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. who always gives her undivided love and care to her 11 children. Madam Yew Hor.DEDICATION I dedicated this work to my beloved Mother.
....................7................5..... 68 2...................................5..................11 1... 1....... 2........ I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....4.......... 2...............5....... 2.........................6................... 2.................................1.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Research Design ....3................................. 27 Behaviorist/Cognitive and Social Cognitive Theories. 2................................. 2............... 2..4...... TYPES OF PERSONALITY MEASURES ...1.............15 2..............2.... WHY DOES PERSONALITY MATTER TO ORGANISATIONS? .. SHORTCOMINGS OF FFM AND MBTI MEASURES ........................................1.........7.......................2.......1.................................................. 2........................ 11 Survey Instrument.................................... THE THEORIES AND CONSTRUCTS OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE ................................................................... RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES .......4.......................................................3... 2...................5.............7......2..........................................3......2... 42 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator....14 1................6....................6............................................1............. 66 Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure ............2.........2.............................7.................................................. THEORIES ON PERSONALITY ...... 1................ 2...56 The Second Premise: The Accuracy of Predicting Behavior Depends on Complexity ............................2.........4... 1.. 2.........................................1............8........................................4..........................42 2..........62 2...... iv ..................................................3................4.....................................................2...............3.......2.............1...................................................... The Five Factor Model ..................3.......................... ETHICS ...... 34 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator..................... 2......... 2..........................................................................................................................................1.................II DEDICATION ..... RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................... Five Factor Model................ 47 Factors Influencing Behavior......13 1........................3....................................................... PERSONALITY AND WORK PERFORMANCE ..............................................3.........2....................... 19 The Objective of Psychometric Instruments.......... 56 The First Premise: Behavior is Motivated by Needs .................... 23 Humanistic Theories ..........7................................................................ 46 Definition of Behavior .........................................2..2 1.3......... 37 2............8....7......................7...59 2................... 25 Traits Theories ............8.............. 12 Sampling and Sample Size ....0............... 48 Current Theories of Work Motivation ................ CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW .......... 13 1............... CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION .......TABLE OF CONTENT STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP ........................... Research Philosophy....................4.... INTRODUCTION .......................................... 29 2.............1..............32 2......................... III ABSTRACT. ANALYSES ............................1 1.............................. IX 1..7................... 17 How Stable are Personality Traits?... 61 Prediction of Performance by the FFM Personality Measure..................................4.....................16 2..................................................................2.........1....... 12 Measurement............................................... 2................3........................... 1................................................................ THE ROLE OF PSYCHOMETRIC TESTS.............0.................47 2.......... 50 The Constructs of this Proposed Model...........................4.......................16 What is Personality? ..................... THE PREDICTIVE POWER OF FFM/MBTI ON PERFORMANCE...................................................... Uniqueness of the CASES Personality Measure .........21 2................2..........33 2.......2..........................1.........................3................1........................................................1.................................. LIMITATIONS ................................41 2............................... 2........6...................... 2.. 20 Psychodynamic Theories ....................6 1..................
. 3.3....94 Cost and Time Estimates .........5................................................................. CONCLUSION ........ DEMOGRAPHICS ................................. 3..............................................2................................................... RESULTS FROM PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS.......5........8.....84 Key Variables ......................4.................... 4....7................................. 81 Unit of Analysis ........... 99 Self Rating ... 3.. 92 Central Tendency and Dispersion........... 3................................................................................... 80 Time Horizons ......1..........................................................92 Reliability ...3.................3.........3..........................0............... 84 Personality and Work Performance Measures.....................................................92 Principal Components Analysis...........................8..4............................ 75 Type of Investigation .. 79 Study Setting.....................2......3.. RESEARCH PLAN ............ 82 Selection of Measurement Techniques ................................... 101 3............................................................ 3............ 3....103 4.................2..........4.................. RESEARCH PARADIGMS ..5..............................5.....2................5........... 3........................5.................5............102 4............. 89 Selection of Sample and Sample Size................2................................. RESEARCH DESIGN ..... 3.....................9....................6..........2..................2.....4.................... 3.........6..............4..............................1.......5.....................................................................................................97 3................ 90 Selection of analytical approach ................................................................. 107 Principal Components Analysis of RBPS Performance Measure..............102 4............5................4................ Response Distortions .........2... SURVEY RESEARCH .............. 99 Stability of Work Performance ............... CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..97 Categorising.....................8.............2..............2............5....7....................................2.8.............................6................................. CHAPTER FOUR – DATA ANALYSIS . 2................ 109 The Relationship between the FFM Dimensions and the CASES Dimensions111 4....4.......2........................................ 4. 77 Researcher’s Interference ......2...72 3..6.......3.. 3............. 3.......1.......................................................0......101 4..............................................................82 3.............2.... 100 Work Performance............................................... 99 Personality Scales .......................................114 v ....................... Selection of Survey Layout......................................................................................................................................... 3........................................................................... Principal Components Analysis of the FFM Personality Measure .............3.4....... 71 3.2.....84 Scales................................................................................ 77 Research Method .................4........................................ 3....................... LIMITATIONS .............5...1...........5......... 3..............................6...................8......................................................2.............5.............................2...................................................................5...........5.................................................... 3.....8..... 3...............5...................1.........................................................8............................. 3.............................3..2.........................................................5......................................4....4...... 4...6................. 81 Selection of Survey Method .....................................4...5..........4............................................ 3...........................1...........................5..... 94 3.. 3..................................... INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 3.......................... 103 Principal Components Analysis of the CASES Personality Measure. RESULTS FROM TESTING OF THE HYPOTHESES ............. 69 Hypotheses........ 3.......................................................72 3................................................ Purpose of the Study ............................................5......98 3.................................6.................................................................3............ RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................1............... Implementation ..................93 Hypothesis Testing . The Relationships between FFM and CASES ..................................94 Data Collection.75 3..........................................1..98 3......5.... 3.....................................................................................................72 3.........5.....96 Data Entry ..3.........4............................5................74 3. 3...................5........86 3...4.........1...................99 3......2...............8.......................5...................5.............................84 Self Report............................................92 Validity.... 3... 3................5... INTRODUCTION ........... 3................102 4...........................................................................................................................4.... ETHICAL CONSIDERATION ...................5............... 3.................5..............
...................2.................3......2.......................................................138 5.......................135 5............................................3................3. 4.182 APPENDIX TWO – CONSENT SEEKING LETTER TO COMPANY ......................... 4..................... 5............................... 147 Implications on Professional Practice........................ 151 5...............3...............2.................. 138 Main Findings for Research Question Two ..............138 5....3..............................................3..... 5.....152 5......3...2..3........186 vi ................3.. 128 FFM and CASES predicting the Job Component of the RBPS ......................5...................... INTRODUCTION ...............................1.......................4...........3.....2. CHAPTER FIVE – CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ....................149 5............................................ DISCUSSION OF THE MAIN FINDINGS .......... Prediction of Performance by the FFM Personality Measure............6..........132 FFM and CASES Predicting Total RBPS Performance ..................................................................2.......3.......... 114 Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure .3... CONCLUSION ........131 FFM and CASES Predicting the Organisation Component of the RBPS.............1..3....133 4............3......... CONCLUSION .154 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ................................ 120 FFM and CASES predicting performance.......................... Main Findings for Research Question One....3........................................... 5................ 143 Main Findings for Research Question Three . 5.138 5....................................... 4.................. IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS ........1...3............................................... 4...... 4............129 FFM and CASES Predicting the Innovator Component of RBPS.................... 4.....2......5.............. FUTURE RESEARCH .................. 4..........................................3....................1.2.............................................153 5..................................184 APPENDIX THREE – QUESTIONNAIRE .3.................................3......6..........4... 149 Implications on Theory..1.......... 4................................................... LIMITATIONS .................4.......................3..............0.....................128 FFM and CASES Predicting the Career Component of the RBPS......158 APPENDIX ONE – INFORMATION SHEET ...............3.4............130 FFM and CASES Predicting the Team Component of the RBPS ...............
...........................106 Table 13: Rotated Component Matrix of CASES................................................................83 Table 7: Role-Based Performance Scale’s Items (Wilbourne et al............................................. 1998) ................109 Table 15: Rotated Component Matrix of RBPS ..... 1999).................................................................................................................................................70 Table 5: Four Categories of Non-experimental Techniques (Grace...........107 Table 14: Items of CASES after Principal Components Analysis........104 Table 12: Items of FFM after Principal Components Analysis ... 2000) ..........4 Table 2: Six of the Most Commonly Used Personality Instruments (Dent and Curd..............................................................................................................................95 Table 9: Total Time Estimated for the Survey (developed for this research).........................40 Table 4: The Possible Associations of Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM with Complexity and Self-Actualisation of the CASES ........................................... 1999)............................117 Table 21: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on FFM ................................................96 Table 11: Rotated Component Matrix of FFM .................................................................115 Table 18: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM ..............................................................................................88 Table 8: The Breakdown of Companies to be Surveyed Based on Industry (developed for this study) ..113 Table 17: Correlations of the Components of FFM and RBPS ...............110 Table 16: Correlations between the Components of FFM and CASES......................................................................116 Table 19: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on FFM .......117 Table 20: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM............................................................................................78 Table 6: Merits of the Four Survey Methods (Grace........................6 Table 3: The 16 Personality Types with Cognitive Characteristics and Occupational Tendencies ..................................................................................................118 vii ........... 2004) ....LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Predictors of Work Performance (Yancey and Austin.96 Table 10: Breakdown of Costs on Survey (developed for this research) ...
................129 Table 32: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on the FFM and CASES ..............124 Table 27: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on CASES ......................................................133 Table 36: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on FFM and CASES ....................122 Table 25: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on CASES .........124 Table 28: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on CASES ....................................................................Table 22: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on FFM.......131 Table 34: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of the RBPS on FFM and CASES .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................119 Table 24: Correlations of the Components of CASES and RBPS..125 Table 29: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on CASES ..............................123 Table 26: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on CASES ............................................................119 Table 23: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on FFM ......................................126 Table 30: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on CASES..................................................................................................................................130 Table 33: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES .................................................................................................127 Table 31: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES ..........................................................................................................................................................................134 viii ..........................................................132 Table 35: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES .....................................................................
The results confirmed relationships between the dimensions of the new personality measure (i. 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. this new personality measure can be offered as a useful instrument for both practitioners and researchers.e. 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. However. Besides providing a theory-grounded measurement tool which contributes to research on personality measures and the prediction of work-related performance. the more recent studies have focused on demonstrating the incremental gain in predicting work performance that can be attained using personality as a predictor.. 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. limitations and possible areas for future research are discussed. CASES) and the FFM. ix .ABSTRACT “Does personality predict work performance” is a question that many researchers have addressed over the past few decades. recent studies using fundamental dimensions of personality have shown the predictive power of personality for work performance. personnel selection specialists generally did not use personality testing in employee selection due to the perception it has low validity. personality provides insight on how well a person will perform a given task. Hence. Practical and theoretical implications.
Employees are indisputably the most essential resource in any organisation and are the key to attaining and maintaining competitive advantage. For the top companies in the world.e. people. Investors in People. many organisations pay only lip service to the adage that “people are our greatest asset” (Yancey and Austin. 2000). Empowerment. will be examined. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Social Cognitive Theory) rather than on a single theory. The validity of the current measures of personality is questionable given that each of them is based on a single-theory of personality. time and energy to improve their business performance by adopting different management philosophies and initiatives such as SixSigma.0. 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. The third chapter of this dissertation outlines the research methodology and design of the study that will be 1 . The first objective of this study therefore is to develop a new measure of personality based on two theories (i. Learning Organisation. Furthermore. the incremental criterion utility of the new measure over the Five-Factor Model of personality. Basically. Nevertheless. and Relationship Management. 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. all of these have one thing in common.1. 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.. CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION Companies spend large amounts of money. which is a wellestablished personality measure.
1995). recruitment and development processes as they are able to explore a broad range of personality characteristics that are relevant to the workplace. 2004). matching and recruiting people to jobs to reduce the possible financial losses incurred by recruiting employees who are incompatible with the organisation. Moreover. Personality tests only provide an additional tool for recruitment and are not replacements for interviews. the more effective we can manage. work-samples. taking into account all expenditure.000 to recruit one executive or middle manager in United States of America (Melamed and Jackson. it is estimated to cost an average of US$15. Personality tests with no right or wrong answers attempt to measure how little or how much a candidate possesses a specific personality 2 . they are not a panacea for selecting the best candidates (Dent and Curd. and honest/integrity tests. Personality tests are popularly used by organisations as part of selection. Table 1 provides a list of various sources of information that are used to predict work performance.1. it takes only a modest improvement in selecting. Hence. references. implications and limitations of this study are presented in the fifth chapter of this dissertation. encourage and harness them. employment checks and job probation in the recruitment and selection process. The conclusion on the various findings. resume. The fourth chapter contains the analyses of the survey data.used. Although personality tests rank higher than other employment tests such as job-knowledge tests. cognitive ability test. 1. THE ROLE OF PSYCHOMETRIC TESTS The more we know the people we employ.
personality tests can assist individuals to understand the significant aspects of their personality and behavior in a wide variety of work and social situations. Psychometric assessment is big business in the 21st century as approximately 2. 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. their significant others and their related job-relevance. 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. 2001). As part of a development process in organisations. Personality tests have been in the market for more than 50 years and their popularity has increased significantly in recent years.characteristic relevant to the needs of the organisation. 2001). By understanding their behavior. work performance and careers.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. The purpose of conducting personality tests is to gather information and highlight issues for further exploration at interviews.
management development programmes. and retain critical personnel has fuelled the desire for more information on current employees as well as potential recruits. 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 . there is no evidence to indicate a positive relation between specific MBTI types with career success (Pittenger. Test Name Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Description Probably the most popular and wellresearched personality instrument used in business today.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. The most commonly used personality instruments are shown in Table 2 but they are not necessarily valid or useful. recruit. career guidance and training needs analysis (Dent and Curd. psychometric tests have expanded their functionalities to many other areas such as appraisals. 1993). 2004). 2000) The increasing pressure on organisations to identify. From their traditional use as a tool for selection and recruitment. develop. For example.
Developed by Raymond B. In particular. it helps individuals to understand the various facets that determine their personality. the dimensions measured fall into three categories: • • • Relationships with people Thinking style. and How you organise yourself Common Uses • • • Career development Relationship development Selection Selection Individual development Career development and counselling Leadership development Selection Career development Assessment centres Team building Individual development Change management Relationship awareness 16PF Questionnaire (Equivalent to the NEO PI-R of the Big Five (Rossier et al. Another of the best-researched and most widely used tools available today. and Affection-which is about being close to individuals • • • • • • • • Team building and development Self-awareness Individual development Individual development Leadership development Team development Relationship counselling Career counselling and development Strength Deployment Inventory (SDI) This is an incredibly versatile instrument. Designed by Saville and Holdsworth to provide information on personality characteristics. 2004) Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) This questionnaire measures an individual’s personality against 16 different personality dimensions.. Cattell. and Feelings and emotions • • • • • • • • • • • The Belbin Team Role SelfPerception Inventory Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship OrientationBehavior (FIROB) One of the few UK instruments on the market.Test Name Description • • How you make decisions. which was developed by Elias Porter in the 1960s. the feedback from which defines a person’s perception of his/her behaviors at work. It provides users with a development tool that helps them to learn about themselves and others in the context of relationship awareness • • • • Individual motivational awareness Team building and development Relationship management Assertiveness training 5 . Developed by Meredith Belbin to help team members identify their preferred roles in teams This inventory looks at a person’s interpersonal style and how he/she relates towards others in three specific areas: • • • Inclusion-which is the need to be part of a social group Control-which is the need for control or influence over others.
1937). Jung. 2004) 1. which assume there are dispositional factors that determine behavior in various situations. and Rotter. and emotion that are relatively stable and which form the basic conception of personality (Allport. Personality theories may be classified into five categories (Ryckman. 1997): i) The psychoanalytic perspectives of Freud. 2003). which are biological in nature and based on the premise of the unfolding of stages where the particular behaviors occur. and Eysenck. 6 . Cattell. thought. ii) The traits perspectives of Allport. PERSONALITY AND WORK PERFORMANCE The fundamental objective of personality psychology is to understand how personality can be used to predict behavior (Mayer.2.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. and Adler. Skinner. Individuals display consistent patterns of behavior. which assume personality is never completely determined and that people are always changing and free to reinterpret their experiences idiosyncratically. iii) The cognitive perspectives of Pavlov.
iv) The existential or humanistic perspectives of Rogers. 1996. 1990. The psychometric instruments in Table 2 are all based on single theories. Although the FFM. which postulate the presence of an innate need for growth which moves individuals towards achieving their potentialities given the right environmental conditions. 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. Paunonen. 1977b). 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. 1993. which assume most behavior is learned and purposive and that people are guided by motives to achieve certain goals. Beauvais and Scholl. de Stadelhofen and Berhoud. and v) The social behavioristic or interaction perspectives of Bandura and Mischel. Unlike the psychoanalytic and existential perspectives. 2003. Maslow. Goldberg. and McCelland. McCrae and Costa. which is based on 7 . 1977a. In other words. These traditional models of personality cannot explain the diversity of behavior as human behavior cannot be explained by a single perspective. rather than innate as people’s interactions and experiences continually influence each other. Rossier. Paunonen and Ashton. the social or interaction perspective excludes the growth stages. Human behavior is a multifaceted phenomenon and any theory attempting to explain normal human behavior must reflect its multidimensionality (Leonard. behavior arises as a result of a complex interaction between environmental influences and inner processes (Bandura. 2004). 1999). 2001. 1998. 1999. De Raad.
behavioral. 1977a). 1997). 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. culturally and situationally determined (Fletcher. Interest in the motivation that drives behavior rekindled in the 1990s. 1993). Chung. Motives are only one of the determinants of behavior as behavior is also determined by other factors that are biologically. 1969). The personality measure proposed in this dissertation. is able to describe consistent features of the behavior of an individual it does not address the key drivers or motives of behavior (Fletcher.personality traits. Unlike most need theories. 1993). 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. or has to (Nikolaou. likes to. attempts to explain human behavior according to key motivators. Social cognitive theory takes into consideration environmental and internal forces that shape behavior (Bandura. 1999. 8 . 1981). the Hierarchy of Needs Theory by Maslow advocates the dynamic processes of need satisfaction. 1988). which may be classified as deficit or homeostatic theories of motivation. and cognitive factors (Fedor and Ferris. 2003). Individual functioning is a continuous interaction between environmental. ultimately leading to self-actualisation (Osteraker. Hence. 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. which is based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and social cognitive theories. which motivate behavior (Wiley. including growth needs.
however. Complexity. Personality traits can be conceptually and empirically related without being redundant (Judge et al. 2004). does not 9 . 2002.. There are good reasons to believe that some dimensions of the CASES measure will be related to some dimensions of the FFM. 2002. and v) Social.. 2003).The new personality measure proposed in this dissertation is termed CASES because it comprises five dimensions: i) Complexity. 2003). Does personality predict work performance? Although there are many factors besides personality that affect work performance. The first dimension. iii) Safety. Salgado. One of the reasons for this low validity is that many studies focused mainly on personality traits at the molecular. iv) Ego. 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.. which explains the variability of an individual’s behavior in different situations. Prior to the 1990s. Kieffer. Nikolaou. have demonstrated that certain aspects of personality are useful predictors of work performance. Barrick et al. 2003. 2003. personnel selection specialists generally did not use personality testing in employee selection due to its low validity. “inventory” level instead of the construct level. 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. Schinka and Curtiss. is based on the social cognitive theory of “IfThen”. Recent investigations using higher order personality constructs. ii) Actualisation. Stewart and Piotrowski. Nikolaou. This. this question has received considerable attention in the literature (Barrick. 2000. such as those of the FFM.
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. 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. H3: The FFM and CASES will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance. Research Question 3: What is the relationship between the FFM and CASES measures? The third research question is addressed by the third hypothesis. H2: The CASES measure will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. 10 . Research Question 2: Does the CASES measure predict work performance? The second research question is addressed by the second hypothesis. H1: The FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.
Research Philosophy The study uses the positivistic paradigm with the hypothetico-deductive approach as it seeks to explain the relationship between personality. Williams. 1997. 11 . and Swartz. this survey method is efficient and practical (Saunders. Furthermore. Research Design This study uses hypothesis testing as there is information available on the variables involved to enable hypothesis formulation. Lewis and Thornhill. 1. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 1. 2001).1. 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. Remenyi. The investigation is a correlational study as the main interest is to examine the associations between dimensions of personality and work performance.3. need-induced behaviors and performance. 1998).3. Money. hypotheses can be empirically substantiated which is essential for such psychometric tests (Cavana.2.1. Furthermore. The study setting is a non-contrived setting.3. 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. Delahaye and Sekaran.
mail surveys are the most commonly used survey method in studies of personality (Kieffer et al. 1. The FFM (Goldberg. Survey Instrument Data will be collected via a mail survey. and the work performance measure of Welbourne. Salgado..3. Nikolaou. 2003).3. Furthermore. specifically their perceptions of their own behavior. 1. The unit of analysis is the individual. 12 .4. Measurement Five-point Likert scales will be used for all of the items related to personality and performance. 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. they allow the targeting of specific respondents in various organisations and are cost effective. the new personality measure. perceptions and attitudes (Lindell and Whitney. 2003. Johnson and Erez (1998) will be used for this research. 1999). 2004. Although mail surveys tend to yield a relatively low response rate. 2001).2002).3. CASES.
