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.
May God bless her with good health and happiness. Madam Yew Hor. iii . who always gives her undivided love and care to her 11 children.DEDICATION I dedicated this work to my beloved Mother.
........2...8..........................................4......................................59 2............ 2....................... 25 Traits Theories ...............2.2.........................................................3....... RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................1.................... 66 Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure .. CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION .............................................41 2................. 34 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.......................7... Uniqueness of the CASES Personality Measure ................. 12 Sampling and Sample Size .............6.........7...............................8...2......................................................................... 2. 11 Survey Instrument...................... Five Factor Model.................7.........................................3.....0.....7.......................................................................................... Research Philosophy...........3..............1.........................................................................2............................ SHORTCOMINGS OF FFM AND MBTI MEASURES ..............16 What is Personality? ....4...2.................................. ANALYSES ...................6..................1..... 2.............5................................. 20 Psychodynamic Theories .................. 50 The Constructs of this Proposed Model... INTRODUCTION ...............................................................4.................. 23 Humanistic Theories .............................................. 37 2..................................1..... 2............................................4..............................................................3.................7....11 1.. 42 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator..................... 1............47 2..................................... 56 The First Premise: Behavior is Motivated by Needs ....2...........................32 2...... THE THEORIES AND CONSTRUCTS OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE ..........4..................6............ 11 Research Design ......... 29 2.................3...............2......0.........2.... THE ROLE OF PSYCHOMETRIC TESTS...21 2................................. WHY DOES PERSONALITY MATTER TO ORGANISATIONS? ..3................................................... 1...... 2... 46 Definition of Behavior ...............................1 1..................... 2.................................................................... 17 How Stable are Personality Traits?..................................4....................5........................................ The Five Factor Model ........................ 12 Measurement......................................7..........................3.....2........... LIMITATIONS ....................................... RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES ............. 1........................8.......... 2..........2........... 68 2.......................................................................................... 2.................56 The Second Premise: The Accuracy of Predicting Behavior Depends on Complexity .............................. 2....... 13 1...........................4...........................................................................................3............1.. THEORIES ON PERSONALITY ..5.. CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW .......... 2............ 2........................ 2.................................1.. 1...2 1................... IX 1.............. 48 Current Theories of Work Motivation ....1...............................1.................................................. 61 Prediction of Performance by the FFM Personality Measure..........5............... I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................1..................................TABLE OF CONTENT STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP ......................................................................6............................... 19 The Objective of Psychometric Instruments............................................7.......................................1.................. ETHICS ......................2.14 1...................3.....1................................II DEDICATION ...... 27 Behaviorist/Cognitive and Social Cognitive Theories...................16 2......... TYPES OF PERSONALITY MEASURES ..........................6 1....................... iv ........................ 2...... THE PREDICTIVE POWER OF FFM/MBTI ON PERFORMANCE.......................42 2.............2... 2.....................1....1................2...... PERSONALITY AND WORK PERFORMANCE ...................15 2......7........................................4. 47 Factors Influencing Behavior........62 2...............................3............... 2...........3...............................33 2.................. III ABSTRACT..............................4............................. 2................................................................13 1.............
.................. 3.......................................................................... 3.......... INTRODUCTION .......................................... 109 The Relationship between the FFM Dimensions and the CASES Dimensions111 4......................9....................................................................................................... 3................ 3..............................2.1..................... 82 Selection of Measurement Techniques .................................................. 3.......... 3.....75 3...5...........5............................................ 3................................................................... Purpose of the Study ..2.......5............6..........6.......... ETHICAL CONSIDERATION ............................ 3.......................6.0... 3...........................................102 4.5.........................4........2.................................2.........................8...............1........... 99 Stability of Work Performance ..1...........................2..........72 3. 75 Type of Investigation ...................................97 Categorising................. Response Distortions ................4.....4............72 3..............................................1.........................98 3.....6...........97 3............................. 3...... 84 Personality and Work Performance Measures.... 3...........5....4.............. 81 Unit of Analysis ....86 3....... 3.. 3.......92 Validity.........................3.............................103 4.... 3.............................................82 3......................3.........................5.4....... 4.3.......................5.......................6..................................... RESEARCH DESIGN ......... 3....1.. 3................ 100 Work Performance...... 69 Hypotheses.5...................................................5.............................5......................5....1..............................................................................................................................................92 Reliability ................................................ 89 Selection of Sample and Sample Size......3......84 Key Variables ...................... 3.............................................................2...........................99 3............. Implementation .................... 79 Study Setting...................................5. CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............ 77 Research Method .......94 Cost and Time Estimates ...........2.....................5........ 3.....................................5.....................................3.........8...............................2......... 4. The Relationships between FFM and CASES ........................................ 2......2............72 3....................................................2.............. 94 3...................3...6.......... CONCLUSION ............................4.............................101 4....................................................... 3...4... 107 Principal Components Analysis of RBPS Performance Measure...........3...................4......................8..............................................5...................2............ CHAPTER FOUR – DATA ANALYSIS ..............1.........................................5............................................................... RESEARCH PLAN .......8..........................5.................................. 4....................... SURVEY RESEARCH ...........................2.................84 Self Report...............................................4......................................................................2.................................................2..... 77 Researcher’s Interference ...........................94 Data Collection..................4.................... 99 Personality Scales ......102 4..........................114 v ............................2........................................ 3......8............................8...................96 Data Entry ................................5........8...4........................................................4.... 3.................0......... 71 3....102 4.......................................................... Selection of Survey Layout....2......................................................................................................... 80 Time Horizons .........................................6... 3.................. 103 Principal Components Analysis of the CASES Personality Measure.......5.5... 92 Central Tendency and Dispersion.................................8...5.... RESULTS FROM PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS.....................84 Scales.......................... 3..........5.......................................................5.................. RESEARCH PARADIGMS .............................. INTRODUCTION ................................1..5.............98 3............... 3.......92 Principal Components Analysis........................................ LIMITATIONS ..............................7........................ 81 Selection of Survey Method ....................................4...2.................................. 90 Selection of analytical approach .........5.....2....... 101 3......................5. 3............ RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .74 3..4...........3.........93 Hypothesis Testing ................... DEMOGRAPHICS .3......................................................7..... 3...........................................5................. 99 Self Rating ...................5............................................................................... 3......................4.........4.....................1......................2......3...................... RESULTS FROM TESTING OF THE HYPOTHESES .....5.................. Principal Components Analysis of the FFM Personality Measure ............................
..3.....0....153 5....3.3.........182 APPENDIX TWO – CONSENT SEEKING LETTER TO COMPANY ...................3...3............................3..........4................................ 5.....................1................ 114 Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure ......5.. 5....138 5.......................................................2........................ 5................................ CONCLUSION ............129 FFM and CASES Predicting the Innovator Component of RBPS....................................................3........................................................... CHAPTER FIVE – CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ..........................3. 120 FFM and CASES predicting performance. Main Findings for Research Question One..... 147 Implications on Professional Practice...................6. 149 Implications on Theory....3..............2......... 4.4...........................152 5.............3.................2.............. IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS .....................6.................. FUTURE RESEARCH ...........................3.................................130 FFM and CASES Predicting the Team Component of the RBPS ..3................ DISCUSSION OF THE MAIN FINDINGS .1.....................158 APPENDIX ONE – INFORMATION SHEET ...... 5.............. 4..............4.................... 143 Main Findings for Research Question Three .133 4..................................................... 4........................ INTRODUCTION .........5.2.........2........... 128 FFM and CASES predicting the Job Component of the RBPS .........................132 FFM and CASES Predicting Total RBPS Performance ...........................................186 vi .............3...135 5...........184 APPENDIX THREE – QUESTIONNAIRE ...............................3.....128 FFM and CASES Predicting the Career Component of the RBPS................ 4.149 5..........3....................3...................................... 151 5....... 4....131 FFM and CASES Predicting the Organisation Component of the RBPS.........138 5.........................................154 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES .................................................................................4......... CONCLUSION ...........138 5.......3......................3.................................................2.... 4.........................1....................3............ Prediction of Performance by the FFM Personality Measure.......1............1.....2................ 4......3. 4..3............................ LIMITATIONS .................. 138 Main Findings for Research Question Two ......................2...
..............................70 Table 5: Four Categories of Non-experimental Techniques (Grace.............83 Table 7: Role-Based Performance Scale’s Items (Wilbourne et al.................................................117 Table 20: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM..........................88 Table 8: The Breakdown of Companies to be Surveyed Based on Industry (developed for this study) ..........................................................................................................................78 Table 6: Merits of the Four Survey Methods (Grace...........117 Table 21: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on FFM ................................95 Table 9: Total Time Estimated for the Survey (developed for this research)............................................................96 Table 11: Rotated Component Matrix of FFM ............................................................................................................................40 Table 4: The Possible Associations of Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM with Complexity and Self-Actualisation of the CASES .................................................. 1999)..110 Table 16: Correlations between the Components of FFM and CASES............104 Table 12: Items of FFM after Principal Components Analysis ....................106 Table 13: Rotated Component Matrix of CASES............... 2000) .................................. 1998) ........................................................................................................................................................................................109 Table 15: Rotated Component Matrix of RBPS ......4 Table 2: Six of the Most Commonly Used Personality Instruments (Dent and Curd........118 vii ........................................113 Table 17: Correlations of the Components of FFM and RBPS .................................115 Table 18: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM ... 1999).............................6 Table 3: The 16 Personality Types with Cognitive Characteristics and Occupational Tendencies .................................107 Table 14: Items of CASES after Principal Components Analysis.................... 2004) ................................................................LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Predictors of Work Performance (Yancey and Austin..116 Table 19: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on FFM .............................96 Table 10: Breakdown of Costs on Survey (developed for this research) .......................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................125 Table 29: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on CASES ..............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 ....................................................................................................................................................132 Table 35: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES ......................................123 Table 26: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on CASES ......127 Table 31: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES .......................133 Table 36: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on FFM and CASES ...............................................................................119 Table 23: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on FFM .130 Table 33: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES ...............................................................................................................................131 Table 34: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of the RBPS on FFM and CASES ..................................................................................................134 viii .................................................................................................................126 Table 30: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on CASES..................................................119 Table 24: Correlations of the Components of CASES and RBPS.....................................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.........................................................................122 Table 25: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on CASES ..................................................
the more recent studies have focused on demonstrating the incremental gain in predicting work performance that can be attained using personality as a predictor. limitations and possible areas for future research are discussed. personality provides insight on how well a person will perform a given task. Practical and theoretical implications. The study explores the predictive utility of a personality measure that is based on the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the social cognitive theory of “If-Then” and the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality with regards to a multidimensional measure of work performance. ix . However. Hence. recent studies using fundamental dimensions of personality have shown the predictive power of personality for work performance. 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. personnel selection specialists generally did not use personality testing in employee selection due to the perception it has low validity. 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.. this new personality measure can be offered as a useful instrument for both practitioners and researchers.ABSTRACT “Does personality predict work performance” is a question that many researchers have addressed over the past few decades. The results confirmed relationships between the dimensions of the new personality measure (i.e. Prior to the 1990s. CASES) and the FFM. Besides providing a theory-grounded measurement tool which contributes to research on personality measures and the prediction of work-related performance.
Learning Organisation. The third chapter of this dissertation outlines the research methodology and design of the study that will be 1 .0. Employees are indisputably the most essential resource in any organisation and are the key to attaining and maintaining competitive advantage. CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION Companies spend large amounts of money. 2000).. 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. Furthermore. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Social Cognitive Theory) rather than on a single theory. For the top companies in the world.e. The validity of the current measures of personality is questionable given that each of them is based on a single-theory of personality. The first objective of this study therefore is to develop a new measure of personality based on two theories (i. people. Investors in People. time and energy to improve their business performance by adopting different management philosophies and initiatives such as SixSigma. 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.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. and Relationship Management. the incremental criterion utility of the new measure over the Five-Factor Model of personality. Basically. many organisations pay only lip service to the adage that “people are our greatest asset” (Yancey and Austin. Nevertheless. Empowerment. which is a wellestablished personality measure. all of these have one thing in common. will be examined.
the more effective we can manage.000 to recruit one executive or middle manager in United States of America (Melamed and Jackson. 2004). and honest/integrity tests. 1. references. The conclusion on the various findings. they are not a panacea for selecting the best candidates (Dent and Curd.used. Moreover. implications and limitations of this study are presented in the fifth chapter of this dissertation. Table 1 provides a list of various sources of information that are used to predict work performance. taking into account all expenditure. resume. encourage and harness them. 1995). work-samples. cognitive ability test. Personality tests only provide an additional tool for recruitment and are not replacements for interviews. it takes only a modest improvement in selecting. employment checks and job probation in the recruitment and selection process.1. The fourth chapter contains the analyses of the survey data. Personality tests with no right or wrong answers attempt to measure how little or how much a candidate possesses a specific personality 2 . Hence. Personality tests are popularly used by organisations as part of selection. Although personality tests rank higher than other employment tests such as job-knowledge tests. matching and recruiting people to jobs to reduce the possible financial losses incurred by recruiting employees who are incompatible with the organisation. THE ROLE OF PSYCHOMETRIC TESTS The more we know the people we employ. recruitment and development processes as they are able to explore a broad range of personality characteristics that are relevant to the workplace. it is estimated to cost an average of US$15.
their significant others and their related job-relevance. 2001).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.characteristic relevant to the needs of the organisation. 2001). work performance and careers. By understanding their behavior. 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. As part of a development process in organisations. The purpose of conducting personality tests is to gather information and highlight issues for further exploration at interviews. 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. 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. Non-exempt staff Source of information Interview Resume Application form References Employment check Best Predictor 75% 29 31 35 33 Middle management Best Predictor 67% 42 20 44 40 Senior management Best Predictor 66% 40 22 44 47 3 . Personality tests have been in the market for more than 50 years and their popularity has increased significantly in recent years.
there is no evidence to indicate a positive relation between specific MBTI types with career success (Pittenger. recruit. psychometric tests have expanded their functionalities to many other areas such as appraisals. 1993). 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 . career guidance and training needs analysis (Dent and Curd. From their traditional use as a tool for selection and recruitment. Test Name Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Description Probably the most popular and wellresearched personality instrument used in business today. 2000) The increasing pressure on organisations to identify. management development programmes. 2004). For example.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. and retain critical personnel has fuelled the desire for more information on current employees as well as potential recruits. The most commonly used personality instruments are shown in Table 2 but they are not necessarily valid or useful. develop.
Another of the best-researched and most widely used tools available today. Cattell. it helps individuals to understand the various facets that determine their personality. 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. Designed by Saville and Holdsworth to provide information on personality characteristics.Test Name Description • • How you make decisions. and Affection-which is about being close to individuals • • • • • • • • Team building and development Self-awareness Individual development Individual development Leadership development Team development Relationship counselling Career counselling and development Strength Deployment Inventory (SDI) This is an incredibly versatile instrument. and How you organise yourself Common Uses • • • Career development Relationship development Selection Selection Individual development Career development and counselling Leadership development Selection Career development Assessment centres Team building Individual development Change management Relationship awareness 16PF Questionnaire (Equivalent to the NEO PI-R of the Big Five (Rossier et al. It provides users with a development tool that helps them to learn about themselves and others in the context of relationship awareness • • • • Individual motivational awareness Team building and development Relationship management Assertiveness training 5 .. and Feelings and emotions • • • • • • • • • • • The Belbin Team Role SelfPerception Inventory Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship OrientationBehavior (FIROB) One of the few UK instruments on the market. which was developed by Elias Porter in the 1960s. the feedback from which defines a person’s perception of his/her behaviors at work. In particular. 2004) Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) This questionnaire measures an individual’s personality against 16 different personality dimensions. the dimensions measured fall into three categories: • • • Relationships with people Thinking style. Developed by Raymond B.
Cattell. Individuals display consistent patterns of behavior. Skinner. 1997): i) The psychoanalytic perspectives of Freud. Personality theories may be classified into five categories (Ryckman. which assume personality is never completely determined and that people are always changing and free to reinterpret their experiences idiosyncratically. thought. 2003).2. Jung. and Adler. ii) The traits perspectives of Allport. iii) The cognitive perspectives of Pavlov. PERSONALITY AND WORK PERFORMANCE The fundamental objective of personality psychology is to understand how personality can be used to predict behavior (Mayer. and emotion that are relatively stable and which form the basic conception of personality (Allport. which are biological in nature and based on the premise of the unfolding of stages where the particular behaviors occur. and Rotter. 1937). 2004) 1. which assume there are dispositional factors that determine behavior in various situations. and Eysenck. 6 .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.
Goldberg. Rossier. 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. behavior arises as a result of a complex interaction between environmental influences and inner processes (Bandura. which postulate the presence of an innate need for growth which moves individuals towards achieving their potentialities given the right environmental conditions. 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. 1998. de Stadelhofen and Berhoud. 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. McCrae and Costa.iv) The existential or humanistic perspectives of Rogers. Beauvais and Scholl. and McCelland. Maslow. Although the FFM. which is based on 7 . which assume most behavior is learned and purposive and that people are guided by motives to achieve certain goals. 1977b). 2003. Human behavior is a multifaceted phenomenon and any theory attempting to explain normal human behavior must reflect its multidimensionality (Leonard. and v) The social behavioristic or interaction perspectives of Bandura and Mischel. 1993. 1999. Paunonen. 1999). The psychometric instruments in Table 2 are all based on single theories. Unlike the psychoanalytic and existential perspectives. 1977a. 2004). Paunonen and Ashton. De Raad. the social or interaction perspective excludes the growth stages. In other words. 1990. 1996. 2001.
Interest in the motivation that drives behavior rekindled in the 1990s. including growth needs. 1999. the power of the Hierarchy of Needs Theory is its ability to identify a range of needs. The personality measure proposed in this dissertation. 1988). Chung. ultimately leading to self-actualisation (Osteraker. 1993). behavioral. which motivate behavior (Wiley. or has to (Nikolaou. the Hierarchy of Needs Theory by Maslow advocates the dynamic processes of need satisfaction. 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. 1981). which is based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and social cognitive theories. 1993). 2003).personality traits. and cognitive factors (Fedor and Ferris. which may be classified as deficit or homeostatic theories of motivation. 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. Maslow posited that needs act as motivators (Arnold. 1997). 1977a). attempts to explain human behavior according to key motivators. Motives are only one of the determinants of behavior as behavior is also determined by other factors that are biologically. Unlike most need theories. Social cognitive theory takes into consideration environmental and internal forces that shape behavior (Bandura. is able to describe consistent features of the behavior of an individual it does not address the key drivers or motives of behavior (Fletcher. Individual functioning is a continuous interaction between environmental. likes to. culturally and situationally determined (Fletcher. 8 . 1969).
One of the reasons for this low validity is that many studies focused mainly on personality traits at the molecular. 2003. this question has received considerable attention in the literature (Barrick. Nikolaou. does not 9 . Kieffer. “inventory” level instead of the construct level. which explains the variability of an individual’s behavior in different situations. 2000.. The first dimension.. 2004). 2002. have demonstrated that certain aspects of personality are useful predictors of work performance. Salgado. ii) Actualisation. There are good reasons to believe that some dimensions of the CASES measure will be related to some dimensions of the FFM. iv) Ego. Stewart and Piotrowski. Prior to the 1990s. Personality traits can be conceptually and empirically related without being redundant (Judge et al. such as those of the FFM. This. Barrick et al. Schinka and Curtiss. iii) Safety. 2003). however. Complexity. personnel selection specialists generally did not use personality testing in employee selection due to its low validity. 2003). Recent investigations using higher order personality constructs. 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. Nikolaou. 2002. 2003. Does personality predict work performance? Although there are many factors besides personality that affect work performance. is based on the social cognitive theory of “IfThen”. and v) Social..The new personality measure proposed in this dissertation is termed CASES because it comprises five dimensions: i) Complexity. It is inevitable and advantageous that researchers will attempt to compare the predictive utility of the FFM with other models of personality with respect to work performance (Robertson et al.
necessarily indicate that some of the dimensions of the CASES measure are the same as some of the FFM dimensions. H2: The CASES measure will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. 10 . H3: The FFM and CASES will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance. H1: The FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. 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. 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. Research Question 3: What is the relationship between the FFM and CASES measures? The third research question is addressed by the third hypothesis. Research Question 2: Does the CASES measure predict work performance? The second research question is addressed by the second hypothesis.
Research Design This study uses hypothesis testing as there is information available on the variables involved to enable hypothesis formulation.1. 1.2. need-induced behaviors and performance.1.3.3. Money. Research Philosophy The study uses the positivistic paradigm with the hypothetico-deductive approach as it seeks to explain the relationship between personality. hypotheses can be empirically substantiated which is essential for such psychometric tests (Cavana. Furthermore.3. The study setting is a non-contrived setting. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 1. Delahaye and Sekaran. 2001). Williams. 1997. The investigation is a correlational study as the main interest is to examine the associations between dimensions of personality and work performance. and Swartz. Remenyi. 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. 1998). 11 . this survey method is efficient and practical (Saunders. Furthermore. This quantitative research method adopts a non-experimental technique of survey research whereby information about the variables is collected from a large number of cases to address the research questions. Lewis and Thornhill.
Survey Instrument Data will be collected via a mail survey. 2003). 2003. the new personality measure. Although mail surveys tend to yield a relatively low response rate. mail surveys are the most commonly used survey method in studies of personality (Kieffer et al. specifically their perceptions of their own behavior. Johnson and Erez (1998) will be used for this research. CASES. The FFM (Goldberg. perceptions and attitudes (Lindell and Whitney.2002).3. Furthermore. 1999).3. and the work performance measure of Welbourne.4. 1. Salgado. 12 . Measurement Five-point Likert scales will be used for all of the items related to personality and performance. The unit of analysis is the individual.. 1. 2004. 2001). Nikolaou. 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.3.
and years in current job). 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.1. 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. 1978). ANALYSES Data analyses will be conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 13. as recommended by Nunnally. age.3. Confirmatory factor 13 . which ensures the anonymity and confidentiality of responses. 1. years of working. level of education. The minimum targeted number of respondents is 500 as the personality measures have 50 items each (minimum of 10:1 subject to items ratio. Descriptive statistics will be computed for all of the demographic variables (i.e.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. 2001). A total of 40 commercial organisations of various sizes and from various industries.. gender. The questionnaire uses the Likert scale to collect interval-scaled data for each of the variables involved in the hypotheses.5. will be invited to participate in this research.. known to the researcher.
