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.
DEDICATION I dedicated this work to my beloved Mother. May God bless her with good health and happiness. iii . Madam Yew Hor. who always gives her undivided love and care to her 11 children.
...7.... Uniqueness of the CASES Personality Measure ......5...........3....................2..... I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................1..................................................... 2................. 46 Definition of Behavior ........................5..7..................1....3.8...........2 1............................4................................... 1..II DEDICATION .......4....... THE ROLE OF PSYCHOMETRIC TESTS............................8.........................1......................................... CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION ..............................................1.......................... 37 2...... 27 Behaviorist/Cognitive and Social Cognitive Theories.2........56 The Second Premise: The Accuracy of Predicting Behavior Depends on Complexity ........................ 68 2....2......................................................... 66 Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure ....4................3...... 1.......16 What is Personality? .........................1.........................1.............. 2..... 23 Humanistic Theories .............................6 1...3........15 2................... iv .......................................16 2........1...........1...... 2.................13 1. 2............................... 2............3.................. IX 1.................................1 1....... 2............ 25 Traits Theories ...5............4..............4...................1..... 12 Measurement............2.................... RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................2...........3.......................................................... 1.....2................... 50 The Constructs of this Proposed Model...................7.........................14 1................................... CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW ............. 2...........................47 2........................2............................... 2.............41 2........................... 2..6........................ Research Philosophy...........................................0.62 2..........................11 1...................8.......................................2........59 2.................. 2......... 2....................................................... 2........................ SHORTCOMINGS OF FFM AND MBTI MEASURES ........ 34 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator............3.................................2...................... INTRODUCTION ..................................... 20 Psychodynamic Theories ................ 47 Factors Influencing Behavior...................................5.............. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES ................................................ 56 The First Premise: Behavior is Motivated by Needs .................................................................................................. ANALYSES ... 2........................4..............................................33 2....................................................... 2... 12 Sampling and Sample Size .............3........... 42 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator............................ TYPES OF PERSONALITY MEASURES ......2.......................................................................4......................................6....................... THE THEORIES AND CONSTRUCTS OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE ............................. 61 Prediction of Performance by the FFM Personality Measure................................ 48 Current Theories of Work Motivation ................................. 29 2........6.......... PERSONALITY AND WORK PERFORMANCE ......................................................3................................................0................................................................. Five Factor Model....................................................................2.........7..................... 11 Survey Instrument.............. 2.....2.....................4....................................32 2.... 19 The Objective of Psychometric Instruments.... The Five Factor Model ..............................................1.......7.............3........................................6........................................ LIMITATIONS ........................ 1........................... WHY DOES PERSONALITY MATTER TO ORGANISATIONS? ........ THEORIES ON PERSONALITY ............... ETHICS ..........................................2............ THE PREDICTIVE POWER OF FFM/MBTI ON PERFORMANCE....1..........................................................................3......................................42 2..............1............................................................7........................4..............TABLE OF CONTENT STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP ..7.. 11 Research Design .......21 2...... 2............................ 17 How Stable are Personality Traits?............................................7......................... III ABSTRACT..... 13 1.........1...........2............................
...............................3......5.....4........................ 92 Central Tendency and Dispersion................. RESULTS FROM PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS.................................................................................... 89 Selection of Sample and Sample Size...............................1.......................0...................................... 3............................. Implementation ............................................ Selection of Survey Layout........4......... 71 3........................99 3................................ RESEARCH PARADIGMS ...1..................5..................2... 4......................5........7...................................... 94 3.... CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.8.............................2......2..... 79 Study Setting...0...........................92 Validity........................................3....92 Reliability . 3.....3.............................. LIMITATIONS ..................................... 3.................... 3.......4........................................................................4................. 77 Researcher’s Interference ...................4..........9................................................................5.................................5. 75 Type of Investigation .................................................... 3.........................84 Self Report..3.94 Cost and Time Estimates ... 3................1.....................................2.....98 3.........3........................................................................ 3....................6...................................................... 82 Selection of Measurement Techniques .....72 3.........3.........75 3.... 3................................................................ 3........................................4.......................6............... 3........... 3...........................74 3.5...................5.....................4..........4............ 3.............................................5.5....5........................3.....4....2..........3..5................... 3..8..............1.................6........ 3.............................................................. 2..... 3........ Principal Components Analysis of the FFM Personality Measure . RESULTS FROM TESTING OF THE HYPOTHESES ..........................................................5.........................................93 Hypothesis Testing ...5...........5........2........ 109 The Relationship between the FFM Dimensions and the CASES Dimensions111 4.................................72 3....................................................................................................................1.....................................5.......... 3.........................8............. 4...... INTRODUCTION ......4...........5............2..5........................................ 3...........97 Categorising..2....5....................84 Key Variables ..2..98 3....................................................................102 4.......... 99 Self Rating ...................................5..................1............................................5........... 107 Principal Components Analysis of RBPS Performance Measure.......................... 3........................ 3.................. CHAPTER FOUR – DATA ANALYSIS ..... Response Distortions ...................................102 4....................................82 3................................. DEMOGRAPHICS .........72 3..3..........................................8....... 80 Time Horizons .... 81 Selection of Survey Method ................................. 99 Personality Scales ............................103 4......2....... The Relationships between FFM and CASES .........................................5.................................4..............................................................................97 3............2........................................... 3.......... 100 Work Performance...................................................8.................................................................6..................................5..............................................2..................................2.....5..............2.................2...................................... 3..................2..........5.......5...................... 99 Stability of Work Performance .......................................... 69 Hypotheses...........96 Data Entry ............. 84 Personality and Work Performance Measures..2.2.. 3......6.8........................................................... 3..............................5.92 Principal Components Analysis. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .... 103 Principal Components Analysis of the CASES Personality Measure........4..............................................................6.............................................. 81 Unit of Analysis .............5........102 4...............114 v ............................................ ETHICAL CONSIDERATION ....... 3.............84 Scales.........1..... 90 Selection of analytical approach .....................4.......................... INTRODUCTION ..................................... SURVEY RESEARCH ............................................8................................. 77 Research Method ................................................. RESEARCH DESIGN .......5..........86 3. 101 3.......... 3.1........... 3...........1..............4..8.......... 4............................................94 Data Collection.................................4....................................6.................................5................. RESEARCH PLAN .................... 3..................................................................................7........... Purpose of the Study ...2...........3........4............................... CONCLUSION ..........101 4....................
.............................6.............. 138 Main Findings for Research Question Two ..............................152 5...........................................3.................................3..........3.131 FFM and CASES Predicting the Organisation Component of the RBPS................... Prediction of Performance by the FFM Personality Measure... 4...........0................................................. CONCLUSION ................2..........................138 5..3......................3....5.....3.................5...........................................3...................3......3..4.............3...........................................3.153 5............................... 128 FFM and CASES predicting the Job Component of the RBPS ..........2.... 120 FFM and CASES predicting performance.............3.......3..... CONCLUSION ... 4..........3...............................1.................................. LIMITATIONS . CHAPTER FIVE – CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .128 FFM and CASES Predicting the Career Component of the RBPS................. 5........................................... 5..........3....3.....1. 5..........1.......................... 4...3.......4.......... INTRODUCTION ....................................................................154 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES .......4..2................149 5..................6.................................................... 149 Implications on Theory......................................138 5.... 151 5............... FUTURE RESEARCH ................1............................... DISCUSSION OF THE MAIN FINDINGS ...............................3........ 4..........129 FFM and CASES Predicting the Innovator Component of RBPS................. 5................3......130 FFM and CASES Predicting the Team Component of the RBPS ........... Main Findings for Research Question One.......... 4......132 FFM and CASES Predicting Total RBPS Performance ............ IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS ......3.........182 APPENDIX TWO – CONSENT SEEKING LETTER TO COMPANY .2....................138 5................................................ 147 Implications on Professional Practice.......... 143 Main Findings for Research Question Three .............184 APPENDIX THREE – QUESTIONNAIRE ...186 vi ...2.....................2......3.2...... 4. 4..................................... 4..................2....................135 5...................................4.......................1...............................133 4..................158 APPENDIX ONE – INFORMATION SHEET ............. 114 Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure ......
................4 Table 2: Six of the Most Commonly Used Personality Instruments (Dent and Curd............................117 Table 20: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM.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 ...............................................................83 Table 7: Role-Based Performance Scale’s Items (Wilbourne et al.........................113 Table 17: Correlations of the Components of FFM and RBPS ...................... 2000) ................................................................118 vii ........................... 1998) .......................................................70 Table 5: Four Categories of Non-experimental Techniques (Grace................................................................................................................................................................................. 1999).....107 Table 14: Items of CASES after Principal Components Analysis.........................95 Table 9: Total Time Estimated for the Survey (developed for this research)......40 Table 4: The Possible Associations of Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM with Complexity and Self-Actualisation of the CASES .................. 2004) ........................................................................109 Table 15: Rotated Component Matrix of RBPS ............................................106 Table 13: Rotated Component Matrix of CASES.........................6 Table 3: The 16 Personality Types with Cognitive Characteristics and Occupational Tendencies ..............115 Table 18: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM ........................................................................................104 Table 12: Items of FFM after Principal Components Analysis .117 Table 21: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on FFM ............................. 1999)...........................................88 Table 8: The Breakdown of Companies to be Surveyed Based on Industry (developed for this study) .......................................................96 Table 11: Rotated Component Matrix of FFM ..................................................78 Table 6: Merits of the Four Survey Methods (Grace.......................................................96 Table 10: Breakdown of Costs on Survey (developed for this research) ......110 Table 16: Correlations between the Components of FFM and CASES........
..........Table 22: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on FFM.............................................................................................131 Table 34: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of the RBPS on FFM and CASES ......................................................................................134 viii ..................119 Table 23: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on FFM .............................................................................124 Table 27: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on CASES .............................119 Table 24: Correlations of the Components of CASES and RBPS.....129 Table 32: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on the FFM and CASES ..............124 Table 28: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on CASES ........................................127 Table 31: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES .130 Table 33: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES ..........................................................................................................................................................................................122 Table 25: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on CASES .................132 Table 35: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES .................................................................................................................................133 Table 36: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on FFM and CASES ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................126 Table 30: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on CASES.......................................................123 Table 26: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on CASES ........................................................................125 Table 29: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on CASES ........................................................................................................................................
limitations and possible areas for future research are discussed. the more recent studies have focused on demonstrating the incremental gain in predicting work performance that can be attained using personality as a predictor. Both of the personality measures support existing literature which claims that personality can predict work performance with several dimensions of the new personality measure predicting work performance over and above the FFM. Prior to the 1990s. this new personality measure can be offered as a useful instrument for both practitioners and researchers. The results confirmed relationships between the dimensions of the new personality measure (i. CASES) and the FFM. 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.. However. recent studies using fundamental dimensions of personality have shown the predictive power of personality for work performance. Practical and theoretical implications.e. The study explores the predictive utility of a personality measure that is based on the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the social cognitive theory of “If-Then” and the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality with regards to a multidimensional measure of work performance. Besides providing a theory-grounded measurement tool which contributes to research on personality measures and the prediction of work-related performance. Hence. ix . personality provides insight on how well a person will perform a given task.ABSTRACT “Does personality predict work performance” is a question that many researchers have addressed over the past few decades. personnel selection specialists generally did not use personality testing in employee selection due to the perception it has low validity.
Nevertheless. CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION Companies spend large amounts of money. 2000). all of these have one thing in common. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Social Cognitive Theory) rather than on a single theory. which is a wellestablished personality measure. The validity of the current measures of personality is questionable given that each of them is based on a single-theory of personality.0.. Furthermore. the incremental criterion utility of the new measure over the Five-Factor Model of personality. The first objective of this study therefore is to develop a new measure of personality based on two theories (i. many organisations pay only lip service to the adage that “people are our greatest asset” (Yancey and Austin. 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. For the top companies in the world. 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. Empowerment. and Relationship Management. 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. Learning Organisation.e. Employees are indisputably the most essential resource in any organisation and are the key to attaining and maintaining competitive advantage. Basically. people. time and energy to improve their business performance by adopting different management philosophies and initiatives such as SixSigma. Investors in People. will be examined.1. The third chapter of this dissertation outlines the research methodology and design of the study that will be 1 .
The conclusion on the various findings. they are not a panacea for selecting the best candidates (Dent and Curd. taking into account all expenditure. Although personality tests rank higher than other employment tests such as job-knowledge tests. work-samples. employment checks and job probation in the recruitment and selection process. recruitment and development processes as they are able to explore a broad range of personality characteristics that are relevant to the workplace. 1995). Personality tests are popularly used by organisations as part of selection. 2004). 1. the more effective we can manage. resume. Hence. it takes only a modest improvement in selecting.000 to recruit one executive or middle manager in United States of America (Melamed and Jackson. Personality tests only provide an additional tool for recruitment and are not replacements for interviews.1. cognitive ability test.used. references. The fourth chapter contains the analyses of the survey data. Table 1 provides a list of various sources of information that are used to predict work performance. Moreover. implications and limitations of this study are presented in the fifth chapter of this dissertation. encourage and harness them. Personality tests with no right or wrong answers attempt to measure how little or how much a candidate possesses a specific personality 2 . and honest/integrity tests. it is estimated to cost an average of US$15. THE ROLE OF PSYCHOMETRIC TESTS The more we know the people we employ. matching and recruiting people to jobs to reduce the possible financial losses incurred by recruiting employees who are incompatible with the organisation.