3. known to the researcher. 1.4. 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. 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 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. gender. years of working.5. which ensures the anonymity and confidentiality of responses.. Descriptive statistics will be computed for all of the demographic variables (i. level of education. Confirmatory factor 13 . age.e. as recommended by Nunnally. The questionnaire uses the Likert scale to collect interval-scaled data for each of the variables involved in the hypotheses. ANALYSES Data analyses will be conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 13. The minimum targeted number of respondents is 500 as the personality measures have 50 items each (minimum of 10:1 subject to items ratio.1. will be invited to participate in this research. and years in current job). A total of 40 commercial organisations of various sizes and from various industries.. 1978). 2001).
Furthermore.7 is considered adequate for initial investigations (Nunnally. 1.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. 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. Cronbach’s alpha is an internal reliability coefficient that shows how well the items belonging to a set are correlated to one another. Cronbach’s alpha will be calculated for each subscale to test its internal reliability. 1978). Cavana et al. Finally.5. 14 . Multiple linear regression analyses will be used to test the hypotheses. 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.5 to 0. 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.. An alpha coefficient of 0. 1980. 2001).
Furthermore. 1996) and social desirability bias such as “telling the way they like to be seen” (Hogan.. 1996). or different countries.6.g. different types of jobs (e. its findings may not be generalisable to different types of organisations such as public sector or non-profit organisations. the effect of leniency associated with selfassessment could raise concerns about the legitimacy of the data collected.. as this study uses a convenience sampling. LIMITATIONS The research relies on self-report data that can be affected by response distortion (Barrick and Mount. Additionally. cognitive ability. the stability of work performance as a construct may not be totally valid (Thoresen et al. Hogan and Roberts. 15 . blue-collar and clerical employees).1. 2004). motivation level and role clarity may influence self-reported performance ratings (Kieffer et al. 2004) as job satisfaction.. organisational hygiene. Finally.
develop and retain key employees has increased the interest of managers for more information on current employees and potential recruits alike. 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. 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.. management development programmes. training needs analysis. INTRODUCTION Psychometric tests have been used by organisations as part of their development and recruitment processes. which are normally based on a single theory. The increasing pressure on organisations to select/recruit.2.000 companies in United States of America using such instruments. CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW 2. 2001). psychometric assessment will be a major business sector in the 21st century (Coull and Eary. Although such instruments are traditionally used as a tool in the selection and recruitment processes. However.000 million tests administrated yearly and 700 of the Times Top 1.1. 1999). the debate on the reliability and 16 . 2004). These tests. With some 2. Many organisations use psychometric testing as part of their recruitment and development processes to select candidates who will excel in their jobs. as human behavior cannot be fully covered by any one single theory (Leonard et al. are not able to explain the diversity of behavior. and appraisals.0.
traits. 1995). using well-proven instruments do not confer automatic validity on their application in an organisation.. dispositions and needs (Gelso and Fassinger. 1993). values.validity of such instruments and the value of such concepts such as personality traits continues in the academic literature (Fletcher. “caveat emptor” should still be applied. It is most often described in terms of measurable traits that a person 17 . when using psychometric instruments. beliefs. 2000. attitudes. Also. which are the building blocks of personality (Marsella et al. 2. 1992). 45).1. Hence. Personality is conceptualised as a stable system which influences how an individual construes. selects and processes information and generates social behaviors (Mischel and Shoda. 43) defined personality as “the pattern of relatively enduring ways in which a person feels. it does not mean that all such instruments are. for example. The concept of personality can be traced to the work of Allport.1. who assumed the presence of “neuropsychic” structures (i.e. What is Personality? Personality can be broadly defined as the durable characteristics of an individual. The continuing debate may be due to the fact that although some instruments may be found to be valid predictors of work performance. George and Jones (2002. thinks and behaves”. Robbins (2001. p. traits). p. 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. 92) takes personality as “the sum total of ways in which an individual reacts to and interacts with others. p..
For example. (1996. introverted. 2001). and so on. The four structural divisions of personality which are repeatedly used to classify traits are: (a) Freud (1960)’s structural 18 . and (iii) individual behavior is consistent across situations (Pervin. 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. 1975). 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. personality is explained based on overall motivation rather than the understanding of neural pathways of motives (Mayer. most personality researchers divide personality into different areas or divisions and try to explain how each area works individually and with others. Personality is explained as existing in the individual as opposed to outside the person and focuses on overall psychological trends.exhibits. This aspect is called individual differences whereby we categorise people as neurotic. extraverted. 2) defined personality in two ways. Personality is too vast a field and differentiated for a single approach.” Hogan et al. motivations and behaviors (Lau and Shaffer. p. 1999). (ii) individual behavior is relatively stable over time. we are trying to explain the differences of that person from others. when describing someone’s personality. Hence. Personality can also be defined as an organised and dynamic set of characteristics of a person that influence cognitions. Hence.
1980). The contents of consciousness change rapidly. 1937). 2004). 1993.division of id. (2001) revealed that on average. 1985). 40% of the phenotypic variance of given traits is attributed to genetic sources while 60% is accounted for by the environment. Emotions and actions shift in response to the environment. (c) the five factor model (Goldberg. (b) the trilogy of mind (Hilgard. genes do not influence behavior directly but instead influence physiological structures (Brody. individuals are significantly consistent across time and place. 1997). behavior and thought that are relatively consistent to form the basis of the conception of personality (Allport. The more developed approaches use traits in the personality structure. 2003. Pervin. 2001).1. However. 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. (2002) posited that the transition during adulthood is often marked by substantial affective and personality changes caused by environmental changes. and (d) the systems set (Mayer. 2001. that appear to contradict each other (Cervone. These 19 . Costa and McCrae.2. They display unique patterns of emotions. Yet. (1998) revealed that some 20%-50% of variation in the dimensions is attributable to genetic sources. change and consistency. ego and superego. Vaidya et al. How Stable are Personality Traits? Psychological experience is made up of two features. 2. Costa and McCrae (1995) posited that personality is heritable and highly stable over time while Jang et al.
Human behavior is difficult to describe with such precision since it has a large number of causes. 1999). There is a growing realisation that traditional models of personality do not explain the diversity of behavior found in organisational settings. could account for much of the psychological change that occurs during early adulthood. Nevertheless. Cropanzano and Meyer.3. 2. Beauvais and Scholl. should have at least two features. that is. most organisational and personality researchers agree that individual behavior involves both variable and stable aspects but there still remains disagreement regarding this quantum (Wright. 1996).environmental changes. which conform to statistical theories to explain these complexities rather than on behavioral realities (Wolfe. independence from protective shelter and parental control. stimulation for the intellect as well as new outlets for emotions.. however. 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. Human behavior is 20 . as human behavior cannot be explained by any one factor (Leonard. 1994). 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.1. 2004). Many theories of personality rely excessively on behavioral models. 1998). A good personality measure. such as a strong peer culture. the measurements are temporally stable and credible evidence linking the measure to meaningful non-test behavior (Hogan et al.
What people do—their behavior—is a function of their personalities. 1998. Hunton and Bryant. changing from context to context and from moment to moment but personality is consistent and stable over time. 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. 1992). 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. In the mid 1950s.2. it changes gradually. the humanistic approaches of the 1950s and almost at the same time. Sackett. If personality does change. humanistic. Wheeler. Behavior is used to interpret and evaluate people’s personalities. et al. THEORIES ON PERSONALITY The history of personality psychology has been dominated by several theoretical paradigms (Cervone. 2003). which could affect their work performance and careers (Hogan. 2004a). Gruys and Ellingson. Behavior is like the weather. 1996. the stable components affect our lives. and behavioral doctrines were particularly influential in the past but social-cognitive and trait theories predominate today. 2000). 2003. These personality theories 21 .clearly a multivariate phenomenon and a theory trying to explain normal human behavior must reflect this multidimensionality. Tett and Burnett. the typological and trait-factor theories. Psychoanalytical. the cognitive and the social cognitive approaches were developed (Gelso and Fassinger.. Hence. 2. Psychoanalytical approaches were the first theories followed in the early part of last century by behavioral approaches.
differ from each other in fundamental ways as they have different categories of personality variables. 1997). Levin. for example. Other researchers cast wider nets. attitudes and intelligence. In essence. Cattell. and Murray all emphasised the coherence and consistency of normal personality and perceived the individual organism as a complex but organised structure. 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. Eysenck emphasised biologically-based disposition variables but excluded abilities. Murphy. behavioral. jealous and anxious as dispositions (Saucier. the various “grand theories” of Allport.. 1939). they adopt different units of analysis for conceptualising and explaining intraindividual coherence and individual differences in personality functioning (Allport. humanistic and trait approaches (Marsella et al. The various historical. 2000). This emphasis on the individual is dominant in the psychodynamic. Personality psychologists have to address a wide range of phenomena and it could be impossible to identify an overarching mission in this field. some German personality descriptors contained abilities and temperament terms while others such as Goldberg uses attitude and mood terms like conservative. Nevertheless. Allport differentiated descriptors of social evaluation and temporary states from those traits descriptors which were considered to be more personality relevant. 22 .
1987). The superego is the overseer of the ego which ensures it is morality and strives for ideals (Mayer.2. One takes in the stimuli using our five senses. 2001). These stimuli are subsequently stored as information in the pre-conscious level and they become our experiences. The ego does the systematic trial and error thinking and seeks to ensure the survival of the individual. Another takes in the stimuli. This set represents the struggles among bodily desires. were more concerned with the interplay of conscious awareness and unconsciousness to explain personality (Coan. processes them and sees many different ways of responding to them. rational understanding or expectations. Ego is the conscious part and is responsible for the individual’s behavior and understanding of the outside world. pre-conscious and unconscious. described as a boiling and bubbling cauldron of aggressive and animal-like urges. Jung. The pre-conscious level is where information of our past is stored which could be called “available memory”.2. Psychodynamic Theories Psychodynamic psychologists (e. we have three levels of consciousness: conscious. When we 23 . 2000). The conscious level deals with that part of our awareness which is in touch with the reality of our life.g. According to Freud (1960). Freud’s structural set is the id. Freud. It explains our mental activity in which all thought processes occur. Adler). When we select the stimuli.. They explained personality in terms of mental mechanisms and drives that seek satisfaction within the boundaries of reality (Cervone. 2003). Id. We select and respond to the stimuli that we perceive can satisfy our personal goals. two mental processes take place. and social ideals (Mayer. the animalistic part of personality. the ego and the superego.1.
2002). Alternatively. One is to act on the stimuli using our feelings by retrieving the information from our past experiences at the preconscious level. They explain personality in terms of the mental drive mechanisms that try to satisfy the drives within the boundaries of reality (Cervone. they have many choices of responding to it. Generally. the distress and miseries in modern life (e. child abuse. The unconscious is believed to be the source of our motivations such as desires for sex or food and neurotic compulsions or ambitions.respond and act on the stimuli two mental activities take place. Freud posits that all human behavior is motivated by instincts or drives. when people act on a particular situation using their feelings. mental illness. It is this dynamic and active 24 . 2000). 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.. which are neurologically represented by the physical needs in the life and death instincts. 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. and crimes) are due to the repression of pain or instinct by the superego contents. The psychodynamic psychologists believe that behavior is a function of psychological processes operating within these three levels of consciousness.g. when they use their thinking (mental faculty). The other is to use our thinking (intellect) at the conscious level to process the stimuli and see alternative responses to them. they do not have a choice. Apparently. Freud discovered the unconscious level as a source of motivation and a way of hiding thoughts and desires from awareness (Gabriel and Carr. Hence.
Mayo showed that an employee’s psychological and social desires play an important role in production efficiency based on social aspects of human behavior. 80). They believe that people are responsible for their life. p. Although Mayo may be considered the pioneer of the “humanistic” approach. Abraham Maslow. 2003. Mayo’s work paved the path for more humanistic theories. to its fullest extent (Mele. David McClelland) view existence as a process of learning. growing. 2002). 25 . becoming and being a perfect person (Franken. self-actualisation is achieving “what a man can be. 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. apparently unchanging and instinctual or genetic in origin (Kaufman. Given reasonable and conducive life conditions. For Maslow.2.g. Humanistic psychologists emphasise learning from one’s subjective past experiences to develop and actualise one’s potentials. Self-actualisation can be defined as the process of learning.2. Humanistic Theories Humanistic psychologists (e. becoming and being a better person or developing the human virtue. in all forms. they assume that people will be positively motivated to actualise their potential. 1998). growing. The joy of living is to prepare oneself for experiencing and progressing towards higher levels of functioning. 2003). he must be” (Mele. The Mayo-Hawthorne studies demonstrated that the hourly paid employee was motivated by other needs besides economic rewards (Gallagher and Einhorn.. 1976). 2.view of the unconscious which is the heart of the field of psychology known as psychoanalysis (Gabriel and Carr. Carl Rogers. 1976).
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. 2002). 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. They use classical and operant conditioning to understand animal and human behavior. often not exceeding 0. strength of excitation.4. Using traits to predict behavior in the past has yielded mixed results partly because of methodological problems. correlations between laboratory behavior and personality traits tend to be modest. 2. mobility of nervous processes. 2003). This finding has been used to support critics who claim that personality traits are unimportant (Buss. 29 . Generally.4. 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. 1989). and balance.2. 2003). Behaviorist/Cognitive and Social Cognitive Theories Stimulus-Response or Behavioral Theorists posit that behavior is a function of our past experiences. 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. 2000). 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.the inter-relationships of the traits and that the “whole personality” is different from the sum of these individual traits (Lombardo and Foschi.
1977a). Integrating the behavioral and cognitive perspectives with respect to motivation produces the social cognitive theory (Bandura. which does not overly emphasise either environmental or internal forces when explaining behavior. The old axiom of StimulusResponse Theory that pleasure begets pleasure and pain begets pain becomes unresolved and mooted. We learn that both pleasurable and painful experiences can lead to positive and negative outcomes. 2002. conscious deliberation and perception) which mediate between stimuli and responses. We begin to use our intellect to process the stimuli and anticipate the outcomes of our behavior before we respond to pains and pleasures. individual functioning is considered as a continuous interaction among behavioral. Radical behaviorists such as Skinner and Watson ruled out emotional. 2000.This typology has a strong influence on personality psychology (Lombardo and Foschi. cognitive and 30 . the intraindividual. We learn from our experiences. expectations and goals to guide and direct their behavior. Cognitive psychologists view behavior as a function of cognition. Bargh and Ferguson. 2002). psychological explanatory mechanisms such as memory. Behaviorists denied the existence of the complex higher-order factors (e. Moreover.g. 2000). This set of personal standards is unique in each person and grows out of one’s life experiences (Andersen and Chen. learning and experiences. They assert that people organise their values. Bauer and McAdams.. 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. 2004).
social cognitive theorists postulate that the intuitive and perceived sense of coherence and consistency in personality/self/character can arise from three sources: a. 2004). (i) personality is a complex system. b. Furthermore. how people organise disparate and multiple experiences and life events within a larger cognitive framework of goals. 2000). 31 . They posit that each of the mechanisms (e.. and (iii) personality variables (Cervone. (ii) reciprocal interactionism. self-reflective capabilities. how people establish causal linkage over their lives through self-reflective and selfknowledge processes. and c. which cause some inputs to become particularly salient to an individual or are grouped with other inputs into an equivalent class and are domain-specific (Cervone. expectation and aspirations (Marsella et al. and cognitive constructs used to give meaning to events) possesses a spectrum of possible inputs. The three overarching principles of the social cognitive approach are. how people assign meanings to social information.g. These mechanisms are contextualised by these social-learning processes. selfregulatory and goals mechanisms. 2000).environmental factors (Fedor and Ferris. Over the past few decades.. 1981). 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.
Hogan and Holland (2003) found that the measures of Emotional Stability. WHY DOES PERSONALITY MATTER TO ORGANISATIONS? For several decades prior to the 1990s. Meta-analyses have consistently and repeatedly shown that under specific conditions. opportunities and health are also important determinants. “Getting Along” and “Getting Ahead”. In a Thinking and Judging consulting world. 2003). 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.2. 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.3. personality measures can predict work performance quite accurately and a given trait value is situational specific (Tett and Burnett. the selection/recruitment systems would be more beneficial and can provide practitioners greater advantage in utilising trait information in work settings. As these traits are considerably stable and probably genetic in origin. 2000). Nevertheless. are more potent predictors of occupational performance although other factors such as values. Another study by Judge. a more beneficial strategy for an organisation is to select relatively more conscientious and less extroverted employees to reduce absenteeism and improve productivity. mental ability. By paying attention to the psychological processes where traits can be expressed in work performance. knowledge of the 32 . interest. Martocchio and Thoresen (1997) revealed that conscientious and introverted employees are less likely to play truant or to be absent.
a group of Introverts may benefit from the presence of an Extrovert for better communication. the presence of some Thinking types may provide some structure to decision-making in a group of all Feeling types. Hunton and Bryant (2004a) found homogeneity of personality types that are attracted and retained in accounting firms. jobs and technologies. certain traits correlate with higher performance for certain tasks. 1988). 2000). He found that extrinsic rewards such as money are only one form or method of “keeping score” for high achievers. 2. Wheeler. 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. Personality theorists began to focus more on the differences within persons. TYPES OF PERSONALITY MEASURES Historians recognise the year 1937 to be the birth of personality psychology by its founder. 1998) with individuality as its object of study (Pelham. Allport (Nicholson.4. Groups comprising members with Sensing and Intuition preferences outperformed groups with only Sensing-preference members. McClelland conducted a study of the phenomenon of constructive activity beyond the physiological or survival requirements and classified the traits as “need for achievement”. 1993). Gordon W. The satisfaction derived from achievement is what stimulates their performance (Arnold. termed 33 . Similarly. which in turn saves money via the reduction of errors/mistakes and improved morale. Also.personality types of the clients could be used to enhance communication.
4. posits that there are five personality dimensions (i. The Five Factor Model The Five Factor Model (FFM).as idiographic. 2004). also known as the Big Five. These psychometric instruments have been selected as they are the most popular instruments used by commercial organisations for personal development. Allport’s idea of personality is a psychology of the mature and normal personality (Lombardo and Foschi. occupational selection. 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). Kwiatkowski. 2. 2001. Extraversion. 2004. which is essentially a smaller set of trait variables derived from the 16-Factor Model of Cattell (1943) (Rossier et al. Furthermore. career development. 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). Openness to Experience.. Nomothetic is the other term that refers to the classical. No discussion or critique is carried out on the other instruments as there is very little publicly available research on them. 2003). between subject analyses of personality. The anagram of the FFM is 34 . Agreeableness and Neuroticism) which represent the highest levels of a personality hierarchy (Paunonen and Ashton. Conscientiousness. and for developing more effective teams (Dent and Curd. Toomela. 2003). and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) which is based on Jungian theory.1.e.. 2003).
where people exhibiting a high. trusting. Conscientiousness. represents the tendency to be outgoing. Extraversion. Openness to Experience (sometimes labelled as Intellectance). c. Openness to Experience is the only trait to display appreciable correlations with intelligence. e. Emotional Adjustment. Individuals scoring high on Extraversion are strongly predisposed to the experience of positive emotions. 1998). types of assessment and cultures (Hogan and Holland.A. Agreeableness. assertive. trustworthy and warm. consists of tendencies to be kind. Factor 4. d. Factor 5. depressed and moody. As defined by Judge and Bono (2000). which is the tendency to be anxious. gentle.O. represents the tendency to be creative. imaginative. Factor 1.N. fearful. Factor 3. b. moderate or low degree of each quality. These factors represent a continuum. Paunonen (2003) revealed that the construct validity of these 35 .E. 2003). active and excitement seeking. a. Factor 2. often labelled by its opposite. 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.C. Neuroticism. is indicated by two facets: achievement and dependability. Emotional Adjustment is the principal trait that leads to life satisfaction and freedom from depression and other mental ailments. Consciousness is the trait that best correlates with work performance. perceptive and thoughtful. (De Raad. languages.
2003). 1993.. Although studies by Jang et al.. Toomela. Saucier and Goldberg. Hurtz and Donovan. Allik and McCrae. 2000). 1996. McCrae. Ashton et al.. 1997).. Judge and Bono. 2003. Hogan and Holland. other researchers are of the opinion that virtually all traits of personality are reasonably contained in the factor space of the FFM (e. Although there is no universal agreement among theorists and researchers on the comprehensiveness of the five dimensions (Tett and Burnett. 2004.inventories is supported by the consistency and strong convergence in their predictions and measurements. 1998.e.. 2002. 2001. The identification of these factors is based on principal components analyses (Burke and Witt. It has reached somewhat of a consensus that the FFM is an appropriate taxonomy of personality (Burke and Witt. 2000. 1998. 2003. (1988) showed that about 20% to 55% of the trait variation in personality dimensions is linked to genetic sources. the FFM seems to dominate not only the theory but also the evaluation of personality (Goldberg. California Personality Inventory) may be assumed to be part of the FFM (Salgado. Martocchio and Thoresen. Judge. After five decades of research on personality psychology (i. Judge et al. 36 . Hogan and Holland. et al. 1999). 1997. Gallucci and Livi. 2003. 2003) and are endogenous and biologically determined (McCrae and Costa. these studies also revealed substantial variation due to non-genetic factors (Toomela. 2004). 2004. the way one describes oneself and others in everyday life transactions). Several studies have shown that the well-known instruments for personality assessment (Eysenck Personality Inventory. Tsaousis. Paunonen and Aston. MBTI.g. (1998) and Pedersen et al. 1997). 2004). These dimensions are cross-culturally generalisabled (Perugini. 2004).
ethnicity. Nevertheless. socio-economic background and country of origin. race. the 37 . Shelton and Darling (2002) posited the FFM model is applicable to all people regardless of the gender. 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. information processing and the role of the unconscious) (Wheeler... 2. the traits are rooted in biology and transcultural universals.2.g. explanatory and molecular contextual accounts of personality are still subjects of debate. Sensing/Intuition and Thinking/Feeling). 1971) posits that variation in human behavior is due to basic and observable differences when people use their minds to gather and process information. and their preferences for four mental functions (i. There is still a lack of evidence to support the notion that culture shapes personality. McKenna.Allick and McCrae (2004) posited that the FFM personality structure is biologically determined and universal. Jung’s typology assumes that people differ in their choice of two attitudes. 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. Saucier and Goldberg (1996) and Digman (1997) postulated the FFM model to be descriptive summaries while Marsella et al. (2000) claimed that the FFM can only satisfy the nomothetic. That is. 2004a).4. descriptive and molar goals of Allport. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Jungian theory (Jung.e. It postulates three bipolar dimensions and the fourth bipolar. The idiographic. age. Extroversion and Introversion. Hunton and Bryant. Personality is the mediating and integrating factor in numerous psychological processes (e. religion.
a later addition by Myers and Briggs. McCaulley. c.Judgement/Perception dimension. Feeling represents a preference to make decisions that are based on subjective processes that include emotional reactions to events. People with an intuitive preference rely more on their non-objective and unconscious perceptual processes. resulting in four dimensions with 16 distinct personality types as shown in Table 4 (Myers et al. however. 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. 1998. d. looks inward to their internal and subjective reactions to their environment. The judgmental person uses a combination of thinking and feelings when making decisions whereas the perception person uses the sensing and intuition processes. Extroverts are said to react to immediate and objective conditions in the environment. 38 . 1993) are: a. Introverts. 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. b. Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F): A preference for thinking indicates the use of logic and rational processes to make deductions and decide upon action. The 4 dimensions (Pittenger.. 2000). Extroversion (E) versus Introversion (I): This dimension reflects the perceptual orientation of the individual.
