appropriate to explore this relationship using third-party sources (e.. 1997).g. one should choose the former. many seemingly appropriate personality tests fail to predict work performance. ability. The strength of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory is its ability to identify those needs which motivate behavior (Wiley. each individual moves through Maslow’s hierarchy at a different rate. supervisors. Furthermore. 1997). 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. 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. 474). That is.g. p.Hogan and Roberts. While personality-based theories may not necessarily predict behavior or motivation. and the work environment (Wiley. Furthermore. 1996. co-workers. they can provide a basic understanding of what actually energises or motivates individuals.
for example. 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. the individual must balance life and work responsibilities to ultimately achieve a sense of fulfilment. then the predictive relationship between work performance and personality will improve (Hogan. Hence. If researchers are able to classify jobs by occupation and then consider the performance criteria and the personality dimensional requirements relevant to that occupation. Hogan and Roberts. 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. personal development and career advice. 156 . 1996). people are not simply reactors to stimuli in their environment in that they can also organise. With this jockeying to satisfy these needs. In reality. Although personality is significantly inherited and stable in adulthood.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. studies that have examined the relationship between personality and work performance can be utilised for recruitment. Besides their indisputable academic importance. select and transform stimuli. it would be beneficial to individuals to be aware of the limitations and advantages associated with their personality profiles. A comment on the usefulness of research on personality and work performance should also be made.
Hence. CASES can be offered as a useful personality measure for both practitioners and researchers. Hunton and Bryant. 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.The study has contributed to the literature on personality by providing a new personality measure. Moreover. CASES. Although the FFM is a well established personality measure. some components of the CASES model were found to be better predictors of the Career. both situationally and contextually (Wheeler. Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. 2003). and Total RBPS as compared to the FFM which was a better predictor of only the Job component of the RBPS. 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. the researcher believes that it has made a contribution to research on personality measures and the prediction of work-related performance. Tett and Burnett. this personality measure. Innovator. 2004a. 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. CASES. Although this is a preliminary study of the validity of the CASES model of personality. In addition to providing a theory-grounded measurement tool. 157 .
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.
R. (1943).. Psychological Review... The Architecture of Personality. (2001). Self Appraisal in Performance Evaluation: Development Versus Evaluation. (1996). 197-210. U. Evolutionary Psychology and Explanation in Personality Psychology. (1989). D.Y. Applied Business Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. American Psychologist. 289-309. Academy of Management Review. A. Work Commitment. 161 . Delahaye. (1988). 7(3). Cattell. D. 44(11). D. Carmeli. International Journal of Organisation Theory and Behavior.. 6(3).Buss. 183204. (1989). 1001-1013. 13. Buttle.. Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: An Empirical Investigation.L. John Wiley & Sons.L. (2004). Comparison of Factor Structure and Criterion-Related Validity Coefficients for Two Measures of Personality Based on the Five Factor Model. A. 81(6). F. Cervone. M. 38. (2004). A. R. The American Behavioural Scientist. and Sekaran. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Miller. The Social Construction of Needs. Campbell. D. and Lee. Journal of Applied Psychology.. D.H.B. B. Psychology and Marketing.. The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Cervone. 111(1). and Freund. 694704.D. 476-506. 43(6). 1378-1388. and Klawsky. Personality as Traits. Cavana.J.F.D. J. Doverspike. Cellar. 302-314. C. (2000).
291-294. P.T. R. and Wolfe... 117.P. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. Psychometric assessment under test. Coan. Coull. (1987). Solid ground in the wetlands: A reply to Block. Management Research News. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. and Eary. Stotland. D. K. 29-40. E. A. (1988). R. (2000). Cohen. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed. Costa. 18(2). 51.. R. Costa.D. A. Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources. 1820. Taylor. 26(1). D. (2003)..T.. (1995). and McCrae.H. Chung. G..). J. (1969). J. M. 134-139. (2001). 162 . FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. P. 12(2). 223-234.. Jung and Adler. (1995). Cohen. 202-208. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 216-220. Academy of Management Journal. Personality and Self-Rated Work Performance. An experimental investigation of need for recognition.R. Odessa. Training Journal. Cook. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO FFI) professional manual.Cesare. R.R. and McCrae. (1985). 16(3). Odessa. (1992). Costa. N.W. P... and McCrae. and Sadri. A Markov Chain Model of Human Needs: An Extension of Maslow’s Need Theory.T. A. The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Do all carrots look the same? Examining the impact of culture on employee motivation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Theoretical Orientation in Psychology and the Traditions of Freud. J. Young. NJ: Erlbaum. and Bedford.R.. Hillsdale.