The purpose of conducting personality tests is to gather information and highlight issues for further exploration at interviews. 2001). 2001). personality tests can assist individuals to understand the significant aspects of their personality and behavior in a wide variety of work and social situations.characteristic relevant to the needs of the organisation. 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 . work performance and careers. their significant others and their related job-relevance. By understanding their behavior. Personality tests have been in the market for more than 50 years and their popularity has increased significantly in recent years. Psychometric assessment is big business in the 21st century as approximately 2.000 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. 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. As part of a development process in organisations.
develop. For example. The most commonly used personality instruments are shown in Table 2 but they are not necessarily valid or useful. 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 . Test Name Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Description Probably the most popular and wellresearched personality instrument used in business today. and retain critical personnel has fuelled the desire for more information on current employees as well as potential recruits. 2000) The increasing pressure on organisations to identify. 1993). 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.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. 2004). From their traditional use as a tool for selection and recruitment. career guidance and training needs analysis (Dent and Curd. management development programmes.
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. 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 . which was developed by Elias Porter in the 1960s. the feedback from which defines a person’s perception of his/her behaviors at work. Developed by Raymond B.. and Feelings and emotions • • • • • • • • • • • The Belbin Team Role SelfPerception Inventory Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship OrientationBehavior (FIROB) One of the few UK instruments on the market. the dimensions measured fall into three categories: • • • Relationships with people Thinking style. In particular. 2004) Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) This questionnaire measures an individual’s personality against 16 different personality dimensions. it helps individuals to understand the various facets that determine their personality. Another of the best-researched and most widely used tools available today. 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. Developed by Meredith Belbin to help team members identify their preferred roles in teams This inventory looks at a person’s interpersonal style and how he/she relates towards others in three specific areas: • • • Inclusion-which is the need to be part of a social group Control-which is the need for control or influence over others. Cattell.Test Name Description • • How you make decisions. Designed by Saville and Holdsworth to provide information on personality characteristics.
Jung. 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. Individuals display consistent patterns of behavior. thought. which are biological in nature and based on the premise of the unfolding of stages where the particular behaviors occur. 1937). and emotion that are relatively stable and which form the basic conception of personality (Allport. 2003). and Rotter. ii) The traits perspectives of Allport. which assume there are dispositional factors that determine behavior in various situations. and Eysenck. 6 . Cattell. 1997): i) The psychoanalytic perspectives of Freud. iii) The cognitive perspectives of Pavlov.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.2. Skinner. PERSONALITY AND WORK PERFORMANCE The fundamental objective of personality psychology is to understand how personality can be used to predict behavior (Mayer. and Adler. 2004) 1.
and v) The social behavioristic or interaction perspectives of Bandura and Mischel. and McCelland. In other words. which is based on 7 . 2003. 1990. McCrae and Costa. 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. the social or interaction perspective excludes the growth stages. which assume most behavior is learned and purposive and that people are guided by motives to achieve certain goals. Rossier. 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. 1996. rather than innate as people’s interactions and experiences continually influence each other. Human behavior is a multifaceted phenomenon and any theory attempting to explain normal human behavior must reflect its multidimensionality (Leonard. de Stadelhofen and Berhoud. These traditional models of personality cannot explain the diversity of behavior as human behavior cannot be explained by a single perspective. De Raad. Paunonen. which postulate the presence of an innate need for growth which moves individuals towards achieving their potentialities given the right environmental conditions. Although the FFM. Unlike the psychoanalytic and existential perspectives. 1977a. 1998. Paunonen and Ashton. 2004). Maslow. behavior arises as a result of a complex interaction between environmental influences and inner processes (Bandura. 2001. 1999. Beauvais and Scholl. Goldberg. 1999). The psychometric instruments in Table 2 are all based on single theories.iv) The existential or humanistic perspectives of Rogers. 1993. 1977b).
Individual functioning is a continuous interaction between environmental. attempts to explain human behavior according to key motivators. 1977a). the power of the Hierarchy of Needs Theory is its ability to identify a range of needs. including growth needs. which may be classified as deficit or homeostatic theories of motivation. is able to describe consistent features of the behavior of an individual it does not address the key drivers or motives of behavior (Fletcher. 2003). Social cognitive theory takes into consideration environmental and internal forces that shape behavior (Bandura.personality traits. Unlike most need theories. 1993). 1999. 1997). which is based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and social cognitive theories. and cognitive factors (Fedor and Ferris. the Hierarchy of Needs Theory by Maslow advocates the dynamic processes of need satisfaction. 8 . Maslow posited that needs act as motivators (Arnold. The personality measure proposed in this dissertation. which motivate behavior (Wiley. or has to (Nikolaou. likes to. Chung. Motives are only one of the determinants of behavior as behavior is also determined by other factors that are biologically. 1969). 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. Interest in the motivation that drives behavior rekindled in the 1990s. 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. Hence. ultimately leading to self-actualisation (Osteraker. behavioral. culturally and situationally determined (Fletcher. 1993). 1988). 1981).
this question has received considerable attention in the literature (Barrick. “inventory” level instead of the construct level.. 2002. iii) Safety. 2002. Stewart and Piotrowski. 2003. ii) Actualisation.. 2003.. 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. however. Barrick et al. 2003). which explains the variability of an individual’s behavior in different situations. Does personality predict work performance? Although there are many factors besides personality that affect work performance. iv) Ego. This. Personality traits can be conceptually and empirically related without being redundant (Judge et al. One of the reasons for this low validity is that many studies focused mainly on personality traits at the molecular. Recent investigations using higher order personality constructs. is based on the social cognitive theory of “IfThen”. Complexity. 2000. Salgado. Nikolaou. personnel selection specialists generally did not use personality testing in employee selection due to its low validity. 2003). Kieffer. have demonstrated that certain aspects of personality are useful predictors of work performance. 2004). does not 9 . such as those of the FFM. The first dimension. There are good reasons to believe that some dimensions of the CASES measure will be related to some dimensions of the FFM. Nikolaou. Prior to the 1990s. 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.The new personality measure proposed in this dissertation is termed CASES because it comprises five dimensions: i) Complexity. and v) Social. Schinka and Curtiss.
H1: The FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. 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 2: Does the CASES measure predict work performance? The second research question is addressed by the second hypothesis.necessarily indicate that some of the dimensions of the CASES measure are the same as some of the FFM dimensions. The following research questions and hypotheses underlie the current research: Research Question 1: Does the FFM predict work performance? The first research question is addressed by the first hypothesis. H2: The CASES measure will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. 10 . H3: The FFM and CASES will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance. Research Question 3: What is the relationship between the FFM and CASES measures? The third research question is addressed by the third hypothesis.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 1.1. 2001). and Swartz. The investigation is a correlational study as the main interest is to examine the associations between dimensions of personality and work performance. 1. This quantitative research method adopts a non-experimental technique of survey research whereby information about the variables is collected from a large number of cases to address the research questions. Remenyi. Research Philosophy The study uses the positivistic paradigm with the hypothetico-deductive approach as it seeks to explain the relationship between personality. 11 . Research Design This study uses hypothesis testing as there is information available on the variables involved to enable hypothesis formulation. 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. hypotheses can be empirically substantiated which is essential for such psychometric tests (Cavana. need-induced behaviors and performance.1. 1997. this survey method is efficient and practical (Saunders. Delahaye and Sekaran. Williams. Furthermore.3. 1998). Money.3.3. Lewis and Thornhill. The study setting is a non-contrived setting. Furthermore.2.
4. 2003. Furthermore. Salgado.3.. perceptions and attitudes (Lindell and Whitney. 2001). 1999). 2004. 1. 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. specifically their perceptions of their own behavior. Survey Instrument Data will be collected via a mail survey. 1.2002). the new personality measure. The unit of analysis is the individual. 12 . CASES.3. mail surveys are the most commonly used survey method in studies of personality (Kieffer et al.3. The FFM (Goldberg. and the work performance measure of Welbourne. Measurement Five-point Likert scales will be used for all of the items related to personality and performance. Johnson and Erez (1998) will be used for this research. 2003). Although mail surveys tend to yield a relatively low response rate. they allow the targeting of specific respondents in various organisations and are cost effective. Nikolaou.
e. and years in current job)..1. known to the researcher. ANALYSES Data analyses will be conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 13. The respondents will be given a week to answer the questionnaire at a place of their choice and return the questionnaire in the self-addressed stamped envelope..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. 1978). 2001). The minimum targeted number of respondents is 500 as the personality measures have 50 items each (minimum of 10:1 subject to items ratio. Confirmatory factor 13 . 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.3. will be invited to participate in this research. 1. Descriptive statistics will be computed for all of the demographic variables (i. age. as recommended by Nunnally. gender. The questionnaire uses the Likert scale to collect interval-scaled data for each of the variables involved in the hypotheses. which ensures the anonymity and confidentiality of responses. years of working. A total of 40 commercial organisations of various sizes and from various industries. level of education.5.
Cronbach’s alpha is an internal reliability coefficient that shows how well the items belonging to a set are correlated to one another..5. 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.7 is considered adequate for initial investigations (Nunnally. Cronbach’s alpha will be calculated for each subscale to test its internal reliability. 1. Anonymity and confidentiality are ensured as the questionnaires have no personal identifiers and only the researchers will have access to the completed questionnaires and data files. An alpha coefficient of 0.analysis is a method for assessing construct validity and will be used to test the structures of the personality and performance measures (Schwab.5 to 0. 14 . Finally. 2001). 1980. 1978). Cavana et al. Furthermore. ETHICS It is stated explicitly in the information sheet that is provided to all potential participants that participation is voluntary and that participants can withdraw at anytime during the research without any obligation or disadvantage. Multiple linear regression analyses will be used to test the hypotheses. stamped and self-addressed envelopes will be provided to the respondents.
different types of jobs (e. 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). LIMITATIONS The research relies on self-report data that can be affected by response distortion (Barrick and Mount. motivation level and role clarity may influence self-reported performance ratings (Kieffer et al. organisational hygiene. the stability of work performance as a construct may not be totally valid (Thoresen et al. Furthermore.. or different countries. Finally. 15 . 2004) as job satisfaction. the effect of leniency associated with selfassessment could raise concerns about the legitimacy of the data collected.. cognitive ability. Additionally. 1996).g.. Hogan and Roberts.6. blue-collar and clerical employees). as this study uses a convenience sampling.1.
000 million tests administrated yearly and 700 of the Times Top 1.2. However. which are normally based on a single theory.1. With some 2. and appraisals. are not able to explain the diversity of behavior. Many organisations use psychometric testing as part of their recruitment and development processes to select candidates who will excel in their jobs. CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW 2. 1999). 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.000 companies in United States of America using such instruments. management development programmes. These tests.. training needs analysis. 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. psychometric assessment will be a major business sector in the 21st century (Coull and Eary. INTRODUCTION Psychometric tests have been used by organisations as part of their development and recruitment processes. the debate on the reliability and 16 . 2001).0. 2004). develop and retain key employees has increased the interest of managers for more information on current employees and potential recruits alike. The increasing pressure on organisations to select/recruit. as human behavior cannot be fully covered by any one single theory (Leonard et al. Although such instruments are traditionally used as a tool in the selection and recruitment processes.
using well-proven instruments do not confer automatic validity on their application in an organisation. 1993). who assumed the presence of “neuropsychic” structures (i.1. 2. beliefs. The continuing debate may be due to the fact that although some instruments may be found to be valid predictors of work performance. p. p. for example. It is most often described in terms of measurable traits that a person 17 . it does not mean that all such instruments are. traits. values. 92) takes personality as “the sum total of ways in which an individual reacts to and interacts with others. Hence. 2000. which are the building blocks of personality (Marsella et al. when using psychometric instruments. What is Personality? Personality can be broadly defined as the durable characteristics of an individual.1. 1992). Robbins (2001. 45). Also. The concept of personality can be traced to the work of Allport. “caveat emptor” should still be applied. dispositions and needs (Gelso and Fassinger. traits). p. selects and processes information and generates social behaviors (Mischel and Shoda.e. George and Jones (2002. thinks and behaves”. 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.. 43) defined personality as “the pattern of relatively enduring ways in which a person feels.validity of such instruments and the value of such concepts such as personality traits continues in the academic literature (Fletcher. 1995). Personality is conceptualised as a stable system which influences how an individual construes. attitudes..
Personality is too vast a field and differentiated for a single approach. Hence. The four structural divisions of personality which are repeatedly used to classify traits are: (a) Freud (1960)’s structural 18 . extraverted. 2) defined personality in two ways.” Hogan et al. introverted. (ii) individual behavior is relatively stable over time. 2001). Personality can also be defined as an organised and dynamic set of characteristics of a person that influence cognitions. 1999).exhibits. This aspect is called individual differences whereby we categorise people as neurotic. motivations and behaviors (Lau and Shaffer. 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. and (iii) individual behavior is consistent across situations (Pervin. p. we are trying to explain the differences of that person from others. For example. personality is explained based on overall motivation rather than the understanding of neural pathways of motives (Mayer. and so on. (1996. when describing someone’s personality. Hence. 1975). most personality researchers divide personality into different areas or divisions and try to explain how each area works individually and with others. 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.