Shelton and Darling. its popularity has not diminished despite research which shows it has low validity (McKenna. 1995).. structured (like Conscientiousness) whereas Perceptive types are adaptable. The MBTI does not cater for the neuroticism dimension which is certainly an important variable (McC Dachowski. an introvert can become more extroverted when in groups). The Judging types are more committed and decisive while the Perceiving types are more questioning and open-minded.. 39 .e. Hunton and Byrant. Sensing-Intuition is comparable to the Openness factor.e. self disciplined. Similarly. (i.. the primary preference always dominates the person’s personality. 1993).Since MBTI is a theory of types. ThinkingFeeling may not be directly comparable to Agreeableness but it does clearly measure a similar dimension. Although there is insufficient evidence that the MBTI is a valid instrument. 2002).e. spontaneous and flexible. more factual and observant). 2004a. 1987). Lindon. more idealistic and compassionate) (Wheeler... Intuition types “see the forest” (i.g. Extroverted types are more outgoing while introverted types are deemed to be more detached and contemplative. more insightful and creative) while Sensing types “see the trees” (i.e. The scores from the MBTI test are used to determine the person’s type and labels are attached based on one’s primary preferences for the four dimensions (Pittenger. one can have only one preference. logical and rational natures) while Feeling types incorporate personal and group values in the decision-making process (i. Metaphorically. Similarly. Thinking types connect ideas and experiences by logic. The Judging types are described as organised. Extroversion-Introversion of the MBTI is comparable with McCrae and Costa’s Extraversion. Although people can develop a complimentary style (e.
Table 3: The 16 Personality Types with Cognitive Characteristics and Occupational Tendencies 40 .
(1990). Landry et al.2. 1994. Shackleton (1980). Jocoby (1981). 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. Kovar et al. Both of these dimensions are dominant in predicting work performance across a variety of work (Kichuk and Wiesner. Moreover. 2003). 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. 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.. 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. Otter (1984). 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. 1996. 1993). 2004). Kreiser et al. 1998). Satava (1996) and Schloemer and Schloemer (1997) found that accountants.. 2004). 1990).. 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. Neuroticism primarily influences performance through motivation while conscientiousness influences performance by being decisive and orderly. Sensing type students outperformed the Intuition students in certain subjects and in an overall accounting grade (Nourayi and Cherry.
1991). 1989) and hence other good dimensions of 42 . 1996. Its disadvantages are that numerous traits are motivational in nature (Buss. personality can provide an incremental validity over ability in picking the optimal candidate (Day and Silverman. Hogan et al. Furthermore. Five Factor Model The FFM. This structure is essentially derived from an atheoretical trait factor approach (Gelso and Fassiinger. 1998). If personality requirements are derived for an individual job. SHORTCOMINGS OF FFM AND MBTI MEASURES 2. Rossier. 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. 1998). a widely used trait group. 1989. need for achievement was negatively related to security and personal fulfilment.1..6. contribution to society and status-wealth. De Raad. 1992). de Stadelhofen. Hence.6. which has the advantage of getting around the problem of breaking personality into areas.. 2001). 1996). 2.success strivings for professional fulfilment. 2004. 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. The need for power was highly correlated with professional fulfilment and status-wealth but was negatively related with family relationships (Parker and Chusmir. and Berhoud. is unusual as its contents are defined by the lexical hypothesis instead of primary parts (Mayer.
2003). the debate on cultural specificity and the universality of personality structure continues.. That is. 2003). Moreover. Toomela. Digman. 1996). 2004. Hunton and Byrant. Furthermore. 2003) as well as its focus on narrow aspects of personality (Paunonen and Aston... 2004. 1997. Toomela (2003) finds that due to the scientific word meaning structure used. Hence. Tett and Burnett. it has nothing to say about personality development. 2001. Mayer.. over-reliance on the adjectival approach may limit the cross-cultural generalisability of the FFM. It may 43 . The FFM is not universally accepted as the integrative model of personality (Cellar et al. 2004. Cervone. 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. 1996) and is criticised for its questionable conceptual and methodological assumptions of the lexical hypothesis (Wheeler. 2004b. Aston et al. 2001. Cellar et al. 2003.personality may have been omitted (Paunonen and Aston. the FFM may only be “universal” for that specific stratum of society. Moreover. Digman. Aston et al. Paunonen. the exceptions which depart from the usual due to situational effects. and (ii) it cannot account for exceptions to the typical behaviors on which it is based. 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. Mayer. 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. 2001. 1997. 2003.
the conceptual equivalence (i.. (iv) the meanings they are assigned.. 44 . the similarity in the meaning and nature of a concept) may differ.e. Some cultural groups have problems with Likert scales and they tend to take the middle position. 2000). for example. The adoption of self-report questions is already a complex task. and (v) the value or utility of behavioral descriptions (Marsella et al. (vi) variation in the construction of personality and personhood. In addition.. (v) desire to please authorities. Chinese respondents. Finally. 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. These motivational and perceptual differences are: (i) fear of possible persecution. (ii) the interpersonal responses to them. (iii) the situations where they are elicited. For example.g. immaturity and many other derogatory terms but can be viewed positively in the Japanese culture.. (iii) concern only in giving the right instead of the accurate answer. introversion-extroversion) but cultural variations may shape: (i) their display patterns. Furthermore. 2000). (ii) desire to conform socially. and (vii) confusion with the implication of words and terms used in the question as well their perceived meaning (Marsella et al. the norms of a particular instrument that are based on Western culture may give rise to questionable conclusions if applied to. helplessness. dependency in Western culture implies childishness. in terms of normative equivalence. 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.be accepted that there are a relative small number of socially or biological determined behavioral dimensions (e. (iv) limited insight and self-awareness.
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. 2001). and (iii) it can advance our understanding of work-related variables (e. 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. that is.. the FFM has the following advantages: (i) it has a parsimonious taxonomy. 2003). 45 . characteristic adaptations like developmental tasks and motives fill in the details. while life stories provide the meaning and integration (McAdams. Furthermore. 2003). In the final analysis. Idson and Mischel (2001) postulated that traits cannot provide the psychologist with more than a psychology of a stranger. the FFM does provide an initial structure of human individuality. performance) by linking them to personality dimensions (Salgado. (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. Nevertheless.The development of a descriptive typology such as the FFM can be done without a clear knowledge of the causal relationships of things but the proof or validation of the structure falls on that theoretical construct (Stelmack. 1997). Unfortunately. Several studies have found the FFM to be unrelated to cognitive ability (Sanders. trait ratings provide only a “first read” on an individual as people seek information which is contextualised as they get to know each other better. 1997).g.
wrong or right (i. Hence. 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. Data are described as ipsative when a given group of responses always add to the same total.e. it is not suitable for analysis looking for before and after treatment effects (Wheeler. Each dichotomy is a selection between qualities of equal value. the correlations between these orthogonal factors will tend towards zero even though they are highly correlated in the population. The most common one is the forced-choice ipsative data (FCID) as employed in MBTI. 2004a). If the number of traits is large. The correlations between ipsative factors are negative. Hunton and Bryant. The type preferences are dichotomous (i. it does not capture the strength of a preference but its direction which is only appropriate for sorting (Wheeler. 2004. 1998). The formulae for these reliability estimates based on the 46 .2.. 2001). 2004b).e. Factor analysis will not be appropriate. Although this hypothesis has received empirical support with temporal stability studies. 2004). Hunton and Bryant.. that is. with no intrinsic bad or good. Cavana et al. Reliability is defined as the consistency in measurement of a test while validity tests are for goodness of the measure. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Jung’s (1971) hypothesis states that types and preferences are invariant and innate in individuals.6. Furthermore.2. measuring the concepts the measurement instrument is designed to measure (Dent and Curd.. 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. a forced-choice format) (Rings. no value judgment attached).
Similarly. Hence.1. 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. In addition. Furthermore. 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.. 2. there is no evidence to indicate a positive relation between specific MBTI types with career success.classical test theory are simply not applicable or tenable with ipsative data. Definition of Behavior Behavior is the way organisms like human beings act. 1996). there is no data that show certain types are more contented in specific occupations than others or stay longer in one occupation.7. In general. Any single behavior is a narrow bandwidth. behavior is interpreted as conduct by most people but in the fields of psychology and behavioral science. high fidelity expression of a personality disposition. 1989). What 47 . ESFPs are neither better nor worse salespeople than INTJs.7. THE THEORIES AND CONSTRUCTS OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE 2. Behavior is used to evaluate and interpret one’s personality (Hogan et al.
Pincus (2004) defined motivation as a desire or an emotion operates willingly and causing it to act.an individual does is a function of the kind of person he or she is – that is. his or her personality. intrinsic motivation and amotivation are three distinct motivational forces that can influence behavior (Vlachopoulos. In most cases. motivation is a process that moves a person towards some action (Arnold. 48 . Cesare and Sadri.7. 2003). Motivation is not behavior itself and is not performance. 1982). 1982. that is. Factors Influencing Behavior Motivation is fundamental to behavior as most behavior is influenced by it (Mitchell. The objective of motivation theories is often to predict behavior. An example of an intrinsic motivation is the participation in some activities for the satisfaction and pleasure derived from it. 1988).2. Karageorghis and Terry. The word “motivation” suggests energised behavior directed towards some goals that is. 2000). 2. the chosen actions are good reflections of performance (Mitchell. 2004). Behavior is the criterion which is chosen. which represents a lack of motivation. Amotivation is the lack of intent to engage in a specific behavior. 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. On the other hand. Extrinsic motivation. it would be extrinsic motivation when the person participates in the activity to avoid negative consequences or gain external rewards.
these needs can be weak or strong.e. In this respect. 1991). attitudes. motivation is the degree to which an individual wants and chooses to engage in certain specific behaviors (Mitchell. and goals. need theories identify the internal factors which energise behavior. not the amount. 1982): (i) an individual-level phenomenon. It is generally accepted that motivation is (Mitchell. That is. reinforcement histories. 2004). which arouse behavior. personality traits accounted for little variance in 49 . 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.. Contrary to the dispositional view. 1982). Different people have different needs. Hence. and can vary over place and time due to environmental influences (Ramlall. expectations. (i. (ii) intentional. 2004). 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. Nevertheless. values. “motivations provide the motor for behavior” (Pincus. As human needs are psychological or physiological deficiencies. Motivation is to do with the quality and direction of the effort. persistence of voluntary actions and directions that are goal directed.Mitchell (1982) postulated motivation as those psychological processes that cause the arousal. and (iii) multifaceted. 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. under the individual’s control) (Tubbs and Ekeberg.
are able to exhibit different patterns of behavior yet are able to retain a recognisable personality structure (Pervin. The other source of 50 . and extrinsic or instrumental motivation. 2000). models are developed which can explain why people. intrinsic process motivation. 970). The theories proposed by deCharmes. 1994. Current Theories of Work Motivation Work motivation is defined as “the process by which behavior is energised. Hence. Furthermore.. 1999)... Deci. and Etzioni point to three sources of motivation: motivation based on goal internalisation. directed and sustained in organisational settings” (Leonard et al. Nevertheless. Rothbart and Ahadi. According to this view. Leonard et al. 1989. 1975). not personality or dispositions (Marsella et al. there are no external forces regulating the behavior. The trait-situation debate peaked with the works of Mischel (1968) and Mischel and Shoda (1995) which posited that situational factors determine behavior. 1999. 1999).. when shifting from one situation to another. most researchers have adopted an interactionist view. 2. p. which assumes behavior is a function of both personality and the environment (Pervin. there are some studies that are able to support the predictive validity of the personality/dispositional view (Leonard et al. the individual enjoys the work and feels rewarded by just performing the task.3.7. In recent years. the person has a dynamic reciprocal interaction with the situation/environment. That is. Individuals who perform a behavior because it is “fun” are said to be motivated intrinsically. Katz and Khan.behavior across situations.
2004). motivation is complex in that: (i) (ii) the needs of individuals differ. The more psychologically immature a person is. 1958).. (i) (ii) the need for achievement (McClelland. 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. the 51 . there is considerable variability in the conversion of needs into action.. and (iv) the difference in reactions by individuals for the fulfilment of needs. 1998). There exist several “mini” theories of individual difference in motivation which suggest the existence of motivational traits (Pincus. 1998). 1958). and (iv) the need for power (Atkinson. the need for cognition (Cohen et al. (iii) the need for affiliation (Atkinson. 1995). Needs can be requested or expressed in immature or mature ways. Such motivation is referred to as legal compliance and external rewards by Katz and Khan (1978) or alienative or calculative involvement by Etzioni (1975). (iii) there is inconsistency in the final action taken. Nevertheless. 1961). Murray’s “variables of personality” theory adopts motives as the fundamental element of personality (Winter et al.motivation stems from external forces.
which is in the functionalist tradition of James and Dewey. 1999. Behavior is motivated by goal internalisation when an individual adopts behaviors and attitudes because they are congruent with one’s value system. such as changes in behavior across situations when valences and expectancies remain constant. 1999). 972). These needs are instinctually weak and their effect on behavior can be 52 . 1969) and has the dynamism of Adler and Freud. Needs can also be sublimated and gratification can be delayed. Maslow claimed that the five needs are universal and innate. Leonard et al. Hence.. The Theory of Human Motivation postulated by Maslow (1943). is fused with the holism of Goldstein. (1999) posited that individual disposition or personality is a significant determinant of behavior. Wertheimer and Gestalt Psychology (Chung. Frank (2003) maintained that the characteristics of triebe characterise the vicissitudes of needs. The expectancy and equity theories focus on extrinsic motivational factors and assume that individuals are “rational maximiser(s) of personal utility” (Leonard et al. As values determine our needs. 1997). needs can be unconscious and repressed or disavowed and conscious. p. or compromised.more literal is the gratification of the needs. most needs can be satisfied or expressed symbolically (Frank. our needs determine our behavior or acts (Osteraker. For the more psychologically mature person. denied or turned into the opposite. and are termed instinctoid. Values are motivations and the gratification of a need is a value (Jolibert and Baumgartner. however. 2003). These theories are. unable to account for the complete range of motivated behavior.
53 . Maslow postulated that an individual’s needs act as motivators and are the centre of motivation (Arnold. safe and out of danger.to affiliate with others. 1969). Maslow proposed a hierarchy of needs. 1988).accelerated. 1997. According to Maslow: (i) human beings are demanding beings. only those behaviors that satisfy the physiological needs are unlearned that is. Hence. (c) belongingness and love needs . all other behaviors are learned (Buttle.to feel secure. (ii) the five needs exist in a hierarchy of significance or importance. their behavior is determined by unsatisfied needs and satisfied needs do not motivate behavior. (b) safety needs . and (iii) higher needs are different from lower needs as they can never be completely satisfied. This may be true for lower-order needs and less so of higher-order needs. (d) esteem needs . desirability or importance. be competent and gain approval and recognition.to achieve.for hunger. be acceptable and belong. thirst and so forth. 1989). the higher its strength. Based on the premise that motivation comes from within an individual and cannot be imposed. The upper levels of the Needs Hierarchy attempt to explain why an individual continue to strive for excellence when the lower needs are met. Even though the needs are innate.to find self-fulfilment and realise one’s potential. It is shown that the greater a need’s deprivation. it is a dynamic model that posits multiple needs operating simultaneously (Herbig and Genestre. consisting of: (a) physiological needs . and (e) self-actualisation needs . Chung. inhibited or modified by the environment.
existence. an individual may concentrate mostly at one level but at the same time may. Unlike most of the above traditional need theories that can be classified as homeostatic or deficit theories of motivation. 2003). The major difference lies in the definition of need satisfaction. More like piano keys than stairways. Alderfer argued that people can move up and down the hierarchy and can be motivated at any time by multiple needs.e. Tests have shown that people across the world are essentially motivated by the same fundamental needs. 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). it must be repeated that an individual does not concentrate all energies on one need and then when that need is fulfilled. self-actualisation may mean different things to individuals from collectivistic cultures than it does to individuals from individualistic cultures (Cesare and Sadri. related and growth). At any instant. move on to the next need. 54 . Needs are constantly changing within the individual (Osteraker. For example. Maslow’s need hierarchy is generally applicable to all with regards to cultural differences..Alderfer (1969) modified Maslow’s Theory by suggesting there are only three needs (i. to a lesser degree. 1999). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory advocates the dynamic processes of need satisfaction which leads towards the ultimate goal of self-actualisation. 2003). 1993). 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. be concerned with needs on other levels of the primary need (Townsend and Gebhardt.
The adoption of Maslow’s needs is appropriate for the CASES personality measure as it has face validity with plausible explanatory power. 1997). 1976). The Needs Hierarchy is also elegant and parsimonious. biologically and situationally determined. Workplace behavior is posited to be influenced by a person’s existing state of needs in a certain universal needs taxonomy. Furthermore. Its structure is appealing in terms of its simplicity and apparent completeness (Gallagher and Einhorn. they do provide an understanding of what motivates or energises the individual. In additional. Motivations are only one group of determinants of behavior. For example. Conversely. The power of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory is the identification of the needs of each individual that motivate behavior (Wiley. Behavior is almost always motivated by other factors that are culturally. the scope of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is broad and is able to explain a wide range of behaviors.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. a particular behavior may be caused by many needs. 55 . Mustafa (1992) postulated that the significance of the needs hierarchy lies in understanding the motivational factors for the individuals. Although personality-based theories may not necessarily predict behavior or motivation. Maslow (1943) postulated that the theories of motivation are not synonymous with theories of behavior. 1969). a specific behavior can meet more than one need.
Any adequate model must therefore address motivation.7. may desire the money to purchase health insurance (instrumental motive) and hopes that the health insurance will benefit the person and family (end goal).4.4. The proposed personality model of CASES attempts to explain personality with dimensions from the Hierarchy of Needs theory.2. The psychological needs are based on the motivational underpinnings of the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory and the environment/situation interactions are explained by the social cognitive theory. existing psychometric instruments have personality dimensions which are temporally stable over various situations. The variability of these dimensions from the Needs theory is explained by the complexity dimension based on the social cognitive theory of “If-Then”. Most.7. which complete the “behavior chain”.1. 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. The end goals are classified as drives and intrinsic motives by social 56 . The Constructs of this Proposed Model Most broad-based personality theories have assumed that specific motivations determine how personality and self develop function. 2. This model of personality (CASES) postulates that personality is a function of psychological needs and their interactions with the environment/situation. if not all. A person taking up a second job for the extra money (instrumental motive).
and (iv) the need for a resilient responsiveness by one's love objects. 1998). Motives refer to people’s desire. A person with a motive to gain social status may behave in ways linked with upper class status. recognition and affirmation. 694). 1981). Freud wrote. Although Freud did not elaborate further on the idea of needs. wishes and goals. (iii) the need for interpersonal boundaries. (v) the need for optimal emotional availability of a love object. 2003. triebe) is need” (Frank. Motives are the “why” of behaviors (Winter et al. the need for identity. Furthermore.e. may enjoy the feeling of self-importance and may think of issues pertaining to wealth (Reiss. 2004). 2004). needs have been equated with “drive” in experimental psychology (Fedor and Ferris. Motives can be ends-based or means-based 57 . incentives. (iv) the need for understanding the causes of events. However. skills and other motives.psychologists (Reiss.. the need definition should be given more consideration as postulated: (i) (ii) the need for one's physical needs to be deemed legitimate. expectancies. p. 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.. “A better term for an instinctual impulse (i. They provide the meaning of human behavior. Motives are reasons a person holds for initiating and performing voluntary behavior.