Cavana et al. An alpha coefficient of 0. 1980. Anonymity and confidentiality are ensured as the questionnaires have no personal identifiers and only the researchers will have access to the completed questionnaires and data files. Finally.. 14 .5.5 to 0. Multiple linear regression analyses will be used to test the hypotheses.analysis is a method for assessing construct validity and will be used to test the structures of the personality and performance measures (Schwab. Cronbach’s alpha is an internal reliability coefficient that shows how well the items belonging to a set are correlated to one another. Furthermore.7 is considered adequate for initial investigations (Nunnally. 1. 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 will be calculated for each subscale to test its internal reliability. 1978). 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. stamped and self-addressed envelopes will be provided to the respondents. 2001).
Finally.. blue-collar and clerical employees). organisational hygiene. motivation level and role clarity may influence self-reported performance ratings (Kieffer et al. LIMITATIONS The research relies on self-report data that can be affected by response distortion (Barrick and Mount. 1996). 2004) as job satisfaction.. Hogan and Roberts.1. the effect of leniency associated with selfassessment could raise concerns about the legitimacy of the data collected. the stability of work performance as a construct may not be totally valid (Thoresen et al.6. Additionally.. as this study uses a convenience sampling. 15 . Furthermore. cognitive ability. its findings may not be generalisable to different types of organisations such as public sector or non-profit organisations. 1996) and social desirability bias such as “telling the way they like to be seen” (Hogan. 2004). different types of jobs (e.g. or different countries.
develop and retain key employees has increased the interest of managers for more information on current employees and potential recruits alike. which are normally based on a single theory. INTRODUCTION Psychometric tests have been used by organisations as part of their development and recruitment processes.0. the debate on the reliability and 16 .000 million tests administrated yearly and 700 of the Times Top 1. Many organisations use psychometric testing as part of their recruitment and development processes to select candidates who will excel in their jobs. and appraisals. These tests. 2004). 2001). 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. psychometric assessment will be a major business sector in the 21st century (Coull and Eary.1. CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW 2. management development programmes. Although such instruments are traditionally used as a tool in the selection and recruitment processes.. The increasing pressure on organisations to select/recruit.000 companies in United States of America using such instruments. training needs analysis.2. are not able to explain the diversity of behavior. as human behavior cannot be fully covered by any one single theory (Leonard et al. With some 2. 1999). However. 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.
Robbins (2001. p. beliefs. It is most often described in terms of measurable traits that a person 17 . values. 45). using well-proven instruments do not confer automatic validity on their application in an organisation. traits). “caveat emptor” should still be applied. Personality is conceptualised as a stable system which influences how an individual construes. which are the building blocks of personality (Marsella et al. 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.e. who assumed the presence of “neuropsychic” structures (i.. Also. p.validity of such instruments and the value of such concepts such as personality traits continues in the academic literature (Fletcher. The concept of personality can be traced to the work of Allport. 2000.1. for example. 2.1. 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. Hence. 1992). 1993). thinks and behaves”. attitudes. 1995). What is Personality? Personality can be broadly defined as the durable characteristics of an individual. when using psychometric instruments.. p. traits. dispositions and needs (Gelso and Fassinger. 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. it does not mean that all such instruments are. 92) takes personality as “the sum total of ways in which an individual reacts to and interacts with others.
and (iii) individual behavior is consistent across situations (Pervin. This aspect is called individual differences whereby we categorise people as neurotic. Personality can also be defined as an organised and dynamic set of characteristics of a person that influence cognitions. Personality is too vast a field and differentiated for a single approach. 1999). introverted. Hence. Personality psychologists postulate that personality or individual dispositions are significant determinants of behavior with the following underlying assumptions: (i) there are individual differences in ways of behaving. motivations and behaviors (Lau and Shaffer. extraverted. (ii) individual behavior is relatively stable over time. For example. 2001).” Hogan et al. we are trying to explain the differences of that person from others. personality is explained based on overall motivation rather than the understanding of neural pathways of motives (Mayer. 2) defined personality in two ways. Hence.exhibits. 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 as existing in the individual as opposed to outside the person and focuses on overall psychological trends. 1975). (1996. when describing someone’s personality. and so on. p. most personality researchers divide personality into different areas or divisions and try to explain how each area works individually and with others. The four structural divisions of personality which are repeatedly used to classify traits are: (a) Freud (1960)’s structural 18 .
Costa and McCrae.1. and (d) the systems set (Mayer. 1937). (b) the trilogy of mind (Hilgard. They display unique patterns of emotions. change and consistency. that appear to contradict each other (Cervone.2. 2001. Pervin. The contents of consciousness change rapidly. 1997). ego and superego. The more developed approaches use traits in the personality structure. 2. 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. (1998) revealed that some 20%-50% of variation in the dimensions is attributable to genetic sources. Emotions and actions shift in response to the environment. 2003. 1993. (2002) posited that the transition during adulthood is often marked by substantial affective and personality changes caused by environmental changes. These 19 . 1980). 2001). How Stable are Personality Traits? Psychological experience is made up of two features. Costa and McCrae (1995) posited that personality is heritable and highly stable over time while Jang et al. 2004). Vaidya et al. (2001) revealed that on average. behavior and thought that are relatively consistent to form the basis of the conception of personality (Allport. 40% of the phenotypic variance of given traits is attributed to genetic sources while 60% is accounted for by the environment. individuals are significantly consistent across time and place.division of id. Yet. 1985). (c) the five factor model (Goldberg. genes do not influence behavior directly but instead influence physiological structures (Brody.
Many theories of personality rely excessively on behavioral models. that is. 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. independence from protective shelter and parental control. 2. should have at least two features..1. 1996). such as a strong peer culture. could account for much of the psychological change that occurs during early adulthood. most organisational and personality researchers agree that individual behavior involves both variable and stable aspects but there still remains disagreement regarding this quantum (Wright. the measurements are temporally stable and credible evidence linking the measure to meaningful non-test behavior (Hogan et al. Cropanzano and Meyer. however. Beauvais and Scholl. 1998). which conform to statistical theories to explain these complexities rather than on behavioral realities (Wolfe.3. as human behavior cannot be explained by any one factor (Leonard. 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. Nevertheless. 2004). A good personality measure.environmental changes. Human behavior is difficult to describe with such precision since it has a large number of causes. There is a growing realisation that traditional models of personality do not explain the diversity of behavior found in organisational settings. 1999). Human behavior is 20 . stimulation for the intellect as well as new outlets for emotions. 1994).
2. the stable components affect our lives. What people do—their behavior—is a function of their personalities. Wheeler. In the mid 1950s. 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. 1996. Tett and Burnett.clearly a multivariate phenomenon and a theory trying to explain normal human behavior must reflect this multidimensionality. the typological and trait-factor theories.. Behavior is like the weather. 2000). Gruys and Ellingson. 2003. 2003). the cognitive and the social cognitive approaches were developed (Gelso and Fassinger. Hunton and Bryant. changing from context to context and from moment to moment but personality is consistent and stable over time. If personality does change. it changes gradually. and behavioral doctrines were particularly influential in the past but social-cognitive and trait theories predominate today. 2. the humanistic approaches of the 1950s and almost at the same 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. These personality theories 21 . 2004a). humanistic. Hence. 1992). which could affect their work performance and careers (Hogan. 1998. Behavior is used to interpret and evaluate people’s personalities. Sackett. Psychoanalytical approaches were the first theories followed in the early part of last century by behavioral approaches. et al. Psychoanalytical. THEORIES ON PERSONALITY The history of personality psychology has been dominated by several theoretical paradigms (Cervone.
22 . behavioral. Eysenck emphasised biologically-based disposition variables but excluded abilities. the various “grand theories” of Allport.. The various historical. some German personality descriptors contained abilities and temperament terms while others such as Goldberg uses attitude and mood terms like conservative. 1939). Murphy. 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. In essence. Cattell.differ from each other in fundamental ways as they have different categories of personality variables. Personality psychologists have to address a wide range of phenomena and it could be impossible to identify an overarching mission in this field. and Murray all emphasised the coherence and consistency of normal personality and perceived the individual organism as a complex but organised structure. Nevertheless. 1997). 2000). Levin. they adopt different units of analysis for conceptualising and explaining intraindividual coherence and individual differences in personality functioning (Allport. for example. Other researchers cast wider nets. attitudes and intelligence. Allport differentiated descriptors of social evaluation and temporary states from those traits descriptors which were considered to be more personality relevant. This emphasis on the individual is dominant in the psychodynamic. jealous and anxious as dispositions (Saucier. humanistic and trait approaches (Marsella et al.
described as a boiling and bubbling cauldron of aggressive and animal-like urges. Id. Freud’s structural set is the id.. One takes in the stimuli using our five senses. the animalistic part of personality. Freud. two mental processes take place.g. When we 23 . The conscious level deals with that part of our awareness which is in touch with the reality of our life. 2000). and social ideals (Mayer. It explains our mental activity in which all thought processes occur. According to Freud (1960). The superego is the overseer of the ego which ensures it is morality and strives for ideals (Mayer. rational understanding or expectations. Another takes in the stimuli. the ego and the superego. 2001). processes them and sees many different ways of responding to them. Ego is the conscious part and is responsible for the individual’s behavior and understanding of the outside world. Jung. 1987). Psychodynamic Theories Psychodynamic psychologists (e. They explained personality in terms of mental mechanisms and drives that seek satisfaction within the boundaries of reality (Cervone. were more concerned with the interplay of conscious awareness and unconsciousness to explain personality (Coan. We select and respond to the stimuli that we perceive can satisfy our personal goals. The pre-conscious level is where information of our past is stored which could be called “available memory”.1. This set represents the struggles among bodily desires. pre-conscious and unconscious.2. When we select the stimuli. 2003).2. The ego does the systematic trial and error thinking and seeks to ensure the survival of the individual. we have three levels of consciousness: conscious. These stimuli are subsequently stored as information in the pre-conscious level and they become our experiences. Adler).
they have many choices of responding to it. Hence. Generally. when they use their thinking (mental faculty). They explain personality in terms of the mental drive mechanisms that try to satisfy the drives within the boundaries of reality (Cervone. 2002). Apparently. 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. The psychodynamic psychologists believe that behavior is a function of psychological processes operating within these three levels of consciousness. Freud posits that all human behavior is motivated by instincts or drives. It is this dynamic and active 24 .g. mental illness. 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. child abuse. The unconscious has all the things that are not easily accessible to the awareness level such as our drives or instincts which originate from there and others that are put there such as bad memories or emotions associated with trauma because we cannot bear to look back. when people act on a particular situation using their feelings.. the distress and miseries in modern life (e. Freud discovered the unconscious level as a source of motivation and a way of hiding thoughts and desires from awareness (Gabriel and Carr. Alternatively. 2000). One is to act on the stimuli using our feelings by retrieving the information from our past experiences at the preconscious level.respond and act on the stimuli two mental activities take place. and crimes) are due to the repression of pain or instinct by the superego contents. The unconscious is believed to be the source of our motivations such as desires for sex or food and neurotic compulsions or ambitions. which are neurologically represented by the physical needs in the life and death instincts.
Humanistic psychologists emphasise learning from one’s subjective past experiences to develop and actualise one’s potentials. to its fullest extent (Mele. Although Mayo may be considered the pioneer of the “humanistic” approach. David McClelland) view existence as a process of learning. Humanistic Theories Humanistic psychologists (e. 1976). 2003. 2002). becoming and being a perfect person (Franken. 1976). 2. Abraham Maslow.g. 80). apparently unchanging and instinctual or genetic in origin (Kaufman. 2003).view of the unconscious which is the heart of the field of psychology known as psychoanalysis (Gabriel and Carr. Self-actualisation can be defined as the process of learning. growing. For Maslow. growing. in all forms. p. 25 . The Mayo-Hawthorne studies demonstrated that the hourly paid employee was motivated by other needs besides economic rewards (Gallagher and Einhorn. Mayo showed that an employee’s psychological and social desires play an important role in production efficiency based on social aspects of human behavior.2. Given reasonable and conducive life conditions.. he must be” (Mele. They believe that people are responsible for their life. they assume that people will be positively motivated to actualise their potential. The joy of living is to prepare oneself for experiencing and progressing towards higher levels of functioning. 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. Carl Rogers. Mayo’s work paved the path for more humanistic theories. becoming and being a better person or developing the human virtue. 1998). self-actualisation is achieving “what a man can be.2.
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
2003). 2. 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. 2003). and balance. Generally. 2002). They use classical and operant conditioning to understand animal and human behavior. 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. 2000). 1989). Behaviorist/Cognitive and Social Cognitive Theories Stimulus-Response or Behavioral Theorists posit that behavior is a function of our past experiences. 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.2. 29 . Using traits to predict behavior in the past has yielded mixed results partly because of methodological problems. 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. This finding has been used to support critics who claim that personality traits are unimportant (Buss. Based on the deductions from their experiments. correlations between laboratory behavior and personality traits tend to be modest. strength of excitation.the inter-relationships of the traits and that the “whole personality” is different from the sum of these individual traits (Lombardo and Foschi. often not exceeding 0. mobility of nervous processes.4.4.
The old axiom of StimulusResponse Theory that pleasure begets pleasure and pain begets pain becomes unresolved and mooted. Moreover. 2000. Bauer and McAdams. Bargh and Ferguson.This typology has a strong influence on personality psychology (Lombardo and Foschi. which does not overly emphasise either environmental or internal forces when explaining behavior. This set of personal standards is unique in each person and grows out of one’s life experiences (Andersen and Chen. cognitive and 30 . 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. Cognitive psychologists view behavior as a function of cognition. the intraindividual. We begin to use our intellect to process the stimuli and anticipate the outcomes of our behavior before we respond to pains and pleasures. 2002. 2002). Behaviorists denied the existence of the complex higher-order factors (e. We learn from our experiences.. 1977a).g. conscious deliberation and perception) which mediate between stimuli and responses. 2000). Integrating the behavioral and cognitive perspectives with respect to motivation produces the social cognitive theory (Bandura. learning and experiences. Radical behaviorists such as Skinner and Watson ruled out emotional. We learn that both pleasurable and painful experiences can lead to positive and negative outcomes. expectations and goals to guide and direct their behavior. psychological explanatory mechanisms such as memory. 2004). individual functioning is considered as a continuous interaction among behavioral. They assert that people organise their values.
how people assign meanings to social information. 2000). and cognitive constructs used to give meaning to events) possesses a spectrum of possible inputs. They posit that each of the mechanisms (e. and (iii) personality variables (Cervone. 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. The three overarching principles of the social cognitive approach are.environmental factors (Fedor and Ferris. Furthermore.g. These mechanisms are contextualised by these social-learning processes. 2000). 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. selfregulatory and goals mechanisms. how people establish causal linkage over their lives through self-reflective and selfknowledge processes. 1981).. how people organise disparate and multiple experiences and life events within a larger cognitive framework of goals. self-reflective capabilities. 2004). and c.. Over the past few decades. b. (ii) reciprocal interactionism. social cognitive theorists postulate that the intuitive and perceived sense of coherence and consistency in personality/self/character can arise from three sources: a. 31 . (i) personality is a complex system.
knowledge of the 32 . “Getting Along” and “Getting Ahead”. Nevertheless. are more potent predictors of occupational performance although other factors such as values. As these traits are considerably stable and probably genetic in origin. WHY DOES PERSONALITY MATTER TO ORGANISATIONS? For several decades prior to the 1990s. personality measures can predict work performance quite accurately and a given trait value is situational specific (Tett and Burnett. Hogan and Holland (2003) found that the measures of Emotional Stability. 2000). By paying attention to the psychological processes where traits can be expressed in work performance. In a Thinking and Judging consulting world. mental ability. Martocchio and Thoresen (1997) revealed that conscientious and introverted employees are less likely to play truant or to be absent. 2003).2. a more beneficial strategy for an organisation is to select relatively more conscientious and less extroverted employees to reduce absenteeism and improve productivity. 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. Another study by Judge. interest. Meta-analyses have consistently and repeatedly shown that under specific conditions. personnel selection specialists generally did not use personality testing in employee selection due to pessimistic conclusions drawn by researchers that resulted in a perception that “personality tests have low validity” (Hurtz and Donovan. the selection/recruitment systems would be more beneficial and can provide practitioners greater advantage in utilising trait information in work settings. opportunities and health are also important determinants.3.
Personality theorists began to focus more on the differences within persons. Hunton and Bryant (2004a) found homogeneity of personality types that are attracted and retained in accounting firms. which in turn saves money via the reduction of errors/mistakes and improved morale. termed 33 . jobs and technologies. Gordon W. 1998) with individuality as its object of study (Pelham. certain traits correlate with higher performance for certain tasks. a group of Introverts may benefit from the presence of an Extrovert for better communication.4. 1993). TYPES OF PERSONALITY MEASURES Historians recognise the year 1937 to be the birth of personality psychology by its founder. McClelland conducted a study of the phenomenon of constructive activity beyond the physiological or survival requirements and classified the traits as “need for achievement”. 2. the presence of some Thinking types may provide some structure to decision-making in a group of all Feeling types. Allport (Nicholson.personality types of the clients could be used to enhance communication. Similarly. Also. The satisfaction derived from achievement is what stimulates their performance (Arnold. 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. 2000). Groups comprising members with Sensing and Intuition preferences outperformed groups with only Sensing-preference members. 1988). He found that extrinsic rewards such as money are only one form or method of “keeping score” for high achievers.
2003). Nomothetic is the other term that refers to the classical. 2. between subject analyses of personality. Allport’s idea of personality is a psychology of the mature and normal personality (Lombardo and Foschi. Agreeableness and Neuroticism) which represent the highest levels of a personality hierarchy (Paunonen and Ashton. These psychometric instruments have been selected as they are the most popular instruments used by commercial organisations for personal development. 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). and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) which is based on Jungian theory. also known as the Big Five. Openness to Experience. which is essentially a smaller set of trait variables derived from the 16-Factor Model of Cattell (1943) (Rossier et al. The anagram of the FFM is 34 . 2001. posits that there are five personality dimensions (i. and for developing more effective teams (Dent and Curd.1.as idiographic. 2004).. 2003). The Five Factor Model The Five Factor Model (FFM). Toomela. Kwiatkowski. Conscientiousness. 2003). No discussion or critique is carried out on the other instruments as there is very little publicly available research on them. 2004. Furthermore.e.. occupational selection. Extraversion.4. 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). career development.
where people exhibiting a high. b. e. There is considerable debate regarding how many personality factors are needed to understand and predict behavior although the generalisability and robustness of FFM has been shown across different rating sources. fearful. Neuroticism. gentle. moderate or low degree of each quality. d.C. Individuals scoring high on Extraversion are strongly predisposed to the experience of positive emotions. depressed and moody. types of assessment and cultures (Hogan and Holland. These factors represent a continuum. assertive. Emotional Adjustment is the principal trait that leads to life satisfaction and freedom from depression and other mental ailments. (De Raad.N. c. Conscientiousness.E. As defined by Judge and Bono (2000). imaginative. Factor 5. Openness to Experience is the only trait to display appreciable correlations with intelligence. Consciousness is the trait that best correlates with work performance.O. consists of tendencies to be kind. which is the tendency to be anxious. active and excitement seeking. perceptive and thoughtful. Factor 1. 1998). is indicated by two facets: achievement and dependability. Factor 3. represents the tendency to be creative. Paunonen (2003) revealed that the construct validity of these 35 . 2003). a. trusting. Extraversion. Factor 2. represents the tendency to be outgoing. Factor 4. often labelled by its opposite. Openness to Experience (sometimes labelled as Intellectance). trustworthy and warm. Agreeableness. languages. Emotional Adjustment.A.
These dimensions are cross-culturally generalisabled (Perugini.e. Martocchio and Thoresen. 1998. McCrae.. (1998) and Pedersen et al. the FFM seems to dominate not only the theory but also the evaluation of personality (Goldberg. MBTI. Hurtz and Donovan... 2003. Although studies by Jang et al. (1988) showed that about 20% to 55% of the trait variation in personality dimensions is linked to genetic sources. 2000. 1997. 1993. Judge and Bono.. It has reached somewhat of a consensus that the FFM is an appropriate taxonomy of personality (Burke and Witt. Saucier and Goldberg. 1998. Toomela. 2004). Paunonen and Aston. Tsaousis. these studies also revealed substantial variation due to non-genetic factors (Toomela. 2002. 2003. 2003) and are endogenous and biologically determined (McCrae and Costa. 1997). Hogan and Holland. 1999). Hogan and Holland. 1997). 2004. 2004.. 2004).inventories is supported by the consistency and strong convergence in their predictions and measurements. et al.g. 2001. 2003). After five decades of research on personality psychology (i. 1996. Allik and McCrae. Judge. other researchers are of the opinion that virtually all traits of personality are reasonably contained in the factor space of the FFM (e. 36 . Several studies have shown that the well-known instruments for personality assessment (Eysenck Personality Inventory. The identification of these factors is based on principal components analyses (Burke and Witt. Ashton et al. 2004). Although there is no universal agreement among theorists and researchers on the comprehensiveness of the five dimensions (Tett and Burnett. California Personality Inventory) may be assumed to be part of the FFM (Salgado. the way one describes oneself and others in everyday life transactions). Gallucci and Livi. 2000). Judge et al. 2003.
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. the traits are rooted in biology and transcultural universals. race. the 37 . It postulates three bipolar dimensions and the fourth bipolar. 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. Sensing/Intuition and Thinking/Feeling). Personality is the mediating and integrating factor in numerous psychological processes (e. information processing and the role of the unconscious) (Wheeler. age. The idiographic. Extroversion and Introversion. and their preferences for four mental functions (i. 2. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Jungian theory (Jung. (2000) claimed that the FFM can only satisfy the nomothetic.2. 2004a)..e. Shelton and Darling (2002) posited the FFM model is applicable to all people regardless of the gender. socio-economic background and country of origin. religion. ethnicity.g. Saucier and Goldberg (1996) and Digman (1997) postulated the FFM model to be descriptive summaries while Marsella et al. Nevertheless. explanatory and molecular contextual accounts of personality are still subjects of debate. 1971) posits that variation in human behavior is due to basic and observable differences when people use their minds to gather and process information. Allick and McCrae (2004) did not claim that the environment is irrelevant to personality functioning but rather that personality is manifested through culture. descriptive and molar goals of Allport. Hunton and Bryant. That is. individual development..4. Jung’s typology assumes that people differ in their choice of two attitudes.