2. Pervin. 1993. (2002) posited that the transition during adulthood is often marked by substantial affective and personality changes caused by environmental changes. 2001). that appear to contradict each other (Cervone.2. (2001) revealed that on average.division of id. genes do not influence behavior directly but instead influence physiological structures (Brody. Yet. 1980). 1937). 1997). (1998) revealed that some 20%-50% of variation in the dimensions is attributable to genetic sources. 2001. Emotions and actions shift in response to the environment. (c) the five factor model (Goldberg. 2004). 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. Costa and McCrae (1995) posited that personality is heritable and highly stable over time while Jang et al. and (d) the systems set (Mayer. behavior and thought that are relatively consistent to form the basis of the conception of personality (Allport. Vaidya et al. 2003. These 19 . They display unique patterns of emotions. 1985). 40% of the phenotypic variance of given traits is attributed to genetic sources while 60% is accounted for by the environment. (b) the trilogy of mind (Hilgard.1. The more developed approaches use traits in the personality structure. change and consistency. The contents of consciousness change rapidly. However. ego and superego. How Stable are Personality Traits? Psychological experience is made up of two features. Costa and McCrae. individuals are significantly consistent across time and place.
independence from protective shelter and parental control. 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. Human behavior is 20 . that is. could account for much of the psychological change that occurs during early adulthood. Beauvais and Scholl. There is a growing realisation that traditional models of personality do not explain the diversity of behavior found in organisational settings. 1996). Human behavior is difficult to describe with such precision since it has a large number of causes. the measurements are temporally stable and credible evidence linking the measure to meaningful non-test behavior (Hogan et al. 2004).3. Cropanzano and Meyer. which conform to statistical theories to explain these complexities rather than on behavioral realities (Wolfe. Nevertheless. however..1. most organisational and personality researchers agree that individual behavior involves both variable and stable aspects but there still remains disagreement regarding this quantum (Wright. stimulation for the intellect as well as new outlets for emotions. such as a strong peer culture. Many theories of personality rely excessively on behavioral models. 1994). as human behavior cannot be explained by any one factor (Leonard. should have at least two features. 2. 1998). A good personality measure.environmental changes. 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. 1999).
clearly a multivariate phenomenon and a theory trying to explain normal human behavior must reflect this multidimensionality. Behavior is like the weather. 1992). it changes gradually. 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. 2004a). Tett and Burnett. Hunton and Bryant. It will be useful for people to know their personalities so that they can take advantage of the positive aspects of their personalities or steps to mitigate potential problems arising from any undesirable aspects. the cognitive and the social cognitive approaches were developed (Gelso and Fassinger. Psychoanalytical approaches were the first theories followed in the early part of last century by behavioral approaches. In the mid 1950s. the typological and trait-factor theories. and behavioral doctrines were particularly influential in the past but social-cognitive and trait theories predominate today. 1996. Sackett. Hence. et al. What people do—their behavior—is a function of their personalities. the stable components affect our lives. 2. Behavior is used to interpret and evaluate people’s personalities. 2000). Wheeler. the humanistic approaches of the 1950s and almost at the same time. If personality does change. These personality theories 21 . THEORIES ON PERSONALITY The history of personality psychology has been dominated by several theoretical paradigms (Cervone. 2003). which could affect their work performance and careers (Hogan..2. changing from context to context and from moment to moment but personality is consistent and stable over time. 1998. humanistic. 2003. Gruys and Ellingson. Psychoanalytical.
behavioral. In essence. attitudes and intelligence. Levin. they adopt different units of analysis for conceptualising and explaining intraindividual coherence and individual differences in personality functioning (Allport. 1997). jealous and anxious as dispositions (Saucier. Allport differentiated descriptors of social evaluation and temporary states from those traits descriptors which were considered to be more personality relevant.differ from each other in fundamental ways as they have different categories of personality variables. 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. The various historical. This emphasis on the individual is dominant in the psychodynamic. some German personality descriptors contained abilities and temperament terms while others such as Goldberg uses attitude and mood terms like conservative. humanistic and trait approaches (Marsella et al. 22 . 1939). the various “grand theories” of Allport. Cattell. Nevertheless. Other researchers cast wider nets. and Murray all emphasised the coherence and consistency of normal personality and perceived the individual organism as a complex but organised structure. Murphy.. 2000). Eysenck emphasised biologically-based disposition variables but excluded abilities. for example. Personality psychologists have to address a wide range of phenomena and it could be impossible to identify an overarching mission in this field.
They explained personality in terms of mental mechanisms and drives that seek satisfaction within the boundaries of reality (Cervone. The ego does the systematic trial and error thinking and seeks to ensure the survival of the individual. Psychodynamic Theories Psychodynamic psychologists (e. described as a boiling and bubbling cauldron of aggressive and animal-like urges. Jung. This set represents the struggles among bodily desires. The conscious level deals with that part of our awareness which is in touch with the reality of our life. We select and respond to the stimuli that we perceive can satisfy our personal goals. two mental processes take place. Freud. It explains our mental activity in which all thought processes occur.1. 1987).2. 2000). Ego is the conscious part and is responsible for the individual’s behavior and understanding of the outside world. the animalistic part of personality. pre-conscious and unconscious.2. These stimuli are subsequently stored as information in the pre-conscious level and they become our experiences. Another takes in the stimuli. processes them and sees many different ways of responding to them.g. we have three levels of consciousness: conscious. 2001).. the ego and the superego. One takes in the stimuli using our five senses. When we select the stimuli. rational understanding or expectations. were more concerned with the interplay of conscious awareness and unconsciousness to explain personality (Coan. The pre-conscious level is where information of our past is stored which could be called “available memory”. Adler). According to Freud (1960). The superego is the overseer of the ego which ensures it is morality and strives for ideals (Mayer. Id. Freud’s structural set is the id. When we 23 . 2003). and social ideals (Mayer.
which are neurologically represented by the physical needs in the life and death instincts. The unconscious is believed to be the source of our motivations such as desires for sex or food and neurotic compulsions or ambitions. Hence. It is this dynamic and active 24 . 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. One is to act on the stimuli using our feelings by retrieving the information from our past experiences at the preconscious level. The psychodynamic psychologists believe that behavior is a function of psychological processes operating within these three levels of consciousness.respond and act on the stimuli two mental activities take place. they do not have a choice. Freud discovered the unconscious level as a source of motivation and a way of hiding thoughts and desires from awareness (Gabriel and Carr. they have many choices of responding to it. the distress and miseries in modern life (e. 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. when they use their thinking (mental faculty). when people act on a particular situation using their feelings. and crimes) are due to the repression of pain or instinct by the superego contents.g. The other is to use our thinking (intellect) at the conscious level to process the stimuli and see alternative responses to them. mental illness. 2002). Generally. They explain personality in terms of the mental drive mechanisms that try to satisfy the drives within the boundaries of reality (Cervone. Apparently. child abuse. 2000). Freud posits that all human behavior is motivated by instincts or drives.. Alternatively.
to its fullest extent (Mele.2.. becoming and being a better person or developing the human virtue. Humanistic Theories Humanistic psychologists (e. 2002). 2003). The Mayo-Hawthorne studies demonstrated that the hourly paid employee was motivated by other needs besides economic rewards (Gallagher and Einhorn. Although Mayo may be considered the pioneer of the “humanistic” approach. 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. Humanistic psychologists emphasise learning from one’s subjective past experiences to develop and actualise one’s potentials. 1998). 80). Self-actualisation can be defined as the process of learning. David McClelland) view existence as a process of learning. Carl Rogers.view of the unconscious which is the heart of the field of psychology known as psychoanalysis (Gabriel and Carr.2. becoming and being a perfect person (Franken. Mayo’s work paved the path for more humanistic theories. For Maslow. 2. he must be” (Mele. Given reasonable and conducive life conditions. 2003. growing. growing. 1976). 1976).g. They believe that people are responsible for their life. self-actualisation is achieving “what a man can be. Mayo showed that an employee’s psychological and social desires play an important role in production efficiency based on social aspects of human behavior. Abraham Maslow. 25 . The joy of living is to prepare oneself for experiencing and progressing towards higher levels of functioning. in all forms. they assume that people will be positively motivated to actualise their potential. apparently unchanging and instinctual or genetic in origin (Kaufman. p.
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
They use classical and operant conditioning to understand animal and human behavior. 2003).4. Behaviorist/Cognitive and Social Cognitive Theories Stimulus-Response or Behavioral Theorists posit that behavior is a function of our past experiences. This finding has been used to support critics who claim that personality traits are unimportant (Buss.the inter-relationships of the traits and that the “whole personality” is different from the sum of these individual traits (Lombardo and Foschi. 29 . 2002).4. Using traits to predict behavior in the past has yielded mixed results partly because of methodological problems. mobility of nervous processes. Generally. 1989). 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. 2. Based on the deductions from their experiments. correlations between laboratory behavior and personality traits tend to be modest. 2003). and balance.2. 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. strength of excitation. 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. One of the problems of the trait theories is that personality is not able to explain all variation in behavior as the environment does have a significant effect on behavior (Sanders. often not exceeding 0. 2000).
This set of personal standards is unique in each person and grows out of one’s life experiences (Andersen and Chen. Integrating the behavioral and cognitive perspectives with respect to motivation produces the social cognitive theory (Bandura.This typology has a strong influence on personality psychology (Lombardo and Foschi. 1977a). Cognitive psychologists view behavior as a function of cognition. conscious deliberation and perception) which mediate between stimuli and responses. 2002. Radical behaviorists such as Skinner and Watson ruled out emotional. Moreover. Bauer and McAdams. psychological explanatory mechanisms such as memory. 2002). The old axiom of StimulusResponse Theory that pleasure begets pleasure and pain begets pain becomes unresolved and mooted. 2004). Bargh and Ferguson. cognitive and 30 . expectations and goals to guide and direct their behavior. They assert that people organise their values. 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. learning and experiences. We learn that both pleasurable and painful experiences can lead to positive and negative outcomes. We learn from our experiences. We begin to use our intellect to process the stimuli and anticipate the outcomes of our behavior before we respond to pains and pleasures. individual functioning is considered as a continuous interaction among behavioral. Behaviorists denied the existence of the complex higher-order factors (e. which does not overly emphasise either environmental or internal forces when explaining behavior. 2000..g. the intraindividual. 2000).
Over the past few decades. selfregulatory and goals mechanisms. and (iii) personality variables (Cervone. social cognitive theorists postulate that the intuitive and perceived sense of coherence and consistency in personality/self/character can arise from three sources: a. 2000). 31 . The three overarching principles of the social cognitive approach are. how people assign meanings to social information. Furthermore. expectation and aspirations (Marsella et al. how people organise disparate and multiple experiences and life events within a larger cognitive framework of goals. 1981). 2004). and cognitive constructs used to give meaning to events) possesses a spectrum of possible inputs. self-reflective capabilities.. social cognitive psychologists have been developing theories in an attempt to explain the complexities by careful observation of the human behaviors with the environment and their relations. (ii) reciprocal interactionism. 2000). (i) personality is a complex system.. and c. which cause some inputs to become particularly salient to an individual or are grouped with other inputs into an equivalent class and are domain-specific (Cervone.environmental factors (Fedor and Ferris. b. They posit that each of the mechanisms (e.g. how people establish causal linkage over their lives through self-reflective and selfknowledge processes. These mechanisms are contextualised by these social-learning processes.
personality measures can predict work performance quite accurately and a given trait value is situational specific (Tett and Burnett. Another study by Judge. knowledge of the 32 . 2003). a more beneficial strategy for an organisation is to select relatively more conscientious and less extroverted employees to reduce absenteeism and improve productivity. “Getting Along” and “Getting Ahead”. the selection/recruitment systems would be more beneficial and can provide practitioners greater advantage in utilising trait information in work settings. interest. Hogan and Holland (2003) found that the measures of Emotional Stability. As these traits are considerably stable and probably genetic in origin. 2000). In a Thinking and Judging consulting world. WHY DOES PERSONALITY MATTER TO ORGANISATIONS? For several decades prior to the 1990s. opportunities and health are also important determinants. Martocchio and Thoresen (1997) revealed that conscientious and introverted employees are less likely to play truant or to be absent.2. are more potent predictors of occupational performance although other factors such as values. 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. mental ability. Nevertheless. By paying attention to the psychological processes where traits can be expressed in work performance. 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.3. Meta-analyses have consistently and repeatedly shown that under specific conditions.
the presence of some Thinking types may provide some structure to decision-making in a group of all Feeling types. Hunton and Bryant (2004a) found homogeneity of personality types that are attracted and retained in accounting firms. Gordon W. 2. a group of Introverts may benefit from the presence of an Extrovert for better communication. 2000). Personality theorists began to focus more on the differences within persons. termed 33 . Allport (Nicholson. McClelland conducted a study of the phenomenon of constructive activity beyond the physiological or survival requirements and classified the traits as “need for achievement”.personality types of the clients could be used to enhance communication. He found that extrinsic rewards such as money are only one form or method of “keeping score” for high achievers. 1988). 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. Similarly. The satisfaction derived from achievement is what stimulates their performance (Arnold. jobs and technologies.4. Groups comprising members with Sensing and Intuition preferences outperformed groups with only Sensing-preference members. 1998) with individuality as its object of study (Pelham. Also. which in turn saves money via the reduction of errors/mistakes and improved morale. Wheeler. 1993). TYPES OF PERSONALITY MEASURES Historians recognise the year 1937 to be the birth of personality psychology by its founder. certain traits correlate with higher performance for certain tasks.
occupational selection.4. career development. There are many approaches to the measurement of personality (see Table 2)) but this discussion will be restricted to the Five Factor Model (FFM) by Tubes and Christal (1961) and McCrae and Costa (1996). which is essentially a smaller set of trait variables derived from the 16-Factor Model of Cattell (1943) (Rossier et al. posits that there are five personality dimensions (i. between subject analyses of personality. Nomothetic is the other term that refers to the classical. The anagram of the FFM is 34 . 2004). Toomela.. 2. 2001. Furthermore. 2003). 2003). and for developing more effective teams (Dent and Curd. 2003).e. Openness to Experience.1. and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) which is based on Jungian theory. No discussion or critique is carried out on the other instruments as there is very little publicly available research on them. 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). The Five Factor Model The Five Factor Model (FFM). 2004.. Conscientiousness.as idiographic. also known as the Big Five. Extraversion. Agreeableness and Neuroticism) which represent the highest levels of a personality hierarchy (Paunonen and Ashton. Kwiatkowski. Allport’s idea of personality is a psychology of the mature and normal personality (Lombardo and Foschi. These psychometric instruments have been selected as they are the most popular instruments used by commercial organisations for personal development.