Similarly. 1989).depending on the individual’s objective for performing the behavior. Our values determine our needs and our needs influence 58 .g. Wants and needs are based on both inherited characteristics and environmental conditions and behavior is motivated to satisfy needs and wants (Koltko-Rivera. motives involve wishes. 2004). 2004). While people’s wants are many. For example. 1998). a student reading a textbook out of curiosity or a child kicking a ball just for the fun of it. On the other hand. Human wants can be regarded as specific desires for these deeper needs. desires or goals (Winter et al. Hence. 2003).. Ends-based motives are indicated when one engages in a behavior because one desires to do so with no other apparent reason. These wants are shaped and reshaped continuously by the institutional and social forces. a professional footballer playing the game for a salary or a student studying diligently to obtain a degree. their needs are fewer. the behavior is enacted as it is a means to obtain something else (e. In these examples. needs are socially constructed and historically situated (Buttle. interactional and societal needs. Values are cognitive representations of biological. salary or degree). 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. means-based motives are indicated when one performs an act for a specific instrumental value.. Maslow (1970) posited that the gratification of any need is a value while Murray (1951) claimed that needs operate in the service of values. For example. Drive theories define drives as psychological states that move the organism towards a goal whereas needs are physiological states of deprivation (Pincus.
self development. Physiological needs. are not considered as they are unlearned and assumed to be of relatively in low importance in current organisational settings. (iii) Egocentric self. 2004). drives and values.our acts (Osteraker. CASES’s first premise is that personality dimensions can be represented by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. which represents the needs for power. and (iv) Sociocentric self. 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.4. which represents the needs for security. and affiliation. Jolibert and Baumgartner. which represents the needs for growth. 1997). CASES posits that the needs subsume motives (implicit and explicit). order. desires. Social cognitive theorists postulate that human beings are neither mechanical 59 . system. 1999. the model uses the social cognitive theory to provide an explanation for complexity. progress. the four dimensions of self are proposed as follows: (i) Self-Actualising self. which represents the needs for love. and fulfilment. and protection. achievement. companionship.7. 2.2. (ii) Safety self. To explain why some individuals are highly predictable and some are unpredictable. and control. Hence. care. structure. however. image. Based on these factors.
. 2000). Not all threats require adjustments. 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. such as when the threat is insufficiently threatening or when the individual lacks the motivation or necessary cognitive resources to deal with the threat. 2002).conveyors of animating influences of the environment nor autonomous agents. The “If-Then” approach defines personality based on different responses (i. 1995: Anderson and Chen. 1977a). active construal of the environment. 60 . 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.e.e. Human behavior is purposive. motivation or thought processes is a unique human characteristic (Bandura. self-regulation is activated by a threat indicating that something is not “normal” and that adjustment may be needed. Even though the contents and processes by which self-regulation occur are multifaceted. The capacity to control one’s action.. 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. 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. “if”). Complex behavior is believed to be mediated by the individual’s current purposes and intents.
CASES’s second premise states that human beings can be placed on a complexity continuum thereby producing a fifth self-dimension known as the Complexity Dimension. The nature of low complexity behavior is conditioned while the nature of high complexity behavior is cognitive. at a particular situation and time. For example. change and be flexible to survive in a turbulent dynamic environment. Complex people have dynamic personalities.No two human beings are alike. Low complexity traits describe the characteristics of people who are predictable. but at another situation and time. representing the need to adapt.7. Apparently. Evidently. a low complexity person would normally manifest the traits of the other four dimensions consistently and persistently over time and across situations. if an individual with low complexity is gullible. CASES postulates that people with a low complexity have relatively static personalities. then he/she will tend to be gullible at all times and situations. being hard or soft is a person’s choice and is manifested with intent to achieve a purpose. Complex people are harder to predict. the person can be soft. 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 . a person can be hard. 2. For example. viz. The traits of the other four dimensions are dynamic and are manifested on the need to suit a purpose. (i) Complex self.5.
experience. The individual.appeal of the arguments. 62 . 2000). There are many other possible factors that influence work performance such as intelligence. That is. however. These tests. focused on personality traits at the molecular. or has to (Nikolaou. 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. variations in responses are not assumed to be an error. wants to. variability in an individual’s responses across situations will not be dismissed or averaged over. From this approach. motivation. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES Prior to the 1990s. “Does personality predict work performance?” is a question that many researchers have addressed over the past few decades. Furthermore. personnel selection specialists did not generally use personality testing in employee selection due to the perception it had low validity. 1995). 2003). however. has the ability either unconsciously or consciously to alter his/her behavior simply because he/she likes to.. CASES posits that an individual is not a “hostage” of his/her traits but rather is an active personality which has stable. dispositional personality characteristics. The CASES model of personality recognises the idiographic differences in how human beings make sense of varying situations and their responses to them. competence. 2. There has been a resurgence of interest in the role of personality in work performance (Robertson et al.8. “inventory” level instead of the construct level.
1998). interpersonal.e. personality provides very little insight on what and why the person will do in a given job. leadership. 2002. 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. 2004). Tett and Burnett (2003) used a work performance taxonomy that had eight categories (i. job-specific task proficiency. Sanders. 1997. Mellissa and Ellington. and motivation). motivation and satisfaction levels. 2004). 2003).satisfaction. oral and written communication task proficiency.. Recent studies using more fundamental dimensions of personality have shown the predictive power of personality for work performance (Kieffer et al.. and ability (Carmeli and Freund. self management and motivation. 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. Work performance is affected by role clarity.. work attitude. Hence. results from multiplicative combination of declarative knowledge. Several studies have shown that all personality dimensions or factors are valid predictor of work performance (Salgado. assessment centre ratings. peer or supervisor reports on the job or failure 63 . Performance is often measured as training academy performance. Barrick and Mount. 1993. Mellissa and Ellington. and interviews. more recent studies are focusing on demonstrating the incremental variance in work performance with the use of personality predictors (Sackett. and organisation (Barrick et al. 1998). work orientation. (2000) posited that the core work performance factors are thinking. administration. procedural knowledge. Schmit et al. Sackett.
measures such as being fired or quitting (Sanders. beside the worker’s productivity (Hunter and Schmidt... 1993). 1990). 2003). Schweiger and Sumners. 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. Mount and Strauss. cooperativeness. Global measures of work performance and personality measures often correlate poorly (Cook et al. work stress. 2000. 1994). a measure should include variables in citizenship behavior and productivity as well as steps to prevent the “halo” effect. and the work environment can significantly influence an individual’s behavior. Several researchers have stressed that other factors such as occupational socialisation. and helpfulness. Another contributing factor is when supervisors evaluate their subordinates. These two dimensions of performance show little correlation when measured objectively but exhibit high correlation when measured subjectively. A contributing factor for the poor correlation between personality and work performance is the “halo” effect. There exists some degree of difficulty in measuring work performance and linking specific work tasks to personality dimensions. 2000). they also rely on other factors such as pleasant disposition. Furthermore. 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. work performance comprises “will-do” and “can-do” components where the former are best predicted by personality measures (Barrick. 64 . To ensure a full representation of work performance.
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
which are facets of the complexity dimension based on Vancouver and Scherbaum (2000) and KoltkoRivera (2004). (2004) postulated that cognitive ability and volition. and the dimension of self-actualisation which has facets of self 68 .relationship in other countries but not done in Malaysia. 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.2. Since the CASES model measure contains the dimension of complexity which has facets of volition. Furthermore. are predictors of work performance. In Bandura’s view. 1988). have moderating effects on the relationship between personality and performance. Beadles II and Krilowicz (2004) revealed that the need for achievement and creativity.. 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. (2002) and Lowery. people’s high expectations guide their actions to produce high performance (Lau and Shaffer. Nikolaou (2003) and Lowery et al. Behavior is a function of expectancy of actions which will lead to certain reinforcement. which are facets of self-actualisation.8. 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. low impulsivity and self-regulation. 1999). Studies by Barrick et al.
creativity. passion. 1992) whilst Neuroticism comprises fearful. Similarly. the facets of need for achievement. Furthermore. 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. 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. depressed. dependable. passion. 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. reliable. need for achievement. achievement-striving. self-discipline. 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. responsible. and self esteem.fulfilment. As personality traits can be conceptually and empirically related without being redundant. persistent. and hard working (Costa and McCrae. low confidence/self esteem. impulsivity. and hostility (Judge et al. 1997).8. persistent.. determined. and planfulness of the Conscientiousness dimension in the FFM. order. dutiful. as shown in Table 4. deliberation. anxious. planful. realisation of one’s potential. determined. 2. Conscientiousness in the FFM comprises competence. not resilient.3. the research postulates that the CASES model will predict work performance. deliberation. there are good reasons to believe that the Complexity and Self-actualisation 69 . internalisation. positive mental health.
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.dimensions of the CASES are related to the Conscientiousness and Neuroticism dimensions of the FFM. 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. However. 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 .
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. 71 .4.8. H2: The CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. H1: The FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. Hypotheses The first research question is addressed by the first hypothesis.2. The second research question is addressed by the second hypothesis.
0. The two broad social science perspectives or paradigms of research. human nature and epistemology (Morgan and Smircich. CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3. 3.2. This chapter covers the selected research methodology and design that will be used to obtain data to examine the research questions. RESEARCH PARADIGMS The structure. 1980).3.1. they do not account for the variations in behavior due to environmental factors and the complexity of an individual. and process of social science are linked to assumptions about ontology. positivism and phenomenology. which give rise to various theoretical perspectives or paradigms ranging from phenomenology to positivism. 72 . which postulates that behavior is motivated by needs. INTRODUCTION The previous chapter analysed and reviewed the relevant literature on personality theories with respect to predicting work performance. and on the social-cognitive construct of “IfThen” was used to explain why some individuals are more predictable than others. are discussed before proceeding to the research method adopted and the administration and development of the data collection processes. A new personality measure with five dimensions based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. specifically. direction. It highlighted the shortcomings of various existing personality measures.
73 . On the other end of the continuum. 1980). causal relationships and predictions. Positivism also provides an objective form of knowledge which specifies the regularities. personality. giving rise to positivism which emphasises the empirical analysis of relationships (Morgan and Smircich. the knowledge of the social world would imply a need to map out and understand the social structure. 1980). According to phenomenology. The possible shortcomings of this approach would be the apparent loss of richness of concepts due to the mechanisation of variables and concepts. 2001). 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. Positivism emphasises empirical facts. and work performance. relationships and the precise nature of laws among the phenomena measured. positivism views reality as a concrete structure and is objective whereby human beings are rational responders (Morgan and Smircich. 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.Phenomenology views reality as a projection of human imagination. As this research seeks to explain the relationships between need-induced behavior. this study adopts a positivistic paradigm with a hypothetico-deductive approach. From this point of view. humans are transcendental beings and are not restricted by external laws.
3. By manipulating data with various sophisticated quantitative tools. people always respond to the situation in a lawful manner. 1980. Morgan. It is a structure comprising of a network of finite relationships between constituent parts. 1996). 1996). Although human perception or cognition may influence the process. with surveys as the main research method (Morgan and Smircich. Causal relationships link all aspects of behavior to the specific context. the social world can be “frozen” into structured immobility and the role of human beings is reduced to 74 . The quantitative methods. The aim of such research is to assess human variations in factors (e. Gliner and Harmon. which are principally drawn from natural sciences. and abilities) that have real-world significance. Stimuli from the environment condition them to respond to events in determinate and predictable ways.. Reality can be found in the relationships between these components and concrete behavior. vocational preferences. 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. 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.3. 1999. personality. Lubinski. Human beings are assumed to be products of external forces in the environment. are appropriate to capture a view of the social world or reality as a concrete structure.g. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Most research in the social science disciplines is conducted using quantitative methodologies.
This quantitative methodology based on the positivist paradigm is objective. Although the processes in research design are depicted in distinct sequential activities. a quantitative methodology is adopted and provides the framework for the research design. promotes value-free inquiry. case study or hypothesis testing).4.4.1. An 75 . a quantitative methodology has the ability to provide an objective view of the various external factors. have used this approach effectively. Hence. From the framing of the research questions and hypotheses. the nature of the study depends on how far the knowledge on the research subject has advanced. exploratory.elements which are subject to deterministic sets of forces. RESEARCH DESIGN Research design involving a series of logical decision-making steps basically comprises the purpose of the study (descriptive. exploratory. 3. 3. Any generalisation is inductive which comprises nomothetic statements. the time horizon and the unit of analysis (Cavana et al. the extent of researcher interference. 2001). these activities often interact or occur at the same time. adheres to strict rules and uses statistics extensively. the types of investigation. Purpose of the Study Studies can be descriptive. various studies. as mentioned in the previous chapter. case study or hypothesis testing. Based on these grounds.. Moreover.
. 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. The case study method involves a systematic gathering of in-depth information on an organisation or entity. It provides an enhanced understanding of the various relationships between variables as well as establishing their causalities (Cavana et al. 76 . Such studies are appropriate to obtain an initial grasp of the phenomena of interest (Cavana et al. The purpose of descriptive studies is to describe aspects of the situation from an organisational. This study uses hypothesis testing as there is extensive knowledge. 1999). gender. 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. educational level. Such an undertaking is appropriate when the three criteria of uniqueness. industry or individual perspective such as age. Gliner and Harmon. 2001. or race. Morgan et al. 1999). critical and revelatory are met (O’Cass. 2001). 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. 2004)...exploratory study is carried out when little or no information is known about the subject.
4. experimental and non-experimental. Experimental research involves the manipulation of one or more variables in order to study the effects of such manipulations on the subjects 77 .. This can be done with a correlational or causal approach. 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. Exploratory and descriptive studies using qualitative methods follow this approach as it allows the researcher to be flexible in exploring the issues being studied. Clarification investigation is used to gain a better understanding of the phenomena or concepts under investigation. 2001). A causal relationship occurs when one variable or concept causes a change in another whereas a correlational relationship only indicates that two variables or concepts are associated. A causal study delineates the cause of one or more problems whereas a correlational study delineates the variables or concepts that are associated with the problem. Research Method When the purpose of the study and the type of investigation has been determined. correlational and causal.3.4. that is.3. With a better understanding of the concepts. consists of two distinct collection methods. Quantitative methods may be used to give a more definite answer. Quantitative research methodology. 3. the next stage is to determine the relationships between the variables or concepts.2. as adopted for this research. the next step is to decide on the type of research method that will be used. Type of Investigation There are three approaches of investigation: clarification.
Using data that were collected for a purpose other than the problem at hand. 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. which rules out case study.under study and is generally applied to answer the questions of why and how (Grace. case study. this study is not case-specific. personality. and survey. 1999). Since the research questions posted for this study are on behavior. 1999) It is clear that observational research is not appropriate as some of the variables are not observable. nor is it 78 . Where. the non-experimental research is considered the more appropriate approach to adopt in this study. it is not possible to manipulate these variables or assign participants to groups. How Much and How Many? How and Why? Who. Hence. Is case-specific. As shown in Table 5. Answers How and Why? Archival Research Who. How Much and How Many? Case Study Research Research investigates a particular situation or problem. What. Table 5: Four Categories of Non-experimental Techniques (Grace. Non-experimental research does not involve the manipulation of variables or assigning subjects to groups and requires minimal interference from the researcher. Method Observational Research Description Observation of subjects in their own environment or researcher participating in naturally occurring groups and recording observations. archival. Where. Similarly. What. and the work performance of individuals. there are four broad categories of non-experimental techniques: observational.
2001).4.4. This study does not require interference as the objective is to collect data on the personality of individuals and their work performance. such studies have considerable interference with the normal or natural settings. For a causal study. This approach facilitates the external validation and generalisability of the findings within similar environments (Baker. 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. 3. manipulation of the variables may be done to study the effects of such manipulation on the dependent variables.suitable for archival research as there are new personality variables to be measured. The extent of interference by the researcher in the flow of work in the workplace has an important bearing on the research decisions. 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. There is minimal interference in an exploratory or descriptive study conducted in an organisation. moderate to excessive. Hence. An excessive interference occurs especially in a causal study whereby an artificial setting is created and manipulated in a laboratory environment. Hence. 79 . Researcher’s Interference There are varying degrees of interference in research ranging from minimal.
4. 2001). Furthermore.. 2001). Correlational or causal studies which use environmental settings where the employees usually function are known as field experiments. In a non-contrived setting. Exploratory or descriptive studies carried out in organisations are known as field studies. 1997). Lewis and Thornhill. Hence.3. Efforts to strengthen internal validity will diminish external validity and vice-versa (Cavana et al. 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 . Exploratory or descriptive studies usually fall under this category whereas rigorous causal studies are often undertaken in contrived settings. A contrived environment. Remenyi et al. however. 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. may reduce the external validity due to “reactivity” (Baker. 2001). Study Setting The setting of the study can be either contrived or non-contrived.5. (1998) postulated that the level of control is least relevant for research methods using surveys.. it is more important to capture the variables or concepts in the study than to establish the cause and effect relationships (Saunders. there are tradeoffs between internal and external validities. A laboratory experiment is one with a contrived setting and considerable interference by the researcher (Cavana et al. External and internal validities are competing aspects. the research is conducted whereby the work proceeds normally in the natural environment.
1998). Lindell and Whitney (2001) postulated that most behavioral studies are cross-sectional as such studies focus on individual’s attitudes. groups.. 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. which can be individual. 1998)..normal work environments. and external validities and plausible explanations of the variances of the independent and dependent variables (Remenyi et al. To control for extraneous and irrelevant factors. 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. or cultures. 3. valid and unambiguous will be included after proper screening by subject matter experts (SME) to ensure content.4.7. 3. the passage of time is inconsequential. organisations. dyads. Hence. beliefs and perceptions. the data collected will be the 81 . As this research is on the measurement of personality dimensions of individuals and their work performance. Moreover.4. internal. variables which are reliable. Unit of Analysis The research objective determines the unit of analysis.6.
and their perceptions of their behaviors and work performance (Cavana et al. 1980). 82 .5. the unit of analysis is at the individual level. The merits of these methods are shown in Table 6.5. this method is considered inappropriate for this study. these data can be obtained by using one or a combination of methods that include personal. The personal interview method provides an excellent response rate but can be costly in terms of finance. effort. Hence.individuals’ demographics. telephone. and time. SURVEY RESEARCH The survey research consists of several steps as listed below.. 2001). Selection of Survey Method As survey research has been selected as the appropriate method for collecting data. Together with the inherent costs as well as the time constraints of this research. 3. and also has the problem of the interviewer’s influence on the interviewee’s responses. 3. 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.1. or computer interviews. mail.
Kieffer et al. these two interview methods are also considered to be inappropriate for this study. 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. it is cost effective and allows specific respondents in various organisations to be targeted.. Although mail survey does not provide a good response rate. Barrick et al. the mail survey is considered the most appropriate method for this study. Nikolaou. al.Criterion Ability to handle complex questionnaire Ability to collect large amount of data Accuracy of sensitive questions Control of interviewer effects Degree of sample control Time required Probable response rate Cost Mail Poor Fair Good Excellent Fair Fair Fair Good Telephone Good Good Good Fair Excellent Excellent Fair Good Personal Excellent Excellent Fair Poor Fair Good Fair Fair Computer Good Good Good Excellent Fair Good Fair Fair Table 6: Merits of the Four Survey Methods (Grace. 2000. Salgado. Hence. 83 . 2003.. 2004). 2002. Mail survey is commonly used in studies of personality and work performance (Robertson et. 2003.. Hence.
2000).5. 1999) and the self-rated work performance measure (RBPS) by Welbourne.2. 3. Copies of the FFM measure (Goldberg. where minor changes in question format. researchers depend on the answers that participants provide in order to learn about the behavior. feelings. Self Report Self-report is a primary source of data in social science research. Marsella et al.2.5. this study uses this method whilst recognising factors and processes that affect self-reports to improve the questionnaire design and data quality (Schwarz.2. The reduction of such abstract concepts 84 . and thoughts of participants.3.1. From public opinion surveys to laboratory experiments. Selection of Measurement Techniques 3. 1918.104.22.168..5.2. context or wording can cause major changes in the results. 3. Johnson and Erez (1998) were obtained and used in this study. Although self-reports can be a fallible source of data. 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. Scales The measures of personality and performance are nebulous and do not lend themselves to precise measurements due to their subjective nature.
. strength and confidence. The strength or confidence of the measurement is assessed as the distance away from the neutral response (Maurer and Pierce. The work performance measure is categorised from Needs Much Improvement to Excellent with Satisfactory as a neutral response. 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). Neither Inaccurate nor Accurate or Very Inaccurate as the most representative of his/her perceived personality or behavior in terms of direction. 1999. and enable the computation of the means and variances of the measured variables. For this study.. tap the order of such groups. Cavana et al. 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 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. 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. In using a Likert scale. 2004).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. all the measures use a five-point Likert scale 85 . 1998). Hence. 2001). van Schaik and van Wersch. a respondent selects a response category ranging from Very Accurate. 2001). Such measures use an interval scale as interval scales are able to group respondents into categories.
4. Key Variables (i) The independent variables (a) The Big Five The 50 items for the FFM (Goldberg. Safety.5.4 to 0. Egocentric and Socio-centric with each dimension having 10 items. This measure is regarded as the best measure developed to date and is used for this study (Crant. Extraversion. Agreeableness and Neuroticism.because of the above merits as well as its ease of construction. (ii) The dependent variable The dependent variable is the self-appraised work performance of the respondents. Self-appraisals or self ratings have significant validation against other work performance measures. contains five personality dimensions of Complexity. 3.79 for all five dimensions. Correlations of 0. Hunthausen et al. administration and cost effectiveness.2. 1995. 2003). (b) The new personality measure (CASES) The new personality measure. CASES. 1999) measuring Openness to Experience.5 are obtained from self ratings of 86 . Actualisation. have alpha values larger than 0. Conscientiousness..
career. the self-evaluation work performance measure of Wilbourne et al. The five components of the RBPS are job. 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. Furthermore. team. innovator.clerical ability and measures of leadership (Cook et. This self-appraisal performance measure. is developed based on identity theory and role theory in contrast to the traditional. with each having 4 items as shown in Table 7.. job-related employee performance measure. 87 . al. which is also known as the Role-Based Performance Scale (RBPS). and organisation. In view of the stance taken by the Ethics Committee in favour of maintaining confidentiality and anonymity of respondents. (1998) is used. 2000). “halo-effect” tends to obscure the differentiated relationship between the criteria of personality and work performance..
iv. iii. ii. iii. 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. iv. Table 7: Role-Based Performance Scale’s Items (Wilbourne et al. iv. 1998) 88 . 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.(a) My Job (doing things specifically related to my job description) i. ii. iii. iv. iv. ii. (c) Innovator (creativity and innovation in my job and the organisation as a whole) i.. (e) Organisation (going above the call of duty in my concern for the firm) i. iii.