Extroverts are said to react to immediate and objective conditions in the environment. 2000). resulting in four dimensions with 16 distinct personality types as shown in Table 4 (Myers et al. Feeling represents a preference to make decisions that are based on subjective processes that include emotional reactions to events. 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. People with an intuitive preference rely more on their non-objective and unconscious perceptual processes.. 1993) are: a. The judgmental person uses a combination of thinking and feelings when making decisions whereas the perception person uses the sensing and intuition processes. however.Judgement/Perception dimension. 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. c. Introverts. d. a later addition by Myers and Briggs. Extroversion (E) versus Introversion (I): This dimension reflects the perceptual orientation of the individual. looks inward to their internal and subjective reactions to their environment. 1998. The 4 dimensions (Pittenger. 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. McCaulley. 38 .
. The Judging types are described as organised. Metaphorically. 2002). Intuition types “see the forest” (i. structured (like Conscientiousness) whereas Perceptive types are adaptable.. 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. Similarly.e. Extroversion-Introversion of the MBTI is comparable with McCrae and Costa’s Extraversion. the primary preference always dominates the person’s personality. an introvert can become more extroverted when in groups). Although people can develop a complimentary style (e. Lindon. Sensing-Intuition is comparable to the Openness factor. (i. 1995). The MBTI does not cater for the neuroticism dimension which is certainly an important variable (McC Dachowski.. Thinking types connect ideas and experiences by logic..e. more factual and observant).e. Hunton and Byrant.Since MBTI is a theory of types. The Judging types are more committed and decisive while the Perceiving types are more questioning and open-minded.g. more idealistic and compassionate) (Wheeler. spontaneous and flexible. logical and rational natures) while Feeling types incorporate personal and group values in the decision-making process (i. self disciplined. 1993). 1987). Extroverted types are more outgoing while introverted types are deemed to be more detached and contemplative. one can have only one preference. Shelton and Darling. more insightful and creative) while Sensing types “see the trees” (i.. ThinkingFeeling may not be directly comparable to Agreeableness but it does clearly measure a similar dimension. Similarly. 2004a.e. 39 . Although there is insufficient evidence that the MBTI is a valid instrument. its popularity has not diminished despite research which shows it has low validity (McKenna.
Table 3: The 16 Personality Types with Cognitive Characteristics and Occupational Tendencies 40 .
1994. 1996. 1993). Descouzis (1989). (1990). 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 . 1990)... Landry et al. Kreiser et al. 2004). 2003).. 1998). 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. Kovar et al. Otter (1984).2. Mount and Barrick (1994) found that conscientiousness has the strongest correlation with work performance and is positively correlated with task orientation while neuroticism has a strong negative correlation with task orientation (Burch and Anderson. audit partners and managers are predominantly STJ in the MBTI matrix and another set of studies reveal that the STJ type is dominant in accounting undergraduate students (Laribee. Sensing type students outperformed the Intuition students in certain subjects and in an overall accounting grade (Nourayi and Cherry.5. Both of these dimensions are dominant in predicting work performance across a variety of work (Kichuk and Wiesner. Satava (1996) and Schloemer and Schloemer (1997) found that accountants. Moreover. Neuroticism primarily influences performance through motivation while conscientiousness influences performance by being decisive and orderly. Shackleton (1980). Jocoby (1981). 2004). 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. 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.
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.1. Rossier. De Raad..success strivings for professional fulfilment. This structure is essentially derived from an atheoretical trait factor approach (Gelso and Fassiinger. 1992). 1989.. The need for power was highly correlated with professional fulfilment and status-wealth but was negatively related with family relationships (Parker and Chusmir. de Stadelhofen. 2004. SHORTCOMINGS OF FFM AND MBTI MEASURES 2. 1989) and hence other good dimensions of 42 . Furthermore. 1998). If personality requirements are derived for an individual job. a widely used trait group. 1996. 1991). which has the advantage of getting around the problem of breaking personality into areas. 2001). is unusual as its contents are defined by the lexical hypothesis instead of primary parts (Mayer. 1996). Its disadvantages are that numerous traits are motivational in nature (Buss. Hence. 1998).6. contribution to society and status-wealth. and Berhoud. personality can provide an incremental validity over ability in picking the optimal candidate (Day and Silverman. Hogan et al. need for achievement was negatively related to security and personal fulfilment. 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. 2.6. Five Factor Model The FFM.
. 2004. Paunonen. Mayer.personality may have been omitted (Paunonen and Aston. 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. Aston et al. 2003) as well as its focus on narrow aspects of personality (Paunonen and Aston. over-reliance on the adjectival approach may limit the cross-cultural generalisability of the FFM. Mayer. 2003. Moreover. Aston et al. Hence. it has nothing to say about personality development. the debate on cultural specificity and the universality of personality structure continues. It may 43 . Toomela. 2003). 2001. 2004. 2004. and (ii) it cannot account for exceptions to the typical behaviors on which it is based. 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. the FFM may only be “universal” for that specific stratum of society. 2001. the exceptions which depart from the usual due to situational effects. Cervone. Digman. 2004b.. 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. Cellar et al.. Hunton and Byrant. 2001. That is. 1997. Furthermore. 1996) and is criticised for its questionable conceptual and methodological assumptions of the lexical hypothesis (Wheeler. 2003). 2003. 1996). Toomela (2003) finds that due to the scientific word meaning structure used. Moreover. The FFM is not universally accepted as the integrative model of personality (Cellar et al. Tett and Burnett.. 1997. Digman.
.e. Furthermore. for example. introversion-extroversion) but cultural variations may shape: (i) their display patterns.. and (vii) confusion with the implication of words and terms used in the question as well their perceived meaning (Marsella et al. (ii) desire to conform socially. These motivational and perceptual differences are: (i) fear of possible persecution. (iv) limited insight and self-awareness. in terms of normative equivalence. (v) desire to please authorities. and (v) the value or utility of behavioral descriptions (Marsella et al. The adoption of self-report questions is already a complex task.be accepted that there are a relative small number of socially or biological determined behavioral dimensions (e. 2000). For example. Finally. (iii) concern only in giving the right instead of the accurate answer. the norms of a particular instrument that are based on Western culture may give rise to questionable conclusions if applied to. (iv) the meanings they are assigned. Chinese respondents. the similarity in the meaning and nature of a concept) may differ. 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. 44 . (vi) variation in the construction of personality and personhood. dependency in Western culture implies childishness.. 2000). (ii) the interpersonal responses to them.g. Some cultural groups have problems with Likert scales and they tend to take the middle position. helplessness. immaturity and many other derogatory terms but can be viewed positively in the Japanese culture. the conceptual equivalence (i. In addition. (iii) the situations where they are elicited.. 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.
1997). 45 . the FFM does provide an initial structure of human individuality. that is. Idson and Mischel (2001) postulated that traits cannot provide the psychologist with more than a psychology of a stranger. Nevertheless. the FFM has the following advantages: (i) it has a parsimonious taxonomy. 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. and (iii) it can advance our understanding of work-related variables (e.g. performance) by linking them to personality dimensions (Salgado. Unfortunately.. while life stories provide the meaning and integration (McAdams. 1997). Furthermore. characteristic adaptations like developmental tasks and motives fill in the details. In the final analysis. 2003). 1997). (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. 2003). 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.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. 2001). 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. Several studies have found the FFM to be unrelated to cognitive ability (Sanders.
2. Reliability is defined as the consistency in measurement of a test while validity tests are for goodness of the measure.6. The correlations between ipsative factors are negative. 2004. Each dichotomy is a selection between qualities of equal value. Cavana et al. Hunton and Bryant. 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.e. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Jung’s (1971) hypothesis states that types and preferences are invariant and innate in individuals. Hunton and Bryant. 2004). Although this hypothesis has received empirical support with temporal stability studies. wrong or right (i. The type preferences are dichotomous (i. Data are described as ipsative when a given group of responses always add to the same total.. 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.. Factor analysis will not be appropriate. The formulae for these reliability estimates based on the 46 . Furthermore.2.. with no intrinsic bad or good.e. 1998). measuring the concepts the measurement instrument is designed to measure (Dent and Curd. If the number of traits is large. a forced-choice format) (Rings. Hence. 2004a). 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. 2004b). it does not capture the strength of a preference but its direction which is only appropriate for sorting (Wheeler. no value judgment attached). that is. it is not suitable for analysis looking for before and after treatment effects (Wheeler. 2001).
. What 47 . 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.classical test theory are simply not applicable or tenable with ipsative data. ESFPs are neither better nor worse salespeople than INTJs. high fidelity expression of a personality disposition. there is no data that show certain types are more contented in specific occupations than others or stay longer in one occupation. 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.7. Definition of Behavior Behavior is the way organisms like human beings act. In addition. Similarly. 1996). behavior is interpreted as conduct by most people but in the fields of psychology and behavioral science. THE THEORIES AND CONSTRUCTS OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE 2. 2.1.7. Furthermore. Any single behavior is a narrow bandwidth. 1989). Hence. Behavior is used to evaluate and interpret one’s personality (Hogan et al. there is no evidence to indicate a positive relation between specific MBTI types with career success. In general.
Motivation is not behavior itself and is not performance. 1982). the chosen actions are good reflections of performance (Mitchell. his or her personality. Extrinsic motivation. it would be extrinsic motivation when the person participates in the activity to avoid negative consequences or gain external rewards. that is. 2004). 1988). Cesare and Sadri.2. Pincus (2004) defined motivation as a desire or an emotion operates willingly and causing it to act. Factors Influencing Behavior Motivation is fundamental to behavior as most behavior is influenced by it (Mitchell. 2000). Karageorghis and Terry. On the other hand. 1982. 2003). motivation is a process that moves a person towards some action (Arnold.an individual does is a function of the kind of person he or she is – that is.7. intrinsic motivation and amotivation are three distinct motivational forces that can influence behavior (Vlachopoulos. An example of an intrinsic motivation is the participation in some activities for the satisfaction and pleasure derived from it. 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. 2. which represents a lack of motivation. Behavior is the criterion which is chosen. The word “motivation” suggests energised behavior directed towards some goals that is. In most cases. Amotivation is the lack of intent to engage in a specific behavior. The objective of motivation theories is often to predict behavior. 48 .
expectations. It is generally accepted that motivation is (Mitchell. under the individual’s control) (Tubbs and Ekeberg.e. Nevertheless. 2004). personality traits accounted for little variance in 49 . 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. Motivation is to do with the quality and direction of the effort. Different people have different needs. 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. which arouse behavior. Contrary to the dispositional view. need theories identify the internal factors which energise behavior. (ii) intentional. and can vary over place and time due to environmental influences (Ramlall. (i. In this respect. As human needs are psychological or physiological deficiencies. persistence of voluntary actions and directions that are goal directed. 2004). values. motivation is the degree to which an individual wants and chooses to engage in certain specific behaviors (Mitchell. and goals. attitudes. 1991). reinforcement histories. and (iii) multifaceted. 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.Mitchell (1982) postulated motivation as those psychological processes that cause the arousal. 1982). 1982): (i) an individual-level phenomenon. “motivations provide the motor for behavior” (Pincus.. these needs can be weak or strong. Hence. That is. not the amount.
most researchers have adopted an interactionist view. the individual enjoys the work and feels rewarded by just performing the task. directed and sustained in organisational settings” (Leonard et al.3. the person has a dynamic reciprocal interaction with the situation/environment. 970). The other source of 50 . there are some studies that are able to support the predictive validity of the personality/dispositional view (Leonard et al. and Etzioni point to three sources of motivation: motivation based on goal internalisation. 2000). Katz and Khan. Current Theories of Work Motivation Work motivation is defined as “the process by which behavior is energised. According to this view. 1994. In recent years. Hence. The theories proposed by deCharmes. Deci. there are no external forces regulating the behavior. and extrinsic or instrumental motivation.. Nevertheless. 1975).behavior across situations. intrinsic process motivation. 1989. p. 1999. Individuals who perform a behavior because it is “fun” are said to be motivated intrinsically. Rothbart and Ahadi. 1999). Leonard et al. not personality or dispositions (Marsella et al... The trait-situation debate peaked with the works of Mischel (1968) and Mischel and Shoda (1995) which posited that situational factors determine behavior. are able to exhibit different patterns of behavior yet are able to retain a recognisable personality structure (Pervin. models are developed which can explain why people.. 1999). That is. which assumes behavior is a function of both personality and the environment (Pervin. when shifting from one situation to another. Furthermore.7. 2.
2004). There exist several “mini” theories of individual difference in motivation which suggest the existence of motivational traits (Pincus. 1961). 1958). there is considerable variability in the conversion of needs into action. motivation is complex in that: (i) (ii) the needs of individuals differ.motivation stems from external forces. (iii) the need for affiliation (Atkinson. Murray’s “variables of personality” theory adopts motives as the fundamental element of personality (Winter et al. and (iv) the need for power (Atkinson. Nevertheless.. 1998). (iii) there is inconsistency in the final action taken. 1998). Such motivation is referred to as legal compliance and external rewards by Katz and Khan (1978) or alienative or calculative involvement by Etzioni (1975). The more psychologically immature a person is. the 51 . Needs can be requested or expressed in immature or mature ways. (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 need for cognition (Cohen et al. and (iv) the difference in reactions by individuals for the fulfilment of needs. 1958).. 1995).
Wertheimer and Gestalt Psychology (Chung. which is in the functionalist tradition of James and Dewey. Frank (2003) maintained that the characteristics of triebe characterise the vicissitudes of needs. Values are motivations and the gratification of a need is a value (Jolibert and Baumgartner. These theories are. p. and are termed instinctoid. Maslow claimed that the five needs are universal and innate. however. is fused with the holism of Goldstein. Hence. 972). Behavior is motivated by goal internalisation when an individual adopts behaviors and attitudes because they are congruent with one’s value system. 1999. Leonard et al. 1969) and has the dynamism of Adler and Freud. Needs can also be sublimated and gratification can be delayed. The expectancy and equity theories focus on extrinsic motivational factors and assume that individuals are “rational maximiser(s) of personal utility” (Leonard et al.. These needs are instinctually weak and their effect on behavior can be 52 . As values determine our needs. unable to account for the complete range of motivated behavior. 1997). our needs determine our behavior or acts (Osteraker. such as changes in behavior across situations when valences and expectancies remain constant. (1999) posited that individual disposition or personality is a significant determinant of behavior. needs can be unconscious and repressed or disavowed and conscious. or compromised. 1999). For the more psychologically mature person. 2003). most needs can be satisfied or expressed symbolically (Frank.more literal is the gratification of the needs. denied or turned into the opposite. The Theory of Human Motivation postulated by Maslow (1943).
53 . (b) safety needs . The upper levels of the Needs Hierarchy attempt to explain why an individual continue to strive for excellence when the lower needs are met. Based on the premise that motivation comes from within an individual and cannot be imposed.for hunger. Even though the needs are innate. thirst and so forth. be acceptable and belong. consisting of: (a) physiological needs . (d) esteem needs .to achieve.accelerated. Chung. inhibited or modified by the environment. Maslow proposed a hierarchy of needs. and (e) self-actualisation needs . 1969).to affiliate with others. (c) belongingness and love needs . 1997. safe and out of danger. Hence. desirability or importance. 1988). This may be true for lower-order needs and less so of higher-order needs. it is a dynamic model that posits multiple needs operating simultaneously (Herbig and Genestre. and (iii) higher needs are different from lower needs as they can never be completely satisfied. 1989). According to Maslow: (i) human beings are demanding beings.to feel secure. be competent and gain approval and recognition. all other behaviors are learned (Buttle. Maslow postulated that an individual’s needs act as motivators and are the centre of motivation (Arnold. the higher its strength. It is shown that the greater a need’s deprivation. their behavior is determined by unsatisfied needs and satisfied needs do not motivate behavior. (ii) the five needs exist in a hierarchy of significance or importance.to find self-fulfilment and realise one’s potential. only those behaviors that satisfy the physiological needs are unlearned that is.
Unlike most of the above traditional need theories that can be classified as homeostatic or deficit theories of motivation. 2003). be concerned with needs on other levels of the primary need (Townsend and Gebhardt. 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.e. For example. Maslow’s need hierarchy is generally applicable to all with regards to cultural differences. related and growth).. 54 . At any instant. Alderfer argued that people can move up and down the hierarchy and can be motivated at any time by multiple needs. to a lesser degree. it must be repeated that an individual does not concentrate all energies on one need and then when that need is fulfilled. existence. self-actualisation may mean different things to individuals from collectivistic cultures than it does to individuals from individualistic cultures (Cesare and Sadri. 1969).Alderfer (1969) modified Maslow’s Theory by suggesting there are only three needs (i. The major difference lies in the definition of need satisfaction. 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. 1999). 2003). an individual may concentrate mostly at one level but at the same time may. More like piano keys than stairways. Needs are constantly changing within the individual (Osteraker. Tests have shown that people across the world are essentially motivated by the same fundamental needs. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory advocates the dynamic processes of need satisfaction which leads towards the ultimate goal of self-actualisation. 1993). move on to the next need.
biologically and situationally determined. Furthermore. In additional. The adoption of Maslow’s needs is appropriate for the CASES personality measure as it has face validity with plausible explanatory power. The power of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory is the identification of the needs of each individual that motivate behavior (Wiley. Although personality-based theories may not necessarily predict behavior or motivation. Behavior is almost always motivated by other factors that are culturally. Motivations are only one group of determinants of behavior. they do provide an understanding of what motivates or energises the individual. 1969). The Needs Hierarchy is also elegant and parsimonious. Its structure is appealing in terms of its simplicity and apparent completeness (Gallagher and Einhorn. 1976). Workplace behavior is posited to be influenced by a person’s existing state of needs in a certain universal needs taxonomy.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. Maslow (1943) postulated that the theories of motivation are not synonymous with theories of behavior. For example. a specific behavior can meet more than one need. 1997). Mustafa (1992) postulated that the significance of the needs hierarchy lies in understanding the motivational factors for the individuals. Conversely. the scope of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is broad and is able to explain a wide range of behaviors. 55 .
The variability of these dimensions from the Needs theory is explained by the complexity dimension based on the social cognitive theory of “If-Then”. The end goals are classified as drives and intrinsic motives by social 56 .7.2. existing psychometric instruments have personality dimensions which are temporally stable over various situations. Any adequate model must therefore address motivation.4. The proposed personality model of CASES attempts to explain personality with dimensions from the Hierarchy of Needs theory. A person taking up a second job for the extra money (instrumental motive). 2.4. 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. This model of personality (CASES) postulates that personality is a function of psychological needs and their interactions with the environment/situation.7. The Constructs of this Proposed Model Most broad-based personality theories have assumed that specific motivations determine how personality and self develop function. if not all. which complete the “behavior chain”.1. Most. 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. may desire the money to purchase health insurance (instrumental motive) and hopes that the health insurance will benefit the person and family (end goal).
“A better term for an instinctual impulse (i. 1998). Motives can be ends-based or means-based 57 . 2004). They provide the meaning of human behavior.psychologists (Reiss. A person with a motive to gain social status may behave in ways linked with upper class status. needs have been equated with “drive” in experimental psychology (Fedor and Ferris. (iii) the need for interpersonal boundaries.. recognition and affirmation. Motives refer to people’s desire. triebe) is need” (Frank. (v) the need for optimal emotional availability of a love object. p. 694). may enjoy the feeling of self-importance and may think of issues pertaining to wealth (Reiss.. However. skills and other motives. expectancies. (iv) the need for understanding the causes of events. 1981). 2003. Freud wrote. incentives. Although Freud did not elaborate further on the idea of needs. Furthermore.e. Motives are reasons a person holds for initiating and performing voluntary behavior. the need definition should be given more consideration as postulated: (i) (ii) the need for one's physical needs to be deemed legitimate. the need for identity. 2004). wishes and goals. 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. Motives are the “why” of behaviors (Winter et al. and (iv) the need for a resilient responsiveness by one's love objects.
. desires or goals (Winter et al. In these examples. While people’s wants are many. motives involve wishes. salary or degree). Maslow (1970) posited that the gratification of any need is a value while Murray (1951) claimed that needs operate in the service of values. interactional and societal needs. Human wants can be regarded as specific desires for these deeper needs. Needs that people desire and require vary according to the value system in which they are oriented as different values systems induce different needs (Yamaguchi.depending on the individual’s objective for performing the behavior. their needs are fewer. 2004). Drive theories define drives as psychological states that move the organism towards a goal whereas needs are physiological states of deprivation (Pincus. Ends-based motives are indicated when one engages in a behavior because one desires to do so with no other apparent reason. 2004). 1998). For example. needs are socially constructed and historically situated (Buttle. These wants are shaped and reshaped continuously by the institutional and social forces. Similarly. a professional footballer playing the game for a salary or a student studying diligently to obtain a degree. Wants and needs are based on both inherited characteristics and environmental conditions and behavior is motivated to satisfy needs and wants (Koltko-Rivera.g. the behavior is enacted as it is a means to obtain something else (e. Values are cognitive representations of biological. a student reading a textbook out of curiosity or a child kicking a ball just for the fun of it. Hence. means-based motives are indicated when one performs an act for a specific instrumental value. Our values determine our needs and our needs influence 58 . For example. On the other hand. 2003). 1989)..