These factors represent a continuum. e. which is the tendency to be anxious. gentle. represents the tendency to be outgoing. 1998). consists of tendencies to be kind. 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. where people exhibiting a high. Factor 1. Factor 4. imaginative. moderate or low degree of each quality. is indicated by two facets: achievement and dependability.O. types of assessment and cultures (Hogan and Holland.N. Extraversion. Openness to Experience (sometimes labelled as Intellectance). d. (De Raad.E. b.A. a. assertive. languages. trusting. Openness to Experience is the only trait to display appreciable correlations with intelligence. often labelled by its opposite. represents the tendency to be creative. Paunonen (2003) revealed that the construct validity of these 35 . Neuroticism. Consciousness is the trait that best correlates with work performance. Individuals scoring high on Extraversion are strongly predisposed to the experience of positive emotions.C. As defined by Judge and Bono (2000). Agreeableness. Emotional Adjustment is the principal trait that leads to life satisfaction and freedom from depression and other mental ailments. Factor 3. active and excitement seeking. Emotional Adjustment. fearful. trustworthy and warm. c. Factor 2. Factor 5. Conscientiousness. perceptive and thoughtful. depressed and moody. 2003).
The identification of these factors is based on principal components analyses (Burke and Witt. After five decades of research on personality psychology (i. MBTI. Although there is no universal agreement among theorists and researchers on the comprehensiveness of the five dimensions (Tett and Burnett. Ashton et al. Saucier and Goldberg.e. Judge et al. 2001. Hogan and Holland. California Personality Inventory) may be assumed to be part of the FFM (Salgado. 2003. These dimensions are cross-culturally generalisabled (Perugini. 1998. these studies also revealed substantial variation due to non-genetic factors (Toomela. 2002. et al. 2003.. 1997). 2004). Although studies by Jang et al. 2003) and are endogenous and biologically determined (McCrae and Costa. the way one describes oneself and others in everyday life transactions). McCrae. It has reached somewhat of a consensus that the FFM is an appropriate taxonomy of personality (Burke and Witt.inventories is supported by the consistency and strong convergence in their predictions and measurements. Judge and Bono. 1999). Several studies have shown that the well-known instruments for personality assessment (Eysenck Personality Inventory.. 2004). 1996. the FFM seems to dominate not only the theory but also the evaluation of personality (Goldberg. other researchers are of the opinion that virtually all traits of personality are reasonably contained in the factor space of the FFM (e. 1993. 1998. 2000).g. 2004). 2003. Paunonen and Aston. Tsaousis.. Allik and McCrae.. 36 . Gallucci and Livi. Judge. Martocchio and Thoresen.. 2003). 2004. Hogan and Holland. 2004. 1997. Toomela. Hurtz and Donovan. (1998) and Pedersen et al. 1997). 2000. (1988) showed that about 20% to 55% of the trait variation in personality dimensions is linked to genetic sources.
Allick and McCrae (2004) posited that the FFM personality structure is biologically determined and universal. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Jungian theory (Jung. 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. Nevertheless. 2004a). The idiographic. and their preferences for four mental functions (i. explanatory and molecular contextual accounts of personality are still subjects of debate. race. Hunton and Bryant. information processing and the role of the unconscious) (Wheeler. the traits are rooted in biology and transcultural universals. Shelton and Darling (2002) posited the FFM model is applicable to all people regardless of the gender. That is. individual development. McKenna.. religion.2. There is still a lack of evidence to support the notion that culture shapes personality. 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. It postulates three bipolar dimensions and the fourth bipolar. 2.e.. Sensing/Intuition and Thinking/Feeling). Saucier and Goldberg (1996) and Digman (1997) postulated the FFM model to be descriptive summaries while Marsella et al. 1971) posits that variation in human behavior is due to basic and observable differences when people use their minds to gather and process information. the 37 . ethnicity. Jung’s typology assumes that people differ in their choice of two attitudes. Extroversion and Introversion. (2000) claimed that the FFM can only satisfy the nomothetic.4. Personality is the mediating and integrating factor in numerous psychological processes (e. socio-economic background and country of origin.g. age.
38 . Sensing (S) versus Intuition (N): People with a sensing preference rely on that which can be perceived and are considered to be oriented towards that which is real. however. 1998. d. 2000). looks inward to their internal and subjective reactions to their environment. 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. Introverts. c. Extroverts are said to react to immediate and objective conditions in the environment. McCaulley. People with an intuitive preference rely more on their non-objective and unconscious perceptual processes. Feeling represents a preference to make decisions that are based on subjective processes that include emotional reactions to events.Judgement/Perception dimension. a later addition by Myers and Briggs. resulting in four dimensions with 16 distinct personality types as shown in Table 4 (Myers et al. Extroversion (E) versus Introversion (I): This dimension reflects the perceptual orientation of the individual. The 4 dimensions (Pittenger. b. The judgmental person uses a combination of thinking and feelings when making decisions whereas the perception person uses the sensing and intuition processes. 1993) are: a.. Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F): A preference for thinking indicates the use of logic and rational processes to make deductions and decide upon action.
Shelton and Darling. 1987). 1995). more idealistic and compassionate) (Wheeler. the primary preference always dominates the person’s personality. logical and rational natures) while Feeling types incorporate personal and group values in the decision-making process (i.e. The MBTI does not cater for the neuroticism dimension which is certainly an important variable (McC Dachowski. Lindon. more factual and observant). Extroversion-Introversion of the MBTI is comparable with McCrae and Costa’s Extraversion.. spontaneous and flexible.e. The scores from the MBTI test are used to determine the person’s type and labels are attached based on one’s primary preferences for the four dimensions (Pittenger. its popularity has not diminished despite research which shows it has low validity (McKenna. one can have only one preference. Intuition types “see the forest” (i..e.e. 2002). Hunton and Byrant. 1993). Although people can develop a complimentary style (e.. 39 . Although there is insufficient evidence that the MBTI is a valid instrument. The Judging types are described as organised. structured (like Conscientiousness) whereas Perceptive types are adaptable. Similarly. more insightful and creative) while Sensing types “see the trees” (i.Since MBTI is a theory of types. Thinking types connect ideas and experiences by logic. Similarly. self disciplined. 2004a. Sensing-Intuition is comparable to the Openness factor.. an introvert can become more extroverted when in groups).. Extroverted types are more outgoing while introverted types are deemed to be more detached and contemplative.g. ThinkingFeeling may not be directly comparable to Agreeableness but it does clearly measure a similar dimension. (i. Metaphorically. The Judging types are more committed and decisive while the Perceiving types are more questioning and open-minded.
Table 3: The 16 Personality Types with Cognitive Characteristics and Occupational Tendencies 40 .
. 1998).. 1990). Neuroticism primarily influences performance through motivation while conscientiousness influences performance by being decisive and orderly. Jocoby (1981). Kovar et al. 1994. Landry et al. Sensing type students outperformed the Intuition students in certain subjects and in an overall accounting grade (Nourayi and Cherry. Moreover. 2003). 1993). 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. (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 . 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. Both of these dimensions are dominant in predicting work performance across a variety of work (Kichuk and Wiesner. Mount and Barrick (1994) found that conscientiousness has the strongest correlation with work performance and is positively correlated with task orientation while neuroticism has a strong negative correlation with task orientation (Burch and Anderson. 1996.. 2004). Kreiser et al. Shackleton (1980). THE PREDICTIVE POWER OF FFM/MBTI ON PERFORMANCE Judge and Ilies (2002) found that neuroticism and conscientiousness were the most consistent and most strongly correlated with performance motivation.5. Descouzis (1989). Agreeableness via its main effect and extraversion and openness via their interaction are associated with work involvement while openness correlates with support for innovation (Bozionelos. Otter (1984). 2004). Satava (1996) and Schloemer and Schloemer (1997) found that accountants.2.
which has the advantage of getting around the problem of breaking personality into areas. is unusual as its contents are defined by the lexical hypothesis instead of primary parts (Mayer. 1992). contribution to society and status-wealth. 1989. 1989) and hence other good dimensions of 42 .. 2.6. need for achievement was negatively related to security and personal fulfilment. 1996). 1991). This structure is essentially derived from an atheoretical trait factor approach (Gelso and Fassiinger.success strivings for professional fulfilment. 2004.6. 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. If personality requirements are derived for an individual job. personality can provide an incremental validity over ability in picking the optimal candidate (Day and Silverman. Rossier. De Raad. 1998). 2001). 1996.1. and Berhoud. 1998). The need for power was highly correlated with professional fulfilment and status-wealth but was negatively related with family relationships (Parker and Chusmir. Five Factor Model The FFM. de Stadelhofen. Hence. Hogan et al. a widely used trait group. 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. SHORTCOMINGS OF FFM AND MBTI MEASURES 2. Its disadvantages are that numerous traits are motivational in nature (Buss. Furthermore..
the exceptions which depart from the usual due to situational effects. Paunonen. 1997. Moreover. 2003). Toomela (2003) finds that due to the scientific word meaning structure used. Cervone. That is. 2004. Hence. 1996). Digman. it has nothing to say about personality development. Tett and Burnett. Mayer. It is fair to argue that adjectives are the most appropriate and versatile class of personality descriptors in English and languages linguistically linked to English but many languages do not have a big adjectival word-class. the debate on cultural specificity and the universality of personality structure continues. over-reliance on the adjectival approach may limit the cross-cultural generalisability of the FFM. Cellar et al. Furthermore. and (ii) it cannot account for exceptions to the typical behaviors on which it is based. 1997. The FFM is not universally accepted as the integrative model of personality (Cellar et al.personality may have been omitted (Paunonen and Aston. Aston et al. Digman (1990) highlighted two basic weaknesses of the FFM: (i) it is descriptive in nature and as such does not provide any possible causes to personality. Mayer. 2001. 2001. 2003. the FFM may only be “universal” for that specific stratum of society. 2004. 2004... 2003) as well as its focus on narrow aspects of personality (Paunonen and Aston. Digman. Aston et al. Toomela. 2003). It may 43 . Hunton and Byrant. 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. 1996) and is criticised for its questionable conceptual and methodological assumptions of the lexical hypothesis (Wheeler.. 2004b. 2001. 2003. Moreover..
introversion-extroversion) but cultural variations may shape: (i) their display patterns. (iv) limited insight and self-awareness. Finally. the similarity in the meaning and nature of a concept) may differ. Some cultural groups have problems with Likert scales and they tend to take the middle position. (ii) the interpersonal responses to them. the conceptual equivalence (i. 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. (v) desire to please authorities.be accepted that there are a relative small number of socially or biological determined behavioral dimensions (e.. in terms of normative equivalence. The adoption of self-report questions is already a complex task.. Furthermore. (iii) concern only in giving the right instead of the accurate answer.. dependency in Western culture implies childishness. Chinese respondents. (iv) the meanings they are assigned. the norms of a particular instrument that are based on Western culture may give rise to questionable conclusions if applied to.g. 2000). and (vii) confusion with the implication of words and terms used in the question as well their perceived meaning (Marsella et al. and (v) the value or utility of behavioral descriptions (Marsella et al. 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. for example. 44 .e. (vi) variation in the construction of personality and personhood. In addition. For example.. immaturity and many other derogatory terms but can be viewed positively in the Japanese culture. These motivational and perceptual differences are: (i) fear of possible persecution. (iii) the situations where they are elicited. (ii) desire to conform socially. 2000). helplessness.
Nevertheless. the FFM does not offer answers to the causes of personality nor accounts for exceptions to the selected dimensions and has no link to personality development (Digman. that is. 1997).. characteristic adaptations like developmental tasks and motives fill in the details. 45 . 1997). Idson and Mischel (2001) postulated that traits cannot provide the psychologist with more than a psychology of a stranger.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). performance) by linking them to personality dimensions (Salgado. 2003). Furthermore. while life stories provide the meaning and integration (McAdams. 1997). the FFM has the following advantages: (i) it has a parsimonious taxonomy. and (iii) it can advance our understanding of work-related variables (e. the FFM does provide an initial structure of human individuality. 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.g. (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. Several studies have found the FFM to be unrelated to cognitive ability (Sanders. 2003). In the final analysis. Unfortunately. 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.
Each dichotomy is a selection between qualities of equal value. it is not suitable for analysis looking for before and after treatment effects (Wheeler. wrong or right (i. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Jung’s (1971) hypothesis states that types and preferences are invariant and innate in individuals.. Data are described as ipsative when a given group of responses always add to the same total. The most common one is the forced-choice ipsative data (FCID) as employed in MBTI. Furthermore. The correlations between ipsative factors are negative. no value judgment attached). 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. Although this hypothesis has received empirical support with temporal stability studies.e.. 2004). If the number of traits is large. The formulae for these reliability estimates based on the 46 . Reliability is defined as the consistency in measurement of a test while validity tests are for goodness of the measure. 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.2.6. Hence. with no intrinsic bad or good. a forced-choice format) (Rings. Factor analysis will not be appropriate. measuring the concepts the measurement instrument is designed to measure (Dent and Curd.2. 2004. 2004b). that is. Cavana et al.e. 2001).. The type preferences are dichotomous (i. Hunton and Bryant. the correlations between these orthogonal factors will tend towards zero even though they are highly correlated in the population. Hunton and Bryant. it does not capture the strength of a preference but its direction which is only appropriate for sorting (Wheeler. 1998). 2004a).
Furthermore. high fidelity expression of a personality disposition. 1989).. ESFPs are neither better nor worse salespeople than INTJs.classical test theory are simply not applicable or tenable with ipsative data. there is no data that show certain types are more contented in specific occupations than others or stay longer in one occupation. Any single behavior is a narrow bandwidth. In addition. Hence. Similarly. there is no evidence to indicate a positive relation between specific MBTI types with career success. 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.7. What 47 .1. Pittenger (1993) finds large variances as much as 50% in some “test-retest” personality studies while the “factor analysis” of the four dimensions of MBTI theory identifies six different factors and shows significant correlations of these dimensions which are supposedly independent of each other. In general. THE THEORIES AND CONSTRUCTS OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE 2. 1996). 2. behavior is interpreted as conduct by most people but in the fields of psychology and behavioral science. Behavior is used to evaluate and interpret one’s personality (Hogan et al.