Safety.3. 89 . Q61. the items are placed in Q51. Q76. 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. Q56. For the first personality dimension of Complexity (with 10 items). (1998) are placed from Q101 to Q120. questions and quality of reproduction are addressed. To minimise error.5. (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. the written instructions are screened for clarity in instructional content and presentation. Q86. Q66. (ii) The second set of 50 items of the new instrument (CASES) is placed as Q51 to Q100. (iii) The twenty items of the RBPS by Welbourne et al. The four other dimensions with 10 items each (Actualisation. Q71. Q81. Q91 and Q96.3. 1999). 2002). The sequence of the instructions. The questions are sequenced in the following manner: (i) The 50 items for the FFM (Goldberg. 1999) are placed from Q1 to Q50 in the same order as per the author’s design.. 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.
The wordings of several items were changed to reflect the meaning in the local Malaysian context. 2001). relevance. 3. Every element or item is judged on its representativeness. 1995). When time is tight or the probability of selecting elements of the population is unknown and generalisability is not essential or critical. a nonprobability sampling method such as convenience sampling can be used.Although pilot testing is recommended for the items to ensure content validity.. shipping. transportation.4. 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. legal. it will not be carried out due to the study’s time constraints. clarity and specificity for its particular dimension (Haynes. These firms are in general manufacturing. For the above reasons.. a generalisation of these characteristics can be made to the population elements (Cavana et al. 2001). The elements in the population under study also must have some known probability of being selected as sample. convenience sampling is adopted for this study. Probability sampling is appropriate when statistical generalisation is required. 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. trading and 90 .5. Richard and Kubany. 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.
These companies represent a convenient sample and they are invited because their offices are in the Klang Valley. 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.business consulting. Kudisch and Fortunato. Each company will be given 40 questionnaires or more depending on the size of the organisation and will be requested to distribute the questionnaires to all or part of their white-collar staff. 2002). 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. Since English is a second language to many Malaysians. Sawin and Carsud. (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. 91 . white-collar employees are chosen as they are more likely to be literate in English. 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. 1986). As the measures of the FFM and CASES have 50 items each. Besides being white-collared staff. it would need at least 500 responses (that is.
5. mean. 2001).. 22.214.171.124.3.1. Cronbach’s alpha.5. the measurement of internal consistency.5. The principal-component factor will be varimaxrotated as the dimensions are assumed to be uncorrelated 3.5. Selection of analytical approach Data analysis is performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 13. The frequency distributions of the nominal and demographic variables. 3. and variance for each variable will be computed in SPSS. variance. is one reliability 92 . The measures for the FFM. Reliability Reliability concerns the extent to which a measure is repeatable and consistent (Baker. and RBPS will be analysed to determine their structure. means. standard deviation. standard deviation and correlation matrix of all the variables will be generated for initial examinations. 2001). Central Tendency and Dispersion The range.5. range.5. Principal Components Analysis Principal components analysis will be used to check that the structure of the measures has held true (Cavana et al. CASES.5.
Richard and Kubany.5.edu. 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. Content validity gives evidence on the construct validity of an instrument (Haynes. Concurrent validity refers to the degree to which a test scores correlates with another test score that is obtained from another source. http://0ipip. An alpha coefficient of 0. 1995).au:80).ori.4.. 2003). 2004). 3. convergent and discriminant validity.coefficient that indicates how well items in a cluster correlate positively with one another. 93 .7 or more is considered satisfactory (Nunnally. criterion-related validity. and factor structure.g. 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. there is no psychometric rationale in using them. predictive and postdictive validity. Mellenbergh and van Heerden.5.org. Validity Construct validity is the degree to which the assessment instrument measures the proposed construct (Borsboom.newcastle. 1978). All the predictor variables of the Big Five Factor Inventory.library. CASES and RBPS measures will be analysed to ascertain their internal reliabilities.
1.5. Cost and Time Estimates Some 40 companies from various industries.5. 3. known to the researcher. The findings from the descriptive statistics. The respondents are asked to complete two sets of personality measures and a set of self-appraisal work performance measure.The research design is one of a criterion-related validity and incremental validity (Nikolaou. 2003).6. 3. Implementation The last stage of the survey research is the implementation stage which consists of time/ cost estimates and data collection/administration. 3.5.5. and the stepwise multiple linear regression results will be used to test the hypotheses.5. the two measures of personality will be entered simultaneously in a stepwise regression analysis. Hypothesis Testing To test the criterion and incremental validities of the new personality measure (CASES) over and above the FFM on work performance. are selected for the survey with an average of 40 questionnaires given to each organisation and are targeted 94 . the correlation matrix.6.
The total time estimated for the survey is 35 days as shown in Table 9. 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.at white-collared workers from supervisory level upwards. 95 . Each organisation will be given the Information Sheet and the Consent Seeking Letter. 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. The industry breakdown and the number of companies to be surveyed are shown in Table 9. A draft letter approving the staff in the organisation to participate is also provided for the companies to complete under their official letter head.
which has limitations such as low response rate and the inability of respondents to seek clarification if necessary.30 stamp 1600*RM0.2. 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.Activity 1.5.00 Table 10: Breakdown of Costs on Survey (developed for this research) Item 3. Data Collection The survey adopts a self-administered approach.04 RM256.70 RM1120.00 of 2 pages (double-sided) 2 envelopes and RM0. The 96 . Printing and collating of questionnaires 2.86 per questionnaire based on the breakdown as shown in Table 10.00 trips Total RM2976.00 Travelling expenses RM20 per trip for 80 RM1600. Distributing questionnaires to organisations 3. Collecting answered questionnaires from organisations 4.6. Costing and Amount Computation Printing the questionnaire (1600 sets 1600*4*RM0.
97 . 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. Hence.5. Categorising For negatively worded questions. 3.3. 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. 3. The items measuring the variables are grouped together to ensure no mistake is made due to omission or wrong inclusion.6.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. Data Entry The data will be entered into SPSS and analysed. the scores will be recoded through a Recode program in the SPSS.4.6.
Finally. ETHICAL CONSIDERATION It is explicitly stated that participation is voluntary.3. 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. self-addressed envelopes are provided so the respondents can choose to participate or not. Stamped. RESEARCH PLAN The research plan is based on the timeline provided by the University of Newcastle for this Doctor of Business Administration (DBA).6. 98 . Participants can withdraw at anytime during the research without any obligation or disadvantage.7. The research plan is based on completing the five chapters within the six-month time frame. 3. 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. Anonymity and confidentiality of the answers are ensured as the questionnaires do not have any identifiers.
3. 2004).8. LIMITATIONS Response Distortions Given the seemingly straightforward nature of the items. 1996). Stability of Work Performance Due to the implicit assumption that performance is a stable construct and the reliance on a cross-sectional. However.1. 1988). 3.3. one-time measure could lead to erroneous conclusions about the 99 . In that case.3. 1996).. it could be likely that some respondents may try to “beat the test” due to self-deception or impression management. several studies revealed that the distortions by these response deceptions do not attenuate the predictive validity of the personality constructs (Barrick and Mount. item endorsements are not self-reports but self-presentations (Hogan et al. 3.8. 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. This may produce a general method variance (Carmeli and Freund.2.8.8. 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.
This will restrict the range and reduce the correlations with the personality measures.4. The requirement to maintain the anonymity of respondents restricted our ability to match the supervisors with the subordinates. all information comes from the subordinate. The ratings would be markedly skewed towards the positive end of each item. These factors may restrict the range of dependent variables and produce attenuated correlations.. Since there is no way of estimating what the variance should be. 2000. 2004). Self Rating One limitation is the use of self-ratings and its validity and reliability as an indicator of work performance. 100 . A rudimentary level of work performance is required for the employees to retain employment in a specific position.. Bozionelos. it will not be possible to correct or adjust the correlations for the restricted range. Thus. it is possible that some employees who could have been in the higher end of the work performance are promoted to other positions outside the parameters of the study. it is possible that some employees are removed from the positions due to their inadequate work performance.personality-performance relationships (Thoresen et al. Hence. Self-ratings are known to be more “lenient” than other forms of work performance measures.8. 3. This self rating is also subject to the common method variance or the percept-percept inflation problem (Cook et al. Conversely. 2004a).
These factors have a direct or a moderating influence on work performance. Hence. Cook et al. Nikolaou.e. 2004. motivation level. role clarity and intelligence (Carmelli and Freund. There are limitations in this research that may not permit statements of causality. CONCLUSION Attempts to predict work performance using personality measures have been practised in organisational research for decades. Work Performance Studies have found linkages between work performance and job satisfaction. 2000. Barrick et al.5. the adoption of convenience sampling in this study reduces the generalisability of the findings obtained from this study. internal reliability). 2002. as well as the content and construct validities of the measures. There is an ample body of knowledge on this subject to derive some theoretical framework for hypothesis testing.. 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. Further studies will need to be conducted to establish the boundary conditions and generalisability of the findings of this study. Various relevant statistical tools are used to calculate inter-item consistency (i. Also..9.8. 2002).3. ability. 3. 101 . Convenience sampling is adopted..
170 (i. 102 . 45. 31. CHAPTER FOUR – DATA ANALYSIS 4. The number of companies that responded was 39. a 97. The fourth section contains a summary of the main findings.8%) were female.7%) and. and the remaining 107 (i.4..5%) were school certificate holders. The results of the analyses which were conducted to test the hypotheses are presented in the third section.5% rate of participation. of these. 544 were usable.e.1.3%) were diploma holders.2%) were male and 298 (i.2.e.. 49. 246 (i.. The descriptive statistics of the demographic variables are presented in the first section. 4. 19.e.e. DEMOGRAPHICS A total of 1600 questionnaires were distributed to 40 Malaysian companies of various sizes who were invited to participate in this study. INTRODUCTION This chapter contains four sections. which were used to verify the structures of the various scales. A total of 587 questionnaires were returned (a response rate of 36.2%) of the respondents were degree-holders. A total of 267 (i. The second section contains the results of principal components analyses. 54..0.e. Of the 544 respondents..
.50 by Hair.e.e. = 6.A total of 140 (i. Principal Components Analysis of the FFM Personality Measure A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (with suppressed loading less than .2. RESULTS FROM PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS Principal Components Analysis with Varimax Rotation was used to examine the structure of the scales. This analysis yielded five orthogonal factors that 103 .50 or larger on their respective components were eliminated from the solution. 4.0 years (s.2).e.5%) were from lower management or executive levels. The average organisational tenure of the respondents was 7. The recommended cut-off value of . 25. The average age of the respondents was 34..1. = 5.7) while the average number of years that respondents were in their current jobs was 5. Tatham. 36.d.50) was conducted on the FFM.. The remaining 205 (i. 37. = 9. and Black (1998) was used because of the large number of items being analysed.d. Items that did not achieve a primary loading of .8%) respondents were from middle or senior management levels.1) and the minimum age and maximum age of the respondents were 19 years and 65 years respectively. Anderson. 4.29 (s. An examination of the skewness and kurtosis statistics as well as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic was conducted to examine the distributions of the variables.8%) of the respondents were from non-executive or clerical levels while 198 (i.2.6 years (s.d.
54 Table 11: Rotated Component Matrix of FFM 104 .63 .54 .60 .50 loading criterion.67 .57 . The findings from this analysis are presented in Table 11.64 .accounted for 47.59 .70 .55 .4% of the variance.72 .74 .65 .66 . five items were eliminated from each of the Openness and Conscientiousness sub-scales while six items were eliminated from each of the Extraversion.67 . Component 1 2 3 4 5 Openness5 Openness8 Openness4 Openness2 Openness6 Conscientious1 Conscientious8 Conscientious7 Conscientious3 Conscientious6 Extraversion7 Extraversion9 Extraversion4 Extraversion2 Agreeableness4 Agreeableness5 Agreeableness9 Agreeableness7 Neuroticism7 Neuroticism1 Neuroticism6 Neuroticism8 .54 . Agreeableness and Neuroticism subscales.61 .68 .62 .60 .64 . Using the .71 .
The intercorrelations resembled those that have been reported previously.57. Agreeableness and Neuroticism components were .01 level. Extraversion. Hence.. Conscientiousness was positively correlated with Extraversion and Agreeableness but negatively correlated with Neuroticism at the 0. The Cronbach’s alphas for the remaining items in the Openness. and 64 respectively. a Cronbach’s alpha of . . . All the components therefore have acceptable internal reliability.001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was greater than the acceptable level of 0.The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < .59. The items that were retained after the principal components analysis are shown in Table 12. Agreeableness was negatively correlated with Neuroticism at the 0. 8). Openness was positively correlated with Extraversion and Neuroticism at the 0.05 level.60. p. The FFM components are distinct but related and “are no more wholly independent than they are redundant” (Judge et al. (1998). According to Hair et al.01 level. Extraversion was positively correlated with Agreeableness and Neuroticism at the 0. 1997. Conscientiousness. factorability was assumed.63.01 level. .01 level whilst it was negatively correlated with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness at the 0. 105 .73.6 is acceptable.
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 .
0% of the variance.55 . Using the .67 .68 .51 .74 .62 . Component Complexity7 Complexity2 Complexity4 Complexity5 Actualisation7 Actualisation2 Actualisation5 Actualisation4 Safety5 Safety3 Safety9 Safety6 Ego8 Ego6 Ego2 Ego1 Social7 Social10 Social6 Social9 1 .50) was conducted on the CASES items.79 .63 .68 .54 . The results from this analysis are presented in Table 13.68 .2.77 . Principal Components Analysis of the CASES Personality Measure A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (with suppressed loading less than .61 Table 13: Rotated Component Matrix of CASES 107 .50 loading criterion.68 .63 .65 .69 . This analysis yielded five orthogonal components that accounted for 57.72 .56 .4. six items were eliminated from each of the Complexity.61 2 3 4 5 . Actualisation.2. Ego and Social sub-scales. Safety.
which had marginal internal reliability.48. . all of the CASES sub-scales had acceptable internal reliability. factorability was assumed.74 respectively.64. and . The items of the sub-scales are shown in Table 14. The Cronbach’s alphas for the remaining items in the Complexity. Actualisation. . 108 .001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was greater than the acceptable level of 0. With the exception of the Ego sub-scale. Safety. Hence. Ego and Social components were 73. .81.60.The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < .
This analysis yielded five orthogonal components that accounted for 80.2.0% of the variance.50 109 .50) was conducted on the RBPS measure of performance.3. Based on the . Principal Components Analysis of RBPS Performance Measure A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (with suppressed loading less than .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.
90.89.79 Table 15: Rotated Component Matrix of RBPS The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < .90.75 . The Cronbach’s alphas for the Job component. only one item was eliminated and this was from the organisation component of the RBPS. Team component and Organisation component of the RBPS were .77 . Component Job1 Job2 Job3 Job4 Career3 Career2 Career4 Career1 Innovator2 Innovator3 Innovator1 Innovator4 Team2 Team1 Team3 Team4 Organisation3 Organisation4 Organisation2 1 . and 110 . . factorability was assumed.81 .84 . Career component.63 .78 .75 .91.80 . The results of this analysis are presented in Table 15. .001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was greater than the acceptable level of 0.73 . Hence.81 . Innovator component.85 . .84 .76 .73 .56 2 3 4 5 .76 .loading criterion.60.85 .76 .
The Safety component of CASES was positively correlated with Conscientiousness. 4. The Ego component of CASES was positively correlated with Neuroticism. the Complexity component of CASES was correlated positively with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness but negatively correlated with Openness and Neuroticism. The Actualisation component of CASES was positively correlated with Conscientiousness.01 level (one-tailed). Agreeableness and Extraversion but negatively correlated with Neuroticism. 111 .93 respectively. All of the components of the RBPS were correlated with each other at the 0. The Complexity component was not correlated with Extraversion. Agreeableness and Extraversion but negatively correlated with Openness and Neuroticism. The Relationship between the FFM Dimensions and the CASES Dimensions As shown in Table 16. and Conscientiousness.2..4. The Safety component was not correlated with Openness. The Ego component was not correlated with Openness or Extraversion. Agreeableness. The five performance sub-scales therefore had acceptable internal reliability.
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.
29** .09* .15** 1 .30** -.25** .06 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.22** .46** .13** .79** .41** -.48** .54** .82** .21** .32** .10** -.53** .63** . Table 17: Correlations of the Components of FFM and RBPS 115 .02 -.05 -.74** .01 -.22** Extraversion -.05 level (1 – tailed).19** 1 .28** .18** -.42** -.62** .33** -.0 -.08* -. * Correlation is significant at the 0.Job RBPS Career RBPS Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Conscientiousness Openness Neuroticism Agreeableness .05 -.02 1 .55** .09* -.29** 0.32** .01 level (1 – tailed).29** 1 -.87** .20** Career RBPS 1 .03 1 -.13** .32** .70** .17** Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Conscientiousness Openness Neuroticism Agreeablenes s 1 .22** 1 .35** -.82** .64** .32** -.80** .50** .03 1 .07 -.
116 .25 respectively (Table 18). The R-square value was .537 . a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.36 and -.445 9. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Career component of the RBPS and had beta values of .Using a stepwise regression analysis.23.469 .20 respectively (Table 19).539 .358 -. Dependent Variable: Perform2Job Table 18: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis.502 10.000 .000 .041 -. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS and had beta values of .000 a.25 and -. Error Beta 1.353 Sig. .010 10.192 .390 .411 2. the Career component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.051 .238 -6.000 . The R-square value was .229 .12.246 t 8.259 . the Job component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.051 .000 .
Error Beta 1.436 .246 -.332 2.044 -.000 a.000 .235 .359 .045 9.216 t 7.249 .285 -.049 5. The R-square value was .858 Sig.453 .337 Sig. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Innovator component of the RBPS and had beta values of . .767 7.456 .a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.655 .060 .224 .000 a.237 .000 . the Innovator component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.055 .048 -. Dependent Variable: Perform2In Table 20: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM 117 .000 .000 .000 .290 2.965 -4.055 . Error Beta 1.16.000 .000 .034 -5.207 .188 9.200 t 7.22 respectively (Table 20). a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.000 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Car Table 19: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis.683 .060 .271 .422 . .389 .993 8.29 and -.500 7.
Using a stepwise regression analysis.203 -.936 4.197 . .20 and -. the Organisation component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.220 .324 1.20.164 4.259 .138 t 11. 118 .25 and .122 .000 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Tm Table 21: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis. the Team component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.942 4.035 .040 -. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Agreeableness were the only significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS and had beta values of . Agreeableness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS and had beta values of .242 .000 .058 .207 2.058 .15.056 .575 .000 .405 Sig.335 7.050 .000 .137 .983 7. Error Beta 2.225 .000 .187 .14 respectively (Table 21).000 .400 .16. .000 .498 -3.000 .541 7. The R-square value was .001 a.056 .290 4. The R-square value was .256 .20 respectively (Table 22).264 .277 . a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Agree 3 (Constant) Conscientous Agree Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness.
283 7.140 .000 .000 . Total RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.348 .000 .297 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Total Table 23: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on FFM 119 .348 1. a Coefficients Model 1 2 3 (Constant) Conscientous (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Agree Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.744 .256 .065 .000 .000 .724 .050 Standardized Coefficients Beta .186 .196 .692 10.504 .253 .a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Agree Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.049 -. -. Dependent Variable: Perform2Org Table 22: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis.031 9.218 .058 .385 Sig.188 .811 Sig.366 .035 2. The R-square value was .222 .000 .035 . Neuroticism and Agreeableness were the only significant predictors of Total RBPS and had beta values of .335 2.000 .21 and .324 5.064 . The regression revealed that Conscientiousness.370 -.005 a. Error Beta 1.108 . Error 1. .210 .595 4.163 .000 a.910 8.12 respectively (Table 23).000 .415 .31.044 -.648 4. .23.364 .413 .373 9.044 2.000 .121 t 10.103 -5.198 t 7.000 .474 -5.630 12.068 .000 .207 .000 .312 -.464 .
The Ego component correlated significantly with only the Job and Organisation components of the 120 .2. Career component. Organisation component. like the FFM components. Nunnally. 4. and Total RBPS.Conscientiousness was the best predictor of all of the RBPS components and the Total RBPS. are no more wholly independent than they are redundant. 2004. the first hypothesis. From Table 24. Hence. Furthermore.3. Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure H2: The CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. which states that the FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. is supported. Agreeableness was a significant predictor of Team component. Innovator component. 1978). each component of the RBPS as well as Total RBPS had a significant proportion of variance explained by the FFM components. which indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem (Carmelli and Freund.23. and Total RBPS. The correlation coefficients did not exceed the value of . The CASES components are distinct but related and. the CASES components were positively intercorrelated.70. Neuroticism was a significant predictor of the Job component. The R-square values ranged from .12 to . Actualisation and Safety components of the CASES correlated significantly with all five components of the RBPS as well as with Total RBPS. The Complexity. Team component.
except for the Career component.RBPS. and with Total RBPS. The Social component correlated significantly with all of the RBPS components. 121 .
12** Ego -.63** .10* . * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 .01 level (1 – tailed).37** .37** .82** .74** .07 .87** .64** .40** .46** .45** .12** .36** .54** .51** .0 -.01 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.31** .49** . Table 24: Correlations of the Components of CASES and RBPS 122 .70** .23** .Job RBPS Career RBPS Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Actualisation Social Complexity Safety .79** .31** .80** .50** .28** .34** .36** .11** .39** .82** .20** Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Actualisatio n Social Complexit y Safet y .05 level (1 – tailed).27** .43** .07 .62** .53** .24** .38** .59** .37** .19** .14** .46** .34** .32** Career RBPS .40** .25** .08* -0.34** .18** .55** .