R. De Raad. Five Big. (2000). The Science of Meaning: Can Behaviorism Bring Meaning to Psychological Science? American Psychologist. D. 25-36.M. Personnel Psychology. 80(4). Higher-Order Factors of the Big Five. B.).M. In M. 113-124. Personality and job performance: Evidence of incremental validity. (1989).. Annual review of psychology (Vol. CA: Annual Reviews. 73(6). 1246-1256. J. Psychological types of tax preparers. Journal of Applied Psychology. A.). European Psychologist. S. Rosenweig & L. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model.A. The Proactive Personality Scale and Objective Job Performance Among Real Estate Agents. (1998). (1997). Porter (Eds. 417-440). Day. Digman. D. J. (2004). and Curd. R. J. 17. and Crosscultural Assessment. (1990). DeGrandpre. J. Journal of Psychological Type. 36-38. 532-537. Etzioni.J. (1995). 3(2). Big Five Issues: Rationale. pp. an overview of an increasingly complex world. Comparative analysis of complex organisations (enlarged. New York: Academic Press. Dent. Psychometric tests.R. 42. and Silverman. 41. (1975). (1989). 55(7). Descouzis. Content. Training Journal. Digman.M. 14-17.. Status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Crant.W. 721-739. F. 163 . Structure. Palo Alto..
G. Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance are correlated? Possible sources of a commonsense theory.B. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. Journal of Organisational Behavior. and Einhorn. 164 .. (1976). Franken. 46-50. 20(4). Y.E. 49-58. Organisations. R. and van Wersch. Frank. S. (2003).R..). 24(6). Freud. 691-697. A. 753-777. Fisher. W. P. (1993). C. Triebe and Their Vicissitudes: Freud’s Theory of Motivation Reconsidered. Integrating OB Mod with Cognitive Approaches to Motivation. van Schaik. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 348-365. Gabriel. Flynn. Testing times for the world of psychometrics. Personnel Management. (1960). C. 6(1). 358. D. A comparison of Multi-Item Likert and Visual Analogue Scales for the Assessment of Transactionally Defined Coping Function. 4th Edition. and Ferris. (1998). and Carr. Psychoanalytic Psychology. 25(12). Jr. A. (Original work published 1923). 49(3). 17(5).J.D.Fedor. (1981). The Journal of Business. Trans.. Gallagher. G. Human Motivation. D. (2004). Fletcher. Motivation Theory and Job Design.. Riviere. The Academy of Management Review. (2002). (2003). Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. The ego and the id (J.. New York: Norton. 115-125. H. 20(1).R. management and psychoanalysis: An overview.
R. Prentice Hall. 48.E. 1998. De Fruyt. (1992). I. J. Ambivalence and Actualisation. R. J.C. Critical variables in Child care services switching: Contrasting consumer and staff perceptions. Prentice-Hall. In I.. Public Domain. R.A. Content validity in Psychological Assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Ostendorf (Eds.J. Tatham.A. W. 275-298. A Broad-Bandwidth. Richard. & F.N. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. 238-247. R.S. Development and Counseling Psychology: Depth. Organisational Behavior. E. Gill. Grace. Personality Inventory Measuring the Lower-Level Facets of Several Five-Factor models.. Exploring the dimensions of service brands: The Service Brand Verdict (SBV) Model. D. Personality Psychology in Europe. 39(3).. Grace. (2002). New Jersey. Anderson.. American Psychologist. Personality. P. Tilburg. Haynes. D. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy.S. Hair. Vol. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Griffith University. and Black. Sage Publications. Great Britain. D.R. (2002). (2002).Gelso. and Johnson. Deary. R. 7(3). J. (1999). and Jones. Griffith University.. Upper Saddle River. NJ. Goldberg. F.. 26-34. 7 – 28)..).). Research Methods for Managers (3rd edn. The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. G. C. Psychological Assessment.. (1999). S. Mervielde. Goldberg. Multivariate Data Analysis. L. George. and Kubany. L. and Fassinger. 165 . Unpublished Honours Thesis. (1995).M. 7 (pp.