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. and fulfilment. Hence. care. (iii) Egocentric self. the model uses the social cognitive theory to provide an explanation for complexity. 1999. which represents the needs for growth. however. Jolibert and Baumgartner. structure. companionship. desires. and (iv) Sociocentric self. CASES’s first premise is that personality dimensions can be represented by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. which represents the needs for security. Social cognitive theorists postulate that human beings are neither mechanical 59 . achievement. 1997). and affiliation. self development. image. order. 2. 2004). To explain why some individuals are highly predictable and some are unpredictable.4. which represents the needs for power.7. the four dimensions of self are proposed as follows: (i) Self-Actualising self.2. CASES posits that the needs subsume motives (implicit and explicit). (ii) Safety self. and control. Physiological needs. and protection. progress. drives and values. are not considered as they are unlearned and assumed to be of relatively in low importance in current organisational settings. system. which represents the needs for love. Based on these factors.our acts (Osteraker.
e. such as when the threat is insufficiently threatening or when the individual lacks the motivation or necessary cognitive resources to deal with the threat... 1977a). 2000).e. 60 .conveyors of animating influences of the environment nor autonomous agents. and by the exercise of conscious decisions and choices based on these purposes and construals (Bargh and Ferguson. The capacity to control one’s action. 1995: Anderson and Chen. motivation or thought processes is a unique human characteristic (Bandura. Human behavior is purposive. Complex behavior is believed to be mediated by the individual’s current purposes and intents. The “If-Then” approach defines personality based on different responses (i. active construal of the environment. “if”). self-regulation is activated by a threat indicating that something is not “normal” and that adjustment may be needed. “then”) that an individual displays in various classes of situations (i. 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. Even though the contents and processes by which self-regulation occur are multifaceted. Andersen and Chen (2002) posited that personality and self are largely shaped by experiences and personality is a function of the different situations individuals encounter. 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. Not all threats require adjustments. 2002).
Low complexity traits describe the characteristics of people who are predictable. then he/she will tend to be gullible at all times and situations.7. The traits of the other four dimensions are dynamic and are manifested on the need to suit a purpose. if an individual with low complexity is gullible. a person can be hard. the person can be soft. Apparently. 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. Complex people are harder to predict. at a particular situation and time.No two human beings are alike. For example. a low complexity person would normally manifest the traits of the other four dimensions consistently and persistently over time and across situations. being hard or soft is a person’s choice and is manifested with intent to achieve a purpose. representing the need to adapt. The nature of low complexity behavior is conditioned while the nature of high complexity behavior is cognitive. CASES postulates that people with a low complexity have relatively static personalities. but at another situation and time. viz. 2.5. change and be flexible to survive in a turbulent dynamic environment. Evidently. 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 . (i) Complex self. Complex people have dynamic personalities. For example.
however. From this approach. 2000). There has been a resurgence of interest in the role of personality in work performance (Robertson et al. “Does personality predict work performance?” is a question that many researchers have addressed over the past few decades. “inventory” level instead of the construct level. 1995). CASES posits that an individual is not a “hostage” of his/her traits but rather is an active personality which has stable. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES Prior to the 1990s. competence. however. That is.. 2003). or has to (Nikolaou. 62 . has the ability either unconsciously or consciously to alter his/her behavior simply because he/she likes to. experience. 2. There are many other possible factors that influence work performance such as intelligence.appeal of the arguments. These tests. dispositional personality characteristics. focused on personality traits at the molecular. Furthermore. The individual. variations in responses are not assumed to be an error. motivation. The CASES model of personality recognises the idiographic differences in how human beings make sense of varying situations and their responses to them.8. variability in an individual’s responses across situations will not be dismissed or averaged over. 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. personnel selection specialists did not generally use personality testing in employee selection due to the perception it had low validity. wants to.
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. job-specific task proficiency. 2003). 2004). Sanders. oral and written communication task proficiency. Mellissa and Ellington. and ability (Carmeli and Freund. procedural knowledge.. leadership. 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. personality provides very little insight on what and why the person will do in a given job. Recent studies using more fundamental dimensions of personality have shown the predictive power of personality for work performance (Kieffer et al. motivation and satisfaction levels. results from multiplicative combination of declarative knowledge. (2000) posited that the core work performance factors are thinking. Several studies have shown that all personality dimensions or factors are valid predictor of work performance (Salgado. Sackett. Work performance is affected by role clarity. Barrick and Mount. Hence. peer or supervisor reports on the job or failure 63 .e. 2004). Mellissa and Ellington. work orientation. 1998). and interviews. Performance is often measured as training academy performance. 1997. administration. Tett and Burnett (2003) used a work performance taxonomy that had eight categories (i.satisfaction.. 2002. Schmit et al. self management and motivation. 1998). 1993. and organisation (Barrick et al. and motivation). interpersonal. more recent studies are focusing on demonstrating the incremental variance in work performance with the use of personality predictors (Sackett. assessment centre ratings. work attitude..
2000. Schweiger and Sumners. There exists some degree of difficulty in measuring work performance and linking specific work tasks to personality dimensions.. 1993). a measure should include variables in citizenship behavior and productivity as well as steps to prevent the “halo” effect. Global measures of work performance and personality measures often correlate poorly (Cook et al. 1994). 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. 2003). Mount and Strauss. cooperativeness. Furthermore.. 1990). 2000). A contributing factor for the poor correlation between personality and work performance is the “halo” effect.measures such as being fired or quitting (Sanders. 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. they also rely on other factors such as pleasant disposition. To ensure a full representation of work performance. 64 . work stress. and the work environment can significantly influence an individual’s behavior. These two dimensions of performance show little correlation when measured objectively but exhibit high correlation when measured subjectively. Several researchers have stressed that other factors such as occupational socialisation. and helpfulness. work performance comprises “will-do” and “can-do” components where the former are best predicted by personality measures (Barrick. Another contributing factor is when supervisors evaluate their subordinates. beside the worker’s productivity (Hunter and Schmidt.
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
McCelland identified traits for “need for achievement” and it is this satisfaction of achievement that facilitates high performance (Arnold. people’s high expectations guide their actions to produce high performance (Lau and Shaffer. 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. The second research question is whether the CASES measure of personality is able to predict work performance. In Bandura’s view. (2002) and Lowery. are predictors of work performance. 1999). (2004) postulated that cognitive ability and volition.relationship in other countries but not done in Malaysia. which are facets of self-actualisation. low impulsivity and self-regulation. and the dimension of self-actualisation which has facets of self 68 .2. Furthermore. Behavior is a function of expectancy of actions which will lead to certain reinforcement. Beadles II and Krilowicz (2004) revealed that the need for achievement and creativity. have moderating effects on the relationship between personality and performance. the research question posed is “Does the FFM predict work performance?” 2. 1988). which are facets of the complexity dimension based on Vancouver and Scherbaum (2000) and KoltkoRivera (2004).8.. Studies by Barrick et al. Since the CASES model measure contains the dimension of complexity which has facets of volition. High performers perceive that events as determined by themselves while low performers perceive events as controlled by chance. Nikolaou (2003) and Lowery et al.
Furthermore. dutiful. low confidence/self esteem. 2.8. responsible. there are good reasons to believe that the Complexity and Self-actualisation 69 .. positive mental health. The facets of positive mental health and self -esteem in the self-actualisation dimension and low impulsivity in the complexity dimension of the CASES are inversely related to the Neuroticism dimension of the FFM.3. 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. passion. the facets of need for achievement. internalisation. and self esteem. depressed. 1992) whilst Neuroticism comprises fearful. the research postulates that the CASES model will predict work performance. self-discipline. reliable. persistent. 1997). 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 hard working (Costa and McCrae. need for achievement. deliberation. 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. determined. as shown in Table 4. creativity. not resilient. dependable. planful. realisation of one’s potential. achievement-striving. determined. and hostility (Judge et al. Similarly. and planfulness of the Conscientiousness dimension in the FFM.fulfilment. anxious. persistent. passion. impulsivity. order. As personality traits can be conceptually and empirically related without being redundant. deliberation. Conscientiousness in the FFM comprises competence.
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. “What is the relationship between the CASES model and the FFM model?” 70 . this assumption will be tested and raised in the third research question. 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. However.dimensions of the CASES are related to the Conscientiousness and Neuroticism dimensions of the FFM.
The third research question is addressed by the third hypothesis.2.4. The second research question is addressed by the second hypothesis.8. Hypotheses The first research question is addressed by the first hypothesis. H1: The FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. H3: The CASES and the FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance. H2: The CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. 71 .
1980).0. positivism and phenomenology. CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.2. It highlighted the shortcomings of various existing personality measures. The two broad social science perspectives or paradigms of research. RESEARCH PARADIGMS The structure. 72 . are discussed before proceeding to the research method adopted and the administration and development of the data collection processes. specifically. and on the social-cognitive construct of “IfThen” was used to explain why some individuals are more predictable than others. which postulates that behavior is motivated by needs. human nature and epistemology (Morgan and Smircich. This chapter covers the selected research methodology and design that will be used to obtain data to examine the research questions. they do not account for the variations in behavior due to environmental factors and the complexity of an individual. which give rise to various theoretical perspectives or paradigms ranging from phenomenology to positivism. 3. A new personality measure with five dimensions based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. direction. INTRODUCTION The previous chapter analysed and reviewed the relevant literature on personality theories with respect to predicting work performance. and process of social science are linked to assumptions about ontology.3.1.
This approach uses a statement of a hypothesis and conclusions may be drawn from it via the analysis of quantitative data (Baker. 1980). relationships and the precise nature of laws among the phenomena measured. Its basic epistemological stance is to obtain information on how individuals interpret the world. causal relationships and predictions. positivism views reality as a concrete structure and is objective whereby human beings are rational responders (Morgan and Smircich. 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. According to phenomenology. 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. humans are transcendental beings and are not restricted by external laws. Positivism also provides an objective form of knowledge which specifies the regularities. and work performance. personality.Phenomenology views reality as a projection of human imagination. 73 . 1980). On the other end of the continuum. From this point of view. The possible shortcomings of this approach would be the apparent loss of richness of concepts due to the mechanisation of variables and concepts. As this research seeks to explain the relationships between need-induced behavior. 2001). this study adopts a positivistic paradigm with a hypothetico-deductive approach.
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. 1980. with surveys as the main research method (Morgan and Smircich. Morgan. Causal relationships link all aspects of behavior to the specific context. vocational preferences. The quantitative methods. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Most research in the social science disciplines is conducted using quantitative methodologies.3. are appropriate to capture a view of the social world or reality as a concrete structure. Reality can be found in the relationships between these components and concrete behavior. people always respond to the situation in a lawful manner. Human beings are assumed to be products of external forces in the environment. which are principally drawn from natural sciences. Stimuli from the environment condition them to respond to events in determinate and predictable ways.g. 1999. personality. The aim of such research is to assess human variations in factors (e. 1996). 1996). It is a structure comprising of a network of finite relationships between constituent parts. Although human perception or cognition may influence the process. 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. Gliner and Harmon. By manipulating data with various sophisticated quantitative tools. and abilities) that have real-world significance. the social world can be “frozen” into structured immobility and the role of human beings is reduced to 74 ..3. Lubinski.
the time horizon and the unit of analysis (Cavana et al. 2001). the nature of the study depends on how far the knowledge on the research subject has advanced.. the types of investigation. exploratory. various studies. exploratory. An 75 . a quantitative methodology is adopted and provides the framework for the research design.4. RESEARCH DESIGN Research design involving a series of logical decision-making steps basically comprises the purpose of the study (descriptive. Hence. as mentioned in the previous chapter. Any generalisation is inductive which comprises nomothetic statements. promotes value-free inquiry. This quantitative methodology based on the positivist paradigm is objective. have used this approach effectively. Purpose of the Study Studies can be descriptive.1. these activities often interact or occur at the same time. a quantitative methodology has the ability to provide an objective view of the various external factors.4. Moreover.elements which are subject to deterministic sets of forces. 3. Although the processes in research design are depicted in distinct sequential activities. adheres to strict rules and uses statistics extensively. the extent of researcher interference. 3. case study or hypothesis testing. case study or hypothesis testing). Based on these grounds. From the framing of the research questions and hypotheses.
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. Such an undertaking is appropriate when the three criteria of uniqueness. The purpose of descriptive studies is to describe aspects of the situation from an organisational.. 1999). industry or individual perspective such as age. The case study method involves a systematic gathering of in-depth information on an organisation or entity..exploratory study is carried out when little or no information is known about the subject. 2001). 2001. 2001).. It provides an enhanced understanding of the various relationships between variables as well as establishing their causalities (Cavana et al. Such studies are appropriate to obtain an initial grasp of the phenomena of interest (Cavana et al. 1999). 76 . Gliner and Harmon. or race. critical and revelatory are met (O’Cass. It is generally qualitative in nature and used as a managerial decision-making tool (Cavana et al. educational level. Morgan et al. This study uses hypothesis testing as there is extensive knowledge. 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. gender. 2004). information and variables on the topic to enable the formulation of hypotheses as articulated in Chapter 2.
experimental and non-experimental.4. 3. Quantitative research methodology. correlational and causal. Quantitative methods may be used to give a more definite answer.3. 2001). Type of Investigation There are three approaches of investigation: clarification. Clarification investigation is used to gain a better understanding of the phenomena or concepts under investigation. With a better understanding of the concepts. Research Method When the purpose of the study and the type of investigation has been determined.4. Exploratory and descriptive studies using qualitative methods follow this approach as it allows the researcher to be flexible in exploring the issues being studied.3.. the next stage is to determine the relationships between the variables or concepts. 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. the next step is to decide on the type of research method that will be used. that is.2. This can be done with a correlational or causal approach. Experimental research involves the manipulation of one or more variables in order to study the effects of such manipulations on the subjects 77 . consists of two distinct collection methods. as adopted for this research. 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.
Answers How and Why? Archival Research Who. Using data that were collected for a purpose other than the problem at hand. Method Observational Research Description Observation of subjects in their own environment or researcher participating in naturally occurring groups and recording observations. this study is not case-specific. and survey. case study. As shown in Table 5. and the work performance of individuals. Where. What. the non-experimental research is considered the more appropriate approach to adopt in this study. 1999) It is clear that observational research is not appropriate as some of the variables are not observable. 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. 1999). What. it is not possible to manipulate these variables or assign participants to groups. Since the research questions posted for this study are on behavior. Table 5: Four Categories of Non-experimental Techniques (Grace. Hence. How Much and How Many? How and Why? Who.under study and is generally applied to answer the questions of why and how (Grace. How Much and How Many? Case Study Research Research investigates a particular situation or problem. there are four broad categories of non-experimental techniques: observational. Is case-specific. archival. personality. which rules out case study. nor is it 78 . Where. Similarly. Non-experimental research does not involve the manipulation of variables or assigning subjects to groups and requires minimal interference from the researcher.
such studies have considerable interference with the normal or natural settings. Researcher’s Interference There are varying degrees of interference in research ranging from minimal. This approach facilitates the external validation and generalisability of the findings within similar environments (Baker. 79 . manipulation of the variables may be done to study the effects of such manipulation on the dependent variables. Hence.4.suitable for archival research as there are new personality variables to be measured. Hence.4. 2001). For a causal study. 3. 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. The extent of interference by the researcher in the flow of work in the workplace has an important bearing on the research decisions. There is minimal interference in an exploratory or descriptive study conducted in an organisation. 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. This study does not require interference as the objective is to collect data on the personality of individuals and their work performance. An excessive interference occurs especially in a causal study whereby an artificial setting is created and manipulated in a laboratory environment. moderate to excessive.
3. 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 . may reduce the external validity due to “reactivity” (Baker. Exploratory or descriptive studies carried out in organisations are known as field studies. Hence.4. it is more important to capture the variables or concepts in the study than to establish the cause and effect relationships (Saunders. Lewis and Thornhill. 2001). however. Efforts to strengthen internal validity will diminish external validity and vice-versa (Cavana et al. Exploratory or descriptive studies usually fall under this category whereas rigorous causal studies are often undertaken in contrived settings.5. 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. there are tradeoffs between internal and external validities. 2001). Remenyi et al. (1998) postulated that the level of control is least relevant for research methods using surveys. In a non-contrived setting. 2001). Correlational or causal studies which use environmental settings where the employees usually function are known as field experiments.. External and internal validities are competing aspects. A contrived environment. the research is conducted whereby the work proceeds normally in the natural environment. A laboratory experiment is one with a contrived setting and considerable interference by the researcher (Cavana et al. Furthermore. 1997). Study Setting The setting of the study can be either contrived or non-contrived..
organisations. beliefs and perceptions. 3. Hence. Lindell and Whitney (2001) postulated that most behavioral studies are cross-sectional as such studies focus on individual’s attitudes.7. 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. groups.6. Unit of Analysis The research objective determines the unit of analysis. 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. 1998). the passage of time is inconsequential. dyads.. internal. variables which are reliable. the data collected will be the 81 . 3. and external validities and plausible explanations of the variances of the independent and dependent variables (Remenyi et al..4. which can be individual. As this research is on the measurement of personality dimensions of individuals and their work performance.4.normal work environments. or cultures. 1998). valid and unambiguous will be included after proper screening by subject matter experts (SME) to ensure content. To control for extraneous and irrelevant factors. Moreover.
effort. telephone. and also has the problem of the interviewer’s influence on the interviewee’s responses.. 82 .5. or computer interviews. Together with the inherent costs as well as the time constraints of this research. The personal interview method provides an excellent response rate but can be costly in terms of finance. 1980). these data can be obtained by using one or a combination of methods that include personal. 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. mail. 3. and time. 3. Selection of Survey Method As survey research has been selected as the appropriate method for collecting data. Hence. this method is considered inappropriate for this study.1. the unit of analysis is at the individual level. The merits of these methods are shown in Table 6.individuals’ demographics. 2001).5. SURVEY RESEARCH The survey research consists of several steps as listed below. and their perceptions of their behaviors and work performance (Cavana et al.
2002. Barrick et al. Mail survey is commonly used in studies of personality and work performance (Robertson et. these two interview methods are also considered to be inappropriate for this study. Salgado. 83 . Kieffer et al. 2004).. it is cost effective and allows specific respondents in various organisations to be targeted. 2003. 1999) Computer and telephone interviews offer expedient and low-cost options but they are not appropriate for reaching the targeted potential respondents in the organisations. Although mail survey does not provide a good response rate. 2003. Hence. Nikolaou. 2000. the mail survey is considered the most appropriate method for this study..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. Hence.. al.
2. and thoughts of participants. Although self-reports can be a fallible source of data. Self Report Self-report is a primary source of data in social science research. 3. Personality and Work Performance Measures Several studies on personality measures and work performance that can be used for this study were identified and the respective authors were contacted for copies of their measures.2..1. The reduction of such abstract concepts 84 .2. feelings.22.214.171.124. 1999) and the self-rated work performance measure (RBPS) by Welbourne. Selection of Measurement Techniques 3. Johnson and Erez (1998) were obtained and used in this study. context or wording can cause major changes in the results.5. 3. Scales The measures of personality and performance are nebulous and do not lend themselves to precise measurements due to their subjective nature. 1999.5.3. 2000). From public opinion surveys to laboratory experiments. this study uses this method whilst recognising factors and processes that affect self-reports to improve the questionnaire design and data quality (Schwarz. researchers depend on the answers that participants provide in order to learn about the behavior. Copies of the FFM measure (Goldberg. where minor changes in question format. Marsella et al.2.
van Schaik and van Wersch. 2001). and enable the computation of the means and variances of the measured variables.. 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.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. strength and confidence. 1999. all the measures use a five-point Likert scale 85 . The strength or confidence of the measurement is assessed as the distance away from the neutral response (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. Hence. 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. 2001). A response on the disagree side is equivalent to a no response and the response on the agree side is equivalent to a yes response. a respondent selects a response category ranging from Very Accurate. In using a Likert scale. 1998). Such measures use an interval scale as interval scales are able to group respondents into categories. A popular interval scale is the Likert scale which is often used to measure psychometric properties such as personality and performance (Maurer and Pierce. tap the order of such groups. 2004). For this study. The work performance measure is categorised from Needs Much Improvement to Excellent with Satisfactory as a neutral response..
1999) measuring Openness to Experience.79 for all five dimensions. Safety.5 are obtained from self ratings of 86 . Actualisation. Key Variables (i) The independent variables (a) The Big Five The 50 items for the FFM (Goldberg. Agreeableness and Neuroticism. (b) The new personality measure (CASES) The new personality measure. 3. Hunthausen et al.2. 1995.5. Extraversion. Correlations of 0.. Conscientiousness. CASES. contains five personality dimensions of Complexity. This measure is regarded as the best measure developed to date and is used for this study (Crant.4 to 0. have alpha values larger than 0. administration and cost effectiveness. (ii) The dependent variable The dependent variable is the self-appraised work performance of the respondents. 2003). Egocentric and Socio-centric with each dimension having 10 items.4. Self-appraisals or self ratings have significant validation against other work performance measures.because of the above merits as well as its ease of construction.
job-related employee performance measure. al. the self-evaluation work performance measure of Wilbourne et al.clerical ability and measures of leadership (Cook et. is developed based on identity theory and role theory in contrast to the traditional.. In view of the stance taken by the Ethics Committee in favour of maintaining confidentiality and anonymity of respondents. 87 . Self-rating or selfappraisal also has a substantial advantage in the study of work performance and personality as they are less affected by the “halo-effect” as compared to other measures. The five components of the RBPS are job. (1998) is used. “halo-effect” tends to obscure the differentiated relationship between the criteria of personality and work performance. team.. This self-appraisal performance measure. career. with each having 4 items as shown in Table 7. 2000). innovator. Furthermore. which is also known as the Role-Based Performance Scale (RBPS). and organisation.
iv. iii. iv. ii. iv. iii. Table 7: Role-Based Performance Scale’s Items (Wilbourne et al. iv. (e) Organisation (going above the call of duty in my concern for the firm) i. 1998) 88 . iv. 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.. ii. iii. (c) Innovator (creativity and innovation in my job and the organisation as a whole) i. ii.(a) My Job (doing things specifically related to my job description) i. ii. iii. iii. ii. Quantity of work output Quality of work output Accuracy of work Customer service provided (internal and external) Obtaining personal career goals Developing skills needed for my future career Making progress in my career Seeking out career opportunities (b) My career (obtaining the necessary skills to progress in the company) i.