1988). Karageorghis and Terry. motivation is a process that moves a person towards some action (Arnold. 48 . 2000). 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. 2003).7. 1982. the chosen actions are good reflections of performance (Mitchell. Amotivation is the lack of intent to engage in a specific behavior. Motivation is not behavior itself and is not performance. 2. which represents a lack of motivation. 1982). In most cases. Extrinsic motivation. Behavior is the criterion which is chosen. The objective of motivation theories is often to predict behavior. it would be extrinsic motivation when the person participates in the activity to avoid negative consequences or gain external rewards. 2004). Pincus (2004) defined motivation as a desire or an emotion operates willingly and causing it to act.an individual does is a function of the kind of person he or she is – that is. Cesare and Sadri. The word “motivation” suggests energised behavior directed towards some goals that is. that is. 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. Factors Influencing Behavior Motivation is fundamental to behavior as most behavior is influenced by it (Mitchell. his or her personality. On the other hand.2.
Motivation is to do with the quality and direction of the effort. 1982). values. 1982): (i) an individual-level phenomenon. As human needs are psychological or physiological deficiencies. “motivations provide the motor for behavior” (Pincus. Nevertheless. and (iii) multifaceted. 2004). (ii) intentional. need theories identify the internal factors which energise behavior. reinforcement histories. (i. these needs can be weak or strong. That is..Mitchell (1982) postulated motivation as those psychological processes that cause the arousal. 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. 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. persistence of voluntary actions and directions that are goal directed. personality traits accounted for little variance in 49 . attitudes. Contrary to the dispositional view.e. Different people have different needs. Hence. not the amount. 1991). 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. expectations. and can vary over place and time due to environmental influences (Ramlall. 2004). motivation is the degree to which an individual wants and chooses to engage in certain specific behaviors (Mitchell. and goals. In this respect. under the individual’s control) (Tubbs and Ekeberg. It is generally accepted that motivation is (Mitchell.
p. Rothbart and Ahadi. intrinsic process motivation.. According to this view. Nevertheless. and extrinsic or instrumental motivation. 1999. the person has a dynamic reciprocal interaction with the situation/environment. Individuals who perform a behavior because it is “fun” are said to be motivated intrinsically. directed and sustained in organisational settings” (Leonard et al. Current Theories of Work Motivation Work motivation is defined as “the process by which behavior is energised. are able to exhibit different patterns of behavior yet are able to retain a recognisable personality structure (Pervin. 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. In recent years. Furthermore.behavior across situations. Katz and Khan.. and Etzioni point to three sources of motivation: motivation based on goal internalisation. The theories proposed by deCharmes. 1999). 2. The trait-situation debate peaked with the works of Mischel (1968) and Mischel and Shoda (1995) which posited that situational factors determine behavior. when shifting from one situation to another. the individual enjoys the work and feels rewarded by just performing the task. 1999).. Deci.. there are no external forces regulating the behavior. Leonard et al. 1989. which assumes behavior is a function of both personality and the environment (Pervin. most researchers have adopted an interactionist view. not personality or dispositions (Marsella et al.3. 2000). That is. 970). 1975). Hence. 1994. models are developed which can explain why people.7.
there is considerable variability in the conversion of needs into action.motivation stems from external forces.. 1998). The more psychologically immature a person is. Such motivation is referred to as legal compliance and external rewards by Katz and Khan (1978) or alienative or calculative involvement by Etzioni (1975). and (iv) the difference in reactions by individuals for the fulfilment of needs. (iii) there is inconsistency in the final action taken. motivation is complex in that: (i) (ii) the needs of individuals differ.. Nevertheless. 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. 2004). 1958). 1958). There exist several “mini” theories of individual difference in motivation which suggest the existence of motivational traits (Pincus. the need for cognition (Cohen et al. Murray’s “variables of personality” theory adopts motives as the fundamental element of personality (Winter et al. (iii) the need for affiliation (Atkinson. 1995). Needs can be requested or expressed in immature or mature ways. the 51 . and (iv) the need for power (Atkinson. 1961). (i) (ii) the need for achievement (McClelland. 1998).
Leonard et al. Wertheimer and Gestalt Psychology (Chung. denied or turned into the opposite. is fused with the holism of Goldstein. our needs determine our behavior or acts (Osteraker. 2003). needs can be unconscious and repressed or disavowed and conscious. 972). 1969) and has the dynamism of Adler and Freud.more literal is the gratification of the needs. Behavior is motivated by goal internalisation when an individual adopts behaviors and attitudes because they are congruent with one’s value system. These theories are. 1999). For the more psychologically mature person. p. however. unable to account for the complete range of motivated behavior. which is in the functionalist tradition of James and Dewey. Values are motivations and the gratification of a need is a value (Jolibert and Baumgartner. Frank (2003) maintained that the characteristics of triebe characterise the vicissitudes of needs. or compromised. 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. 1997). As values determine our needs. Hence. The Theory of Human Motivation postulated by Maslow (1943). such as changes in behavior across situations when valences and expectancies remain constant. most needs can be satisfied or expressed symbolically (Frank. Maslow claimed that the five needs are universal and innate. 1999.. These needs are instinctually weak and their effect on behavior can be 52 . (1999) posited that individual disposition or personality is a significant determinant of behavior. and are termed instinctoid.
to achieve.accelerated. 1969). it is a dynamic model that posits multiple needs operating simultaneously (Herbig and Genestre. thirst and so forth.to find self-fulfilment and realise one’s potential. be competent and gain approval and recognition. The upper levels of the Needs Hierarchy attempt to explain why an individual continue to strive for excellence when the lower needs are met. Hence. Maslow postulated that an individual’s needs act as motivators and are the centre of motivation (Arnold. It is shown that the greater a need’s deprivation. the higher its strength. (d) esteem needs . 1989). inhibited or modified by the environment.to feel secure. 1997. consisting of: (a) physiological needs . Chung. Based on the premise that motivation comes from within an individual and cannot be imposed. Maslow proposed a hierarchy of needs. According to Maslow: (i) human beings are demanding beings. only those behaviors that satisfy the physiological needs are unlearned that is. (c) belongingness and love needs . their behavior is determined by unsatisfied needs and satisfied needs do not motivate behavior. (b) safety needs . and (iii) higher needs are different from lower needs as they can never be completely satisfied. This may be true for lower-order needs and less so of higher-order needs. all other behaviors are learned (Buttle.to affiliate with others.for hunger. desirability or importance. be acceptable and belong. safe and out of danger. 1988). (ii) the five needs exist in a hierarchy of significance or importance. Even though the needs are innate. and (e) self-actualisation needs . 53 .
1969). 54 . Tests have shown that people across the world are essentially motivated by the same fundamental needs. Maslow’s need hierarchy is generally applicable to all with regards to cultural differences. self-actualisation may mean different things to individuals from collectivistic cultures than it does to individuals from individualistic cultures (Cesare and Sadri. move on to the next need.. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory advocates the dynamic processes of need satisfaction which leads towards the ultimate goal of self-actualisation. The major difference lies in the definition of need satisfaction. Needs are constantly changing within the individual (Osteraker. More like piano keys than stairways. 2003). existence.e. 2003). 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. related and growth). For example. Alderfer argued that people can move up and down the hierarchy and can be motivated at any time by multiple needs. 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. an individual may concentrate mostly at one level but at the same time may. to a lesser degree.Alderfer (1969) modified Maslow’s Theory by suggesting there are only three needs (i. 1999). Unlike most of the above traditional need theories that can be classified as homeostatic or deficit theories of motivation. At any instant. 1993). it must be repeated that an individual does not concentrate all energies on one need and then when that need is fulfilled.
55 . Maslow (1943) postulated that the theories of motivation are not synonymous with theories of behavior. 1997). Behavior is almost always motivated by other factors that are culturally. Furthermore. a specific behavior can meet more than one need. 1969). biologically and situationally determined. Mustafa (1992) postulated that the significance of the needs hierarchy lies in understanding the motivational factors for the individuals. The Needs Hierarchy is also elegant and parsimonious. Motivations are only one group of determinants of behavior.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. Although personality-based theories may not necessarily predict behavior or motivation. a particular behavior may be caused by many needs. Conversely. Its structure is appealing in terms of its simplicity and apparent completeness (Gallagher and Einhorn. In additional. The power of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory is the identification of the needs of each individual that motivate behavior (Wiley. The adoption of Maslow’s needs is appropriate for the CASES personality measure as it has face validity with plausible explanatory power. they do provide an understanding of what motivates or energises the individual. Workplace behavior is posited to be influenced by a person’s existing state of needs in a certain universal needs taxonomy. 1976). the scope of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is broad and is able to explain a wide range of behaviors. For example.
The proposed personality model of CASES attempts to explain personality with dimensions from the Hierarchy of Needs theory. The psychological needs are based on the motivational underpinnings of the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory and the environment/situation interactions are explained by the social cognitive theory.4.4. The Constructs of this Proposed Model Most broad-based personality theories have assumed that specific motivations determine how personality and self develop function. which complete the “behavior chain”.2. if not all.7. The end goals are classified as drives and intrinsic motives by social 56 . 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).1. This model of personality (CASES) postulates that personality is a function of psychological needs and their interactions with the environment/situation. 2. Any adequate model must therefore address motivation.7. A person taking up a second job for the extra money (instrumental motive). existing psychometric instruments have personality dimensions which are temporally stable over various situations. The variability of these dimensions from the Needs theory is explained by the complexity dimension based on the social cognitive theory of “If-Then”.
Although Freud did not elaborate further on the idea of needs. 694). (v) the need for optimal emotional availability of a love object. Furthermore. skills and other motives. A person with a motive to gain social status may behave in ways linked with upper class status. “A better term for an instinctual impulse (i. the need definition should be given more consideration as postulated: (i) (ii) the need for one's physical needs to be deemed legitimate. 2003. (iv) the need for understanding the causes of events. Motives are the “why” of behaviors (Winter et al. and (iv) the need for a resilient responsiveness by one's love objects.e.psychologists (Reiss. needs have been equated with “drive” in experimental psychology (Fedor and Ferris. (iii) the need for interpersonal boundaries. the need for identity.. Motives are reasons a person holds for initiating and performing voluntary behavior. incentives. recognition and affirmation. may enjoy the feeling of self-importance and may think of issues pertaining to wealth (Reiss. expectancies.. However. wishes and goals. 2004). 2004). triebe) is need” (Frank. Freud wrote. They provide the meaning of human behavior. p. 1981). 1998). Motives refer to people’s desire. 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 can be ends-based or means-based 57 .
These wants are shaped and reshaped continuously by the institutional and social forces. Wants and needs are based on both inherited characteristics and environmental conditions and behavior is motivated to satisfy needs and wants (Koltko-Rivera. their needs are fewer. a professional footballer playing the game for a salary or a student studying diligently to obtain a degree. Our values determine our needs and our needs influence 58 . needs are socially constructed and historically situated (Buttle. a student reading a textbook out of curiosity or a child kicking a ball just for the fun of it. salary or degree).. Drive theories define drives as psychological states that move the organism towards a goal whereas needs are physiological states of deprivation (Pincus.depending on the individual’s objective for performing the behavior. Values are cognitive representations of biological. Hence. 1989). In these examples. interactional and societal needs. On the other hand.g. While people’s wants are many. For example. Similarly.. desires or goals (Winter et al. Ends-based motives are indicated when one engages in a behavior because one desires to do so with no other apparent reason. 2004). Human wants can be regarded as specific desires for these deeper needs. For example. 1998). Maslow (1970) posited that the gratification of any need is a value while Murray (1951) claimed that needs operate in the service of values. the behavior is enacted as it is a means to obtain something else (e. motives involve wishes. means-based motives are indicated when one performs an act for a specific instrumental value. 2004). 2003). 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.
order. which represents the needs for love. self development. Based on these factors. the four dimensions of self are proposed as follows: (i) Self-Actualising self. care. CASES’s first premise is that personality dimensions can be represented by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. 1999. (iii) Egocentric self. 1997).2. the model uses the social cognitive theory to provide an explanation for complexity. achievement. which represents the needs for security. (ii) Safety self. which represents the needs for power. Physiological needs. Jolibert and Baumgartner. system. drives and values. and affiliation. To explain why some individuals are highly predictable and some are unpredictable. which represents the needs for growth. structure.our acts (Osteraker. are not considered as they are unlearned and assumed to be of relatively in low importance in current organisational settings. 2. 2004). however. 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.7. desires.4. and (iv) Sociocentric self. image. progress. CASES posits that the needs subsume motives (implicit and explicit). Social cognitive theorists postulate that human beings are neither mechanical 59 . and protection. and control. companionship.
conveyors of animating influences of the environment nor autonomous agents.. 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. The capacity to control one’s action. “if”).e. Even though the contents and processes by which self-regulation occur are multifaceted. 1977a). active construal of the environment. 60 . 2000). 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. motivation or thought processes is a unique human characteristic (Bandura. 1995: Anderson and Chen. 2002). such as when the threat is insufficiently threatening or when the individual lacks the motivation or necessary cognitive resources to deal with the threat. Complex behavior is believed to be mediated by the individual’s current purposes and intents.. self-regulation is activated by a threat indicating that something is not “normal” and that adjustment may be needed. and by the exercise of conscious decisions and choices based on these purposes and construals (Bargh and Ferguson. 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. “then”) that an individual displays in various classes of situations (i.e. Human behavior is purposive. The “If-Then” approach defines personality based on different responses (i. Not all threats require adjustments.
For example. being hard or soft is a person’s choice and is manifested with intent to achieve a purpose. a person can be hard. but at another situation and time. 2. a low complexity person would normally manifest the traits of the other four dimensions consistently and persistently over time and across situations. at a particular situation and time. viz.5. 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 . the person can be soft. 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. Low complexity traits describe the characteristics of people who are predictable. For example. change and be flexible to survive in a turbulent dynamic environment. representing the need to adapt. if an individual with low complexity is gullible. (i) Complex self.7.No two human beings are alike. Complex people are harder to predict. Apparently. The traits of the other four dimensions are dynamic and are manifested on the need to suit a purpose. Complex people have dynamic personalities. then he/she will tend to be gullible at all times and situations. Evidently. CASES postulates that people with a low complexity have relatively static personalities. The nature of low complexity behavior is conditioned while the nature of high complexity behavior is cognitive.