L.T. 446-455.. 562-571. 51(5). Hogan. and Carsrud. J.R.E.. P. Using Theory to Evaluate Personality and Job Performance Relations: A Socioanalytic Perspective. 185-188. (1990). (2003). and Hammer. T. D.B.. affection and conation. 100-112. 545-551. G. methodological and statistical issues. 88(1). American Psychologist. Sawin. A. Hilgard. Journal of Applied Psychology.. and Genestre. and Meyer.N. B. A Field Study of Frame-of-Reference Effects on Personality Test Validity. (1997).. Hunthausen. Hogan. The incremental validity of psychological testing and assessment: Conceptual.M. J. E. The Honeymoon Effect on Job Performance: Temporal Increases in the Predictive Power of Achievement Motivation. 107-117. (1996).. The trilogy of mind: Cognition.. (1986). Newbury Park: Sage. F. 35(7).M. International motivational differences. 71(2). and Roberts. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings.Helmreich.L.. 88(3).. R. 15(4). Journal of Applied Psychology.L. Hunter. J. (1980). and Holland. 166 .W. Psychological Assessment.. J. 16. L. R. B. Hogan. A.L. J. Management Decision. Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and Answers. Hunsley. 469-477. L. (2003). Bauer. Herbig.. Journal of Applied Psychology. and Schmidt.J. (2003). Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. Truxillo.
T. R.L. T. C.. 14(7). and Livesley. (2002).M. J.. 85(6). Iachini. Journal of Applied Psychology.. A.A. 675-688.A. Judge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology..J.W. Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: Support for a hierarchical model of personality.J.. 460-482. Bono. Angleitner. Jang. W. 751-765. The Personality of Familiar and Significant People: The Lay Perceiver as a Social-Cognitive Theorist. (2000).A. K. and Baumgartner.. Motivations and Personal Goals: Revisited. Jolibert. (2000). The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. and Gerhardt. J.. 80(4).. Managerial Discretion in the Use of Self-ratings in a Appraisal System: The Antecedents and Consequences. (1997). 765-780. Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review.R. 167 .J. (2003). XVI (4). A.J. Starting the “Fire” under an unmotivated employee. R. L.E. and Donovan. 72(3). 585-596. Values. Allen. Judge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 303-331. McCrae. (2004).. Inderrieden. and Mischel. and Thoresen.. G. Journal of Managerial Issues. and Bono.. R.J. J. J. 869-870..E. Journal of Applied Psychology.E. (1998). Erez. 87(4). Five-Factor Model of Personality and Transformational Leadership..Hurtz. E.. Journal of Applied Psychology. Occupational Health and Safety. M. Bono. (2001). Riemann. 1556-1565. J. T. Judge.E.. 50.. Personnel Psychology. R. Psychology & Marketing. and Keaveny. Ilies. 18-20. Personality and Job Performance: The Big Five Revisited. 85(5). (2003). G. A. 74. W.C. Idson. T.
23-32. (1988). 474-495.C.G. J. J. 87(4). (1971). American Psychologist. (H.J.. Schinka. Kaufman. Kichuk.. NJ. The social psychology of organisations (2nd ed.G. W. 82(5). T.A. and Ilies. Judge.J. 614-620. R. Martocchio. 745-755. 8(1). New York: Wiley. 1(4). Person-Environment Congruence and Personality Domains in the Prediction of Job Performance and Work Quality. Work Teams: Selecting Members for Optimal Performance. C. Kieffer.E. (Vol.. (1976). The Psychology of Worldviews. Koltko-Rivera. Katz.).. The Meanings of Personality Predicates. R.Jung.M. Journal of Applied Psychology. K. Canadian Psychology. Group and Organisation Studies.. 51(2). Journal of Counseling Psychology. T. 43(8). and Thoresen. G. (1998). Review of General Psychology. The collected works of C.. 797-807. (2004). Relationship of Personality to Performance Motivation: A Meta-Analytic Review. R. J.A. M. 168-177. 168 . Trans. Journal of Applied Psychology. Jung. 3-58. and Curtiss. 39(1-2). and Kahn.L.Hull) Princeton. S..L. (2004). (2002). Organisational Improvement: A Review of Models and an Attempted Synthesis. Bollingen Series XX. Revision by R.. and Wiesner. Princeton University Press (Original work published 1921).G. Five Factor Model of Personality and Employee Absence. Baynes. (1997).F. Psychological types. Kagan.Judge. D.A.H. (1978). C.6).