Q76. Q91 and Q96. (iii) The twenty items of the RBPS by Welbourne et al. Q126.96.36.199. (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. 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.. The questions are sequenced in the following manner: (i) The 50 items for the FFM (Goldberg. The sequence of the instructions. Q81. Q66. the items are placed in Q51. Q71. Safety. For the first personality dimension of Complexity (with 10 items). 89 . Q86. 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. 1999). (1998) are placed from Q101 to Q120. questions and quality of reproduction are addressed. (ii) The second set of 50 items of the new instrument (CASES) is placed as Q51 to Q100. the written instructions are screened for clarity in instructional content and presentation. 1999) are placed from Q1 to Q50 in the same order as per the author’s design. The four other dimensions with 10 items each (Actualisation. Q61. 2002). To minimise error.
. For the above reasons. 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. convenience sampling is adopted for this study. The elements in the population under study also must have some known probability of being selected as sample. relevance. 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. a generalisation of these characteristics can be made to the population elements (Cavana et al. it will not be carried out due to the study’s time constraints. clarity and specificity for its particular dimension (Haynes. 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. These firms are in general manufacturing. legal. Richard and Kubany.5.Although pilot testing is recommended for the items to ensure content validity. transportation. Every element or item is judged on its representativeness. The wordings of several items were changed to reflect the meaning in the local Malaysian context. 2001). When time is tight or the probability of selecting elements of the population is unknown and generalisability is not essential or critical. shipping. 2001). 1995). a nonprobability sampling method such as convenience sampling can be used. 3. trading and 90 . Probability sampling is appropriate when statistical generalisation is required..4.
business consulting. 91 . it would need at least 500 responses (that is. These companies represent a convenient sample and they are invited because their offices are in the Klang Valley. 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. (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. 2002). white-collar employees are chosen as they are more likely to be literate in English. 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. 1986). Kudisch and Fortunato. the respondents are also required to fulfil several other essential criteria as follow: (i) Proficient in the English language to ensure that the respondents are able to understand and answer the questionnaires properly. As the measures of the FFM and CASES have 50 items each. Sawin and Carsud. 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. Since English is a second language to many Malaysians. Besides being white-collared staff.
5. 3. 2001).3. the measurement of internal consistency.1. CASES. and RBPS will be analysed to determine their structure.. standard deviation and correlation matrix of all the variables will be generated for initial examinations. The measures for the FFM. variance. and variance for each variable will be computed in SPSS. Central Tendency and Dispersion The range.5. range. is one reliability 92 . means.5.5. Cronbach’s alpha.5.2.5. Selection of analytical approach Data analysis is performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 13.5. 3. standard deviation. The principal-component factor will be varimaxrotated as the dimensions are assumed to be uncorrelated 3.5. Principal Components Analysis Principal components analysis will be used to check that the structure of the measures has held true (Cavana et al. mean.3. 2001). Reliability Reliability concerns the extent to which a measure is repeatable and consistent (Baker. The frequency distributions of the nominal and demographic variables.
ori. and factor structure. 2003). Content validity gives evidence on the construct validity of an instrument (Haynes.7 or more is considered satisfactory (Nunnally. An alpha coefficient of 0.5. Validity Construct validity is the degree to which the assessment instrument measures the proposed construct (Borsboom.. Construct validity subsumes all validities including concurrent.coefficient that indicates how well items in a cluster correlate positively with one another. there is no psychometric rationale in using them. Richard and Kubany.org.5. Mellenbergh and van Heerden. 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.library. criterion-related validity. http://0ipip.newcastle. convergent and discriminant validity. 93 . CASES and RBPS measures will be analysed to ascertain their internal reliabilities. 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.g.au:80).4. 1995). 3. Concurrent validity refers to the degree to which a test scores correlates with another test score that is obtained from another source.edu. predictive and postdictive validity. All the predictor variables of the Big Five Factor Inventory. 1978). 2004).
3. 3.1.6. the two measures of personality will be entered simultaneously in a stepwise regression analysis. The respondents are asked to complete two sets of personality measures and a set of self-appraisal work performance measure. are selected for the survey with an average of 40 questionnaires given to each organisation and are targeted 94 . 2003). Cost and Time Estimates Some 40 companies from various industries.5. 3.6. Implementation The last stage of the survey research is the implementation stage which consists of time/ cost estimates and data collection/administration.5.5. known to the researcher.5.5. The findings from the descriptive statistics.The research design is one of a criterion-related validity and incremental validity (Nikolaou. Hypothesis Testing To test the criterion and incremental validities of the new personality measure (CASES) over and above the FFM on work performance. and the stepwise multiple linear regression results will be used to test the hypotheses. the correlation matrix.
The industry breakdown and the number of companies to be surveyed are shown in Table 9. The total time estimated for the survey is 35 days as shown in Table 9. Each organisation will be given the Information Sheet and the Consent Seeking Letter. 95 . A draft letter approving the staff in the organisation to participate is also provided for the companies to complete under their official letter head. Industry 1) Manufacturing 2) Service Total No of companies 27 13 40 Table 8: The Breakdown of Companies to be Surveyed Based on Industry (developed for this study) A wide spectrum of organisations in terms of industry and size is used to attain the required minimum sample size of 500 respondents.at white-collared workers from supervisory level upwards. The questionnaires will be given to the Human Resource Department to be distributed to all the white collar staff and instructed to collect them in the selfaddressed envelope a week after distribution.
Distributing questionnaires to organisations 3.70 RM1120.5.00 trips Total RM2976. Data Collection The survey adopts a self-administered approach.86 per questionnaire based on the breakdown as shown in Table 10.2.6.00 Table 10: Breakdown of Costs on Survey (developed for this research) Item 3. Costing and Amount Computation Printing the questionnaire (1600 sets 1600*4*RM0. which has limitations such as low response rate and the inability of respondents to seek clarification if necessary.00 Travelling expenses RM20 per trip for 80 RM1600. Printing and collating of questionnaires 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 1.00 of 2 pages (double-sided) 2 envelopes and RM0. Collecting answered questionnaires from organisations 4. The 96 .04 RM256.30 stamp 1600*RM0.
Data Entry The data will be entered into SPSS and analysed.5. Categorising For negatively worded questions. 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.4. 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. Hence. The items measuring the variables are grouped together to ensure no mistake is made due to omission or wrong inclusion. 3.6. 97 . the scores will be recoded through a Recode program in the SPSS. 3.5.6.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.
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.7. ETHICAL CONSIDERATION It is explicitly stated that participation is voluntary. Stamped. Finally. 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. RESEARCH PLAN The research plan is based on the timeline provided by the University of Newcastle for this Doctor of Business Administration (DBA). Participants can withdraw at anytime during the research without any obligation or disadvantage. Anonymity and confidentiality of the answers are ensured as the questionnaires do not have any identifiers. self-addressed envelopes are provided so the respondents can choose to participate or not.6. The research plan is based on completing the five chapters within the six-month time frame. 98 .3.
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. 3. 2004).1. 1988).3. In that case.8.3. Stability of Work Performance Due to the implicit assumption that performance is a stable construct and the reliance on a cross-sectional.8.8.2. LIMITATIONS Response Distortions Given the seemingly straightforward nature of the items.8. 1996). This may produce a general method variance (Carmeli and Freund. one-time measure could lead to erroneous conclusions about the 99 .. several studies revealed that the distortions by these response deceptions do not attenuate the predictive validity of the personality constructs (Barrick and Mount. 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. 3. item endorsements are not self-reports but self-presentations (Hogan et al. 3. However. 1996). it could be likely that some respondents may try to “beat the test” due to self-deception or impression management.
Hence. it is possible that some employees are removed from the positions due to their inadequate work performance. Self-ratings are known to be more “lenient” than other forms of work performance measures. 2004). Thus. all information comes from the subordinate.8. A rudimentary level of work performance is required for the employees to retain employment in a specific position. it will not be possible to correct or adjust the correlations for the restricted range. 100 .personality-performance relationships (Thoresen et al. Since there is no way of estimating what the variance should be. Self Rating One limitation is the use of self-ratings and its validity and reliability as an indicator of work performance. The ratings would be markedly skewed towards the positive end of each item. 3. 2000. The requirement to maintain the anonymity of respondents restricted our ability to match the supervisors with the subordinates.4. Conversely. This self rating is also subject to the common method variance or the percept-percept inflation problem (Cook et al. These factors may restrict the range of dependent variables and produce attenuated correlations.. Bozionelos. This will restrict the range and reduce the correlations with the personality measures. 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. 2004a)..
8.5. 3. Also. Barrick et al. Nikolaou. Cook et al. 2000.. Convenience sampling is adopted. Hence. There are limitations in this research that may not permit statements of causality. the adoption of convenience sampling in this study reduces the generalisability of the findings obtained from this study. role clarity and intelligence (Carmelli and Freund. Work Performance Studies have found linkages between work performance and job satisfaction. ability. 2004.9. motivation level.. CONCLUSION Attempts to predict work performance using personality measures have been practised in organisational research for decades. 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.3. There is an ample body of knowledge on this subject to derive some theoretical framework for hypothesis testing. Further studies will need to be conducted to establish the boundary conditions and generalisability of the findings of this study. These factors have a direct or a moderating influence on work performance. internal reliability). 2002. as well as the content and construct validities of the measures.e. Various relevant statistical tools are used to calculate inter-item consistency (i. 2002). 101 ..
2%) of the respondents were degree-holders.e.e. which were used to verify the structures of the various scales.1. CHAPTER FOUR – DATA ANALYSIS 4. The second section contains the results of principal components analyses. A total of 267 (i.. The fourth section contains a summary of the main findings. The results of the analyses which were conducted to test the hypotheses are presented in the third section. 102 . 49. of these. 4. 170 (i.4.. A total of 587 questionnaires were returned (a response rate of 36. 54.3%) were diploma holders. Of the 544 respondents.7%) and..e.0. 544 were usable. INTRODUCTION This chapter contains four sections. The number of companies that responded was 39.. and the remaining 107 (i. 246 (i. 45.e. a 97.2.2%) were male and 298 (i.. The descriptive statistics of the demographic variables are presented in the first section.e.8%) were female. DEMOGRAPHICS A total of 1600 questionnaires were distributed to 40 Malaysian companies of various sizes who were invited to participate in this study. 31.5%) were school certificate holders. 19.5% rate of participation.
The average organisational tenure of the respondents was 7.A total of 140 (i. The remaining 205 (i. and Black (1998) was used because of the large number of items being analysed. The average age of the respondents was 34..1) and the minimum age and maximum age of the respondents were 19 years and 65 years respectively. Anderson. This analysis yielded five orthogonal factors that 103 .2).d.29 (s.d.2.2. 37. The recommended cut-off value of .. 4..0 years (s. RESULTS FROM PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS Principal Components Analysis with Varimax Rotation was used to examine the structure of the scales. Principal Components Analysis of the FFM Personality Measure A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (with suppressed loading less than . 4.e. Items that did not achieve a primary loading of . = 9. 36. = 6.d.50 or larger on their respective components were eliminated from the solution. 25.5%) were from lower management or executive levels.8%) respondents were from middle or senior management levels.6 years (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.e. Tatham.7) while the average number of years that respondents were in their current jobs was 5.50 by Hair.1.e.50) was conducted on the FFM. = 5.8%) of the respondents were from non-executive or clerical levels while 198 (i.
4% of the variance.54 . The findings from this analysis are presented in Table 11.61 .66 .50 loading criterion.64 .65 . Using the .59 .60 .55 .74 .67 . five items were eliminated from each of the Openness and Conscientiousness sub-scales while six items were eliminated from each of the Extraversion.70 .accounted for 47.63 .60 .54 . Component 1 2 3 4 5 Openness5 Openness8 Openness4 Openness2 Openness6 Conscientious1 Conscientious8 Conscientious7 Conscientious3 Conscientious6 Extraversion7 Extraversion9 Extraversion4 Extraversion2 Agreeableness4 Agreeableness5 Agreeableness9 Agreeableness7 Neuroticism7 Neuroticism1 Neuroticism6 Neuroticism8 .67 .54 Table 11: Rotated Component Matrix of FFM 104 .57 .71 .62 .64 .68 .72 . Agreeableness and Neuroticism subscales.
Openness was positively correlated with Extraversion and Neuroticism at the 0. (1998). 105 . Extraversion. . Hence. 1997. and 64 respectively. Agreeableness and Neuroticism components were . The Cronbach’s alphas for the remaining items in the Openness. Conscientiousness.59. .60.73. The intercorrelations resembled those that have been reported previously. 8). The FFM components are distinct but related and “are no more wholly independent than they are redundant” (Judge et al. factorability was assumed.63.01 level.001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was greater than the acceptable level of 0.01 level. According to Hair et al.6 is acceptable. a Cronbach’s alpha of . All the components therefore have acceptable internal reliability. p. The items that were retained after the principal components analysis are shown in Table 12.. .05 level. Extraversion was positively correlated with Agreeableness and Neuroticism at the 0.01 level.01 level whilst it was negatively correlated with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness at the 0. Agreeableness was negatively correlated with Neuroticism at the 0.The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < .57. Conscientiousness was positively correlated with Extraversion and Agreeableness but negatively correlated with Neuroticism at the 0.
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. Component Complexity7 Complexity2 Complexity4 Complexity5 Actualisation7 Actualisation2 Actualisation5 Actualisation4 Safety5 Safety3 Safety9 Safety6 Ego8 Ego6 Ego2 Ego1 Social7 Social10 Social6 Social9 1 .68 . Actualisation.74 . Safety.62 .2.72 .67 .68 . Using the .55 .63 .50 loading criterion. six items were eliminated from each of the Complexity.61 2 3 4 5 .79 .68 . Principal Components Analysis of the CASES Personality Measure A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (with suppressed loading less than .63 .61 Table 13: Rotated Component Matrix of CASES 107 . Ego and Social sub-scales.50) was conducted on the CASES items. The results from this analysis are presented in Table 13.77 .4.51 .2. This analysis yielded five orthogonal components that accounted for 57.65 .54 .69 .68 .56 .
all of the CASES sub-scales had acceptable internal reliability.74 respectively. which had marginal internal reliability. . 108 . .The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < .001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was greater than the acceptable level of 0. Actualisation.60. Hence. . The Cronbach’s alphas for the remaining items in the Complexity. Ego and Social components were 73. factorability was assumed.64. and .81. The items of the sub-scales are shown in Table 14. With the exception of the Ego sub-scale.48. Safety.
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 4.3.50) was conducted on the RBPS measure of performance. This analysis yielded five orthogonal components that accounted for 80.2.50 109 .0% of the variance. Principal Components Analysis of RBPS Performance Measure A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (with suppressed loading less than . Based on the .
60.85 . and 110 .90.81 .84 .73 .84 .81 .77 . . .73 . Component Job1 Job2 Job3 Job4 Career3 Career2 Career4 Career1 Innovator2 Innovator3 Innovator1 Innovator4 Team2 Team1 Team3 Team4 Organisation3 Organisation4 Organisation2 1 . Team component and Organisation component of the RBPS were .76 . Career component. The Cronbach’s alphas for the Job component.75 .89.76 .63 .75 . .90.85 . factorability was assumed.loading criterion. Innovator component.80 .79 Table 15: Rotated Component Matrix of RBPS The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < .91.78 .56 2 3 4 5 .001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was greater than the acceptable level of 0.76 . The results of this analysis are presented in Table 15. Hence. only one item was eliminated and this was from the organisation component of the RBPS.
All of the components of the RBPS were correlated with each other at the 0. Agreeableness and Extraversion but negatively correlated with Neuroticism.. The Safety component of CASES was positively correlated with Conscientiousness. 111 . 4. the Complexity component of CASES was correlated positively with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness but negatively correlated with Openness and Neuroticism. The Relationship between the FFM Dimensions and the CASES Dimensions As shown in Table 16.4. Agreeableness.2. The Safety component was not correlated with Openness. The Complexity component was not correlated with Extraversion. The Actualisation component of CASES was positively correlated with Conscientiousness. The five performance sub-scales therefore had acceptable internal reliability.01 level (one-tailed). and Conscientiousness. The Ego component was not correlated with Openness or Extraversion.93 respectively. The Ego component of CASES was positively correlated with Neuroticism. Agreeableness and Extraversion but negatively correlated with Openness and Neuroticism.
The Social component of CASES was correlated positively with Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Extraversion but was correlated negatively with Openness. The Social component was not correlated with Neuroticism.
Conscientiousness Openness Neuroticism Agreeableness Extraversion Actualisation Social Complexity Safety Ego -.10* -.22** .48** .15** .56** .38** .58** .51** .08*
.18** -.09* .29** -.21** -.26** -.10** -.01 .03 -.13** 19** -.16** -.04 -.27** -.17** .30** .22** .59** .50** .33** .46** .14** .12** .08* -.07 .26** -.02 .59** .51** .49** .18** .31** .43** .23** .34** .12** .12**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1 – tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1 – tailed).
Table 16: Correlations between the Components of FFM and CASES
RESULTS FROM TESTING OF THE HYPOTHESES
The findings from the hypothesis testing are presented in the same order as were the research questions/hypotheses in Chapter 2. The assumptions of normality and the absence of outliers and singularity underpinning the use of regression were verified by statistical tables and histogram plots of the respective components. The various components of the FFM, CASES and RBPS were found to satisfy the conditions for regression.
Prediction of Performance by the FFM Personality Measure
H1: The FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. The components of the FFM were moderately correlated (the values of the correlation among the five factors are less than .30) with each other at the 0.01 level (one-tailed) except for one correlation of .48. The correlation coefficients did not exceed .70, which indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem (Carmelli and Freund, 2004; Nunnally, 1978). From Table 17, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Neuroticism were significantly correlated to all five components of the RBPS and Total RBPS. Openness and Extraversion were negatively correlated with the Team and Career components of the RBPS respectively.
64** .02 -.53** .55** .13** .30** -.18** -.09* -.21** .05 level (1 – tailed).09* .50** .07 -.15** 1 .20** Career RBPS 1 .80** .22** 1 .05 -.46** .06 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.19** 1 .13** .32** .28** .54** . * Correlation is significant at the 0.10** -.32** -.03 1 .08* -.Job RBPS Career RBPS Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Conscientiousness Openness Neuroticism Agreeableness .05 -. Table 17: Correlations of the Components of FFM and RBPS 115 .02 1 .82** .79** .33** -.42** -.82** .25** .01 -.29** 0.01 level (1 – tailed).63** .17** Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Conscientiousness Openness Neuroticism Agreeablenes s 1 .22** Extraversion -.32** .32** .03 1 -.0 -.48** .74** .29** .87** .35** -.70** .62** .41** -.29** 1 -.22** .
390 .051 .229 .25 respectively (Table 18).358 -. 116 .000 . The R-square value was .051 .539 .411 2.353 Sig. Dependent Variable: Perform2Job Table 18: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis.000 .000 . the Career component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.246 t 8.36 and -.000 a. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Career component of the RBPS and had beta values of .192 .Using a stepwise regression analysis. the Job component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.20 respectively (Table 19). .537 .469 .25 and -.23.445 9. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS and had beta values of .041 -.238 -6.502 10.010 10.000 . The R-square value was . Error Beta 1.259 .12. a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.
000 a.000 a.858 Sig.249 .16.060 .060 .332 2. Error Beta 1.048 -.000 .767 7.055 .683 .049 5.337 Sig.000 .034 -5.456 .453 .235 . .359 .389 .290 2. The R-square value was .000 .655 .237 .055 .216 t 7.188 9. the Innovator component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.500 7. Dependent Variable: Perform2In Table 20: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM 117 .000 .436 .246 -.044 -.993 8. Error Beta 1.000 . .965 -4.422 .271 .22 respectively (Table 20).a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.000 .000 .29 and -.224 .000 .285 -. a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Innovator component of the RBPS and had beta values of .045 9.200 t 7. Dependent Variable: Perform2Car Table 19: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis.207 .
122 . The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Agreeableness were the only significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS and had beta values of .15.25 and . Dependent Variable: Perform2Tm Table 21: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis.000 . The R-square value was .290 4.138 t 11.001 a.203 -.242 .277 .405 Sig.035 .400 .058 . Error Beta 2.259 . .20.137 .335 7.000 . 118 .000 .056 .056 .575 .000 .000 .256 .000 . The R-square value was . the Organisation component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.225 .264 .942 4.Using a stepwise regression analysis. .000 .050 .000 . The regression revealed that Conscientiousness. a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Agree 3 (Constant) Conscientous Agree Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.498 -3.187 .164 4.20 and -.20 respectively (Table 22).14 respectively (Table 21).541 7.936 4.983 7.220 .197 .324 1.16. Agreeableness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS and had beta values of .058 .040 -. the Team component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.207 2.
000 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Total Table 23: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on FFM 119 .000 .648 4.630 12.000 .23.064 .283 7.595 4.210 .256 .692 10.000 . .207 .044 2.415 .000 .140 .222 . Error Beta 1.058 .000 .910 8.a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Agree Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.000 . a Coefficients Model 1 2 3 (Constant) Conscientous (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Agree Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.348 1.065 .218 .385 Sig.31.253 .186 .068 . .348 . Total RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.005 a.198 t 7.504 .21 and .000 a. Error 1.031 9.744 .000 .12 respectively (Table 23).000 .188 .324 5.373 9.364 .370 -.121 t 10. Dependent Variable: Perform2Org Table 22: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis. -.044 -.474 -5.163 .312 -.000 .413 . Neuroticism and Agreeableness were the only significant predictors of Total RBPS and had beta values of .050 Standardized Coefficients Beta . The R-square value was .108 .196 .000 .049 -.035 2.103 -5.335 2.724 . The regression revealed that Conscientiousness.000 .297 .464 .811 Sig.035 .366 .
Nunnally.23. The correlation coefficients did not exceed the value of .70.12 to . The CASES components are distinct but related and. each component of the RBPS as well as Total RBPS had a significant proportion of variance explained by the FFM components. and Total RBPS.3. 1978). The R-square values ranged from . are no more wholly independent than they are redundant. From Table 24. and Total RBPS. the CASES components were positively intercorrelated. Team component. Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure H2: The CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. 2004. which states that the FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. Agreeableness was a significant predictor of Team component. Organisation component. The Complexity. Actualisation and Safety components of the CASES correlated significantly with all five components of the RBPS as well as with Total RBPS. The Ego component correlated significantly with only the Job and Organisation components of the 120 . is supported. which indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem (Carmelli and Freund. Hence. like the FFM components.Conscientiousness was the best predictor of all of the RBPS components and the Total RBPS. Furthermore. the first hypothesis. 4. Innovator component.2. Neuroticism was a significant predictor of the Job component. Career component.