“inventory” level instead of the construct level. 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. There are many other possible factors that influence work performance such as intelligence. These tests. That is. There has been a resurgence of interest in the role of personality in work performance (Robertson et al. focused on personality traits at the molecular. From this approach. motivation. however. competence. however. variations in responses are not assumed to be an error. The CASES model of personality recognises the idiographic differences in how human beings make sense of varying situations and their responses to them. 2000). Furthermore. dispositional personality characteristics. wants to. CASES posits that an individual is not a “hostage” of his/her traits but rather is an active personality which has stable.8. variability in an individual’s responses across situations will not be dismissed or averaged over. 2003). or has to (Nikolaou.. 2. has the ability either unconsciously or consciously to alter his/her behavior simply because he/she likes to. experience. “Does personality predict work performance?” is a question that many researchers have addressed over the past few decades.appeal of the arguments. 62 . The individual. 1995). RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES Prior to the 1990s.
Recent studies using more fundamental dimensions of personality have shown the predictive power of personality for work performance (Kieffer et al. personality provides very little insight on what and why the person will do in a given job. peer or supervisor reports on the job or failure 63 . 2004). more recent studies are focusing on demonstrating the incremental variance in work performance with the use of personality predictors (Sackett. motivation and satisfaction levels. Barrick and Mount.. 1998). 1998). 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. 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. work orientation. 1997. results from multiplicative combination of declarative knowledge. Schmit et al. oral and written communication task proficiency.e. Sanders. Hence. Performance is often measured as training academy performance. 2004). assessment centre ratings. 1993. Tett and Burnett (2003) used a work performance taxonomy that had eight categories (i. leadership. administration. Several studies have shown that all personality dimensions or factors are valid predictor of work performance (Salgado. self management and motivation. 2003). 2002. work attitude. Sackett. and motivation). procedural knowledge. (2000) posited that the core work performance factors are thinking. job-specific task proficiency. Mellissa and Ellington. and ability (Carmeli and Freund..satisfaction. Work performance is affected by role clarity. Mellissa and Ellington. interpersonal.. and organisation (Barrick et al. and interviews.
Global measures of work performance and personality measures often correlate poorly (Cook et al. work stress. To ensure a full representation of work performance. cooperativeness. 1990). 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. Another contributing factor is when supervisors evaluate their subordinates.. 1993). work performance comprises “will-do” and “can-do” components where the former are best predicted by personality measures (Barrick. 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. A contributing factor for the poor correlation between personality and work performance is the “halo” effect. Mount and Strauss. 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. Schweiger and Sumners. 2000). Furthermore. 1994). beside the worker’s productivity (Hunter and Schmidt. they also rely on other factors such as pleasant disposition. a measure should include variables in citizenship behavior and productivity as well as steps to prevent the “halo” effect. 64 . There exists some degree of difficulty in measuring work performance and linking specific work tasks to personality dimensions. Several researchers have stressed that other factors such as occupational socialisation.measures such as being fired or quitting (Sanders. 2003).. 2000. and helpfulness.
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
Furthermore. have moderating effects on the relationship between personality and performance. Nikolaou (2003) and Lowery et al. High performers perceive that events as determined by themselves while low performers perceive events as controlled by chance. McCelland identified traits for “need for achievement” and it is this satisfaction of achievement that facilitates high performance (Arnold. 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. which are facets of self-actualisation. (2002) and Lowery.8. Beadles II and Krilowicz (2004) revealed that the need for achievement and creativity. and the dimension of self-actualisation which has facets of self 68 . which are facets of the complexity dimension based on Vancouver and Scherbaum (2000) and KoltkoRivera (2004). 1988).2. low impulsivity and self-regulation. the research question posed is “Does the FFM predict work performance?” 2. Studies by Barrick et al.. 1999). are predictors of work performance. Behavior is a function of expectancy of actions which will lead to certain reinforcement. (2004) postulated that cognitive ability and volition.relationship in other countries but not done in Malaysia. Since the CASES model measure contains the dimension of complexity which has facets of volition. In Bandura’s view. people’s high expectations guide their actions to produce high performance (Lau and Shaffer.
positive mental health. and planfulness of the Conscientiousness dimension in the FFM. 2. need for achievement. the research postulates that the CASES model will predict work performance. 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. 1997). not resilient.. and hostility (Judge et al. 1992) whilst Neuroticism comprises fearful. anxious. and self esteem. As personality traits can be conceptually and empirically related without being redundant. persistent. passion. as shown in Table 4. Furthermore. determined. deliberation. deliberation. Conscientiousness in the FFM comprises competence.8. depressed. dependable. low confidence/self esteem. the facets of need for achievement.fulfilment. self-discipline. internalisation. Similarly. and hard working (Costa and McCrae. 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. responsible. persistent. The Relationships between FFM and CASES The third research question considers how the CASES measure of personality compares with the FFM with respect to predicting work performance. order. reliable. planful. passion. creativity. impulsivity. achievement-striving. determined.3. dutiful. there are good reasons to believe that the Complexity and Self-actualisation 69 . 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. realisation of one’s potential.
“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 CASES are related to the Conscientiousness and Neuroticism dimensions of the FFM. 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. 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.
Hypotheses The first research question is addressed by the first hypothesis. H3: The CASES and the FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance. 71 . The second research question is addressed by the second hypothesis.8.4. H2: The CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. H1: The FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.2. The third research question is addressed by the third hypothesis.
3. 1980). This chapter covers the selected research methodology and design that will be used to obtain data to examine the research questions. and on the social-cognitive construct of “IfThen” was used to explain why some individuals are more predictable than others.1.2. they do not account for the variations in behavior due to environmental factors and the complexity of an individual. A new personality measure with five dimensions based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.3. RESEARCH PARADIGMS The structure.0. are discussed before proceeding to the research method adopted and the administration and development of the data collection processes. The two broad social science perspectives or paradigms of research. 72 . which postulates that behavior is motivated by needs. specifically. It highlighted the shortcomings of various existing personality measures. positivism and phenomenology. human nature and epistemology (Morgan and Smircich. INTRODUCTION The previous chapter analysed and reviewed the relevant literature on personality theories with respect to predicting work performance. direction. and process of social science are linked to assumptions about ontology. CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3. which give rise to various theoretical perspectives or paradigms ranging from phenomenology to positivism.
Positivism emphasises empirical facts. As this research seeks to explain the relationships between need-induced behavior. According to phenomenology. this study adopts a positivistic paradigm with a hypothetico-deductive approach. 2001). positivism views reality as a concrete structure and is objective whereby human beings are rational responders (Morgan and Smircich. On the other end of the continuum. humans are transcendental beings and are not restricted by external laws. the knowledge of the social world would imply a need to map out and understand the social structure. personality.Phenomenology views reality as a projection of human imagination. Positivism also provides an objective form of knowledge which specifies the regularities. This approach uses a statement of a hypothesis and conclusions may be drawn from it via the analysis of quantitative data (Baker. 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. and work performance. The possible shortcomings of this approach would be the apparent loss of richness of concepts due to the mechanisation of variables and concepts. giving rise to positivism which emphasises the empirical analysis of relationships (Morgan and Smircich. 1980). 73 . causal relationships and predictions. 1980). From this point of view. 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.
Reality can be found in the relationships between these components and concrete behavior.. personality. Lubinski. 1999. 1980. Causal relationships link all aspects of behavior to the specific context. which are principally drawn from natural sciences. Stimuli from the environment condition them to respond to events in determinate and predictable ways. are appropriate to capture a view of the social world or reality as a concrete structure. 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.3. people always respond to the situation in a lawful manner. 1996). It is a structure comprising of a network of finite relationships between constituent parts.g. The aim of such research is to assess human variations in factors (e. Gliner and Harmon. Although human perception or cognition may influence the process. Human beings are assumed to be products of external forces in the environment. The quantitative methods. and abilities) that have real-world significance.3. Morgan. By manipulating data with various sophisticated quantitative tools. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Most research in the social science disciplines is conducted using quantitative methodologies. the social world can be “frozen” into structured immobility and the role of human beings is reduced to 74 . 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. with surveys as the main research method (Morgan and Smircich. 1996). vocational preferences.
exploratory. Hence. the time horizon and the unit of analysis (Cavana et al. have used this approach effectively. 2001).elements which are subject to deterministic sets of forces. as mentioned in the previous chapter. various studies.. the nature of the study depends on how far the knowledge on the research subject has advanced. Purpose of the Study Studies can be descriptive. the types of investigation. adheres to strict rules and uses statistics extensively. 3. Any generalisation is inductive which comprises nomothetic statements. Although the processes in research design are depicted in distinct sequential activities. An 75 .1. Based on these grounds. From the framing of the research questions and hypotheses.4. 3. a quantitative methodology is adopted and provides the framework for the research design. This quantitative methodology based on the positivist paradigm is objective. exploratory. RESEARCH DESIGN Research design involving a series of logical decision-making steps basically comprises the purpose of the study (descriptive. case study or hypothesis testing. a quantitative methodology has the ability to provide an objective view of the various external factors. these activities often interact or occur at the same time. case study or hypothesis testing). the extent of researcher interference. promotes value-free inquiry.4. Moreover.
Hypothesis testing is employed in studies that seek to establish the independence of various factors in a situation or the differences among groups or to explain the nature of relationships. Morgan et al. educational level... It provides an enhanced understanding of the various relationships between variables as well as establishing their causalities (Cavana et al. or race. 1999). 2004). Descriptive studies are carried out to ascertain and describe the characteristics of the variables studied but no associations or comparisons are made as only one variable is considered at a time (Morgan.. It is generally qualitative in nature and used as a managerial decision-making tool (Cavana et al. Such an undertaking is appropriate when the three criteria of uniqueness. Such studies are appropriate to obtain an initial grasp of the phenomena of interest (Cavana et al. critical and revelatory are met (O’Cass. Gliner and Harmon. 2001. The case study method involves a systematic gathering of in-depth information on an organisation or entity. 2001). 2001). 1999).exploratory study is carried out when little or no information is known about the subject. information and variables on the topic to enable the formulation of hypotheses as articulated in Chapter 2. gender. 76 . The purpose of descriptive studies is to describe aspects of the situation from an organisational. industry or individual perspective such as age. This study uses hypothesis testing as there is extensive knowledge.
that is. 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. With a better understanding of the concepts. 3. Exploratory and descriptive studies using qualitative methods follow this approach as it allows the researcher to be flexible in exploring the issues being studied. Quantitative research methodology.2. 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. the next step is to decide on the type of research method that will be used. Type of Investigation There are three approaches of investigation: clarification. as adopted for this research. Experimental research involves the manipulation of one or more variables in order to study the effects of such manipulations on the subjects 77 . the next stage is to determine the relationships between the variables or concepts. Quantitative methods may be used to give a more definite answer. consists of two distinct collection methods. Research Method When the purpose of the study and the type of investigation has been determined.4.4. correlational and causal. Clarification investigation is used to gain a better understanding of the phenomena or concepts under investigation.3.3. This can be done with a correlational or causal approach. experimental and non-experimental. 2001). A causal relationship occurs when one variable or concept causes a change in another whereas a correlational relationship only indicates that two variables or concepts are associated..
case study. which rules out case study. the non-experimental research is considered the more appropriate approach to adopt in this study. Table 5: Four Categories of Non-experimental Techniques (Grace. personality. 1999). there are four broad categories of non-experimental techniques: observational. Method Observational Research Description Observation of subjects in their own environment or researcher participating in naturally occurring groups and recording observations. What. and the work performance of individuals. How Much and How Many? How and Why? Who. and survey.under study and is generally applied to answer the questions of why and how (Grace. Hence. What. As shown in Table 5. How Much and How Many? Case Study Research Research investigates a particular situation or problem. nor is it 78 . Non-experimental research does not involve the manipulation of variables or assigning subjects to groups and requires minimal interference from the researcher. Since the research questions posted for this study are on behavior. Similarly. Where. Is case-specific. Where. this study is not case-specific. Answers How and Why? Archival Research Who. it is not possible to manipulate these variables or assign participants to groups. Survey Research Goal is to collect information about the same variables or characteristics from a number of cases where the end result is a data matrix or a structured or rectangular set of data. archival. 1999) It is clear that observational research is not appropriate as some of the variables are not observable. Using data that were collected for a purpose other than the problem at hand.
moderate to excessive. 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. 79 .4. 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. This approach facilitates the external validation and generalisability of the findings within similar environments (Baker. An excessive interference occurs especially in a causal study whereby an artificial setting is created and manipulated in a laboratory environment.suitable for archival research as there are new personality variables to be measured. For a causal study. Researcher’s Interference There are varying degrees of interference in research ranging from minimal. such studies have considerable interference with the normal or natural settings. 3. manipulation of the variables may be done to study the effects of such manipulation on the dependent variables. Hence. Hence. This study does not require interference as the objective is to collect data on the personality of individuals and their work performance.4. 2001). There is minimal interference in an exploratory or descriptive study conducted in an organisation. The extent of interference by the researcher in the flow of work in the workplace has an important bearing on the research decisions.