J. Jr.. The psychological types of college accounting students. Journal of Accounting and Computers. 37-42. Lester.Kovar. Beauvais.M.W. R. Rogers.. 114-121. 4/4.. R. 382-394. Computer usage and psychological type characteristics in accounting students. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Lindell. Journal of Accounting Education. 52(8).L. 969-983. Human Relations. 12.. S.L... D... L. A personality profile of CPAs in public practice. and Post. Lau. Psychological contracts in the 21st Century: What employees value most and how well organisations are responding to these expectations.G. 21. Work Motivation: The incorporation of self-concept-based processes. Personality preferences of accounting students: A longitudinal case study. V. (2003). Kwiatkowski. 24(1). Kreiser.. M.A. S. 29-34. and Kickul. and Fisher.H.swcollege. L. R..E.W. Human Resource Planning. 86(1). and Harrell. Career success: the effects of personality.. Journal of Applied Psychology. N. D. Trends in organisations and selection: An Introduction. Accounting for Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional Research Designs.. McKeon. Ott. 18(5).M. The Ohio CPA Journal (Winter). A.L. 75-94. (1996). K. (1999). R. and Shaffer.com/acct/jac/jac12. 28. R. 10-21. H. (2001). Leonard. 169 . (2001). (1994).html Laribee. and Whitney. (1990). S. Journal of Psychological Type. Landry. J. Career Development International. M. Available at: http://www.W. J. (1999). and Scholl. (2003). 225-230.P.
G. L. and Latham. Lombardo. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 134-145.P. 10(4).H.J. Applied individual differences research and its quantitative methods. consultancy and managerial roles. Lowery. 123-142. R.. The American Behavioral Scientist. A Theory of human motivation. Motivation and personality (2nd ed. and Krilowicz.. A. T. and Morse. (1995).C. and Foschi.Lindon. R. 3. 170 .A. 6(2). Using Personality and Cognitive Ability to Predict Job Performance: An Empirical Study. Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey. The Concept of Personality in 19th Century French and 20th Century American Psychology. A. Bradford. Linking an Intervention model to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Locke. The European Origins of “Personality Psychology”. Lombardo. 1-10. 50. and Foschi. Marsella. Maslow. Hamada.. International Journal of Management.). European Psychologist.P. J. 370396.. C. (2000). W.N. Beadles II. Dubanoski. New York: Harper & Row..H. The measurement of personality across cultures: Historical. History of Psychology. Lubinski. (1970). 7(2).. 21. (2004). 187-203. American Psychologist.J. (1943).M. 44.. Public Policy and Law. (2002). Conceptual and Methodological Issues and Considerations. Maslow. (2002).P. H. 2(2). (1996). 21-29. N. A. E. 705717.. G. Psychology. (2003). Psychological Review. G. 57(9). D.
The Psychology of Life Stories. The Achieving Society. M.. 42(9). and Pierce. 83(2). Van Nostrand. and Costa.P. 5(2).S.R. and Costa.D. Primary Divisions of Personality and their Scientific Contributions: From the Trilogy-of-Mind to the Systems Set. J. McCaulley. (2003). McCrae.T. Pervin (Eds. 886-887.T. A Comparison of Likert Scale and Traditional Measures of Self-Efficacy. R. The five-factor model of personality (51-87). Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior.. McClelland. 100-122. 449-477. P.). 52(2). A Convergence of the Tender-Minded and the ToughMinded? American Psychologist. 171 . T. (2001). 324-329. J. (1999). 381-401.D. McC Dachowski. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Bridge Between Counseling and Consulting. McAdams. (1996). In J. Handbook of personality: Theory and research (139153). Lawrence and O.C. Structural Divisions of Personality and the Classification of Traits. Mayer.H. New York: Guilford Press.R. H.J. (1998). Review of General Psychology. Princeton. M. A five-factor theory of personality. (1961). McCrae.. (1987). New York: Guilford Press. NJ. Mayer. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. D. 7(4). D. P. (2000). 31. Review of General Psychology. 117-132. In A. (2001).P. Wiggins (Ed).R. Journal of Applied Psychology. R. Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five factor model.Maurer.J.