121 .RBPS. except for the Career component. and with Total RBPS. The Social component correlated significantly with all of the RBPS components.
43** .34** .53** .70** .11** .0 -.12** .36** .39** .31** .37** .Job RBPS Career RBPS Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Actualisation Social Complexity Safety .01 .24** .46** .51** .82** .20** Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Actualisatio n Social Complexit y Safet y .01 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.34** . Table 24: Correlations of the Components of CASES and RBPS 122 .54** .63** .31** .10* .38** .82** .18** .01 level (1 – tailed).19** .27** .23** .37** .40** .12** Ego -.87** .50** .79** .28** . * Correlation is significant at the 0.37** .25** .36** .49** .40** .14** .80** .05 level (1 – tailed).07 .07 .32** Career RBPS .55** .62** .45** .74** .08* -0.46** .59** .34** .64** .
341 .051 .15.215 .000 .413 .540 .809 10.429 .862 Sig. the Job component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES. a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex 2 (Constant) Complex Safety 3 (Constant) Complex Safety Ego Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.234 7. the Career component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.052 .755 .000 .000 .15 respectively (Table 25).Using a stepwise regression analysis.994 6. The R-square value was .34.350 -3.000 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Job Table 25: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on CASES Using a stepwise regression analysis.22. 123 .000 . Error 1.238 .205 .000 .050 1.328 .470 8.050 1.000 .22 and -.217 -.397 .128 .044 Standardized Coefficients Beta . .38 (Table 26).169 . The R-square value was . Safety and Ego were the only significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS and had beta values of .149 t 9.000 a.394 5.179 .264 .057 5.499 .991 4.249 . .049 -. The regression revealed that Complexity was the only significant predictor of the Career component of the RBPS and had a beta value of .000 . The regression revealed that Complexity.
544 . . Dependent Variable: Perform2Car Table 26: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on CASES Using a stepwise regression analysis. the Innovator component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.013 a.000 .686 4.000 . Dependent Variable: Perform2In Table 27: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on CASES 124 .050 .917 .056 Standardized Coefficients Beta .481 Sig.358 .000 .10 respectively (Table 27).822 11.530 Sig.101 t 6.765 9.218 2.125 10.182 . Error 1.000 .127 .415 .42 and .051 .239 .000 . .a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.589 . The regression revealed that Complexity and Safety were the only significant predictors of the Innovator component of the RBPS and had beta values of .21.000 a. The R-square value was .449 . Error Beta 1. a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex 2 (Constant) Complex Safety Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.531 .379 t 6.222 .201 .053 .
Error Beta 1.12.654 6.298 .203 .912 4.351 .Using a stepwise regression analysis.127 4.000 .000 . The regression revealed that Safety.17 respectively (Table 28).172 .000 .22.908 . The R-square value was .000 .23.045 . 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 . Safety. .049 .17 respectively (Table 29).174 t 11.000 . the Organisation component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.26 and . .086 9. the Team component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.202 1.240 .050 . 125 .049 .000 .202 .048 .047 .325 .17 and .196 .010 .000 . Complexity and Social were the only significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS and had beta values of . Complexity and Social were the only significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS and had beta values of .000 .217 . a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Safety 2 (Constant) Safety Complex 3 (Constant) Safety Complex Social Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.170 .19.17 and .020 4.929 4.449 .053 Sig.958 6.000 a. The regression revealed that Actualisation. .393 1.371 .261 .657 7.
315 .059 .767 .060 .001 a.000 .250 . The regression revealed that Complexity and Safety were the only significant predictors of Total RBPS and had beta values of .183 5.704 1. .291 .000 .057 .217 .262 .235 .296 1.262 .199 .067 6.391 .880 3.26.164 .116 .233 .063 .782 3.000 .060 .076 .000 . The R-square value was .000 .000 .263 .069 .031 .908 3.314 9. Error 1.000 .281 .553 .166 .002 .258 .495 Sig.493 .186 .056 .161 4.238 . Total RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES. Dependent Variable: Perform2Org Table 29: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on CASES Using a stepwise regression analysis.911 4.180 3.250 .a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Actualise 2 (Constant) Actualise Safety 3 (Constant) Actualise Safety Complex 4 (Constant) Actualise Safety Complex Social Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.101 4.230 .24 respectively (Table 30).062 .166 t 5.000 . 126 .120 2.274 .062 .220 .38 and .063 Standardized Coefficients Beta .389 .293 .167 .000 .
the Career component.239 t 11. the Organisation component.378 .000 .587 12.176 . is supported. 127 . the second hypothesis.709 .042 . which states that the CASES model will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.147 . and Total RBPS. Ego was a significant predictor for only the Job component of the RBPS.493 . The R-square values ranged from .26. and Total RBPS. Actualisation and Safety were the best predictors of the Organisation component and Team component of the RBPS respectively. Dependent Variable: Perform2Total Table 30: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on CASES Complexity was the best predictor of the Job component.a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex 2 (Constant) Complex Safety Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. Furthermore.459 1.000 .644 6. Safety was also a significant predictor of the Job component.032 6. the Innovator component. Error Beta 1. Social was a significant predictor for the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS.406 .000 . .247 .000 .171 9.041 . Hence. the Innovator component.041 .15 to .084 .000 a.098 Sig. each component of the RBPS as well as Total RBPS had a significant proportion of variance explained by the CASES components.
4. the Job component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of the CASES. Neuroticism.188.8.131.52.2% of the variance of the Job component of the RBPS. 128 . Safety. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness. Complexity . These two factors were from the FFM.20. The factors of Complexity. and Social were the only significant predictors. and Social -.15. Conscientiousness explained 16. accounted for 4.3. the beta values are: Conscientiousness . 4. From Table 31.20. Safety and Social. Safety .11. Neuroticism -. FFM and CASES predicting the Job Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis. 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.9% followed by Neuroticism with 5.3.8%. Complexity. from the CASES.
000 .041 -.715 .051 .228 .000 .026 -5.000 .219 -.000 .297 3.041 -.264 .176 4.545 -5.051 -.051 .002 2. 129 .055 .000 .271 .3.353 7. Error Beta 1.581 Sig.180 .139 .469 . The regression revealed that Complexity and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors.428 4.263 .211 .333 .008 .109 t 8. Dependent Variable: Perform2Job Table 31: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES 4. the Career component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of the CASES.010 10.052 .217 .065 .148 -.578 4.131 .411 2.066 .192 . FFM and CASES Predicting the Career Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.537 .000 .210 .3.000 .947 4.010 a.358 -.302 -2.287 .969 . .254 -.191 1.445 9.058 .238 -6.000 .200 -.000 .000 .058 .114 1.2.233 .041 -.251 .259 .881 .000 .374 -5.221 .000 .113 6.539 .502 10.041 -.185 .648 6.200 .486 4.248 .229 .390 .241 .000 .000 .000 .001 .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.058 .246 1.000 .199 .060 .946 5.000 .
163 Model 1 2 (Constant) Complex (Constant) Complex Neurotic t 6. the beta values are: Complexity .1% followed by Neuroticism (2.358 .000 a.201 .017 . the Innovator component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES.The Complexity component from the CASES model.000 . FFM and CASES Predicting the Innovator Component of RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.191 .16.056 184.108.40.2067 8. 130 .3.258 .335 -.16. Neuroticism -.4% followed by Neuroticism from the FFM.7%) and Safety accounted for 0.208 -3.531 .379 .000 .996 Sig.4% of the variance.057 -. Neuroticism and Safety were the only significant predictors.38.34 and for Neuroticism it was -.000 . Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. The Complexity component explained 20. From Table 32.530 7.765 9. and Social . From Table 33. explained 14. The regression revealed that Complexity.048 Standardized Coefficients Beta . which explained 2. the beta value of the Complexity was .6% of the variance in the Innovator component of the RBPS. Dependent Variable: Perform2Car Table 32: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on the FFM and CASES 4. Complexity and Safety were from the CASES while Neuroticism was from the FFM. .000 .469 . Error 1.09.
Dependent Variable: Perform2In Sig.19.000 .449 11.4. The Safety component explained 15.822 Complex . and Neuroticism accounted for 1. Error Beta t 1 (Constant 1. the Team component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES. 131 . Complexity .3%). Complexity and Social factors were from CASES while Neuroticism factor was from the FFM.043 -.a Coefficients Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients Model B Std.3.12. Social (2.000 .000 .793 Complex .000 .3% of the variance in the Team component of the RBPS.000 .3.052 .051 .6%).258 Neurotic -.239 .109 .182 6.589 .142 Neurotic -.14. Social and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors. and Neuroticism -. FFM and CASES Predicting the Team Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.093 Safety .686 2 (Constant 1.000 .232 8.033 Table 33: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES 4. Complexity.168 -4. .529 .050 .25.161 -4. Safety.573 .000 .376 9. the beta values are: Safety .043 -.403 10. Social .054 .141 a. The regression revealed that Safety. From Table 34.185 .177 .086 2.876 .287 3 (Constant 1.493 .000 .272 5.070 Complex .5% followed by Complexity (3.
followed by Safety (4.049 .010 .8%).281 .425 .000 .165 .654 6. 132 .000 .240 .186 -. and Social (1.929 4.371 .17. Complexity .908 . The regression revealed that Actualisation. From Table 35.657 7.325 . Actualisation explained 15.17.3.Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.393 .0%).5.3%. and Social .086 9.047 .1%).246 .000 .000 .172 . Safety.050 .000 . the beta values are: Actualisation .351 .127 4.039 Standardized Coefficients Beta .050 .003 a.049 1. FFM and CASES Predicting the Organisation Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis. Safety .958 6. .048 -. Dependent Variable: Perform2Tm Table 34: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of the RBPS on FFM and CASES 4.256 .3.449 .301 4.000 .567 5.050 . All of these components were from the CASES.170 .203 .674 3.196 .202 .912 4.000 . the Organisation component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES.12.298 . Error 1.261 .045 1. none of the FFM components were significant.002 Sig.217 .001 .339 -3.048 1.000 .202 .000 .020 4.19.119 Model 1 2 3 4 (Constant) Safety (Constant) Safety Complex (Constant) Safety Complex Social (Constant) Safety Complex Social Neurotic t 11.139 .000 . Complexity (2.000 .118 .174 . Complexity and Social were the only significant predictors.210 .053 5.000 .
493 .704 1. Safety.553 .166 Model 1 2 3 4 (Constant) Actualise (Constant) Actualise Safety (Constant) Actualise Safety Complex (Constant) Actualise Safety Complex Social t 5.250 .233 .186 .000 .120 2.18.263 .062 .000 .000 . FFM and CASES Predicting Total RBPS Performance Using a stepwise regression analysis. Neuroticism (2.911 4. Error 1.167 .235 .9%).076 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Org Table 35: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES 4.281 .296 1. Complexity and Safety were from the CASES and Neuroticism and Conscientiousness were from the FFM.220 .293 .Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.3.495 Sig.880 3.069 .057 .062 .060 .002 . Neuroticism and Conscientiousness were the only significant predictors. the beta values are: Complexity .180 3.13.230 .164 .274 . The regression revealed that Complexity.000 . Total RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES.063 . From Table 36.031 .060 . Complexity explained 21.001 a.6. Safety .262 .101 4.000 .238 .3%). .28. and Conscientiousness (0.059 .250 .315 .15.063 Standardized Coefficients Beta .314 9.3.391 .067 6. Neuroticism -.000 .262 .199 .000 .767 .000 .116 . and Conscientiousness . 133 .291 .166 .1%).258 .1% followed by Safety (5.782 3.161 4.217 .000 .056 .389 .183 5.908 3.
247 .034 1.791 -4.041 1. except for the Career component.283 . and Total RBPS.010 a. Complexity was also a significant predictor of the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS.147 .000 .522 8.032 6.176 6. Team and Organisation components of the RBPS.000 .587 12.000 . 134 .459 .406 .171 9.138 .378 .034 .598 Sig.000 .000 .142 . Error 1.472 .000 .186 .084 .340 .220 .493 .000 .644 6.048 .365 .304 .692 6.044 -. and Total RBPS.709 .081 2.000 .000 .225 -.098 7.000 .040 -.154 .000 . .000 .613 . Safety component of the CASES was the best predictor of the Team component of the RBPS. Actualisation component of the CASES was the best predictor of the Organisation component of the RBPS. the Innovator component. 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.159 .239 .271 -4.562 5.Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.180 -. Social component of the CASES was a significant predictor of the Job.126 Model 1 2 3 4 (Constant) Complex (Constant) Complex Safety (Constant) Complex Safety Neurotic (Constant) Complex Safety Neurotic Conscientous t 11.176 .041 1.042 .054 Standardized Coefficients Beta .271 4.232 . Safety was also a significant predictor of all five components of the RBPS.141 .214 .000 .043 .
Actualisation. the third hypothesis.01 level (1-tailed). The original subscales had ten items each. which states that the CASES and FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance. The five factors are all intercorrelated significantly at the 0. The R-square values ranged from .. Safety. The original sub-scales had ten items 135 .e. and Total RBPS. The Openness and Conscientiousness components each have five items while the Extraversion. CONCLUSION The principal components analysis of the FFM yielded a five-component measure that accounted for 47.4% of the variance in the FFM items. The Cronbach’s alphas for the FFM components range 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.57 to . is supported. The principal components analysis of the CASES yielded a five-component measure that accounted for 57.29.4. Neuroticism component of the FFM was a significant predictor of all the RBPS components. Complexity.0% of the variance.73. Hence. Ego and Social) has 4 items.Conscientiousness component of the FFM was the best predictor of the Job component and a significant predictor of Total RBPS. Each of the components (i. 4. except for the Organisation component.17 to . Agreeableness and Neuroticism components each have four items.
12 to . Complexity and Social were significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS. The R- 136 . The Cronbach’s alphas for the CASES components ranged from .each. From the stepwise regression.81.01 level (1-tailed). The Cronbach’s alphas for these components ranged from .23. Each component of the RBPS had a significant proportion of its variance explained by the FFM components.48 to . and Innovator components of the RBPS.0% of the variance. All of the components retained their original 4items except for the Organisation component.93. Actualisation. Agreeableness and Neuroticism were significant predictors of the Team component and Total RBPS. Conscientiousness.89 to . The R-square values ranged from . Career. Safety. Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM were significant predictors of the Job. From the stepwise regression. is supported. The principal components analysis of the RBPS yielded a five-component measure that accounted for 80. which states that the FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. Complexity and Social were significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS. Safety and Ego were significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS. Safety. Complexity. Conscientiousness and Agreeableness were significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS. All five CASES components were intercorrelated significantly at the 0. Complexity and Safety were significant predictors of the Innovator component and Total RBPS. the first hypothesis. Complexity was the only significant predictor of the Career component of the RBPS. Hence. for which one item was removed.
the second hypothesis. Actualisation. 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. Complexity and Social of the CASES were significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS. Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM and Complexity. Complexity and Social of the CASES and Neuroticism of the FFM were significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS. Complexity and Safety of the CASES and Neuroticism of the FFM were significant predictors of the Innovator component of the RBPS. except for the Organisation component which was significantly predicted only by components of CASES.29. the third hypothesis. Each component of the RBPS had a significant proportion of its variance explained by the CASES components.17 to . 137 . Complexity and Safety of the CASES and Neuroticism and Conscientiousness of the FFM were significant predictors of Total RBPS. Hence.14 to . Safety. Each component of the RBPS.26. which states that the CASES and FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. is essentially supported. The R-square values ranged from . had a significant proportion of its variance explained by both the CASES and the FFM components. is supported. From the stepwise regression. which states that the CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. Hence.square values ranged from . Safety.
and suggestions for future research. 5. DISCUSSION OF THE MAIN FINDINGS 5.1.5. 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. The original 50-item FFM measure (Goldberg.2.1. 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. which revealed a five-component solution consisting of Openness 138 . CHAPTER FIVE – CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 5. 1999) was analysed using principal components analysis.0. the limitations of the study. and finally a conclusion.2.
Extraversion (four items). responsible. achievement oriented. 1997). artistically sensitive.30 were questionable. The results of the stepwise regression analyses also did not reveal Openness as a significant predictor of any of the RBPS components.30. hardworking. The value of the correlation coefficient that can be considered to indicate a useful predictor has been debated over the years. dependable. This finding corroborates the finding of Hogan and Holland (2003).(5 items).20 was considered by Cohen (1988) as meaningful but Schmitt et al. responsible. Of the five FFM components. Openness (e.. Conscientiousness (5 items). This finding is not surprising given that conscientious individuals are organised. All of these components were intercorrelated as revealed in past research which showed that they were distinct but related factors (Judge et al. Conscientiousness (e.. imaginative and intellectual) was found to be negatively correlated to only the Team component of the RBPS with r = -.09.20 was too low to accept personality as a predictor of work performance. Agreeableness (four items) and Neuroticism (four items). For this research.g. In view of the cut-off value of 0. achievement oriented and persistent) had the highest correlations with all of the RBPS components and Total RBPS. this factor was considered as an inadequate predictor of any of the RBPS components or of Total RBPS. purposeful. A value of 0. a correlation coefficient of 0. 139 . Barrick and Mount (1991) also argued that coefficients below .g..30 or greater was therefore considered as indicating a valid predictor of performance. (1984) argued that a correlation of 0.
This finding is consistent with the results of Avis et al. the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS).09) with the Career component of the RBPS. and Sanders 2003). persistent.e. Hurtz and Donovan 2000. talkative.g. From a theoretical perspective. From the stepwise regression analysis. the Conscientiousness component also predicted Total RBPS better than contextual work performance (i.. and persistent (Barrick et al. the Conscientiousness construct does seem to be logically related to work performance. assertive and sociable) was found to be negatively correlated (r = -. that have been examined (e. Conscientiousness was found to be the best predictor of the components of the RBPS and of Total RBPS. Barrick and Mount 1993. Crant 1995. Conscientious individuals perform better because they set goals which help them to direct their effort and achieve challenging goals over a long period of time. Salgado 1997. high in Conscientiousness) were positively associated with work-related performance. Furthermore. dependable. Hence.g. Extraversion (e... in all occupational groups.e. (2002) who posited that the FFM dimensions were better at predicting overall performance measures than those with contextual aspects. these results demonstrated that being dependable. Conscientiousness has been shown to be a significant predictor of all job-related criteria.. achievement-oriented and responsible (i. Such low values of the correlation 140 . 1993). It makes sense that individuals who have tendencies to be careful. hard working and thorough will perform better than those who do not have such tendencies.dependable..
In line with the findings of the current study. the Career component.30 cut-off value for the correlation coefficient. Neuroticism was correlated significantly with the Job component of the RBPS and with Total RBPS. Salgado (1997) revealed that Agreeableness was a valid predictor of work performance for skilled labourers. Agreeableness can be a predictor of certain components of job performance for managerial staff in highly structured jobs. Using a 0. Agreeableness was a significant predictor of all the RBPS components and of Total RBPS. trusting. Hence. Employees in these types of jobs who were courteous. 1993). the finding from this study also supported that Agreeableness was a valid predictor of certain aspects of work performance for skilled. In the stepwise regression analyses.05 level. and managers. 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. and 141 . even though it is significant at the 0.coefficient. the Innovator component. Agreeableness was only a valid predictor of the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. Neuroticism was a predictor of the Job component. 1993). professionals. and of Total RBPS. The stepwise regressions revealed that Extraversion as a non-significant predictor of performance. professional and managerial staff. soft-hearted. are often disregarded (Barrick et al. 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.2%) were from the managerial positions in highly structured jobs. the Team component. Since the majority of the respondents (404 or 74.
criteria. 2004a).. Hypothesis One. 2002. Furthermore. This finding was partially reinforced in this study. was supported.Total RBPS. Hence. the antithesis of Neuroticism) has generalised validity across occupation. Agreeableness and Neuroticism could be considered as valid predictors of work performance in an absolute sense if 0. Task performance corresponds to getting ahead while contextual performance corresponds to getting along. 2003). the five components of RBPS have components of “getting along and getting ahead”. low confidence. Due to their tendency to construe their experiences in a negative light. then conscientiousness. Barrick and Mount. If performance criteria are classified as getting ahead and getting along. 142 . Hurtz and Donovan (2000) postulated that Conscientiousness. which states that the FFM will predict a significant of variance of performance ratings. 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.e. organisations and countries. low Neuroticism) tend to be evaluated more positively than those who are panicky.e. Furthermore. In the final analysis. 1993). calm and self-confident (i. individuals with high neuroticism would be likely to develop negative attitudes towards their work hence resulting in poor performance as they devote less time in their jobs (Bozionelos. These findings supported Salgado’s (2003) argument that emotional stability (i. Neuroticism encompasses traits such as excessive worry.. employees who are resilient. tendencies to experience negative emotions and pessimism.30 was adopted as the standard. agreeableness and neuroticism should predict performance (Hogan and Holland.
5.45 and had the highest correlation with Total RBPS (r = .46).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. Safety. self-regulation or low impulsivity and volition) correlated with all of the components of the RBPS with coefficients ranging from . Actualisation. The current study has provided a theoretical argument for the development of a personality measure based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the social cognitive theory of “If-Then”.g.31 to .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. Ego and Social). which were correlated positively to each other but to an extent that they could be considered as distinct but related components..2.e. Complexity correlated with the Career component of the RBPS as self-regulation and volition would enhance the attainment of career 143 . Complexity. CASES) comprised five components (i... The Complexity component (e. The new personality measure (i.
or the Innovator component of the RBPS. self-esteem and needs for achievement. Using a cut-off value of 0. which includes doing things outside one’s job scope for the betterment of the company. Actualisation correlated with the Organisation component of the RBPS. which includes aspects of performance such as ensuring group success and seeking and responding to group’s needs. all of which are arguably related to the need for growth. This aspect of performance can be linked to passion. In support of this argument is the finding that high performers perceive events are determined by themselves while low performers perceive events as controlled by chance (Bandura. 1977a). the Career component.30 for the correlation coefficient. growth and progress) was correlated with all of the RBPS components and with Total RBPS. Actualisation was also correlated with 144 .opportunities and the advancement of one’s career. 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. The Actualisation component (e.g. Actualisation cannot be considered a valid predictor for the Job component.. action and thought. Complexity correlated with the Organisation component of the RBPS arguably because self-regulation and volition would promote the virtues of the organisation. self-esteem and the need for progress. 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 Innovator component of the RBPS as low impulsivity would enable the creation of ideas and improvements to how one does one’s work. passion. Actualisation correlated with the Team component of the RBPS.