249 .179 .000 .052 .238 .540 .205 .050 1. .000 . Safety and Ego were the only significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS and had beta values of .413 .22 and -.264 .149 t 9. The regression revealed that Complexity was the only significant predictor of the Career component of the RBPS and had a beta value of .000 a.050 1. The regression revealed that Complexity.215 .397 .000 .15 respectively (Table 25).341 .994 6. a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex 2 (Constant) Complex Safety 3 (Constant) Complex Safety Ego Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.755 .470 8. Error 1. the Career component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES. the Job component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES. The R-square value was .051 .350 -3.429 . . The R-square value was .169 .057 5.234 7.862 Sig.38 (Table 26).000 . 123 .809 10.049 -. Dependent Variable: Perform2Job Table 25: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on CASES Using a stepwise regression analysis.394 5.499 .328 .Using a stepwise regression analysis.044 Standardized Coefficients Beta .217 -.000 .991 4.000 .34.000 .22.000 .15.128 .
053 . the Innovator component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.765 9. The regression revealed that Complexity and Safety were the only significant predictors of the Innovator component of the RBPS and had beta values of .449 .822 11.531 .000 .013 a.056 Standardized Coefficients Beta .000 a.415 . The R-square value was .a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Dependent Variable: Perform2In Table 27: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on CASES 124 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Car Table 26: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on CASES Using a stepwise regression analysis.358 .686 4. .42 and .051 .544 .050 . Error Beta 1.000 .201 . a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex 2 (Constant) Complex Safety Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. Error 1.125 10.101 t 6.000 .127 .917 .182 .530 Sig.222 .239 .589 .000 . .379 t 6.000 .481 Sig.218 2.21.10 respectively (Table 27).
17 respectively (Table 29).050 . Complexity and Social were the only significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS and had beta values of .170 . .127 4.196 .325 .086 9.174 t 11.000 .19.240 .049 . Error Beta 1.203 .912 4.202 1.17 and .17 and . .26 and .654 6.000 . The regression revealed that Safety.351 .172 .12.261 .000 .371 . The regression revealed that Actualisation.049 .393 1. The R-square value was .000 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Tm Table 28: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on CASES Using a stepwise regression analysis. The R-square value was .000 .000 .000 .929 4.047 .17 respectively (Table 28).958 6. a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Safety 2 (Constant) Safety Complex 3 (Constant) Safety Complex Social Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. the Organisation component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.298 .657 7.053 Sig.22. the Team component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.000 a.449 .020 4.010 . .908 . Complexity and Social were the only significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS and had beta values of .048 .202 .000 . Safety.217 .Using a stepwise regression analysis.23. 125 .045 .
296 1.493 .000 .233 .067 6.26.238 .293 .180 3.063 .38 and .908 3.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.059 .263 . 126 .166 .161 4.062 .24 respectively (Table 30).000 . The regression revealed that Complexity and Safety were the only significant predictors of Total RBPS and had beta values of .002 .063 Standardized Coefficients Beta .166 t 5.217 .262 .235 . Total RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.782 3.000 .291 .391 .167 .001 a.767 .000 .880 3.060 .056 .250 .199 .060 .230 .704 1.164 .000 .274 .911 4.314 9.031 . Error 1. The R-square value was .000 .000 .062 .120 2.262 .220 .495 Sig.183 5.389 .101 4.116 .069 .553 .000 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Org Table 29: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on CASES Using a stepwise regression analysis.076 .186 .258 .281 .000 .250 .315 .057 . .
587 12. the Innovator component.084 . and Total RBPS.a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex 2 (Constant) Complex Safety Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.041 . Ego was a significant predictor for only the Job component of the RBPS. which states that the CASES model will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.098 Sig.147 .000 . and Total RBPS. . the Career component. Dependent Variable: Perform2Total Table 30: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on CASES Complexity was the best predictor of the Job component.000 .709 . Furthermore. the second hypothesis.26.459 1. is supported.042 . Actualisation and Safety were the best predictors of the Organisation component and Team component of the RBPS respectively. Hence.000 .378 . the Organisation component.406 .15 to . the Innovator component.644 6. Safety was also a significant predictor of the Job component.176 . 127 .247 .041 .239 t 11. The R-square values ranged from . each component of the RBPS as well as Total RBPS had a significant proportion of variance explained by the CASES components.000 . Error Beta 1.493 .032 6.000 a. Social was a significant predictor for the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS.171 9.
FFM and CASES predicting the Job Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.20. Neuroticism -.1. Safety. Complexity . accounted for 4. 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. 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.15.2% of the variance of the Job component of the RBPS.3. from the CASES.9% followed by Neuroticism with 5. From Table 31. Safety . and Social were the only significant predictors. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness explained 16. The factors of Complexity.20. 4. and Social -.126.96.36.199%.3. the beta values are: Conscientiousness . Complexity. 128 . Safety and Social.11. Neuroticism.3.
545 -5.238 -6.000 .445 9.139 .066 .000 .199 .947 4.390 .200 .000 .026 -5. Error Beta 1.000 .114 1.881 .287 .058 .219 -.000 .2.041 -.241 .109 t 8.185 .302 -2.264 .131 .065 .246 1.411 2.3.000 .946 5. the Career component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of the CASES.051 .969 .502 10.052 .715 .248 .000 .000 .221 .001 .200 -. Dependent Variable: Perform2Job Table 31: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES 4.000 .113 6.333 .539 .000 .428 4.000 .191 1. . The regression revealed that Complexity and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors.010 10.251 .041 -.211 .051 -.060 .000 .358 -.000 .192 .041 -.055 .210 .051 .229 .217 .297 3.259 .000 .581 Sig.000 .469 .000 . 129 .010 a.228 .058 .041 -.058 .648 6.537 .002 2.263 .3.233 .180 .374 -5.254 -.486 4.578 4.148 -.271 .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.000 .008 .353 7.176 4. FFM and CASES Predicting the Career Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.
000 .191 . Complexity and Safety were from the CASES while Neuroticism was from the FFM.057 -. FFM and CASES Predicting the Innovator Component of RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.335 -. the beta value of the Complexity was .4% followed by Neuroticism from the FFM.16.1% followed by Neuroticism (2.3.The Complexity component from the CASES model.7%) and Safety accounted for 0. .09.000 .258 .017 . Neuroticism and Safety were the only significant predictors. The Complexity component explained 20.469 .379 . 130 . explained 14. Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.16. Neuroticism -.4% of the variance. and Social . Error 1.996 Sig.000 . From Table 33.208 -3.000 . which explained 2.163 Model 1 2 (Constant) Complex (Constant) Complex Neurotic t 6.056 2.827 8.530 7.201 .531 . The regression revealed that Complexity.358 . From Table 32. Dependent Variable: Perform2Car Table 32: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on the FFM and CASES 4.6% of the variance in the Innovator component of the RBPS.3.3.765 9.048 Standardized Coefficients Beta . the beta values are: Complexity .34 and for Neuroticism it was -. the Innovator component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES.000 a.38.
239 . Complexity .161 -4.493 . Error Beta t 1 (Constant 1.5% followed by Complexity (3.6%).19. FFM and CASES Predicting the Team Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.232 8.589 .4.109 .000 .793 Complex . From Table 34.168 -4. Complexity and Social factors were from CASES while Neuroticism factor was from the FFM.070 Complex . The regression revealed that Safety.000 .054 .876 .000 . and Neuroticism accounted for 1.051 .000 . the beta values are: Safety .086 2.822 Complex .142 Neurotic -.14. Social .376 9.043 -. and Neuroticism -.272 5.3.449 11.185 .25. Dependent Variable: Perform2In Sig. Social and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors.033 Table 33: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES 4.3% of the variance in the Team component of the RBPS.529 .093 Safety . Complexity.287 3 (Constant 1.12. 131 .182 6. Safety.043 -.573 .403 10. Social (2.000 .000 . The Safety component explained 15. the Team component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES.000 .3. .3%).a Coefficients Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients Model B Std.141 a.000 .258 Neurotic -.052 .050 .686 2 (Constant 1.177 .
Safety.186 -. Dependent Variable: Perform2Tm Table 34: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of the RBPS on FFM and CASES 4.000 .1%).086 9.202 .929 4.8%). .17.371 .045 1.3%.118 .912 4.351 .19.256 .170 .020 4.050 . The regression revealed that Actualisation.049 1. Complexity and Social were the only significant predictors.048 1.217 . the beta values are: Actualisation .039 Standardized Coefficients Beta . none of the FFM components were significant.000 .908 .119 Model 1 2 3 4 (Constant) Safety (Constant) Safety Complex (Constant) Safety Complex Social (Constant) Safety Complex Social Neurotic t 11. and Social (1.000 .449 .5. Error 1. the Organisation component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES. Actualisation explained 15.654 6.0%).246 .240 .3. Complexity .172 .281 . and Social .425 .674 3.000 .165 .657 7.000 .301 4.049 . FFM and CASES Predicting the Organisation Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.047 . followed by Safety (4.000 .000 .174 .298 .196 .002 Sig. 132 .210 .139 .000 .3. Safety .17.000 .050 .339 -3.000 . Complexity (2.003 a. From Table 35.000 .Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.127 4.000 .567 5.053 5. All of these components were from the CASES.325 .202 .048 -.261 .203 .050 .010 .393 .001 .12.958 6.
293 .001 a. Neuroticism (2.274 .183 5.057 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Org Table 35: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES 4.186 .1% followed by Safety (5.062 .000 .250 .076 .000 .250 . Complexity explained 21.238 .262 .389 .13.060 .291 .060 . Total RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES.063 .15.000 . Complexity and Safety were from the CASES and Neuroticism and Conscientiousness were from the FFM. and Conscientiousness .116 .553 .235 .233 .281 .28.1%).067 6. Error 1.161 4.782 3.493 .031 .166 .263 . Neuroticism -.000 .000 .059 .262 .18.3%).164 .391 .000 .167 .880 3.Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Neuroticism and Conscientiousness were the only significant predictors. and Conscientiousness (0.3.120 2.101 4.166 Model 1 2 3 4 (Constant) Actualise (Constant) Actualise Safety (Constant) Actualise Safety Complex (Constant) Actualise Safety Complex Social t 5.495 Sig.315 . From Table 36.230 . the beta values are: Complexity .000 .704 1.000 .911 4.217 .220 .9%).056 .069 . Safety . Safety.6.002 .180 3.062 . The regression revealed that Complexity.3.063 Standardized Coefficients Beta . FFM and CASES Predicting Total RBPS Performance Using a stepwise regression analysis. .314 9. 133 .296 1.258 .908 3.199 .767 .000 .
459 .034 .043 .220 .Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.041 1.159 .000 .081 2.562 5.000 .000 .176 .176 6.034 1.041 1.709 . Complexity was also a significant predictor of the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS.247 .000 .522 8.000 .304 .493 .340 .171 9.271 4. and Total RBPS.054 Standardized Coefficients Beta . 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.378 . Safety component of the CASES was the best predictor of the Team component of the RBPS.791 -4.000 .587 12.032 6.225 -.239 .147 . 134 .000 . the Innovator component.365 .142 .098 7.406 .232 .138 .692 6.000 . except for the Career component.644 6.010 a.000 .271 -4.180 -.000 .214 .283 .084 .000 .141 .186 .154 . . Safety was also a significant predictor of all five components of the RBPS.000 .042 . Social component of the CASES was a significant predictor of the Job.613 . Actualisation component of the CASES was the best predictor of the Organisation component of the RBPS.000 .048 .472 .044 -. Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. and Total RBPS.598 Sig.040 -. Error 1.126 Model 1 2 3 4 (Constant) Complex (Constant) Complex Safety (Constant) Complex Safety Neurotic (Constant) Complex Safety Neurotic Conscientous t 11.
CONCLUSION The principal components analysis of the FFM yielded a five-component measure that accounted for 47.. Complexity. Ego and Social) has 4 items. 4. The five factors are all intercorrelated significantly at the 0. Each of the components (i. The Openness and Conscientiousness components each have five items while the Extraversion. and Total RBPS. Actualisation. Neuroticism component of the FFM was a significant predictor of all the RBPS components. the third hypothesis. The principal components analysis of the CASES yielded a five-component measure that accounted for 57.Conscientiousness component of the FFM was the best predictor of the Job component and a significant predictor of Total RBPS.57 to .0% of the variance. Hence. Agreeableness and Neuroticism components each have four items.17 to . The original sub-scales had ten items 135 .29. is supported. which states that the CASES and FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance.01 level (1-tailed). The Cronbach’s alphas for the FFM components range from . The R-square values ranged from . 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. except for the Organisation component.e.4. The original subscales had ten items each.4% of the variance in the FFM items.73. Safety.
81. The Cronbach’s alphas for these components ranged from . which states that the FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. Safety and Ego were significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS. Complexity.01 level (1-tailed). Hence. Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM were significant predictors of the Job. for which one item was removed. Complexity and Safety were significant predictors of the Innovator component and Total RBPS. the first hypothesis. Conscientiousness and Agreeableness were significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS. Complexity and Social were significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS. and Innovator components of the RBPS. All of the components retained their original 4items except for the Organisation component. Actualisation. The Cronbach’s alphas for the CASES components ranged from . From the stepwise regression. From the stepwise regression.each. Complexity was the only significant predictor of the Career component of the RBPS.48 to . Conscientiousness. Agreeableness and Neuroticism were significant predictors of the Team component and Total RBPS.0% of the variance. All five CASES components were intercorrelated significantly at the 0. Career.89 to . Safety. Each component of the RBPS had a significant proportion of its variance explained by the FFM components.12 to .93.23. The R- 136 . Complexity and Social were significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS. The principal components analysis of the RBPS yielded a five-component measure that accounted for 80. The R-square values ranged from . is supported. Safety.
Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM and Complexity. The R-square values ranged from . Each component of the RBPS had a significant proportion of its variance explained by the CASES components. except for the Organisation component which was significantly predicted only by components of CASES. 137 . is supported.square values ranged from . the second hypothesis. Safety. Complexity and Social of the CASES and Neuroticism of the FFM were significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS. Safety.29. From the stepwise regression. had a significant proportion of its variance explained by both the CASES and the FFM components. Hence. Safety and Social of the CASES were significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS. Complexity of the CASES and Neuroticism of the FFM were significant predictors of the Career component of the RBPS.14 to .26. Actualisation. is essentially supported. Complexity and Safety of the CASES and Neuroticism of the FFM were significant predictors of the Innovator component of the RBPS.17 to . Each component of the RBPS. the third hypothesis. Complexity and Safety of the CASES and Neuroticism and Conscientiousness of the FFM were significant predictors of Total RBPS. Complexity and Social of the CASES were significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS. Hence. which states that the CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. which states that the CASES and FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.
0. 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.2. The original 50-item FFM measure (Goldberg. and suggestions for future research. 1999) was analysed using principal components analysis.2. the limitations of the study. which revealed a five-component solution consisting of Openness 138 .1. CHAPTER FIVE – CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 5. and finally a conclusion. DISCUSSION OF THE MAIN FINDINGS 5. 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.5.1.
. The value of the correlation coefficient that can be considered to indicate a useful predictor has been debated over the years. 1997).20 was considered by Cohen (1988) as meaningful but Schmitt et al. achievement oriented and persistent) had the highest correlations with all of the RBPS components and Total RBPS. (1984) argued that a correlation of 0. artistically sensitive. dependable.. Of the five FFM components.30 or greater was therefore considered as indicating a valid predictor of performance. Extraversion (four items). hardworking.g. this factor was considered as an inadequate predictor of any of the RBPS components or of Total RBPS. This finding is not surprising given that conscientious individuals are organised. Conscientiousness (5 items). For this research.30.20 was too low to accept personality as a predictor of work performance. The results of the stepwise regression analyses also did not reveal Openness as a significant predictor of any of the RBPS components.30 were questionable. This finding corroborates the finding of Hogan and Holland (2003). Agreeableness (four items) and Neuroticism (four items).09. Conscientiousness (e.(5 items).g. In view of the cut-off value of 0. A value of 0. Openness (e. a correlation coefficient of 0. 139 . responsible. Barrick and Mount (1991) also argued that coefficients below . achievement oriented.. purposeful. imaginative and intellectual) was found to be negatively correlated to only the Team component of the RBPS with r = -. All of these components were intercorrelated as revealed in past research which showed that they were distinct but related factors (Judge et al. responsible.
dependable.e. the Conscientiousness component also predicted Total RBPS better than contextual work performance (i. these results demonstrated that being dependable..09) with the Career component of the RBPS.g. From the stepwise regression analysis. assertive and sociable) was found to be negatively correlated (r = -.. Hence. 1993).. Crant 1995.g. hard working and thorough will perform better than those who do not have such tendencies. and Sanders 2003). Conscientiousness was found to be the best predictor of the components of the RBPS and of Total RBPS. Such low values of the correlation 140 .. that have been examined (e. (2002) who posited that the FFM dimensions were better at predicting overall performance measures than those with contextual aspects. the Conscientiousness construct does seem to be logically related to work performance. dependable. in all occupational groups. Conscientiousness has been shown to be a significant predictor of all job-related criteria. Salgado 1997. 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. Hurtz and Donovan 2000. persistent. achievement-oriented and responsible (i. This finding is consistent with the results of Avis et al. It makes sense that individuals who have tendencies to be careful.e. and persistent (Barrick et al. Barrick and Mount 1993.. From a theoretical perspective. talkative. high in Conscientiousness) were positively associated with work-related performance. the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS). Furthermore. Extraversion (e.
trusting. Hence. Since the majority of the respondents (404 or 74. Agreeableness was a significant predictor of all the RBPS components and of Total RBPS. professional and managerial staff.30 cut-off value for the correlation coefficient. the Innovator component. In the stepwise regression analyses. 1993). Neuroticism was correlated significantly with the Job component of the RBPS and with Total RBPS. and managers.coefficient. 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. 1993). Agreeableness can be a predictor of certain components of job performance for managerial staff in highly structured jobs. Agreeableness was only a valid predictor of the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. professionals. and of Total RBPS. the Team component. are often disregarded (Barrick et al. Salgado (1997) revealed that Agreeableness was a valid predictor of work performance for skilled labourers. even though it is significant at the 0.2%) were from the managerial positions in highly structured jobs. The stepwise regressions revealed that Extraversion as a non-significant predictor of performance. Employees in these types of jobs who were courteous. soft-hearted. Neuroticism was a predictor of the Job component. and 141 . the finding from this study also supported that Agreeableness was a valid predictor of certain aspects of work performance for skilled. the Career component. 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. In line with the findings of the current study. Using a 0.05 level.
low confidence. 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. Furthermore. the five components of RBPS have components of “getting along and getting ahead”. low Neuroticism) tend to be evaluated more positively than those who are panicky.. Task performance corresponds to getting ahead while contextual performance corresponds to getting along. 2002.Total RBPS. Agreeableness and Neuroticism could be considered as valid predictors of work performance in an absolute sense if 0. the antithesis of Neuroticism) has generalised validity across occupation. 2004a). These findings supported Salgado’s (2003) argument that emotional stability (i. If performance criteria are classified as getting ahead and getting along. Due to their tendency to construe their experiences in a negative light. then conscientiousness. Hypothesis One. calm and self-confident (i. 1993).e.e. Barrick and Mount. Furthermore. organisations and countries.30 was adopted as the standard. Hence. agreeableness and neuroticism should predict performance (Hogan and Holland. 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. employees who are resilient. 142 . which states that the FFM will predict a significant of variance of performance ratings. tendencies to experience negative emotions and pessimism. was supported. This finding was partially reinforced in this study. 2003). In the final analysis. Hurtz and Donovan (2000) postulated that Conscientiousness.. criteria. Neuroticism encompasses traits such as excessive worry.
.31 to .g. self-regulation or low impulsivity and volition) correlated with all of the components of the RBPS with coefficients ranging from . The Complexity component (e. Ego and Social). Safety. CASES) comprised five components (i.e. Main Findings for Research Question Two Research Question Two: Does the CASES model of personality predict work performance? The second research question was addressed by the second hypothesis: H2: The CASES model will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. Complexity. The new personality measure (i. which were correlated positively to each other but to an extent that they could be considered as distinct but related components. 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”.46).5.e..45 and had the highest correlation with Total RBPS (r = .2. Actualisation. Complexity correlated with the Career component of the RBPS as self-regulation and volition would enhance the attainment of career 143 ..2. 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.
or the Innovator component of the RBPS. self-esteem and the need for progress. The Actualisation component (e.30 for the correlation coefficient.g. the Career component. Actualisation was also correlated with 144 . Actualisation correlated with the Organisation component of the RBPS. 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. passion.. action and thought. Using a cut-off value of 0. 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. which includes aspects of performance such as ensuring group success and seeking and responding to group’s needs.opportunities and the advancement of one’s career. self-esteem and needs for achievement. Complexity had the highest correlation with Total RBPS arguably because high levels of Complexity enable one to control one’s motivation. Complexity correlated with the Organisation component of the RBPS arguably because self-regulation and volition would promote the virtues of the organisation. 1977a). This aspect of performance can be linked to passion. Actualisation cannot be considered a valid predictor for the Job component. 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. all of which are arguably related to the need for growth. Actualisation correlated with the Team component of the RBPS. 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.
passionate and creative would perform better than those who do not have these tendencies.6 years). The reason could be the age of the respondents (average age was 34. and progress. Using a cut-off value of . From a theoretical perspective.g.Total RBPS. Safety correlated with the Job component of the RBPS arguably because orderly and structured facets are antecedents of high quality and high quantity. such that the respondents were perhaps too young to be highly motivated to realise their full potential. Team. the need for growth. security. 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. systematic. 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. orderly and structured) correlated with all of the components of the RBPS and with Total RBPS. The Safety component of CASES (e. the Actualisation construct does seem to be logically related to organisational citizenship and total performance. 2001).. The stepwise regression analyses revealed that Actualisation was the best and only predictor of the Organisation component of the RBPS. the Safety component is correlated with the Job. It is reasonable that individuals with tendencies to be achievement-oriented. and Organisation components of the RBPS and with Total RBPS. This finding reaffirmed Arnold’s (1988) claim that Actualisation is a predictor of job performance.30. At this level. Safety correlated with Total 145 . achievement. which included facets of passion. the drive is to achieve a sense of fulfilment in balancing one’s work and life responsibilities (Stum.