. 80-88. Mischel. 44(1). G. P. Meade. D.D.R.K. (1968). 1595-1597. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology.A. Psychological Review. J. 11-18. and Harmon.W. del Pilar.P. 102(2). Leadership and Organisation Development Journal. Journal of Business Ethics. (2003). and Jackson. C. Gliner.. Quantitative Research Approaches. D. The Academy of Management Review. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. New York: Wiley.McCrae. (2004)..T. W. (1995). 77-88. Personality and assessment. The impact of behavioral style assessment on organisational effectiveness: a call for action. Mischel.. T. Rolland. 23(6). and Parker. Y. Mele. W.H.. Morgan. (2002)... R.. 27(4). A Cognitive-Affective System Theory of Personality: Reconceptualising Situations. (1982). Dispositions.D. Melamed. J. 77. J.R. T. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.R. 38(12). (1999). Mitchell. 7(1). A. and Darling. R. 171-188. McKenna. Shelton. The challenge of humanistic management. Cross-cultural assessment of the Five Factor Model: The revised NEO Personality Inventory. 172 .J. Motivation: New directions for theory research and practice. Psychometric problems and issues involved with creating and using ipsative measures for selection. W. 29.. 246-268. (1995). and Shoda. (1998). 314-322... Psychometric instruments: Potential benefits and practical use. Dynamics and Invariance in Personality Structure. Coata. G. Industrial and Commercial Training.A. M. 531-540.
MBTI Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. 639-648. Academy of Management Review. Fitting the person to the organization: Examining the personality-job performance relationship from a new perspective.C. and Hammer. (2003). 30(1).A. 491-500. The Case of Qualitative Research. M.. I. (1951). 18(7).A. Nikolaou. 52-68. 111-115. A. Murray. A. Third Edition.. H. 29-42. The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resources management. Nicholson. Palo Alto. 1897-1937. and Barrick. L. 5. 13. Dialectica.B. M. Accounting students’ performance and personality types.Morgan. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. M. Journal of Managerial Psychology.A. 5(4). Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. 15-27. H. 266-292. Some basic psychological assumptions and conceptions. The International Journal of Public Sector Management. G. McCaulley. K.L.. (1998). Myers. (1993). I. Gordon Allport. 152-200. Nourayi. I.M. Journal of Education for Business. Mustafa. The relationship between self and supervisor appraisals with role clarity and job satisfaction. The Contributions of Psychology to the Study of Administrative Behavior. 5(4). 1(1).R. (1998).K.. Mount. M. T. (Nov/Dec). (1994). History of Psychology. (1992). Journal of Educational Administration. (1992).. (1980). Character and the “Culture of Personality”. Nhundu. 173 . and Cherry. and Smircich. Quen..
S. 1301-1308. (2004).).C..C. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. and Moores. Human Relations. (1990). Mann. New York: 44(12). R. (1984). M. S. C.V. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Otter. QUT. 538-556. (2001). An empirical investigation into the interactive effects of student personality traits and method of instruction (lecture or CAI) on student performance in elementary accounting. 73-79. (1978). M. Parker.H.M. (2003). Ott. 29-36. Paunonen. Political Marketing: The Application of Marketing to Politics. Journal of Accounting Education. 524-539. Big Five Factors and Facets and the Prediction of Behavior. McGraw-Hill. Big Five Factors of Personality and Replicated Predictions of Behavior. Unpublished Master of Business Thesis. 8. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.V. (1999). M. 81(3). (1991).Nunnally. O’Cass. Do CPAs have a unique personality? Are certain personality types found more frequently in our profession? The Michigan CPA (Spring). S. P. New York. Osteraker. 84(2). J. and Chusmir. 74(2). Paunonen.H. Psychometric Theory (2nd edn. Journal of Workplace Learning. A. Paunonen. 17-35.T.V... Bradford.. 174 . 11(2). and Ashton. Measuring motivation in a learning organisation. (1998). L. 411-424. B. Hierarchical Organisation of Personality and Prediction of Behavior. Motivtion Needs and Their Relationship to Life Success.
L. Extraversion and related traits in adults reared apart and reared together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. M. B. 16(2). Pervin. 105-111. L. Academy of Management Review. Persons. Neuroticism. Looking for a Simple Big Five Factorial Structure in the Domain of Adjectives. The consequences of unmet needs: The evolving role of motivation in consumer research. European Psychologist. Pincus. Journal of Career Planning and Placement. assessment and research. 175 .J. 665-677. Plomin. M. and Friberg. (1988). L. (2000). Wiley. D. New York. 44(2). 55. Environment and Genes: Determinants of Behavior. (1975). J. (1989). 375-387... 64(4). G. 14.Pedersen. (2004). 172-176.. Pittenger. (2001). (1993). 350-360. 87-97. situations.A. Personality: Theory.L. Plomin. Gallucci. R. 6(3). A Dynamic Systems Approach to Personality. and Livi. S. (1989)..A. Measuring the MBTI And Coming Up Short.W. L. Pervin. (1993).E. Journal of Consumer Behavior. Pelham.A. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. The Idiographic Nature of Human Personality: Examples of the Idiographic Self-Concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. interaction: The history of a controversy and a discussion of theoretical models. 950-957. Perugini. N. 3(4). American Psychologist. Pervin. R. McClearn.