Team. systematic..6 years). the drive is to achieve a sense of fulfilment in balancing one’s work and life responsibilities (Stum. Safety correlated with Total 145 .g. the need for growth. This finding reaffirmed Arnold’s (1988) claim that Actualisation is a predictor of job performance. the Actualisation construct does seem to be logically related to organisational citizenship and total performance. At this level. the Safety component is correlated with the Job. security. Using a cut-off value of . and progress. 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.30. such that the respondents were perhaps too young to be highly motivated to realise their full potential. From a theoretical perspective. 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. The stepwise regression analyses revealed that Actualisation was the best and only predictor of the Organisation component of the RBPS. 2001). The reason could be the age of the respondents (average age was 34.Total RBPS. passionate and creative would perform better than those who do not have these tendencies. It is reasonable that individuals with tendencies to be achievement-oriented. and Organisation components of the RBPS and with Total RBPS. The Safety component of CASES (e. achievement. Safety correlated with the Job component of the RBPS arguably because orderly and structured facets are antecedents of high quality and high quantity. orderly and structured) correlated with all of the components of the RBPS and with Total RBPS. which included facets of passion.
needs for love. quality and quantity of work) that constitute the job component of the RBPS.30 cut-off value. Social correlated only with the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. Based on the preceding discussion of the main findings. and with Total RBPS. structured and systematic are antecedents of productivity (Cook et al. Using the 0. 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.. In the stepwise regression analyses. Innovator. but negatively related.RBPS arguable because its facets of orderly. and Total RBPS. Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. predictor of the Job component of the RBPS. 2000)..g. Safety was found to be a significant predictor of the Job. companionship and care) correlated significantly with all of the components of the RBPS. the CASES model. The stepwise regression analyses also revealed that Social was a significant predictor of the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS.. is a useful predictor of the various components of the 146 . This finding indicates that the Ego component is detrimental to facets of performance (e.g. with the exception of the Ego component. these components of performance are related to facets of teamwork and organisational citizenship. affiliation. The stepwise regression analyses also revealed that Ego was a significant. The Social component of CASES (e. except for the Innovator component.
a component of the FFM. was therefore supported.. This finding might be due to the fact that the Complexity component has facets which included volition (i. The stepwise regression revealed that the Complexity component of the CASES was a better predictor of the Career component of the RBPS than Neuroticism. which states that CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. The stepwise regression showed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism. 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.e. Hypothesis Two. were better predictors of the Job component of the RBPS as compared with the Complexity.3. Safety and Social components of CASES. to conform and persevere) whereas the Neuroticism 147 . 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. both of which are components of the FFM. 5.2.RBPS and Total RBPS.
and orderly) that enhance facets of teamwork such as seeking information from others and working with others. Complexity was the best predictor followed by Safety. passion and realisation of one’s potential) that facilitate organisational citizenship. The stepwise regression revealed that the Safety.component comprises facets such as fear and low confidence regarding career progress and development. The stepwise regression revealed that the Actualisation. and Social components of CASES were predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS. The Innovator component addresses behaviors such as finding new ways to do one’s work and requires risk taking and confidence.g. Actualisation was the best predictor. Complexity. Complexity includes self-regulation and volition and not surprisingly 148 . which is the essence of the Organisation component of the RBPS. and Social components of the CASES and the Neuroticism component of the FFM were predictors of the Team component of the RBPS. This was probably due to the fact that Actualisation includes facets (e. Complexity. Safety was the best predictor due probably to the fact that Safety includes aspects (e. protection. Complexity was the best predictor followed by Neuroticism and Safety. structured. The stepwise regression showed that for the Innovator component of the RBPS. Safety. both of which are aspects of Complexity. The stepwise regression revealed that the Complexity and Safety components of CASES and the Neuroticism and Conscientiousness components of the FFM were predictors of Total RBPS. Neuroticism and Conscientiousness.g.
which states that the CASES and FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance. 1998. examining the link between personality and work performance appears to have profound implications for organisations.1. From this point of view. 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. 5. 2004). the proposed CASES model. IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS 5. the various components of the CASES and the FFM are significant predictors of the various components of the RBPS and Total RBPS. which is based on 149 .3. Kieffer et al.3. was therefore supported.was a better predictor than Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. Implications on Professional Practice From the classical perspective. Based on the preceding discussion of the main findings... 1997. Hypothesis Three. 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. individuals and human resources consultants. If researchers are able to affirm that certain personality traits are related significantly to work performance. Sackett et al.
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. has important practical implications. 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. 1999). organisations and individuals. and formulating effective human resources strategies in training. recruiting and promoting personnel. Although the research methodology and design did not permit statements of causality. The CASES model may also be useful for recruitment consultants in that it may help them to identify effective employees. 150 . The knowledge that personality can influence or even be a determinant of work performance is valuable to recruiting agencies. based on personality traits. the CASES model is another useful tool for human resource personnel with respect to designing effective job specifications or roles.Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the social cognitive theory of “If-Then”. which is a wellestablished model of personality. for their client organisations. the CASES model did account for significant variance in work performance over and above that accounted for by the FFM. For organisations.
many personality measures are based on single theories and therefore their usefulness for predicting performance in actual workplace settings needs to be examined. personality interacts with cognitive ability and appears to influence work performance (Lowery. cognition and satisfaction are correlated with work performance. Implications on Theory The first Chapter provided an outline of this study in the context of motivation. 2004) 151 . there has been a proliferation of psychometric instruments that have been used as part of organisational development and recruitment processes. it is not surprising other factors such as ability. These instruments have predominantly been developed in the Western countries and the question arises as to the generalisability of these instruments to Asian countries. The level of job complexity may have a role in whether an interaction occurs between personality and ability when predicting work performance. behavior. The need for achievement is also dependent on the fit between environmental factors and personality. In recent years. Hence. There is a lot of debate on whether the role of a person on work performance is sculptor or sculpture. values. Moreover. Furthermore. Two research problems were therefore identified and these guided the current research.5. such as Malaysia. where English is a second language.3. personality. Beadles II and Krilowicz. and psychometric measures.2.
The predictors and the criteria used in the current study were obtained from self-report data using a single questionnaire. A subsequent study designed to assess personality and work performance over time (longitudinally) using a random sample of the population (i.4.. Furthermore. small or medium or large organisations. there is no way of estimating 152 .11. 5. maximum r = . 2002). Given the relatively small correlation coefficients obtained in this study (minimum r = . modify their behavior to improve their work performance. public or private) would increase confidence in its validity and generalisability. it seems reasonable to conclude that the measures of personality and work performance were assessing separate constructs (Barrick et al. 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. the CASES model suggests that certain personality factors or traits have a greater effect on work performance because people can.46). which reduces the correlation between items. a convenience sample was used. However. Common method variance and mono-source bias are potential limitations of the current study as they may produce spurious relationships.. consciously or unconsciously.Similarly. which brings into question the representativeness of the sample and therefore the generalisability of the findings. 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. This creates range restriction.e.
5. This study was the first time these measures have been used together in Malaysia. In regards to instrumentation. Hence. Another impetus for further research is the length of the CASES measure as this personality measure has only 20 items. possible modifications as well as further validation of the CASES. it would be interesting to explore these relationships using alternative measurements as certain studies had presented evidence that customer.5. further instrument refinement is recommended. CASES and RBPS would have differed if incentives were provided. supervisor or co-worker ratings had equivalent or higher levels of criterion-related validity in comparison with employees’ self-reports. For the sake of understanding the impact of personality on work performance.what the variance of the ratings ought to be. organisations may be willing to include the CASES measure in surveys as a preliminary screening for potential employees. due to its brevity. FFM and the RBPS is recommended. Hence. 153 . FUTURE RESEARCH The personality measures of the FFM and the CASES and the RBPS performance measure were self-reports. The circumstances of the respondents’ participation did not give any incentive to give inaccurate responses. it is not possible to adjust the correlations for the effects of a restricted range. Consequently. It would be difficult to fathom how the relative validities of the FFM.
. Future research can also be conducted to ascertain whether the results reported in this study are generalisable to different jobs (e. job satisfaction and other proximal motivation models that include interaction effects should also be encouraged to further enhance the validation of this personality measure. The cross-validation of the CASES with other determinants of work performance such as ability.g. sales. 5.6. 154 . skilled or semi-skilled. Although face validity may be defined as a “test which looks good for a particular purpose” (Hogan. validity is a long-term process for any research. goal-setting motivation. management or clerical). self-efficacy. income and educational backgrounds are needed to address concerns about the generalisability of the findings obtained in the current study. Systematic replication integrating a variety of individuals representing various ages. organisational settings (public. non-governmental or non-profit organisations) and cultures. Face validity is always a problem in personality measure. CONCLUSION The main objective of the current study was to examine the research question as to whether personality can predict work performance using the FFM and CASES models of personality.Questions about the generalisability of these findings and external validity issues can be addressed through replications of this study. Given that the research on the CASES measure is an initial effort. From a more philosophical angle. job complexity. it should by all means be subjected to replication in various contexts with various work performance measures.
it would be appropriate to explore this relationship using third-party sources (e. Furthermore. 1997). 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. 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. to understand the impact of personality on work performance. 1997). one should choose the former.Hogan and Roberts.. they can provide a basic understanding of what actually energises or motivates individuals. Personality measures often have empirical validity but commonly are weak on face validity. Employee performance is basically determined by three things. or customers) for information on work performance and personality rather than to rely exclusively on self-report data. motivation. job-related learning and knowledge sharing) that are not included in the RBPS. each individual moves through Maslow’s hierarchy at a different rate.. p. there are other dimensions of work performance (e. and the work environment (Wiley. Furthermore. ability. changes in one’s life can affect the sequence of meeting these needs.g. While personality-based theories may not necessarily predict behavior or motivation. 1996.g. many seemingly appropriate personality tests fail to predict work performance. The strength of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory is its ability to identify those needs which motivate behavior (Wiley. it is of no use for decision making. co-workers. Because needs are met at different stages. supervisors. 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. A 155 . That is. 474).
If researchers are able to classify jobs by occupation and then consider the performance criteria and the personality dimensional requirements relevant to that occupation. select and transform stimuli. 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.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. In reality. Besides their indisputable academic importance. 1996). Although personality is significantly inherited and stable in adulthood. Hogan and Roberts. A comment on the usefulness of research on personality and work performance should also be made. for example. the individual must balance life and work responsibilities to ultimately achieve a sense of fulfilment. Hence. personal development and career advice. it would be beneficial to individuals to be aware of the limitations and advantages associated with their personality profiles. 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. With this jockeying to satisfy these needs. 156 . studies that have examined the relationship between personality and work performance can be utilised for recruitment. then the predictive relationship between work performance and personality will improve (Hogan. people are not simply reactors to stimuli in their environment in that they can also organise.
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. CASES. 157 . some components of the CASES model were found to be better predictors of the Career. 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. In addition to providing a theory-grounded measurement tool. Hunton and Bryant.The study has contributed to the literature on personality by providing a new personality measure. Hence. Although this is a preliminary study of the validity of the CASES model of personality. 2004a. 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. 2003). Although the FFM is a well established personality measure. Innovator. CASES can be offered as a useful personality measure for both practitioners and researchers. 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. CASES. Tett and Burnett. and Total RBPS as compared to the FFM which was a better predictor of only the Job component of the RBPS. Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. Moreover. both situationally and contextually (Wheeler. the researcher believes that it has made a contribution to research on personality measures and the prediction of work-related performance.
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.
. (2001). D. (1989).B. 111(1). C.. Personality as Traits. 1001-1013. 6(3).. 1378-1388. Cattell. Psychology and Marketing. (2004). and Klawsky. 694704. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1988).. 183204. 7(3). Work Commitment. 13.D.. A. F. Self Appraisal in Performance Evaluation: Development Versus Evaluation. The Social Construction of Needs. J. (1996). Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: An Empirical Investigation. 161 . R. The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Miller. 38. Carmeli. (1943). Psychological Review.L. Cellar. Cavana. Academy of Management Review. Cervone. Delahaye. The Architecture of Personality.. and Freund. D. Campbell. A. D. (2000). Cervone. D. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Comparison of Factor Structure and Criterion-Related Validity Coefficients for Two Measures of Personality Based on the Five Factor Model. and Sekaran. 476-506. John Wiley & Sons.D.F. American Psychologist. (1989). 44(11).L. (2004). The American Behavioural Scientist. Buttle.H. R. 43(6). B. D. 302-314. 81(6). A. International Journal of Organisation Theory and Behavior. 197-210. U..J. Evolutionary Psychology and Explanation in Personality Psychology. 289-309.Buss. M.Y. and Lee. Applied Business Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Doverspike.
T. G. D.. 12(2). 16(3). Training Journal. A Markov Chain Model of Human Needs: An Extension of Maslow’s Need Theory. Coan. Cook. A. Coull. (1988). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. K. and Bedford. and McCrae. Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources.T. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. R. (1985). J. Costa. N.. E. (2001).H. Odessa. Odessa. Do all carrots look the same? Examining the impact of culture on employee motivation.. (2003). Hillsdale. 223-234. (1995). P. Theoretical Orientation in Psychology and the Traditions of Freud.D. J. A. 162 . (1969). Psychometric assessment under test. 51..). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO FFI) professional manual. and Eary.R. 134-139.R. (1987). (1992). 117. Costa. 26(1). 216-220. M. P. 29-40.T. Cohen. 1820..P. and McCrae. Management Research News. 291-294. FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.R. 18(2).. D. NJ: Erlbaum. Personality and Self-Rated Work Performance. Academy of Management Journal.. and Sadri. and Wolfe. R. (2000).Cesare. Costa. J. The NEO Personality Inventory manual.. R. P. and McCrae. (1995). Young. 202-208. A.W. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. R. Stotland. Jung and Adler. Cohen.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed. An experimental investigation of need for recognition. Solid ground in the wetlands: A reply to Block. Chung. Taylor.
Annual review of psychology (Vol. 42.. Rosenweig & L. (2000). 55(7). 73(6). Big Five Issues: Rationale. In M. Dent. 721-739. Comparative analysis of complex organisations (enlarged. and Crosscultural Assessment. 417-440). Content. Digman.M. 17. J. Journal of Psychological Type.R.R. DeGrandpre. Five Big. (1998). 80(4). pp. D.. (2004). Higher-Order Factors of the Big Five. 532-537. D. (1990). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 14-17.). Personnel Psychology. Psychometric tests. (1975). J. Palo Alto. Day. A.W. J. an overview of an increasingly complex world. (1995). 163 . Personality and job performance: Evidence of incremental validity. Descouzis. De Raad. (1997). F. CA: Annual Reviews.). 41. (1989). Journal of Applied Psychology. Status. The Proactive Personality Scale and Objective Job Performance Among Real Estate Agents. 113-124. Psychological types of tax preparers. and Curd. R. 1246-1256. and Silverman.A.J. The Science of Meaning: Can Behaviorism Bring Meaning to Psychological Science? American Psychologist. Digman. New York: Academic Press. European Psychologist. B.M. Etzioni. 3(2).Crant. Structure.. 36-38. S. Porter (Eds. 25-36. J.M. Training Journal. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. (1989).
Human Motivation. Integrating OB Mod with Cognitive Approaches to Motivation.R. C. W. 49(3). H.. Riviere. Frank. The Academy of Management Review.. Personnel Management. (1960). (1998). Journal of Organisational Behavior. 25(12). G. Fletcher. Fisher. Motivation Theory and Job Design. Organisations. The Journal of Business. 164 . C. Gabriel. A comparison of Multi-Item Likert and Visual Analogue Scales for the Assessment of Transactionally Defined Coping Function. management and psychoanalysis: An overview. (2003). Freud. Jr. 20(4). 49-58.R.Fedor. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 691-697. Flynn. S. Gallagher. 17(5).J. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Franken. A. 20(1)..D. (Original work published 1923).. New York: Norton. P. D. A. and Ferris. 24(6).E. D. Psychoanalytic Psychology. (2003). 6(1). (1976). The ego and the id (J. 348-365. (2002). Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance are correlated? Possible sources of a commonsense theory. Triebe and Their Vicissitudes: Freud’s Theory of Motivation Reconsidered. 46-50. Trans. (1981). and Einhorn. Testing times for the world of psychometrics. (1993).. van Schaik. G.B. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Y. R. and Carr. (2004).). 4th Edition. 753-777. 358. 115-125. and van Wersch.
N.. American Psychologist.M. 7 – 28). 7 (pp. Tilburg.R. L. (1992). 26-34. Anderson.. R. I. 7(3). (2002).. Hair. P. D. Personality. Great Britain. R. Haynes..Gelso.R. (1995).J. F. Goldberg. D. Goldberg. Critical variables in Child care services switching: Contrasting consumer and staff perceptions. Multivariate Data Analysis. Deary.. Prentice-Hall.A.E. Mervielde. 275-298. E. Ostendorf (Eds.). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. 48. Exploring the dimensions of service brands: The Service Brand Verdict (SBV) Model.C. (1993). and Johnson. Grace. Sage Publications. & F. R..). D. J. (1999). Tatham. Personality Inventory Measuring the Lower-Level Facets of Several Five-Factor models. J. G. 238-247. Psychological Assessment. Griffith University. S.. 165 . Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1998. and Black. A Broad-Bandwidth. Unpublished Honours Thesis. Gill. 39(3). R. Organisational Behavior. Grace. and Jones. Content validity in Psychological Assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Personality Psychology in Europe. L. The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. In I. (2002). Ambivalence and Actualisation. Research Methods for Managers (3rd edn. George. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy.. W. and Fassinger. De Fruyt.S.S. Richard. New Jersey. NJ. and Kubany. (1999). Prentice Hall. C. Public Domain. Upper Saddle River. (2002).A. Vol. J. Griffith University. Development and Counseling Psychology: Depth.
(2003).R. The Honeymoon Effect on Job Performance: Temporal Increases in the Predictive Power of Achievement Motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology.W..L. Hunter. 15(4). Bauer. 35(7). affection and conation. L. Hunsley..M. Management Decision. 545-551. J. 88(3). Using Theory to Evaluate Personality and Job Performance Relations: A Socioanalytic Perspective.Helmreich. and Genestre. and Hammer. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. Journal of Applied Psychology. The trilogy of mind: Cognition. 107-117. B.T. 166 . (1996). Hunthausen. J. (1986).. 469-477. Truxillo. 51(5). J. D.J. R.B. Psychological Assessment. Herbig. and Roberts.L. Hogan.E. Hogan.. and Carsrud. Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and Answers.. T.M. The incremental validity of psychological testing and assessment: Conceptual. Journal of Applied Psychology. Hogan. (1997). 88(1).N. Newbury Park: Sage.. 71(2).. Hilgard. A. F. (1980).L. 562-571. methodological and statistical issues. B. 185-188. J.. 446-455. A. R.. and Schmidt.. and Meyer. 100-112. P. (2003). (2003). E.. 16. L. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. and Holland. Sawin. (1990). A Field Study of Frame-of-Reference Effects on Personality Test Validity. G. American Psychologist. J.L. International motivational differences.
J. Jolibert. (2002).A.J. 585-596. Bono.J. and Bono.. J. Managerial Discretion in the Use of Self-ratings in a Appraisal System: The Antecedents and Consequences.. A.Hurtz. and Baumgartner. A. 50. (2000). Judge. Five-Factor Model of Personality and Transformational Leadership. Iachini.J. (2003). (1998). T. 85(6).A.J.E.. J.J. Judge. R. A. XVI (4). (2001). Allen. R.. T. Journal of Applied Psychology.. (2003). (2000). Personnel Psychology.. J. 18-20.. Values. L. T.. and Keaveny.. T. 167 .E. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1997). G. McCrae.. and Gerhardt. Journal of Applied Psychology.. C. Judge. W. J.E.W. Journal of Managerial Issues. E. 87(4)... and Livesley. (2004). Jang. 80(4). and Thoresen. Bono. W. Riemann. 765-780. 675-688.. The Personality of Familiar and Significant People: The Lay Perceiver as a Social-Cognitive Theorist. K.R. Angleitner. 1556-1565.. 460-482. M. Personality and Job Performance: The Big Five Revisited.A.M. 14(7). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Erez. and Donovan.E. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. R.L. R. Starting the “Fire” under an unmotivated employee. G. 869-870.C. and Mischel. 85(5).. Idson. Ilies. Inderrieden. The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: Support for a hierarchical model of personality. Psychology & Marketing. 303-331. 74. 751-765. Motivations and Personal Goals: Revisited. 72(3). Occupational Health and Safety.
M. 168 . Trans. and Wiesner. J. D. Journal of Applied Psychology.. 39(1-2). Relationship of Personality to Performance Motivation: A Meta-Analytic Review. Baynes.G.A. Canadian Psychology. and Ilies. (1997). Bollingen Series XX.J.C. 797-807. S. Kagan.Jung.6). Five Factor Model of Personality and Employee Absence.G. 82(5). Kichuk.J. (2002).. K. (H. NJ. The social psychology of organisations (2nd ed. New York: Wiley.L. R. Kieffer. The Meanings of Personality Predicates.A. 87(4).. T. Psychological types..F. C. (1988).. Organisational Improvement: A Review of Models and an Attempted Synthesis. (1998). 168-177. (2004). and Thoresen. Journal of Counseling Psychology. T. (1976). 8(1). W. and Curtiss.H. (1978). Group and Organisation Studies.. R. Work Teams: Selecting Members for Optimal Performance. 614-620. Revision by R. The Psychology of Worldviews. Judge. (1971). M. Person-Environment Congruence and Personality Domains in the Prediction of Job Performance and Work Quality. American Psychologist. R. 1(4). J. (2004). 51(2). and Kahn.E. 474-495. Kaufman. 43(8). 745-755.Hull) Princeton. Jung. Katz. J. Schinka. The collected works of C.. G. Martocchio. C. 23-32. Princeton University Press (Original work published 1921). Review of General Psychology.L..).Judge.G. Koltko-Rivera. Journal of Applied Psychology.A. 3-58. (Vol.