Innovator. The stepwise regression analyses also revealed that Ego was a significant. In the stepwise regression analyses. the CASES model. 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. these components of performance are related to facets of teamwork and organisational citizenship. Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. The Social component of CASES (e. The stepwise regression analyses also revealed that Social was a significant predictor of the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. but negatively related.. structured and systematic are antecedents of productivity (Cook et al.. Safety was found to be a significant predictor of the Job. except for the Innovator component. Using the 0. affiliation. companionship and care) correlated significantly with all of the components of the RBPS. quality and quantity of work) that constitute the job component of the RBPS. and with Total RBPS. Based on the preceding discussion of the main findings. and Total RBPS.30 cut-off value.g. predictor of the Job component of the RBPS. 2000). Social correlated only with the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. needs for love.g. is a useful predictor of the various components of the 146 ..RBPS arguable because its facets of orderly. with the exception of the Ego component. This finding indicates that the Ego component is detrimental to facets of performance (e.
The stepwise regression showed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism. a component of the FFM. which states that CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. 5. to conform and persevere) whereas the Neuroticism 147 . The stepwise regression revealed that the Complexity component of the CASES was a better predictor of the Career component of the RBPS than Neuroticism.e.2.RBPS and Total RBPS.3. Safety and Social components of CASES. 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. Hypothesis Two.. was therefore supported. both of which are components of the FFM. This finding might be due to the fact that the Complexity component has facets which included volition (i. 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.
passion and realisation of one’s potential) that facilitate organisational citizenship. Complexity.g. Actualisation was the best predictor.g. 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. Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. and Social components of the CASES and the Neuroticism component of the FFM were predictors of the Team component of the RBPS. protection. Complexity was the best predictor followed by Neuroticism and Safety. The stepwise regression showed that for the Innovator component of the RBPS. This was probably due to the fact that Actualisation includes facets (e. structured. Complexity was the best predictor followed by Safety. Complexity includes self-regulation and volition and not surprisingly 148 . which is the essence of the Organisation component of the RBPS. The stepwise regression revealed that the Complexity and Safety components of CASES and the Neuroticism and Conscientiousness components of the FFM were predictors of Total RBPS.component comprises facets such as fear and low confidence regarding career progress and development. Safety. Safety was the best predictor due probably to the fact that Safety includes aspects (e. and Social components of CASES were predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS. The stepwise regression revealed that the Actualisation. Complexity. The Innovator component addresses behaviors such as finding new ways to do one’s work and requires risk taking and confidence.
the various components of the CASES and the FFM are significant predictors of the various components of the RBPS and Total RBPS.3. Based on the preceding discussion of the main findings.3. individuals and human resources consultants. 5. Hypothesis Three. 1998.1... 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. examining the link between personality and work performance appears to have profound implications for organisations. If researchers are able to affirm that certain personality traits are related significantly to work performance. which states that the CASES and FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance. then people can learn how to modify their personality to improve their work performance and organisations can benefit by recruiting individuals with personality profiles that may render them as preferred employees. which is based on 149 . Implications on Professional Practice From the classical perspective.was a better predictor than Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS 5. the proposed CASES model. Kieffer et al. 2004). Sackett et al. 1997. was therefore supported. From this point of view.
organisations and individuals. and formulating effective human resources strategies in training. which is a wellestablished model of personality. has important practical implications. for their client organisations. The results indicate that the CASES model of personality maybe a useful addition to the array of personality or individual difference measures that are used to predict various facets of work performance. The CASES model 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. based on personality traits. recruiting and promoting personnel. 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. Although the research methodology and design did not permit statements of causality. 1999). the CASES model is another useful tool for human resource personnel with respect to designing effective job specifications or roles. 150 . the CASES model did account for significant variance in work performance over and above that accounted for by the FFM.Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the social cognitive theory of “If-Then”. For organisations.
5. The need for achievement is also dependent on the fit between environmental factors and personality. Beadles II and Krilowicz. where English is a second language. behavior. cognition and satisfaction are correlated with work performance. Two research problems were therefore identified and these guided the current research. personality interacts with cognitive ability and appears to influence work performance (Lowery. These instruments have predominantly been developed in the Western countries and the question arises as to the generalisability of these instruments to Asian countries. and psychometric measures. Moreover. 2004) 151 . The level of job complexity may have a role in whether an interaction occurs between personality and ability when predicting work performance. values. such as Malaysia. many personality measures are based on single theories and therefore their usefulness for predicting performance in actual workplace settings needs to be examined. personality. Hence.2. there has been a proliferation of psychometric instruments that have been used as part of organisational development and recruitment processes. Implications on Theory The first Chapter provided an outline of this study in the context of motivation. Furthermore.3. In recent years. it is not surprising other factors such as ability. There is a lot of debate on whether the role of a person on work performance is sculptor or sculpture.
the CASES model suggests that certain personality factors or traits have a greater effect on work performance because people can. consciously or unconsciously. A subsequent study designed to assess personality and work performance over time (longitudinally) using a random sample of the population (i. public or private) would increase confidence in its validity and generalisability. Common method variance and mono-source bias are potential limitations of the current study as they may produce spurious relationships.. This creates range restriction.11. which reduces the correlation between items. a convenience sample was used. 2002). Furthermore. Given the relatively small correlation coefficients obtained in this study (minimum r = . However.4.e.Similarly.. 5. 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. small or medium or large organisations. maximum r = .46). modify their behavior to improve their work performance. there is no way of estimating 152 . The predictors and the criteria used in the current study were obtained from self-report data using a single questionnaire. it seems reasonable to conclude that the measures of personality and work performance were assessing separate constructs (Barrick et al. 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 brings into question the representativeness of the sample and therefore the generalisability of the findings.
FFM and the RBPS is recommended. 5. further instrument refinement is recommended. In regards to instrumentation. It would be difficult to fathom how the relative validities of the FFM. CASES and RBPS would have differed if incentives were provided. Hence. it would be interesting to explore these relationships using alternative measurements as certain studies had presented evidence that customer. This study was the first time these measures have been used together in Malaysia. The circumstances of the respondents’ participation did not give any incentive to give inaccurate responses. Hence. due to its brevity. Consequently.5. supervisor or co-worker ratings had equivalent or higher levels of criterion-related validity in comparison with employees’ self-reports. Another impetus for further research is the length of the CASES measure as this personality measure has only 20 items. FUTURE RESEARCH The personality measures of the FFM and the CASES and the RBPS performance measure were self-reports. it is not possible to adjust the correlations for the effects of a restricted range. organisations may be willing to include the CASES measure in surveys as a preliminary screening for potential employees. 153 .what the variance of the ratings ought to be. possible modifications as well as further validation of the CASES. For the sake of understanding the impact of personality on work performance.
job complexity. income and educational backgrounds are needed to address concerns about the generalisability of the findings obtained in the current study. Although face validity may be defined as a “test which looks good for a particular purpose” (Hogan.g. The cross-validation of the CASES with other determinants of work performance such as ability. 154 . 5. Given that the research on the CASES measure is an initial effort. Systematic replication integrating a variety of individuals representing various ages. goal-setting motivation.. management or clerical). 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. From a more philosophical angle. sales. Face validity is always a problem in personality measure. non-governmental or non-profit organisations) and cultures. Future research can also be conducted to ascertain whether the results reported in this study are generalisable to different jobs (e. self-efficacy. it should by all means be subjected to replication in various contexts with various work performance measures. validity is a long-term process for any research.6. skilled or semi-skilled. organisational settings (public.Questions about the generalisability of these findings and external validity issues can be addressed through replications of this study. job satisfaction and other proximal motivation models that include interaction effects should also be encouraged to further enhance the validation of this personality measure.
Because needs are met at different stages. there are other dimensions of work performance (e. each individual moves through Maslow’s hierarchy at a different rate. they can provide a basic understanding of what actually energises or motivates individuals. it would be appropriate to explore this relationship using third-party sources (e. 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. 1996. 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... and the work environment (Wiley. many seemingly appropriate personality tests fail to predict work performance. 1997). p.Hogan and Roberts. 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. A 155 . or customers) for information on work performance and personality rather than to rely exclusively on self-report data. one should choose the former. 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. motivation. ability. Personality measures often have empirical validity but commonly are weak on face validity. 1997). it is of no use for decision making. Employee performance is basically determined by three things. Furthermore. That is.g. The strength of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory is its ability to identify those needs which motivate behavior (Wiley.g. to understand the impact of personality on work performance. supervisors. 474). Furthermore. While personality-based theories may not necessarily predict behavior or motivation. co-workers.
Hogan and Roberts. With this jockeying to satisfy these needs. 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. for example. In reality. Besides their indisputable academic importance. Although personality is significantly inherited and stable in adulthood. the individual must balance life and work responsibilities to ultimately achieve a sense of fulfilment. personal development and career advice. 1996). then the predictive relationship between work performance and personality will improve (Hogan. studies that have examined the relationship between personality and work performance can be utilised for recruitment. people are not simply reactors to stimuli in their environment in that they can also organise.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. If researchers are able to classify jobs by occupation and then consider the performance criteria and the personality dimensional requirements relevant to that occupation. A comment on the usefulness of research on personality and work performance should also be made. it would be beneficial to individuals to be aware of the limitations and advantages associated with their personality profiles. Hence. select and transform stimuli. 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. 156 .
The study has contributed to the literature on personality by providing a new personality measure. 2004a. The study also showed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM are valid predictors for all jobs and criteria in the sample used in this study. Hence. 157 . and Total RBPS as compared to the FFM which was a better predictor of only the Job component of the RBPS. Tett and Burnett. Moreover. 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. this personality measure. 2003). CASES. Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. In addition to providing a theory-grounded measurement tool. Innovator. 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. both situationally and contextually (Wheeler. Although the FFM is a well established personality measure. CASES. Although this is a preliminary study of the validity of the CASES model of personality. CASES can be offered as a useful personality measure for both practitioners and researchers. the researcher believes that it has made a contribution to research on personality measures and the prediction of work-related performance. some components of the CASES model were found to be better predictors of the Career. 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. Hunton and Bryant.
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.
(2004)..J. The Architecture of Personality. R.F. John Wiley & Sons. D. 43(6). Carmeli. Psychology and Marketing. and Sekaran. 476-506. Applied Business Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. A. Cellar. B. Academy of Management Review. Cattell. The Social Construction of Needs. 289-309. 7(3). A. F. Miller. (1989). R. Self Appraisal in Performance Evaluation: Development Versus Evaluation. J. Evolutionary Psychology and Explanation in Personality Psychology. 183204. Work Commitment. Comparison of Factor Structure and Criterion-Related Validity Coefficients for Two Measures of Personality Based on the Five Factor Model. The American Behavioural Scientist. 694704. and Freund. D. (2000). Psychological Review.. D. A. Cavana. 302-314. Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: An Empirical Investigation. Buttle. 6(3). M. 44(11). 161 . (2001).D.. 197-210.D. Campbell. (1943).H. (1988). 13. 111(1).L. and Klawsky. 1001-1013. and Lee. 81(6).. D. Personality as Traits.. Delahaye. (2004).Y. American Psychologist. U. 1378-1388..L. C. D.. (1989).Buss. Doverspike. Journal of Applied Psychology. Cervone. International Journal of Organisation Theory and Behavior. The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Cervone. (1996).B. 38.
Cohen.. Odessa. (2001).R. R. Do all carrots look the same? Examining the impact of culture on employee motivation. Management Research News. and McCrae. (1992). 29-40. 26(1). (2000). A.T. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 18(2). Training Journal.. 202-208. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.. J. Taylor. Odessa. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. Theoretical Orientation in Psychology and the Traditions of Freud. (1995). 117. Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources. FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. (2003). (1988). (1995). Hillsdale. K. and Eary. Personality and Self-Rated Work Performance.D. 12(2). D. The NEO Personality Inventory manual. P.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Cohen. Solid ground in the wetlands: A reply to Block. N. 16(3).. 162 .Cesare. (1987). and Sadri. Coan. A Markov Chain Model of Human Needs: An Extension of Maslow’s Need Theory.. Young. A. J.P. J. (1985). R.H.R. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. Psychometric assessment under test... P.T..W. Chung. Stotland. 51. G. R. P. Cook. Costa. Academy of Management Journal. and McCrae. D.T. 216-220. and Wolfe. R. Jung and Adler. 291-294. Coull. E. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO FFI) professional manual. and Bedford. and McCrae. Costa. NJ: Erlbaum.. 1820. A. 223-234. Costa.). M. An experimental investigation of need for recognition.R. 134-139. (1969).
Rosenweig & L. 41. Digman. Comparative analysis of complex organisations (enlarged. an overview of an increasingly complex world.W. and Crosscultural Assessment.R. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Dent. 55(7). Status. (1995). 113-124. Journal of Applied Psychology. CA: Annual Reviews. 163 . F. R. J. (1989). D. Structure. 14-17. 532-537. (1975). 3(2). Big Five Issues: Rationale. Psychological types of tax preparers. (1997). 17. and Curd. Personnel Psychology.M. Five Big. Journal of Psychological Type. European Psychologist. The Proactive Personality Scale and Objective Job Performance Among Real Estate Agents. and Silverman. Annual review of psychology (Vol. (1990). Day. (1989). 1246-1256. 73(6). Psychometric tests.).. 42. (2000). J. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. The Science of Meaning: Can Behaviorism Bring Meaning to Psychological Science? American Psychologist.).. pp. DeGrandpre.M. Etzioni. 721-739. A. In M. De Raad.J. 25-36.R. 80(4). (2004). S. Porter (Eds.Crant. 36-38.A. Personality and job performance: Evidence of incremental validity. J. Palo Alto. Content. New York: Academic Press. Descouzis.. Digman. 417-440). (1998). Training Journal. B.M. D. J. Higher-Order Factors of the Big Five.
S. (1998). The ego and the id (J. 115-125. Flynn. Fisher. Jr. Psychoanalytic Psychology. 49(3). P.. Testing times for the world of psychometrics. (1993).J. (2003). R. Journal of Organisational Behavior. (1976).E. 4th Edition. D. Y. Trans. 20(1). Journal of Managerial Psychology.). Gabriel. 46-50. 49-58. New York: Norton. Franken. van Schaik. 348-365. 17(5).R. (1960). W. 164 . and Carr. G. Organisations. (1981). A comparison of Multi-Item Likert and Visual Analogue Scales for the Assessment of Transactionally Defined Coping Function. Gallagher. (2004).Fedor. 358. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.. Frank. Fletcher. A. 25(12). Integrating OB Mod with Cognitive Approaches to Motivation.R. Freud. 24(6). 6(1). D.. management and psychoanalysis: An overview. C. 691-697. Human Motivation. and van Wersch. H. The Academy of Management Review. Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance are correlated? Possible sources of a commonsense theory.. Personnel Management. (2002). Riviere. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. C. 20(4). and Einhorn. 753-777.D. Motivation Theory and Job Design. A. (Original work published 1923). and Ferris.B. Triebe and Their Vicissitudes: Freud’s Theory of Motivation Reconsidered.. The Journal of Business. (2003). G.
G. 1998. J. Anderson. R. Development and Counseling Psychology: Depth. Hair.N. De Fruyt.C. (2002). Haynes.). (1992). Deary. Organisational Behavior. George. (1999).. I. (2002). Great Britain. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Tilburg. The structure of phenotypic personality traits.. 165 .M. and Johnson. F. 238-247. Public Domain. Mervielde. A Broad-Bandwidth.A. Upper Saddle River. R.. L. (1999). D. 7 (pp. R.). Vol.. Exploring the dimensions of service brands: The Service Brand Verdict (SBV) Model. Prentice-Hall. D. 39(3). Ostendorf (Eds.E.. Richard. (2002). E. J. R. and Jones. S.. NJ. American Psychologist. D. Content validity in Psychological Assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods.. The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.S. 7(3). 275-298. Unpublished Honours Thesis. Grace.. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy. (1995). Grace. 48.Gelso. L. Personality Psychology in Europe. Griffith University. Personality. 7 – 28). New Jersey.R. & F. Ambivalence and Actualisation. P. Multivariate Data Analysis. C. Prentice Hall.J.A. Griffith University. and Fassinger. Research Methods for Managers (3rd edn.R. Critical variables in Child care services switching: Contrasting consumer and staff perceptions. Sage Publications. In I. Tatham. and Kubany. Personality Inventory Measuring the Lower-Level Facets of Several Five-Factor models. Psychological Assessment. Goldberg. Goldberg. J. Gill. (1993). and Black. 26-34. W.S.
(1986). 185-188. Hogan. methodological and statistical issues. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences.J. B. F. Hogan.. and Meyer. 446-455. P.Helmreich. American Psychologist.L. and Genestre.E. Bauer. (1996)..R.M. R. A. Psychological Assessment.L. J. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Hunthausen. Hilgard. E. Using Theory to Evaluate Personality and Job Performance Relations: A Socioanalytic Perspective.. Hogan. T. Truxillo. The incremental validity of psychological testing and assessment: Conceptual.. 100-112. The trilogy of mind: Cognition. and Roberts.. and Hammer. A Field Study of Frame-of-Reference Effects on Personality Test Validity. and Schmidt. J. R. and Holland. Sawin.L. L. Journal of Applied Psychology.. 469-477. Newbury Park: Sage..L.. (1997). J.T. Journal of Applied Psychology.. J. 88(3). 16. Hunsley. 562-571. Hunter. Herbig. (2003).N. G. and Carsrud. 166 .. (2003). (2003).W. L.. J. affection and conation. International motivational differences. Management Decision. (1990). 71(2). 88(1).M. B. (1980). Journal of Applied Psychology. 107-117. A. D. 15(4). 545-551. 51(5). 35(7). The Honeymoon Effect on Job Performance: Temporal Increases in the Predictive Power of Achievement Motivation. Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and Answers.B.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.J. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology.. and Keaveny. (2003).J. and Mischel. Five-Factor Model of Personality and Transformational Leadership. 74.. (2000). A. 50.. (1997). and Baumgartner. 85(5).J.E. Managerial Discretion in the Use of Self-ratings in a Appraisal System: The Antecedents and Consequences. (2002). Journal of Managerial Issues. Motivations and Personal Goals: Revisited. T. Bono.. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2001).E. Inderrieden. The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. W. J.W.C. T. E. Judge. Personnel Psychology. McCrae. 80(4). L.E. 167 . (2004).. Judge. 18-20. 585-596.. Psychology & Marketing.. Iachini. R. Starting the “Fire” under an unmotivated employee. Occupational Health and Safety.J. Bono.. XVI (4).A. J.A. and Livesley. G. Judge.. J. R. J. W. Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Angleitner. R.A. 87(4). A.. 751-765. Jang.J. 1556-1565.. Idson. and Thoresen.R. R. Allen. A. (2000). Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: Support for a hierarchical model of personality. C. and Bono. (2003). 765-780.. T. T. 675-688. The Personality of Familiar and Significant People: The Lay Perceiver as a Social-Cognitive Theorist.E.. J. and Donovan. 460-482.. Jolibert. Riemann. Journal of Applied Psychology. 72(3). M. Erez. Personality and Job Performance: The Big Five Revisited. Values. G. 85(6). Ilies. 869-870.. (1998).M..Hurtz. K. and Gerhardt. 14(7).L. 303-331.
Kichuk.Judge. and Ilies. Martocchio.A. R. Revision by R.A. C. Schinka. (2002). 39(1-2). Canadian Psychology. 474-495. Review of General Psychology. Work Teams: Selecting Members for Optimal Performance. The Meanings of Personality Predicates. Five Factor Model of Personality and Employee Absence.E. S. K. G. (1988). Princeton University Press (Original work published 1921). 797-807.Hull) Princeton. 23-32. C. J.6). Group and Organisation Studies... Kaufman. (H.H. Kagan.L. R. 43(8). Baynes. Koltko-Rivera. Katz. 614-620. 168-177.. T.. American Psychologist. (Vol.. (2004). (2004). (1976)..A. New York: Wiley.). D. Journal of Counseling Psychology. T. Bollingen Series XX.M. 1(4). and Curtiss. The Psychology of Worldviews. and Thoresen. Psychological types. and Kahn. M. Trans. The social psychology of organisations (2nd ed. 82(5).J. (1971).Jung.L. and Wiesner.F. Organisational Improvement: A Review of Models and an Attempted Synthesis. 51(2). 87(4).G. The collected works of C.. (1998). Relationship of Personality to Performance Motivation: A Meta-Analytic Review. Kieffer. W. 8(1). 745-755.G..C. (1978). Jung. Person-Environment Congruence and Personality Domains in the Prediction of Job Performance and Work Quality. J. (1997). J. Journal of Applied Psychology. NJ. 168 . R. 3-58. Journal of Applied Psychology. Judge.J.G.