E. F..K. P. 52-63.. Rossier. Williams. 20(1). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Research Report. A review of employee motivation themes and the implications for employee retention within organisations. R. R. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology.A.. 1/2. (2001). Journal of Abnormal Psychology.htm Robbins.T. J. Sage Publications.P. 73. (1997). The Hierarchical Structures of the NEO PI-R and the 16 PF 5. Multifaceted Nature of Intrinsic Motivation: The Theory of 16 Basic Desires.. Great Britain.M.. (2000). (2004). A. S.tripod. Gibbons. Journal of American Academy of Business. M.. D. and Berhoud. (2004). Remenyi. 179-193. de Stadelhofen.M. Rings... G.. 103(1). 5. Review of General Psychology. http://members. Doing Research in Business and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method. 176 . Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. (1998).P. and Nyfield. (1998). 27-38. Baron. (2004). and Swartz. S. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. Money. Conscientiousness and managerial performance. S. Rothbart. Theories of Personality. Prentice-Hall. Reiss. London.com/~Personality Institute/Myers-BriggsTypeIndicator. and Ahadi. I. Robertson. Organisational Behavior. (1994). B. Upper Saddle River.Ramlall. MacIver. Ryckman. Temperament and the Development of Personality. 8(3). S. B. H. 55-66. 171-180. S.. NJ.
G. 73(6). G. (2003). (1997). G. Effects of Variable Selection On the Factor Structure of Person Descriptors.. Saunders. (2003). and Goldberg. Journal of Applied Psychology. Salgado. Lewis. G. Wiggins (Ed. 313-328.S. New York: Guilford Press. Maybe there’s no such thing as a “good cop”. M.F. (1998). Journal of Psychological Type. (1996). J. P. Saucier. The Five Factor Model of Personality and Job Performance in the European Community. 83(4). Saucier. and Ellingson. 545-556.A. J.R. What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of Personality. (1998).). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 82(1). (2003).. 695-708. D. L. Salgado. Personality types of CPAs: National vs. Sanders.L. 26(2). and Thornhill.. Gruys. 36. and Goldberg.. The five factor model of personality (p 21-50). A.Sackett. M. L. B. Pitman Publishing. Ability-personality interactions when predicting job performance. An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management.R. Research Methods for Business Students. J. Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality measures. 177 . The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the five factor model. 36-41.F.. (1996). Satava.E..R. local firms. 1296-1312. 76. 30-43. (1997). London. Factor Structure of English-Language Personality Type-Nouns. 85(4). Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology. In J. (1997). P. 323-346. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 66. 495-524. Saucier. Saucier. Journal of Applied Psychology.
(1997). Schweiger. J. 24-39.A. 2. N. Managerial Auditing Journal. Development of a global measure of personality. G. 73(6). G.S. (1994).Z.. and Schloemer. Gooding. Kihm. Schwab. and Kirsch. N. (1984). Personnel Psychology. (1980). 178 . 54(2).A. 37. R. 153-160. Schmitt. Schmit. 407-422. M.. Stelmack.. Trait Brandwidth and Stages of Job Performance: Assessing Differential Effects for Conscientiousness and its Subtraits.P. P. 84(6). Research in Organisational Behavior. (1999). R.L. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.G.. Meta-analyses of validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics.. Construct validity in organisational behaviour. 9(8).Schloemer.E. M. Accounting Horizons (December). and Robie. 1238-1241. 53(1).M. Toward a Paradigm in Personality: Comment on Eysenck’s (1997) view.. C. Stewart. 959-968. B. 3-43.W. M. Schwarz. (1999). 122-123. 93-105. Optimising the value of performance appraisals. D. 3-7. Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers.. Personnel Psychology. The accountant stereotype: Myth or reality? Accountancy (November). and Sumners.J. (1980). (1997). Noe. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2000). I. V. American Psychologist. The personality types and preferences of CPA firm professionals: An analysis of changes in the profession. Shackleton.