. In a non-contrived setting. it is more important to capture the variables or concepts in the study than to establish the cause and effect relationships (Saunders. Study Setting The setting of the study can be either contrived or non-contrived. External and internal validities are competing aspects. there are tradeoffs between internal and external validities.4. 2001). the research is conducted whereby the work proceeds normally in the natural environment. Furthermore. however. Remenyi et al. Correlational or causal studies which use environmental settings where the employees usually function are known as field experiments.3. 2001). Efforts to strengthen internal validity will diminish external validity and vice-versa (Cavana et al. 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. Exploratory or descriptive studies usually fall under this category whereas rigorous causal studies are often undertaken in contrived settings. Lewis and Thornhill.5. A contrived environment. Hence. 1997).. (1998) postulated that the level of control is least relevant for research methods using surveys. This research will be conducted via a survey with minimal researcher interference in a natural environment as the variables under investigation are the personality dimensions of individuals and their perceptions of their own work performance within their 80 . Exploratory or descriptive studies carried out in organisations are known as field studies. A laboratory experiment is one with a contrived setting and considerable interference by the researcher (Cavana et al. may reduce the external validity due to “reactivity” (Baker. 2001).
organisations. groups. As this research is on the measurement of personality dimensions of individuals and their work performance. 1998).7. Unit of Analysis The research objective determines the unit of analysis. the passage of time is inconsequential. dyads. beliefs and perceptions. and external validities and plausible explanations of the variances of the independent and dependent variables (Remenyi et al. This method is appropriate as the objective of this research is to examine whether a new personality measure will provide incremental validity over and above that of the FFM in the prediction of work performance. 3..4. the data collected will be the 81 . which can be individual. variables which are reliable. Hence. internal. Moreover. valid and unambiguous will be included after proper screening by subject matter experts (SME) to ensure content. To control for extraneous and irrelevant factors.6.4.. 1998).normal work environments. 3. 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. Lindell and Whitney (2001) postulated that most behavioral studies are cross-sectional as such studies focus on individual’s attitudes. or cultures.
5. Selection of Survey Method As survey research has been selected as the appropriate method for collecting data. 82 . these data can be obtained by using one or a combination of methods that include personal. telephone. and also has the problem of the interviewer’s influence on the interviewee’s responses. or computer interviews. this method is considered inappropriate for this study.. SURVEY RESEARCH The survey research consists of several steps as listed below. Hence. 3. The merits of these methods are shown in Table 6.5. The personal interview method provides an excellent response rate but can be costly in terms of finance.1. and time. 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. and their perceptions of their behaviors and work performance (Cavana et al. effort.individuals’ demographics. mail. the unit of analysis is at the individual level. Together with the inherent costs as well as the time constraints of this research. 2001). 3. 1980).
Although mail survey does not provide a good response rate. the mail survey is considered the most appropriate method for this study. Hence. Nikolaou.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.. these two interview methods are also considered to be inappropriate for this study. Barrick et al. 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. 2002. 83 . al. Mail survey is commonly used in studies of personality and work performance (Robertson et. 2000. it is cost effective and allows specific respondents in various organisations to be targeted. Kieffer et al... 2004). Hence. 2003. Salgado.
Copies of the FFM measure (Goldberg.3.5. Scales The measures of personality and performance are nebulous and do not lend themselves to precise measurements due to their subjective nature. and thoughts of participants.2.5.5. Johnson and Erez (1998) were obtained and used in this study. 1999.. 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. The reduction of such abstract concepts 84 .1.3. Marsella et al. Selection of Measurement Techniques 3. context or wording can cause major changes in the results. 2000). this study uses this method whilst recognising factors and processes that affect self-reports to improve the questionnaire design and data quality (Schwarz. 1999) and the self-rated work performance measure (RBPS) by Welbourne. where minor changes in question format. feelings.2. From public opinion surveys to laboratory experiments. Although self-reports can be a fallible source of data. 3.2. 22.214.171.124. Self Report Self-report is a primary source of data in social science research. researchers depend on the answers that participants provide in order to learn about the behavior.
2001). the scale adopted is a five-point Likert scale as a seven-point scale or higher can burden respondents with distinctions that are too fine and that do not have significant impact on the overall results (Grace. 1998). 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. 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. For this study. Such measures use an interval scale as interval scales are able to group respondents into categories. 2001). A popular interval scale is the Likert scale which is often used to measure psychometric properties such as personality and performance (Maurer and Pierce. and enable the computation of the means and variances of the measured variables. Neither Inaccurate nor Accurate or Very Inaccurate as the most representative of his/her perceived personality or behavior in terms of direction.to some form of tangible measurements in a continuum is often used for such measures and is an appropriate choice especially for hypothesis testing (Cavana et al. In using a Likert scale. The work performance measure is categorised from Needs Much Improvement to Excellent with Satisfactory as a neutral response. 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. van Schaik and van Wersch. tap the order of such groups. strength and confidence. 1999. 2004).. 1998). Cavana et al.. Hence.
This measure is regarded as the best measure developed to date and is used for this study (Crant. Hunthausen et al. 3. 1995. Safety. Self-appraisals or self ratings have significant validation against other work performance measures.5. CASES.2.5 are obtained from self ratings of 86 . 2003). (ii) The dependent variable The dependent variable is the self-appraised work performance of the respondents. (b) The new personality measure (CASES) The new personality measure. Egocentric and Socio-centric with each dimension having 10 items.79 for all five dimensions. Correlations of 0. administration and cost effectiveness. Extraversion. 1999) measuring Openness to Experience. Agreeableness and Neuroticism.. Conscientiousness. contains five personality dimensions of Complexity. Actualisation. have alpha values larger than 0.because of the above merits as well as its ease of construction.4 to 0. Key Variables (i) The independent variables (a) The Big Five The 50 items for the FFM (Goldberg.4.
clerical ability and measures of leadership (Cook et. (1998) is used. In view of the stance taken by the Ethics Committee in favour of maintaining confidentiality and anonymity of respondents. and organisation. 87 . Furthermore. team. career. with each having 4 items as shown in Table 7. al. This self-appraisal performance measure. Self-rating or selfappraisal also has a substantial advantage in the study of work performance and personality as they are less affected by the “halo-effect” as compared to other measures.. “halo-effect” tends to obscure the differentiated relationship between the criteria of personality and work performance. which is also known as the Role-Based Performance Scale (RBPS).. is developed based on identity theory and role theory in contrast to the traditional. the self-evaluation work performance measure of Wilbourne et al. The five components of the RBPS are job. innovator. 2000). job-related employee performance measure.
1998) 88 . ii. (e) Organisation (going above the call of duty in my concern for the firm) i. iv. iii. iv. iii. iv. (c) Innovator (creativity and innovation in my job and the organisation as a whole) i. ii. iii. iv.(a) My Job (doing things specifically related to my job description) i. iii. ii.. Coming with new ideas Working to implement new ideas Finding improved ways to do things Creating better processes and routines Working as part of a team or work group Seeking information from others in my work group Making sure my work group succeeds Responding to the needs of others in my group Doing things that help others when it’s not part of my job Working for the overall good of the company Doing things to promote the company Helping so that the company is a good place to be (d) Team (working with co-workers and team members toward success of the firm) i. iii. ii. Table 7: Role-Based Performance Scale’s Items (Wilbourne et al. iv. 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.
1999). The four other dimensions with 10 items each (Actualisation. Q66. (iii) The twenty items of the RBPS by Welbourne et al. the items are placed in Q51.. Q71. (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. Q76. Q91 and Q96. 2002). To minimise error. For the first personality dimension of Complexity (with 10 items). The sequence of the instructions. 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. Q61. (1998) are placed from Q101 to Q120. 1999) are placed from Q1 to Q50 in the same order as per the author’s design.5. The questions are sequenced in the following manner: (i) The 50 items for the FFM (Goldberg. 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. Q81. Q86. (ii) The second set of 50 items of the new instrument (CASES) is placed as Q51 to Q100. 89 . the written instructions are screened for clarity in instructional content and presentation. Q56. Safety. questions and quality of reproduction are addressed.3.3.
3. 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. trading and 90 . The elements in the population under study also must have some known probability of being selected as sample. a nonprobability sampling method such as convenience sampling can be used. Richard and Kubany. 2001). a generalisation of these characteristics can be made to the population elements (Cavana et al. convenience sampling is adopted for this study. These firms are in general manufacturing. The wordings of several items were changed to reflect the meaning in the local Malaysian context.5. transportation. The full questionnaire will be given to the two supervisors of this study for their comments and review for face and content validity as the next best alternative (Cavana et al. legal. Probability sampling is appropriate when statistical generalisation is required. clarity and specificity for its particular dimension (Haynes. shipping. When time is tight or the probability of selecting elements of the population is unknown and generalisability is not essential or critical. 2001). 1995). 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.4. relevance. it will not be carried out due to the study’s time constraints.Although pilot testing is recommended for the items to ensure content validity... Every element or item is judged on its representativeness. For the above reasons.
business consulting. Since English is a second language to many Malaysians. at least 10:1 subject to items as suggested by Nunnally (1978)) to provide sufficient rigour and statistical reliability in the principal components analysis (Avis. 91 . These companies represent a convenient sample and they are invited because their offices are in the Klang Valley. (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. Kudisch and Fortunato. Besides being white-collared staff. white-collar employees are chosen as they are more likely to be literate in English. As the measures of the FFM and CASES have 50 items each. 1986). 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. 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. 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. 2002). Sawin and Carsud. it would need at least 500 responses (that is.
1. Principal Components Analysis Principal components analysis will be used to check that the structure of the measures has held true (Cavana et al. range. mean. Central Tendency and Dispersion The range. 2001). CASES. 2001). standard deviation.5.5. and RBPS will be analysed to determine their structure.5.3. The principal-component factor will be varimaxrotated as the dimensions are assumed to be uncorrelated 3.5. Cronbach’s alpha. variance. 3. and variance for each variable will be computed in SPSS. Selection of analytical approach Data analysis is performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 13. standard deviation and correlation matrix of all the variables will be generated for initial examinations.3. The frequency distributions of the nominal and demographic variables. The measures for the FFM.5.5. is one reliability 92 . 3. the measurement of internal consistency. Reliability Reliability concerns the extent to which a measure is repeatable and consistent (Baker. means..5.5.2.
3. An alpha coefficient of 0. CASES and RBPS measures will be analysed to ascertain their internal reliabilities. convergent and discriminant validity. Mellenbergh and van Heerden.7 or more is considered satisfactory (Nunnally.5. there is no psychometric rationale in using them.ori.newcastle.edu.coefficient that indicates how well items in a cluster correlate positively with one another. criterion-related validity.org.4.. Content validity gives evidence on the construct validity of an instrument (Haynes. http://0ipip. Richard and Kubany. 93 . 2003).au:80).5. Validity Construct validity is the degree to which the assessment instrument measures the proposed construct (Borsboom. predictive and postdictive validity. Construct validity subsumes all validities including concurrent. 1995). 2004). All the predictor variables of the Big Five Factor Inventory.g. 1978). Incremental validity essentially means whether a measure adds to the prediction of a criterion above what can be predicted by other variables (Hunsley and Meyer. and factor structure. 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. Concurrent validity refers to the degree to which a test scores correlates with another test score that is obtained from another source.library.
5. and the stepwise multiple linear regression results will be used to test the hypotheses. the correlation matrix. 3. Implementation The last stage of the survey research is the implementation stage which consists of time/ cost estimates and data collection/administration.5.6. The findings from the descriptive statistics.6. 2003). 3. known to the researcher.5.5. The respondents are asked to complete two sets of personality measures and a set of self-appraisal work performance measure. the two measures of personality will be entered simultaneously in a stepwise regression analysis. are selected for the survey with an average of 40 questionnaires given to each organisation and are targeted 94 .1.5. 3. Hypothesis Testing To test the criterion and incremental validities of the new personality measure (CASES) over and above the FFM on work performance.The research design is one of a criterion-related validity and incremental validity (Nikolaou. Cost and Time Estimates Some 40 companies from various industries.
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. 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. A draft letter approving the staff in the organisation to participate is also provided for the companies to complete under their official letter head. The industry breakdown and the number of companies to be surveyed are shown in Table 9. The questionnaires will be given to the Human Resource Department to be distributed to all the white collar staff and instructed to collect them in the selfaddressed envelope a week after distribution. 95 .
70 RM1120. Collecting answered questionnaires from organisations 4.00 trips Total RM2976. The 96 .00 of 2 pages (double-sided) 2 envelopes and RM0.86 per questionnaire based on the breakdown as shown in Table 10.00 Travelling expenses RM20 per trip for 80 RM1600.6.30 stamp 1600*RM0. Distributing questionnaires to organisations 3.2. Printing and collating of questionnaires 2.Activity 1.5.04 RM256.00 Table 10: Breakdown of Costs on Survey (developed for this research) Item 3. which has limitations such as low response rate and the inability of respondents to seek clarification if necessary. Data Collection The survey adopts a self-administered approach. 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. Costing and Amount Computation Printing the questionnaire (1600 sets 1600*4*RM0.
the scores will be recoded through a Recode program in the SPSS. 3.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. 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. Data Entry The data will be entered into SPSS and analysed.6.5. 3.4.3. 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. 97 .5. The items measuring the variables are grouped together to ensure no mistake is made due to omission or wrong inclusion.6. Hence.
The research plan is based on completing the five chapters within the six-month time frame. 3. Anonymity and confidentiality of the answers are ensured as the questionnaires do not have any identifiers. Participants can withdraw at anytime during the research without any obligation or disadvantage. Stamped.6.7. It is estimated that the dissertation can be completed within the time frame based on an average of some three hours of work per day on weekdays and some six hours of work per day on weekends subject to obtaining clearance from the Ethic Committee within the timeframe allowed. self-addressed envelopes are provided so the respondents can choose to participate or not. 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. ETHICAL CONSIDERATION It is explicitly stated that participation is voluntary. 98 . RESEARCH PLAN The research plan is based on the timeline provided by the University of Newcastle for this Doctor of Business Administration (DBA). Finally.3.