M. 969-983. Personality preferences of accounting students: A longitudinal case study.Kovar. 12. S.A. Beauvais. (2003). 382-394. Accounting for Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional Research Designs. Computer usage and psychological type characteristics in accounting students.M. McKeon.G. S. Jr. (1999). 24(1). Available at: http://www. Work Motivation: The incorporation of self-concept-based processes. 18(5). J. Lindell.W. 52(8). L. Journal of Accounting Education.L. Landry.. Journal of Applied Psychology. 28.com/acct/jac/jac12. A.. 114-121.. Kwiatkowski. R. 29-34. 86(1). 75-94. Trends in organisations and selection: An Introduction. R.P.. K. M. R. (2003). Kreiser.. (2001). (1994). and Kickul. Lau. Ott. H. (1999). Human Resource Planning.M. (2001). and Post. and Fisher. L. and Shaffer.W.. Human Relations.W. and Harrell.swcollege..E. R. 169 . J. Career success: the effects of personality. Psychological contracts in the 21st Century: What employees value most and how well organisations are responding to these expectations.L. and Scholl. J. Leonard. Journal of Psychological Type. N. Rogers. Career Development International. (1996). D. Journal of Managerial Psychology.html Laribee.. Journal of Accounting and Computers.H.. 21. V. S. A personality profile of CPAs in public practice..L. 37-42. The Ohio CPA Journal (Winter). The psychological types of college accounting students. R. Lester. and Whitney... 10-21. 4/4. (1990). D. 225-230.
D. R. R.. A. Bradford. Public Policy and Law. Lombardo.J. 50. E... 6(2). (1996).. 705717. Locke. and Foschi. G. 187-203. (2004).C. American Psychologist. Linking an Intervention model to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. (2003). and Morse. The American Behavioral Scientist.P. Beadles II.A. Journal of Managerial Psychology.. Psychology. Psychological Review. 21. Maslow. Maslow. consultancy and managerial roles. W. Lubinski. History of Psychology. The European Origins of “Personality Psychology”. (2000). and Latham. N. (1995). New York: Harper & Row.H. Using Personality and Cognitive Ability to Predict Job Performance: An Empirical Study. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed. International Journal of Management. Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey. Marsella.). Conceptual and Methodological Issues and Considerations. 3. G. 21-29.H. The Concept of Personality in 19th Century French and 20th Century American Psychology. Hamada.Lindon. European Psychologist. 2(2). and Foschi. Applied individual differences research and its quantitative methods.. L.M. Lombardo.P. (2002). and Krilowicz. (1943). 370396. 44. 10(4). J.N.. Dubanoski. 7(2). H. 134-145.J. Lowery. 170 . The measurement of personality across cultures: Historical. C. 123-142. 1-10. G. A Theory of human motivation.. A. (2002). A. T.P. 57(9).
T. P. New York: Guilford Press. Review of General Psychology. McCrae.P. (1998). D. 100-122..D. J. 171 . McAdams.T.. Wiggins (Ed). Structural Divisions of Personality and the Classification of Traits. (1961).R. McC Dachowski. J. Review of General Psychology. 83(2). Journal of Applied Psychology. H. New York: Guilford Press. (2000). R. 52(2). 886-887.C.Maurer. The five-factor model of personality (51-87).J. A five-factor theory of personality.R. M.T.R. (2003). In J. Van Nostrand. (2001). A Comparison of Likert Scale and Traditional Measures of Self-Efficacy.). (1996). (2001). Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. (1999). and Costa. 7(4). Primary Divisions of Personality and their Scientific Contributions: From the Trilogy-of-Mind to the Systems Set. The Achieving Society. Mayer. D. 117-132. Mayer. 5(2).D. The Psychology of Life Stories.J.P. Handbook of personality: Theory and research (139153). 324-329. (1987). and Costa. Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior. McClelland.H. 449-477. In A. NJ.S. R. P. and Pierce. Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five factor model. Lawrence and O. 42(9).. Pervin (Eds. A Convergence of the Tender-Minded and the ToughMinded? American Psychologist. McCrae. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Bridge Between Counseling and Consulting. M. Princeton. McCaulley. 381-401. 31.
Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology. Meade. and Darling. 314-322. W. Quantitative Research Approaches. Morgan. 171-188. The Academy of Management Review. T. J. and Harmon..A. Cross-cultural assessment of the Five Factor Model: The revised NEO Personality Inventory. A Cognitive-Affective System Theory of Personality: Reconceptualising Situations.W. M.R.. J.. Rolland. P. Coata.T. G. Mitchell. 77-88..A. T. 38(12). The challenge of humanistic management. 246-268. (2002). Personality and assessment. 531-540.D. J. del Pilar.McCrae. Journal of Business Ethics. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry..J. Industrial and Commercial Training. D.D. R. 102(2). (1995). Dispositions. Gliner. 44(1). 29. 11-18. D. Motivation: New directions for theory research and practice. W.R. 27(4). (2003). and Shoda. 23(6). (1982).P.. (1998). (2004). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 80-88. Dynamics and Invariance in Personality Structure. The impact of behavioral style assessment on organisational effectiveness: a call for action. (1968). Psychometric problems and issues involved with creating and using ipsative measures for selection. A. W. Melamed. R. and Jackson. and Parker. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal. Y. New York: Wiley. Shelton.K. (1995). Mischel.H. Mischel. 172 . (1999). G. Mele.. 1595-1597.. Psychological Review. McKenna... Psychometric instruments: Potential benefits and practical use. 7(1)..R. 77. C.
H. (1992). A.. (Nov/Dec). M. Some basic psychological assumptions and conceptions.C. Journal of Managerial Psychology. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. McCaulley. 173 . 111-115. Mustafa.R.. and Smircich. Academy of Management Review. Third Edition. Nourayi. Nhundu. Nikolaou. Dialectica. Myers. 18(7). 266-292. 15-27. 5(4).Morgan. 52-68. K. (1993). 639-648... Fitting the person to the organization: Examining the personality-job performance relationship from a new perspective.A. I. Character and the “Culture of Personality”. The Case of Qualitative Research. 29-42. Murray. I. H. 13. G. History of Psychology.L. Nicholson. Accounting students’ performance and personality types. 152-200. M. and Barrick. The International Journal of Public Sector Management.. The relationship between self and supervisor appraisals with role clarity and job satisfaction. (1994). Gordon Allport. (1998).A. Palo Alto.M. M.A. 1897-1937. 1(1). MBTI Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resources management. The Contributions of Psychology to the Study of Administrative Behavior. L. 5. Mount. and Cherry. (2003).. (1951). 30(1).B. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. 5(4). Journal of Educational Administration. and Hammer. I. (1980). (1992). A. T.K. 491-500. Journal of Education for Business. Quen. (1998). M.
S. 1301-1308.. L. An empirical investigation into the interactive effects of student personality traits and method of instruction (lecture or CAI) on student performance in elementary accounting. (1998). (2004).H. New York: 44(12). M. and Ashton.. M. (2001). 11(2). (1978). Ott. Political Marketing: The Application of Marketing to Politics. O’Cass. Journal of Workplace Learning. C. Journal of Accounting Education. and Chusmir. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (1991).T. 73-79. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. QUT.).C. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Paunonen. 84(2). Do CPAs have a unique personality? Are certain personality types found more frequently in our profession? The Michigan CPA (Spring). Human Relations. 524-539. P.V. Unpublished Master of Business Thesis. A. Mann. 411-424. R. B. McGraw-Hill... 29-36. Osteraker.V. 174 . New York. Big Five Factors of Personality and Replicated Predictions of Behavior. 8. (1990). Big Five Factors and Facets and the Prediction of Behavior. Psychometric Theory (2nd edn.M. Parker. S.Nunnally. 17-35.V. (2003). Paunonen. (1999). J. Hierarchical Organisation of Personality and Prediction of Behavior. M. 81(3). 74(2). Paunonen. Otter. Measuring motivation in a learning organisation. (1984). S. Motivtion Needs and Their Relationship to Life Success.C. Bradford.H. 538-556. and Moores.
(1988). M. L. The Idiographic Nature of Human Personality: Examples of the Idiographic Self-Concept. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.Pedersen. L. 55. 16(2). assessment and research.J. Pittenger. S. Gallucci. Plomin. (2001). J. Wiley. Environment and Genes: Determinants of Behavior.. Plomin. (2000). G.. 172-176. Persons. European Psychologist.A. and Friberg. R. Pervin. 64(4). 105-111. The consequences of unmet needs: The evolving role of motivation in consumer research.. situations. 87-97. D. 44(2). (1975). Pervin. Pincus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 3(4). and Livi. 950-957. New York. Pervin. Personality: Theory. Journal of Career Planning and Placement. Academy of Management Review. (1993). (2004). 375-387. McClearn. 350-360. R. 175 . Pelham.E. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 665-677. L. Extraversion and related traits in adults reared apart and reared together. interaction: The history of a controversy and a discussion of theoretical models. (1993).A. M. Journal of Consumer Behavior. 14. Neuroticism. American Psychologist. (1989). A Dynamic Systems Approach to Personality.W. B. N.. 6(3). Perugini. Looking for a Simple Big Five Factorial Structure in the Domain of Adjectives.L. (1989).A.. L. Measuring the MBTI And Coming Up Short.
. R. (1998). 176 . 20(1). Organisational Behavior.Ramlall. Multifaceted Nature of Intrinsic Motivation: The Theory of 16 Basic Desires. F. S.. Great Britain.K.P. Rings. (1998). D. G.M. H.com/~Personality Institute/Myers-BriggsTypeIndicator.tripod. Journal of American Academy of Business. S. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Research Report. J. Reiss. (2001). Sage Publications. Baron.. London. A. P. Rossier. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 27-38. and Berhoud. 73. 171-180. E. de Stadelhofen. R.htm Robbins. Doing Research in Business and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method. and Ahadi. 179-193. 5. M. 103(1). MacIver. (2004). and Swartz.. Remenyi. 55-66. Review of General Psychology. Conscientiousness and managerial performance. Rothbart. and Nyfield.A. (1997).T. B.. Temperament and the Development of Personality... http://members. Ryckman. Theories of Personality. Gibbons. The Hierarchical Structures of the NEO PI-R and the 16 PF 5. Williams. S. (2004). I. Prentice-Hall. 1/2. NJ. 52-63. Robertson.. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Money. Upper Saddle River. B..M. (1994).P. 8(3). A review of employee motivation themes and the implications for employee retention within organisations. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology. S. S.. (2004). (2000).
Satava. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Ability-personality interactions when predicting job performance. Pitman Publishing.. An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management. 30-43. 313-328.F. 82(1). (2003). Saucier. M. (1997). 1296-1312. The five factor model of personality (p 21-50). Personality types of CPAs: National vs.). G. The Five Factor Model of Personality and Job Performance in the European Community.. G. 695-708. (1998). Journal of Applied Psychology. J. M. In J. 26(2).. Journal of Applied Psychology. Maybe there’s no such thing as a “good cop”. 177 . 36. Sanders. G. Saucier. (1997). Lewis.A. (1997). J. P. London. 73(6). New York: Guilford Press. 495-524. (1996). and Thornhill. P. What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of Personality. (1998).L. Gruys. Saucier. L. L..R. J. Saunders. G.E. local firms. Factor Structure of English-Language Personality Type-Nouns.. (1996). and Goldberg. Wiggins (Ed. (2003). Effects of Variable Selection On the Factor Structure of Person Descriptors. (2003). 76. 545-556. 323-346.R.Sackett. Salgado. and Ellingson.S. 66. Salgado. D. Research Methods for Business Students. 85(4). and Goldberg. Saucier. Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality measures. B. 36-41. Journal of Psychological Type. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology. The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the five factor model.. 83(4).F. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. A.R.
Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. 959-968. (1997). J.E. Accounting Horizons (December).. Schwab. 9(8). 3-7. Construct validity in organisational behaviour. 2. Development of a global measure of personality. 3-43. (1997).M. 24-39. Gooding. V. M. American Psychologist. 1238-1241. and Sumners. 153-160. 73(6).. Personnel Psychology.P. Research in Organisational Behavior. (1999). R. (1984). (2000). M.. Managerial Auditing Journal. 53(1). Schmitt. and Kirsch.A.Schloemer. M. I. 84(6). 122-123. D.. 178 . C. Schmit.Z.S. N.. Noe. Shackleton. Schwarz. The personality types and preferences of CPA firm professionals: An analysis of changes in the profession. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 93-105. Journal of Applied Psychology. Optimising the value of performance appraisals. The accountant stereotype: Myth or reality? Accountancy (November). Stelmack. Schweiger. P. 407-422. and Robie. (1980). 37.A. and Schloemer. 54(2).. Personnel Psychology. (1980). G. Meta-analyses of validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics.W. R. B. G.G. Stewart. N..L. Trait Brandwidth and Stages of Job Performance: Assessing Differential Effects for Conscientiousness and its Subtraits. (1999). Kihm.J. (1994). Toward a Paradigm in Personality: Comment on Eysenck’s (1997) view.
(2001). Air Force. and Burnett.E. R.E. M. Journal of Psychological Assessment.. A. (2003)..Stum. Tubes . and Ekeberg.C. Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (Technical Report ASD-TR-61-97). 16(2). Badley. 20(3). (1991). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Relationships Between Personality Structure. 29(4). Townsend. S. and Cognitive Ability: A Study of Cultural Mechanisms of Personality. Bliese. Tett.. 8-11.D.D. What’s in it for me? The Journal for Quality and Participation. C. 835-853. (1993). Journal of Applied Psychology. 180-191. Strategy and Leadership. Structure of Word Meaning. J. 179 . R. Tubbs. Tsaousis.. 180-199. (2004). The Traits Personality Questionnaire 5(TPQue5): Psychometric Properties of a Shortened Version of a Big Five Measure. P.S. D. Toomela.E. 723-735.P. 85(4).. and Thoresen. Thoresen. P.E. and Christal. and Gebhardt. E. TX: U.J. D. I. J. J. 89(5).L. The Academy of Management Review..C.D. The Role of Intentions in Work Motivation: Implications for goal-setting theory and research.L. Maslow revisited: Building the employee commitment pyramid. The Big Five Personality Traits and Individual Job Performance Growth Trajectories in Maintenance and Transitional Job Stages.16(1).. 4-9. A Personality Trait-based Interactionist Model of Job Performance. 500-517. (2003). (1961). Lackland Air Force Base. (2004). 88(3). Journal of Applied Psychology.
Haig. Automaticity.M. P. and Watson. Schippmann. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 1-19. Journal of Information Systems.. 763-764. and Erez. Vinchur. P. Goals and Environmental Interactions. P... and Bryant. Gray. American Psychologist. D. Hunton. Authors’ Reply to Commentary on Accounting Information Systems Research Opportunities Using Personality Type Theory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. C.Vaidya. C. Hunton.E. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.M.S. International Journal of Manpower. P. 41(5). and Roth. F. 18(3). S. III.M. A. 18(1)..J. (2000).. Accounting Information Systems Research Opportunities Using Personality Type Theory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.E. Vlachopoulos. and Scherbaum. 83(6). J. (2000). Academy of Management Journal. E. 18(1).P. What motivates employees according to over 40 years of motivation surveys. 387-397.. Wiley. 71(4).R. S..I.. (2004b). and Bryant. The Role-Based Performance Scale: Validity Analysis of a Theory-based Measure. Wheeler. and Terry.... 586-597. (1998).G. A. J. Jr. Journal of Information Systems.K.. 180 . Motivation profiles in sport: A self-determination theory perspective. 1469-1484. 540-555.B. Karageorghis. D. 263-275.. S..R. (1998). T. Welbourne. Vancouver. Journal of Applied Psychology. 83(4). C. J. J. (2002)..E.S.. Switzer. (2004a). On the Temporal Stability of Personality: Evidence for Differential Stability and the Role of Life Experiences. J. J. Wheeler. A metaanalytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople.A. (1997). 55(7). Johnson.L. 3538.C.
Genetic and Environmental Influences on Temperament: The Polish-German Twin Study Based on Self-Report and Peer-Rating. 20(2). The predictive power of hiring tools. M. 6(4).R. Klohnen. R. Journal of Managerial Psychology.C. 324-344. Cropanzano. A. 40(4). Onoszczenko.E. 2429. Journal of Business and Psychology. (1998).. Psychological Review. (2003). State and Traits Correlates of Job Performance: A Tale of Two Perspectives. D. 18(4). D..B. 365-384. Yamaguchi. Strelau.G. Wolfe. D. Wright. T. Stewart.. Credit Union Executive Journal... Riemann. and Austin. W. What your customers can’t say. European Psychologist. 181 . American Demographics.J. (1998). 105(2). 18(3).. J. John. I. 230-250. and Angleitner. L. Spring . (2004). A.. R.. Zawadzki. and Meyer. O.A. E.Winter. The relationships among individual differences. Yancey.. Traits and Motives: Toward an Integration of Two Traditions in Personality Research. and Duncan.G.. needs and equity sensitivity. (2000). 272-286. (2001). 12-18. B. G.B.P.
We are therefore not interested in the specific responses of any particular individual. 182 . which will be shredded after the data have been entered into a spreadsheet. The confidentiality of your 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 Dear Potential Participant. 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.au CHONG Chien Fatt Tel: +60123760133 Fax: +60331602894 Email: chongchienfatt@yahoo. your Organisation will be provided with a report that will be recommended for distribution to staff.APPENDIX ONE – INFORMATION SHEET Newcastle Graduate School of Business Faculty of Business and Law Level 3.Casimir@newcastle. nor your organisation will be named or be able to be identified from the published report. You are invited to take part in this research project which examines the relationship between work performance and personality. We are interested only in the overall relationships between Personality and Work Performance. The findings of this study may be published in a scholarly journal but neither you. 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. As part of my studies. I am Chong Chien Fatt. On completion of the study. You are required to complete a questionnaire on personality and work performance. I am conducting a research project titled “Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality Measure”.com September 15. 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 University’s Human Research Ethics Officer. Chancellery. with return of the questionnaire through stamped and self-addressed envelopes to the researcher. or. University Drive. telephone (+61 249 216 333. please contact Chong Chien Fatt or Gian Casimir or if an independent person is preferred. or you have a complaint about the manner in which the research is conducted. Research Office. Research Branch. email HumanEthics@newcastle. Callaghan NSW 2308. it may be given to the researcher. if an independent person is preferred. Approval No . The Chancellery.edu. The University of Newcastle. 2308.au) 183 . If you would like more information. Bus-Law/SEGi/1/32:05A). The questionnaire will be distributed by the Human Resources Managers.au. Mr Chong Chien Fatt Dr Gian Casimir Complaints Clause: This project has been approved by the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee. University of Newcastle. or to not participate. to the Human Research Ethics Officer. will have no effect on your employment and no one will know whether or not you have participated as completion of the questionnaire will be performed at a location of your choice.edu. If you want to take part in the study. The University requires that should you have concerns about your rights as a participant in this research.Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. telephone +61 249 216 333. email: HumanEthics@newcastle. However. please complete the questionnaire and return it to the researchers in the stamped self-addressed envelope provided. Thank you for taking time to consider this invitation. your decision to participate. Yours sincerely.
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. 184 . the questionnaires will be shredded.APPENDIX TWO – CONSENT SEEKING LETTER TO COMPANY Newcastle Graduate School of Business Faculty of Business and Law Level 3.Casimir@newcastle. The confidentiality of responses is assured as only Chong Chien Fatt and Gian Casimir will have access to the completed questionnaires. If your organisation is willing to participate. We would greatly appreciate your organisation’s participation. 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.edu. Dear Sir. Mr Chong is conducting this study as part of his Doctor of Business and Administration Degree and Dr Gian Casimir is his research supervisor. 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. Please see the attached information sheet for participants.au CHONG Chien Fatt Tel: +60123760133 Fax: +60331602894 Email: chongchienfatt@yahoo. 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. 2005 Subject: Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality Measure. 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. This questionnaire is a personality and work performance measures and should take approximately twenty minutes to complete. After the data have been entered into a spreadsheet. This study examines the relationship between personality and work performance.com September 15.
The Chancellery.On completion of the study. if an independent person is preferred. Thank you for taking time to consider this invitation. telephone (+61 249 216 333. If you agree to take part in the study. nor your department will be named or be able to be identified from the published report. The University of Newcastle. your organisation will be provided with a report. or you have a complaint about the manner in which the research is conducted. or. please contact Chong Chien Fatt or Gian Casimir. it may be given to the researcher.edu. The University requires that should you have concerns about your rights as a participant in this research. Yours sincerely. to the Human Research Ethics Officer. which we recommend to be made available to all staff. University Drive. Bus-Law/SEGi/1/32:05A). The findings of this study may be published in a scholarly journal but neither you. please reply to us in writing stating your department’s willingness. Callaghan NSW 2308. For further information. Research Office. Approval No .au) 185 . email HumanEthics@newcastle. Mr Chong Chien Fatt and Dr Gian Casimir Complaints Clause: This project has been approved by the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee.
Part 2: Please use the rating scale below to describe how accurately each of the following statement describes you. Describe yourself as you generally are now. Please tick the answers above and return the full set in the self-addressed envelope.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. not as you wish to be in the future nor what you were in the past. Thank you. 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 . please do not continue with the survey even though you may have consented to participate.
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 .
Educational level: 2. How long have you worked in this Organisation? 5. More than 10%. Between 3% and 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 those working for 3 years of more. What is your last annual increment? Less than 3%.For the next 20 items. Age: ____Years____Months 3. What is your Level in the Organisation? Non-Executive/ Lower Mgmt/Middle Mgmt/ Senior Mgmt 7. 189 . How long have you worked in your current job? 6. have you been promoted? Yes/No Yes/No 9. Gender (please circle) Male/Female ____Years____Months ____Years ___ Months Primary School / High School / College / University 4. Are you confirm in your job within the normal time frame? 8. Between 7% to 10%.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.