.P. 835-853. The Traits Personality Questionnaire 5(TPQue5): Psychometric Properties of a Shortened Version of a Big Five Measure.L. Thoresen. Strategy and Leadership. S.. Tubbs.. 85(4). R.. Bliese. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Tubes . 723-735. The Role of Intentions in Work Motivation: Implications for goal-setting theory and research. (2003). 500-517.J. 8-11. 20(3).S. 179 . Tsaousis. Air Force. R. Townsend. J. C. 180-191. 88(3).E. What’s in it for me? The Journal for Quality and Participation. (2004). Journal of Psychological Assessment. The Academy of Management Review. Tett. M. D.E.C. Structure of Word Meaning.. Relationships Between Personality Structure. (1993). Journal of Applied Psychology. Lackland Air Force Base. The Big Five Personality Traits and Individual Job Performance Growth Trajectories in Maintenance and Transitional Job Stages. Maslow revisited: Building the employee commitment pyramid.L. and Burnett.. and Gebhardt. and Thoresen.E. Journal of Applied Psychology. I. and Ekeberg. (2003). 4-9.D. and Cognitive Ability: A Study of Cultural Mechanisms of Personality. (2004). D.. J. Badley. P. P. A Personality Trait-based Interactionist Model of Job Performance. 16(2). (2001). and Christal.D.E. 89(5). TX: U. Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (Technical Report ASD-TR-61-97). (1961). 29(4). A. E.Stum.16(1). J.D. 180-199. (1991).C. Toomela.
. What motivates employees according to over 40 years of motivation surveys. 1-19.M.. C. 387-397. Vlachopoulos. Hunton. Journal of Information Systems. Welbourne. E.S. 71(4).. Accounting Information Systems Research Opportunities Using Personality Type Theory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.. S.. 41(5). Johnson. Goals and Environmental Interactions.E. Wheeler. J.P. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. P. 18(1). III. (2002).. and Roth. Vancouver. International Journal of Manpower.. (1998).K. (2000). Switzer. C. and Terry. Authors’ Reply to Commentary on Accounting Information Systems Research Opportunities Using Personality Type Theory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Gray.M. T..L.R. 83(4). Wheeler. Journal of Applied Psychology. A.E.I. The Role-Based Performance Scale: Validity Analysis of a Theory-based Measure. Haig. and Bryant. and Bryant. 18(3). (2004b). 83(6). (2004a). J. J. C. Hunton..Vaidya.C. D. S. Schippmann. On the Temporal Stability of Personality: Evidence for Differential Stability and the Role of Life Experiences. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport... 1469-1484. F.. 18(1). 540-555. Jr.A. 263-275. P. American Psychologist.J...S. Academy of Management Journal. (1998). Motivation profiles in sport: A self-determination theory perspective. A.E. 180 . Wiley. and Scherbaum. 763-764. P. J..G. A metaanalytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople.. (2000). Karageorghis. P. Automaticity. 586-597. J. D. Journal of Information Systems. Vinchur. 3538. and Erez. and Watson. J. S. (1997).M.R.B. 55(7).
.B. Psychological Review.. The relationships among individual differences. (1998). 18(3). (2000).Winter..A. D. 2429.G. Yamaguchi. Onoszczenko. Credit Union Executive Journal. What your customers can’t say. 230-250. R.. J. (2001). Yancey. (2003). (1998). State and Traits Correlates of Job Performance: A Tale of Two Perspectives. Journal of Business and Psychology.. G. 6(4). Wolfe. Spring . D. R. American Demographics. L. 324-344. and Meyer.. Stewart. Journal of Managerial Psychology.G. 40(4). 365-384. B. W. Riemann.R. D. I. A. European Psychologist. T. (2004). 12-18. needs and equity sensitivity.. 18(4). and Austin. M. Traits and Motives: Toward an Integration of Two Traditions in Personality Research. Strelau. Klohnen.J. The predictive power of hiring tools. Genetic and Environmental Influences on Temperament: The Polish-German Twin Study Based on Self-Report and Peer-Rating. E. Cropanzano.C.P. John. 272-286. and Duncan. 181 . 105(2).E... Wright.. and Angleitner. 20(2). Zawadzki.B. A. O.
nor your organisation will be named or be able to be identified from the published report.Casimir@newcastle. The findings of this study may be published in a scholarly journal but neither you. which will be shredded after the data have been entered into a spreadsheet.au CHONG Chien Fatt Tel: +60123760133 Fax: +60331602894 Email: chongchienfatt@yahoo. I am conducting a research project titled “Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality Measure”. 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. 182 . 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. You are required to complete a questionnaire on personality and work performance.edu. As part of my studies. your Organisation will be provided with a report that will be recommended for distribution to staff. I am Chong Chien Fatt. The confidentiality of your responses is assured as only Chong Chien Fatt and Gian Casimir will have access to the completed questionnaires. 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.APPENDIX ONE – INFORMATION SHEET Newcastle Graduate School of Business Faculty of Business and Law Level 3. We are interested only in the overall relationships between Personality and Work Performance. We are therefore not interested in the specific responses of any particular individual.com September 15. On completion of the study. You are invited to take part in this research project which examines the relationship between work performance and personality. 2005 Subject: Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality Measure Dear Potential Participant.