Human Resource Planning. 12.E. 114-121. 4/4.... (2003).A. and Post. (1999).. (1994). J. Career success: the effects of personality. L. Psychological contracts in the 21st Century: What employees value most and how well organisations are responding to these expectations. (2003).W. The psychological types of college accounting students. Journal of Accounting Education. Accounting for Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional Research Designs. Journal of Applied Psychology. S.. Work Motivation: The incorporation of self-concept-based processes. 21. Journal of Psychological Type. and Scholl. Rogers. (1996). J. A personality profile of CPAs in public practice. H. 382-394. V.. Kwiatkowski. 37-42. 24(1). Beauvais. R. D.Kovar.L. Career Development International. R. (2001)... and Shaffer. Trends in organisations and selection: An Introduction. (1990). Lau. J. (1999). Journal of Managerial Psychology. Landry.L. 969-983.H. 28.G. D. 18(5).. (2001).com/acct/jac/jac12. N. 29-34. Personality preferences of accounting students: A longitudinal case study.swcollege..M. S. 52(8). Journal of Accounting and Computers. and Harrell. M. L. R.M. 225-230. A.W. McKeon.W. Lindell. K. Available at: http://www. R.L. R. Computer usage and psychological type characteristics in accounting students. 75-94. Ott. and Kickul... 10-21. S. 169 . M. and Fisher. Jr. 86(1). Kreiser. Human Relations.html Laribee. Leonard. Lester. The Ohio CPA Journal (Winter).P. and Whitney.
R. International Journal of Management. (1970). and Morse. Lombardo. Locke. (1995). 10(4). 187-203. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Dubanoski. E. (1996). American Psychologist. and Foschi. Lombardo. European Psychologist. Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey. G. Maslow. Maslow. Linking an Intervention model to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. 370396. H. L. 2(2). A. N. G. 57(9).. G. Public Policy and Law. Lowery.. D. Hamada. 134-145.A. 1-10. 3. consultancy and managerial roles. A. (1943).H. Motivation and personality (2nd ed. 705717.J. The American Behavioral Scientist. Psychological Review. History of Psychology.P. The Concept of Personality in 19th Century French and 20th Century American Psychology. New York: Harper & Row. Psychology. Marsella.. The measurement of personality across cultures: Historical.H. Beadles II.. and Krilowicz.C.M. and Latham. (2000). Applied individual differences research and its quantitative methods. T.. (2002). 21-29. 123-142.. Lubinski. (2004).). Using Personality and Cognitive Ability to Predict Job Performance: An Empirical Study..P. J. (2002). A Theory of human motivation. 6(2). 21. 44. A.Lindon. The European Origins of “Personality Psychology”. Conceptual and Methodological Issues and Considerations.J.N. W.. (2003). and Foschi. C. R. 7(2). Bradford. 170 .P. 50.
Mayer. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. McCrae.J.P. J. (1996). (2000). McAdams. R. McCaulley. M. R. and Costa. 449-477.D. P.). The five-factor model of personality (51-87). Mayer. (1999). Wiggins (Ed).D. Pervin (Eds. 100-122. (1961). Primary Divisions of Personality and their Scientific Contributions: From the Trilogy-of-Mind to the Systems Set. Handbook of personality: Theory and research (139153). Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior.T. 324-329. In J. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Bridge Between Counseling and Consulting.. (2001).J. Van Nostrand.R. 171 . 5(2). T. The Psychology of Life Stories. In A.. (1998).T. 42(9). NJ. McCrae. McC Dachowski.R. 31. Review of General Psychology.P. Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five factor model. 117-132. McClelland. Lawrence and O. D.. New York: Guilford Press. (2001). P. H. and Costa. A Convergence of the Tender-Minded and the ToughMinded? American Psychologist. 83(2). Review of General Psychology. Princeton.S. 886-887. M. A five-factor theory of personality. and Pierce. 52(2). A Comparison of Likert Scale and Traditional Measures of Self-Efficacy.H. Structural Divisions of Personality and the Classification of Traits. (2003). The Achieving Society. (1987).Maurer. 7(4). New York: Guilford Press.R. Journal of Applied Psychology. D. J.C. 381-401.
172 . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Coata. W. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal.D. W. Dispositions. Psychometric problems and issues involved with creating and using ipsative measures for selection. Mitchell. and Jackson.. D. (2004).. Dynamics and Invariance in Personality Structure. D. del Pilar. 77-88. The impact of behavioral style assessment on organisational effectiveness: a call for action..P. 80-88. Rolland... Y. 38(12). and Harmon. (1968). and Darling. J.. (1995). The Academy of Management Review. J. 102(2). 29. J. Shelton. (2002). M. 246-268. C. 27(4). and Parker. P.... Quantitative Research Approaches. New York: Wiley. Mele.J. Cross-cultural assessment of the Five Factor Model: The revised NEO Personality Inventory. 1595-1597. 314-322. 171-188. The challenge of humanistic management. 7(1). Meade. Melamed. Mischel. Personality and assessment. 44(1).H. (2003)..R. 11-18. Gliner. G. (1995).. (1999).McCrae. T. Psychometric instruments: Potential benefits and practical use. and Shoda.R. 23(6). A. (1982). McKenna. Motivation: New directions for theory research and practice.A. G.R. T. 531-540. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology.K. 77. R.A. Psychological Review.D. Mischel. A Cognitive-Affective System Theory of Personality: Reconceptualising Situations.W. (1998). W. Morgan. Industrial and Commercial Training. Journal of Business Ethics. R.T. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.
A. L. (1994). 1(1). (1992). Nourayi.A. I.. Journal of Educational Administration. I. (1998). Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Nikolaou. 173 . The Case of Qualitative Research. (1951). History of Psychology. and Hammer. H. Palo Alto.B. T. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 18(7). and Cherry. 5(4). MBTI Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Mustafa. 152-200.. 13. Fitting the person to the organization: Examining the personality-job performance relationship from a new perspective. Journal of Education for Business. The relationship between self and supervisor appraisals with role clarity and job satisfaction. (1993).K. Character and the “Culture of Personality”. I. 111-115. M. Murray. 5.A. and Smircich. 29-42. 1897-1937. Accounting students’ performance and personality types. The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resources management. (Nov/Dec). M. Mount. 639-648. M. The International Journal of Public Sector Management. H. The Contributions of Psychology to the Study of Administrative Behavior. Quen. Dialectica.Morgan. K. (1992).. Academy of Management Review. Gordon Allport. Myers. 266-292. Nicholson. 52-68. (2003). (1998).L. G. A. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. 5(4). Nhundu.M.. Third Edition. M.. A. McCaulley. and Barrick. (1980). 15-27.. 30(1).C.R. 491-500. Some basic psychological assumptions and conceptions.
QUT. (2003). J. Psychometric Theory (2nd edn. New York: 44(12). Paunonen. McGraw-Hill. Journal of Accounting Education. Parker. 17-35. Otter.C.C. Measuring motivation in a learning organisation. M. 29-36. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.). A. (2004). R. 1301-1308.M. S. Osteraker. L.V. Motivtion Needs and Their Relationship to Life Success. S..V. Do CPAs have a unique personality? Are certain personality types found more frequently in our profession? The Michigan CPA (Spring). and Ashton. Political Marketing: The Application of Marketing to Politics.. M. (1991). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 74(2). and Chusmir.Nunnally. New York. (1999). 73-79. Ott. Mann. C. S. (2001). Journal of Workplace Learning. 174 .H. P.. (1998). Unpublished Master of Business Thesis. Big Five Factors and Facets and the Prediction of Behavior. 8.T.. (1978). O’Cass. Big Five Factors of Personality and Replicated Predictions of Behavior. and Moores. Paunonen. 84(2). An empirical investigation into the interactive effects of student personality traits and method of instruction (lecture or CAI) on student performance in elementary accounting. Paunonen. (1984). Human Relations.H. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. M. (1990). 81(3). 524-539. Bradford. B. Hierarchical Organisation of Personality and Prediction of Behavior.V. 411-424. 11(2). 538-556.
64(4). Journal of Consumer Behavior. McClearn. 172-176. 350-360. Pittenger. interaction: The history of a controversy and a discussion of theoretical models. Perugini. The Idiographic Nature of Human Personality: Examples of the Idiographic Self-Concept. 375-387. A Dynamic Systems Approach to Personality. 44(2). Looking for a Simple Big Five Factorial Structure in the Domain of Adjectives. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 14. and Friberg. (1993). Journal of Career Planning and Placement. (2001). R. 665-677. 105-111. Pelham. R.A.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Academy of Management Review. L. (1993). (1988). J.A. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (1989). (2004). The consequences of unmet needs: The evolving role of motivation in consumer research. Neuroticism. Pincus. M. 16(2).. situations. G. Pervin.. D. 3(4). Pervin.A. Environment and Genes: Determinants of Behavior. L. New York. (1975). Extraversion and related traits in adults reared apart and reared together. S.J. assessment and research. M. 175 . N. L..E. Plomin. Measuring the MBTI And Coming Up Short. 87-97. American Psychologist. Plomin.Pedersen. 6(3). and Livi.L. European Psychologist. Personality: Theory.W. (2000).. B. (1989). Gallucci. 950-957. Wiley. 55. Persons. Pervin. L.
. Baron. Doing Research in Business and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method.. and Nyfield. 20(1). S. P. 52-63. 27-38. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. London. de Stadelhofen. B. R. Multifaceted Nature of Intrinsic Motivation: The Theory of 16 Basic Desires. Prentice-Hall.. I.M.. (1998). S. A review of employee motivation themes and the implications for employee retention within organisations. http://members. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Sage Publications. 1/2. 103(1). Remenyi. J. and Swartz. S. Robertson. Review of General Psychology. Conscientiousness and managerial performance.. S. Journal of American Academy of Business. G. S.M.P. Rossier. Reiss.A.P. The Hierarchical Structures of the NEO PI-R and the 16 PF 5. 55-66. 171-180. A.htm Robbins. B. E. (2004). 8(3). Temperament and the Development of Personality. Upper Saddle River. MacIver. H..tripod. 176 . F. 5..com/~Personality Institute/Myers-BriggsTypeIndicator. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Research Report. NJ.. Ryckman. Williams. 73.K. Money. M.Ramlall. Gibbons. (2001). (1998). Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology.. D. Organisational Behavior. (2000).T.. Rings. Theories of Personality. and Ahadi. Great Britain. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. (2004). R. Rothbart. (2004). (1994). (1997). 179-193. and Berhoud.
Satava. D. Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality measures. 545-556. (1996). (2003). Lewis. 495-524. (1998). 83(4).A. Saucier.S. An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management. 313-328... 26(2).F. 66. The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the five factor model. J. (1997). Wiggins (Ed. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology.. A.). 695-708.R.. Sanders. The five factor model of personality (p 21-50). 76. M. M. The Five Factor Model of Personality and Job Performance in the European Community. Saucier. Ability-personality interactions when predicting job performance. Saucier. Factor Structure of English-Language Personality Type-Nouns. Salgado. Maybe there’s no such thing as a “good cop”. (1996).E. Gruys. B. Journal of Psychological Type.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 36. 36-41. P. 85(4). 73(6). 1296-1312. In J.L. G. (2003). Effects of Variable Selection On the Factor Structure of Person Descriptors. Saunders. Pitman Publishing. Research Methods for Business Students.. and Goldberg. Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. local firms. Saucier. J. (1997). 82(1). G. What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of Personality. (1998). J. 30-43. L.R. G. London.Sackett. P. (2003). Journal of Applied Psychology.R. (1997). G. and Goldberg. 323-346. and Ellingson. L. and Thornhill. New York: Guilford Press. Personality types of CPAs: National vs.F. 177 . Salgado.
A. 178 . 73(6). (1980). V. and Robie. 153-160. D. G.M. (1984). (1994). Personnel Psychology. P. 407-422. 3-43. Noe. 37.S. (2000). 1238-1241. Managerial Auditing Journal. M. C.J.. M.P. Toward a Paradigm in Personality: Comment on Eysenck’s (1997) view. Schmitt. 3-7. Kihm. N. Accounting Horizons (December). Schweiger. and Kirsch. (1999). Meta-analyses of validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics. 122-123. Construct validity in organisational behaviour.A.L.E. Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. Schwarz. The personality types and preferences of CPA firm professionals: An analysis of changes in the profession. 959-968. M. 9(8). Development of a global measure of personality. (1999). Gooding. Research in Organisational Behavior.. N. (1980). G. B. Personnel Psychology. 53(1). 24-39. 84(6). (1997). Stewart.. Optimising the value of performance appraisals.Schloemer.. R. 93-105. Schwab. The accountant stereotype: Myth or reality? Accountancy (November). R. I.Z. 54(2). Shackleton. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. J. Stelmack. (1997). and Schloemer.G. and Sumners.. 2. Journal of Applied Psychology. Schmit. Trait Brandwidth and Stages of Job Performance: Assessing Differential Effects for Conscientiousness and its Subtraits. American Psychologist..W..
179 .E. J. I. and Christal. 16(2).L. (1991). Badley. Tett. 180-191. C. and Burnett. Tubbs. J. A Personality Trait-based Interactionist Model of Job Performance. P. Air Force. The Traits Personality Questionnaire 5(TPQue5): Psychometric Properties of a Shortened Version of a Big Five Measure.D. Strategy and Leadership. D. Bliese. (2001).D. S. Journal of Psychological Assessment. Journal of Applied Psychology.C. Tsaousis. M. (2003). and Ekeberg.16(1). 29(4). D.. Maslow revisited: Building the employee commitment pyramid. and Gebhardt. R. 723-735. Relationships Between Personality Structure.D. Townsend. and Cognitive Ability: A Study of Cultural Mechanisms of Personality. Journal of Applied Psychology. Tubes . 180-199.Stum. What’s in it for me? The Journal for Quality and Participation. J.S. R. (1993).L. 4-9.. (2004). (2004).E. 500-517. Lackland Air Force Base. and Thoresen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The Academy of Management Review. 8-11. (1961).J. A..E. Thoresen. 20(3).E. The Role of Intentions in Work Motivation: Implications for goal-setting theory and research.. Toomela. P.P.. 835-853. The Big Five Personality Traits and Individual Job Performance Growth Trajectories in Maintenance and Transitional Job Stages.. 88(3). 85(4). (2003)..C. Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (Technical Report ASD-TR-61-97). Structure of Word Meaning. TX: U. E. 89(5).
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. Motivation profiles in sport: A self-determination theory perspective. On the Temporal Stability of Personality: Evidence for Differential Stability and the Role of Life Experiences. and Terry. 3538. S. (2004a).Vaidya..R. J. 71(4). Karageorghis. (2000). and Bryant. Wiley. S.A. D.E.. Jr. 83(6).. and Roth. 1-19. Schippmann. Authors’ Reply to Commentary on Accounting Information Systems Research Opportunities Using Personality Type Theory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Welbourne.S.B.J. S. Gray. Automaticity..I. J. P. 263-275. P. J. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. and Bryant. P.. T. F... 18(1). The Role-Based Performance Scale: Validity Analysis of a Theory-based Measure. (2000). A metaanalytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople. 387-397. (2002). 540-555.E.M.. Journal of Applied Psychology. C. 180 . Haig. E. C. Vancouver. Vlachopoulos.S. D... Switzer.M. 18(1).K... (1998). and Erez. Vinchur. 18(3).R. Hunton. C. J. Wheeler..C. Journal of Information Systems. Wheeler. Accounting Information Systems Research Opportunities Using Personality Type Theory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Goals and Environmental Interactions. 55(7). P. and Watson.E. III. 763-764. (1998). and Scherbaum.. Hunton.P. 83(4). J. International Journal of Manpower. 1469-1484. What motivates employees according to over 40 years of motivation surveys. 41(5). A. Journal of Information Systems. (1997).. J. American Psychologist.. (2004b). Academy of Management Journal.G. 586-597. Johnson. A.M.L.
Klohnen. Traits and Motives: Toward an Integration of Two Traditions in Personality Research. Credit Union Executive Journal.B. (1998). L. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 12-18.R. (2004).... Strelau. 365-384. Wright. T. M.. needs and equity sensitivity. Onoszczenko. Spring . and Meyer.. American Demographics. Yancey. 272-286. A. O.A. 105(2). G. Zawadzki. State and Traits Correlates of Job Performance: A Tale of Two Perspectives. B. and Duncan. I.P. (2003). R. The predictive power of hiring tools. The relationships among individual differences.G..Winter. D. 181 . Wolfe. W... 6(4).E. Journal of Business and Psychology. Riemann. 230-250. 2429.C. J. D. What your customers can’t say. Cropanzano. Psychological Review. 18(4). Yamaguchi. (2000).B.. European Psychologist. E. 20(2). and Angleitner. A. (2001). (1998). 18(3). John. 324-344. D. R. and Austin.. Stewart. Genetic and Environmental Influences on Temperament: The Polish-German Twin Study Based on Self-Report and Peer-Rating. 40(4).J.G.
182 . On completion of the study. I am conducting a research project titled “Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality Measure”. The confidentiality of your responses is assured as only Chong Chien Fatt and Gian Casimir will have access to the completed questionnaires. I am Chong Chien Fatt. nor your organisation will be named or be able to be identified from the published report. As part of my studies.APPENDIX ONE – INFORMATION SHEET Newcastle Graduate School of Business Faculty of Business and Law Level 3. 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.edu. You are required to complete a questionnaire on personality and work performance. which will be shredded after the data have been entered into a spreadsheet. We are therefore not interested in the specific responses of any particular individual. your Organisation will be provided with a report that will be recommended for distribution to staff. The findings of this study may be published in a scholarly journal but neither you. You are invited to take part in this research project which examines the relationship between work performance and personality. University House Corner King and Auckland Street Newcastle 2300 AUSTRALIA For further information: Dr Gian Casimir Tel: +61 2 4921 6680 Fax:+61 2 4921 7398 Email: Gian. 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. 2005 Subject: Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality Measure Dear Potential Participant. We are interested only in the overall relationships between Personality and Work Performance.au CHONG Chien Fatt Tel: +60123760133 Fax: +60331602894 Email: chongchienfatt@yahoo.Casimir@newcastle.com September 15.
please contact Chong Chien Fatt or Gian Casimir or if an independent person is preferred.edu. Mr Chong Chien Fatt Dr Gian Casimir Complaints Clause: This project has been approved by the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee. However. email: HumanEthics@newcastle.au. or to not participate. Research Branch. Thank you for taking time to consider this invitation.au) 183 .Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. telephone +61 249 216 333. email HumanEthics@newcastle. Bus-Law/SEGi/1/32:05A). please complete the questionnaire and return it to the researchers in the stamped self-addressed envelope provided. If you want to take part in the study. The Chancellery. with return of the questionnaire through stamped and self-addressed envelopes to the researcher. it may be given to the researcher. or. University of Newcastle. If you would like more information. or you have a complaint about the manner in which the research is conducted. Approval No . Yours sincerely. Chancellery.edu. The University of Newcastle. 2308. University Drive. the University’s Human Research Ethics Officer. Callaghan NSW 2308. if an independent person is preferred. Research Office. your decision to participate. The University requires that should you have concerns about your rights as a participant in this research. telephone (+61 249 216 333. 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. to the Human Research Ethics Officer. The questionnaire will be distributed by the Human Resources Managers.
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. 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. If your organisation is willing to participate. 184 . Dear Sir. 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. This study examines the relationship between personality and work performance. Please see the attached information sheet for participants. We would greatly appreciate your organisation’s participation.edu. Mr Chong is conducting this study as part of his Doctor of Business and Administration Degree and Dr Gian Casimir is his research supervisor.au CHONG Chien Fatt Tel: +60123760133 Fax: +60331602894 Email: chongchienfatt@yahoo. 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. 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. the questionnaires will be shredded. After the data have been entered into a spreadsheet.Casimir@newcastle. 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.com September 15. This questionnaire is a personality and work performance measures and should take approximately twenty minutes to complete.
Yours sincerely. Research Office. Callaghan NSW 2308. University Drive. or. Thank you for taking time to consider this invitation. to the Human Research Ethics Officer. Bus-Law/SEGi/1/32:05A).edu. your organisation will be provided with a report. The findings of this study may be published in a scholarly journal but neither you. telephone (+61 249 216 333. if an independent person is preferred. nor your department will be named or be able to be identified from the published report.On completion of the study. email HumanEthics@newcastle. The University of Newcastle. The Chancellery. please reply to us in writing stating your department’s willingness. If you agree to take part in the study. Mr Chong Chien Fatt and Dr Gian Casimir Complaints Clause: This project has been approved by the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee.au) 185 . The University requires that should you have concerns about your rights as a participant in this research. it may be given to the researcher. or you have a complaint about the manner in which the research is conducted. For further information. Approval No . please contact Chong Chien Fatt or Gian Casimir. which we recommend to be made available to all staff.
Describe yourself as you generally are now. Please tick the answers above and return the full set in the self-addressed envelope. Part 2: Please use the rating scale below to describe how accurately each of the following statement describes you.APPENDIX THREE – QUESTIONNAIRE Personality Measure Questionnaire Title: Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality Measure Part 1: (i) Are you proficient in English? Yes / No (ii) Have you been working in the same job for more than 12 months? Yes / No If there is a No answer in any one above. 1 Very Inaccurate 2 Moderately Inaccurate 3 Neither Accurate or Inaccurate 4 Moderately Accurate 5 Very Accurate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I often feel unhappy I feel comfortable around people I believe in the importance of art I have a good word for everyone I am always prepared I am very pleased with myself I have little to say I am not interested in theoretical discussions I waste my time I am very direct I dislike myself I make friends easily I have a vivid imagination I am critical of others I pay attention to details I am not easily bothered by things 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 186 . not as you wish to be in the future nor what you were in the past. please do not continue with the survey even though you may have consented to participate. 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 .
Gender (please circle) Male/Female ____Years____Months ____Years ___ Months Primary School / High School / College / University 4. What is your last annual increment? Less than 3%. What is your Level in the Organisation? Non-Executive/ Lower Mgmt/Middle Mgmt/ Senior Mgmt 7. Between 7% to 10%. have you been promoted? Yes/No Yes/No 9. How long have you worked in this Organisation? 5. Educational level: 2. 189 . More than 10%. Age: ____Years____Months 3. Are you confirm in your job within the normal time frame? 8. How long have you worked in your current job? 6. 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. For those working for 3 years of more. Between 3% and 6%.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.