Callaghan NSW 2308. please contact Chong Chien Fatt or Gian Casimir or if an independent person is preferred. However. it may be given to the researcher. the University’s Human Research Ethics Officer. Research Branch. The University requires that should you have concerns about your rights as a participant in this research. University Drive. Bus-Law/SEGi/1/32:05A).au. Mr Chong Chien Fatt Dr Gian Casimir Complaints Clause: This project has been approved by the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee. Yours sincerely. Chancellery. or to not participate. Approval No . if an independent person is preferred. Research Office.edu. The questionnaire will be distributed by the Human Resources Managers. email: HumanEthics@newcastle. telephone +61 249 216 333. The Chancellery. If you would like more information. Thank you for taking time to consider this invitation. University of Newcastle. or you have a complaint about the manner in which the research is conducted.Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. telephone (+61 249 216 333. to the Human Research Ethics Officer.au) 183 . please complete the questionnaire and return it to the researchers in the stamped self-addressed envelope provided. The University of Newcastle. or. If you want to take part in the study. email HumanEthics@newcastle. 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. your decision to participate. with return of the questionnaire through stamped and self-addressed envelopes to the researcher. 2308.
Dear Sir.edu. 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.au CHONG Chien Fatt Tel: +60123760133 Fax: +60331602894 Email: chongchienfatt@yahoo.Casimir@newcastle. 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. Mr Chong is conducting this study as part of his Doctor of Business and Administration Degree and Dr Gian Casimir is his research supervisor. The confidentiality of responses is assured as only Chong Chien Fatt and Gian Casimir will have access to the completed questionnaires. 2005 Subject: Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality Measure. 184 .com September 15. This study examines the relationship between personality and work performance. If your organisation is willing to participate. the questionnaires will be shredded. 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. 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. 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.APPENDIX TWO – CONSENT SEEKING LETTER TO COMPANY Newcastle Graduate School of Business Faculty of Business and Law Level 3. We would greatly appreciate your organisation’s participation. After the data have been entered into a spreadsheet. Please see the attached information sheet for participants. This questionnaire is a personality and work performance measures and should take approximately twenty minutes to complete.
which we recommend to be made available to all staff. if an independent person is preferred. Yours sincerely. your organisation will be provided with a report. The Chancellery. it may be given to the researcher. The findings of this study may be published in a scholarly journal but neither you. Research Office. University Drive. For further information. please contact Chong Chien Fatt or Gian Casimir. telephone (+61 249 216 333. Approval No . nor your department will be named or be able to be identified from the published report. Mr Chong Chien Fatt and Dr Gian Casimir Complaints Clause: This project has been approved by the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee. email HumanEthics@newcastle. please reply to us in writing stating your department’s willingness. Thank you for taking time to consider this invitation.au) 185 .edu. The University of Newcastle. Bus-Law/SEGi/1/32:05A). to the Human Research Ethics Officer. Callaghan NSW 2308.On completion of the study. If you agree to take part in the study. or you have a complaint about the manner in which the research is conducted. The University requires that should you have concerns about your rights as a participant in this research. or.
please do not continue with the survey even though you may have consented to participate. not as you wish to be in the future nor what you were in the past.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. 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. 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 . Thank you.
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 .
Between 7% to 10%. 189 . Are you confirm in your job within the normal time frame? 8. Gender (please circle) Male/Female ____Years____Months ____Years ___ Months Primary School / High School / College / University 4. Age: ____Years____Months 3. More than 10%. What is your Level in the Organisation? Non-Executive/ Lower Mgmt/Middle Mgmt/ Senior Mgmt 7. How long have you worked in your current job? 6. What is your last annual increment? Less than 3%. Educational level: 2. 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. have you been promoted? Yes/No Yes/No 9. How long have you worked in this Organisation? 5. Between 3% and 6%. For those working for 3 years of more.