. LIMITATIONS Response Distortions Given the seemingly straightforward nature of the items.1. it could be likely that some respondents may try to “beat the test” due to self-deception or impression management. 1996). 2004). 1988). 3. item endorsements are not self-reports but self-presentations (Hogan et al.8.8. This may produce a general method variance (Carmeli and Freund. 1996).2.8. In that case. 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. one-time measure could lead to erroneous conclusions about the 99 . 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. Stability of Work Performance Due to the implicit assumption that performance is a stable construct and the reliance on a cross-sectional.8. 3. However. several studies revealed that the distortions by these response deceptions do not attenuate the predictive validity of the personality constructs (Barrick and Mount.3.3.
100 .. all information comes from the subordinate. Self-ratings are known to be more “lenient” than other forms of work performance 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. 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. Conversely. Hence. The requirement to maintain the anonymity of respondents restricted our ability to match the supervisors with the subordinates. The ratings would be markedly skewed towards the positive end of each item. Bozionelos. Thus. 2004). This will restrict the range and reduce the correlations with the personality measures.4. it will not be possible to correct or adjust the correlations for the restricted range. it is possible that some employees are removed from the positions due to their inadequate work performance. A rudimentary level of work performance is required for the employees to retain employment in a specific position. Since there is no way of estimating what the variance should be.. 2004a). 3. 2000. Self Rating One limitation is the use of self-ratings and its validity and reliability as an indicator of work performance.8.personality-performance relationships (Thoresen et al.
e. as well as the content and construct validities of the measures. Convenience sampling is adopted. a positivist paradigm with a survey instrument via a questionnaire is developed to capture observable behaviors that reflect the dimensions of the variables or constructs. Also... the adoption of convenience sampling in this study reduces the generalisability of the findings obtained from this study. 2002. Further studies will need to be conducted to establish the boundary conditions and generalisability of the findings of this study. Nikolaou. 2000. Barrick et al. Various relevant statistical tools are used to calculate inter-item consistency (i. internal reliability).5. ability. These factors have a direct or a moderating influence on work performance. role clarity and intelligence (Carmelli and Freund.9. Hence.8.. 3. There are limitations in this research that may not permit statements of causality. There is an ample body of knowledge on this subject to derive some theoretical framework for hypothesis testing. 2004. 101 .3. CONCLUSION Attempts to predict work performance using personality measures have been practised in organisational research for decades. Cook et al. motivation level. 2002). Work Performance Studies have found linkages between work performance and job satisfaction.
DEMOGRAPHICS A total of 1600 questionnaires were distributed to 40 Malaysian companies of various sizes who were invited to participate in this study. 31. 102 .8%) were female. A total of 267 (i.2%) of the respondents were degree-holders.e.. of these.. Of the 544 respondents. 246 (i.2. The number of companies that responded was 39..e.e. and the remaining 107 (i. 170 (i. CHAPTER FOUR – DATA ANALYSIS 4. a 97.. 19. The second section contains the results of principal components analyses. 49.e.3%) were diploma holders. which were used to verify the structures of the various scales.2%) were male and 298 (i. The descriptive statistics of the demographic variables are presented in the first section.0.5%) were school certificate holders.1.. The results of the analyses which were conducted to test the hypotheses are presented in the third section. 54. INTRODUCTION This chapter contains four sections. 544 were usable.e.4. 45.5% rate of participation. The fourth section contains a summary of the main findings. A total of 587 questionnaires were returned (a response rate of 36.7%) and. 4.
29 (s. = 9. 36.A total of 140 (i. The average age of the respondents was 34.d.2. Anderson.1. Principal Components Analysis of the FFM Personality Measure A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (with suppressed loading less than .8%) respondents were from middle or senior management levels.0 years (s.d.8%) of the respondents were from non-executive or clerical levels while 198 (i.e.50 by Hair.e. An examination of the skewness and kurtosis statistics as well as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic was conducted to examine the distributions of the variables. The remaining 205 (i.d.1) and the minimum age and maximum age of the respondents were 19 years and 65 years respectively. Tatham. = 6. This analysis yielded five orthogonal factors that 103 . 4. The average organisational tenure of the respondents was 7.50) was conducted on the FFM.50 or larger on their respective components were eliminated from the solution.7) while the average number of years that respondents were in their current jobs was 5. 4. 37. RESULTS FROM PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS Principal Components Analysis with Varimax Rotation was used to examine the structure of the scales.2).. The recommended cut-off value of ... and Black (1998) was used because of the large number of items being analysed.5%) were from lower management or executive levels. 25.6 years (s. Items that did not achieve a primary loading of . = 5.2.e.
74 .60 .54 .4% of the variance.68 .62 .55 .67 .54 Table 11: Rotated Component Matrix of FFM 104 .65 .63 .59 . 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 . Using the .72 .60 .64 .67 .66 . The findings from this analysis are presented in Table 11.accounted for 47.61 .70 .50 loading criterion.64 .71 .57 . five items were eliminated from each of the Openness and Conscientiousness sub-scales while six items were eliminated from each of the Extraversion. Agreeableness and Neuroticism subscales.54 .
Conscientiousness. The Cronbach’s alphas for the remaining items in the Openness. p. Conscientiousness was positively correlated with Extraversion and Agreeableness but negatively correlated with Neuroticism at the 0.001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was greater than the acceptable level of 0. 105 . Extraversion.59. According to Hair et al. Extraversion was positively correlated with Agreeableness and Neuroticism at the 0. and 64 respectively.6 is acceptable.73. 1997. The FFM components are distinct but related and “are no more wholly independent than they are redundant” (Judge et al. factorability was assumed. The items that were retained after the principal components analysis are shown in Table 12.The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < .63. 8). Hence. .01 level. All the components therefore have acceptable internal reliability. Agreeableness was negatively correlated with Neuroticism at the 0. The intercorrelations resembled those that have been reported previously.57. (1998).60. Openness was positively correlated with Extraversion and Neuroticism at the 0.05 level.01 level. . a Cronbach’s alpha of ..01 level. .01 level whilst it was negatively correlated with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness at the 0. Agreeableness and Neuroticism components were .
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 .
69 .68 .50 loading criterion.4. Using the .61 Table 13: Rotated Component Matrix of CASES 107 . six items were eliminated from each of the Complexity.2. Ego and Social sub-scales.2.77 .55 .61 2 3 4 5 .51 .72 .79 .63 .50) was conducted on the CASES items.65 .67 . This analysis yielded five orthogonal components that accounted for 57.62 . Actualisation.56 .68 .63 .54 .68 . Component Complexity7 Complexity2 Complexity4 Complexity5 Actualisation7 Actualisation2 Actualisation5 Actualisation4 Safety5 Safety3 Safety9 Safety6 Ego8 Ego6 Ego2 Ego1 Social7 Social10 Social6 Social9 1 .0% of the variance.68 .74 . Principal Components Analysis of the CASES Personality Measure A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (with suppressed loading less than . Safety. The results from this analysis are presented in Table 13.
Ego and Social components were 73.The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < . Safety. and .81.64.60.001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was greater than the acceptable level of 0. which had marginal internal reliability. factorability was assumed. Actualisation. all of the CASES sub-scales had acceptable internal reliability. . 108 . . The Cronbach’s alphas for the remaining items in the Complexity. Hence.48. . The items of the sub-scales are shown in Table 14.74 respectively. With the exception of the Ego sub-scale.
This analysis yielded five orthogonal components that accounted for 80.3. Principal Components Analysis of RBPS Performance Measure A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (with suppressed loading less than .CASES Dimension Complexity2 Complexity4 Complexity5 Complexity7 Actualisation2 Actualisation4 Actualisation5 Actualisation7 Safety3 Safety5 Safety6 Safety9 Ego1 Ego2 Ego6 Ego8 Social6 Social7 Social9 Social10 Item I am good at interpreting things I can spot opportunities a and make use of them I am good at overcoming obstacles to get what I want I am good at persuading others to support me I love to seek experiences in life I find great satisfaction in doing a good job I seek knowledge and skills to improve myself I work towards improving my quality of life I like to do things following the proper channels I am law-abiding I believe in doing things step by step I do not fight with authority I need security I like living in style I can be easily hurt I like to celebrate in a grand manner I like to assist my friends in time of needs I like to visit my friends I enjoy working in groups I greet my friends with open arms Table 14: Items of CASES after Principal Components Analysis 4.50 109 .2.0% of the variance. Based on the .50) was conducted on the RBPS measure of performance.
90.81 . .001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was greater than the acceptable level of 0. .81 .76 .84 .84 . only one item was eliminated and this was from the organisation component of the RBPS.76 . . Team component and Organisation component of the RBPS were . Innovator component.73 .80 .63 . Career component.75 .79 Table 15: Rotated Component Matrix of RBPS The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < .89.56 2 3 4 5 .75 .76 .90. Hence. and 110 .85 .77 . The Cronbach’s alphas for the Job component.loading criterion. factorability was assumed.91.78 . Component Job1 Job2 Job3 Job4 Career3 Career2 Career4 Career1 Innovator2 Innovator3 Innovator1 Innovator4 Team2 Team1 Team3 Team4 Organisation3 Organisation4 Organisation2 1 .60. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 15.85 .73 .
The five performance sub-scales therefore had acceptable internal reliability. The Relationship between the FFM Dimensions and the CASES Dimensions As shown in Table 16. Agreeableness and Extraversion but negatively correlated with Openness and Neuroticism. The Ego component was not correlated with Openness or Extraversion. All of the components of the RBPS were correlated with each other at the 0. 111 .01 level (one-tailed). The Safety component was not correlated with Openness. and Conscientiousness. The Complexity component was not correlated with Extraversion. Agreeableness. 4. The Ego component of CASES was positively correlated with Neuroticism.. Agreeableness and Extraversion but negatively correlated with Neuroticism. The Safety component of CASES was positively correlated with Conscientiousness.2.4.93 respectively. The Actualisation component of CASES was positively correlated with Conscientiousness. the Complexity component of CASES was correlated positively with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness 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.
19** 1 .53** .02 1 .22** Extraversion -.13** .03 1 -.63** .46** .20** Career RBPS 1 .09* -.05 -.32** .74** .Job RBPS Career RBPS Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Conscientiousness Openness Neuroticism Agreeableness .15** 1 .10** -.70** .82** .50** .32** .29** .54** .21** .17** Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Conscientiousness Openness Neuroticism Agreeablenes s 1 .30** -.29** 1 -.35** -.18** -.80** .41** -. * Correlation is significant at the 0.33** -.28** .87** .01 level (1 – tailed).06 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.25** .64** .05 -.32** -.32** .22** .13** .08* -.02 -.48** .05 level (1 – tailed). Table 17: Correlations of the Components of FFM and RBPS 115 .55** .01 -.79** .82** .62** .09* .42** -.03 1 .22** 1 .07 -.29** 0.0 -.
the Job component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.051 .469 . Error Beta 1.353 Sig. 116 .000 a.411 2. a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.25 respectively (Table 18). . The R-square value was .20 respectively (Table 19). The R-square value was .000 .537 .192 .246 t 8.23.259 .12.Using a stepwise regression analysis.000 .539 .36 and -. the Career component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.358 -.051 .238 -6.445 9.000 .041 -. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Career component of the RBPS and had beta values of .502 10.229 .25 and -. Dependent Variable: Perform2Job Table 18: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis.010 10. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS and had beta values of .000 .390 .
188 9.655 .249 . the Innovator component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.055 .000 a.200 t 7. .a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.456 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Car Table 19: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis.993 8.034 -5.16.359 .060 .000 .246 -.000 .216 t 7.000 a. Dependent Variable: Perform2In Table 20: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM 117 .858 Sig.000 .000 .290 2.29 and -.049 5.235 .436 .000 .000 .044 -.060 .055 .337 Sig.048 -.767 7.271 .22 respectively (Table 20). The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Innovator component of the RBPS and had beta values of .000 .237 .389 .224 .207 .332 2. The R-square value was .683 . .000 .500 7. a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. Error Beta 1.453 . Error Beta 1.422 .285 -.965 -4.045 9.
187 .541 7.000 .575 .137 .040 -.207 2.000 .000 .335 7.264 .277 . The regression revealed that Conscientiousness.122 .290 4.035 .942 4. .203 -. The R-square value was .000 . the Organisation component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM. 118 .000 .14 respectively (Table 21).242 .498 -3.058 .000 .16. The R-square value was .Using a stepwise regression analysis.056 . .164 4.000 .15.138 t 11.259 .197 . The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and Agreeableness were the only significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS and had beta values of .001 a.405 Sig.936 4.20.058 .050 .25 and . the Team component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.256 . a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Agree 3 (Constant) Conscientous Agree Neurotic Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.983 7.056 .220 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Tm Table 21: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis.324 1. Error Beta 2.20 and -. Agreeableness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS and had beta values of .400 .000 .225 .20 respectively (Table 22).
000 .283 7.186 .000 . -.504 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Org Table 22: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on FFM Using a stepwise regression analysis.222 .000 .207 .198 t 7.464 .064 . The regression revealed that Conscientiousness.121 t 10.910 8.196 .065 . .692 10.058 .188 . Error 1.049 -.21 and .035 2.297 .000 .474 -5.000 . a Coefficients Model 1 2 3 (Constant) Conscientous (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic (Constant) Conscientous Neurotic Agree Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.031 9.335 2.348 .103 -5.648 4.364 .373 9.413 .044 2.000 .630 12.005 a.050 Standardized Coefficients Beta .000 .210 . Neuroticism and Agreeableness were the only significant predictors of Total RBPS and had beta values of .312 -.415 .366 . .140 .12 respectively (Table 23).000 a. The R-square value was .744 .595 4.108 .385 Sig.000 .000 .068 .348 1. Dependent Variable: Perform2Total Table 23: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on FFM 119 .a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Conscientous 2 (Constant) Conscientous Agree Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.000 .218 .811 Sig. Total RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM.000 .256 . Error Beta 1.724 .163 .370 -.23.044 -.324 5.035 .253 .31.000 .
Team component. each component of the RBPS as well as Total RBPS had a significant proportion of variance explained by the FFM components. like the FFM components. 1978). which states that the FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. From Table 24. the first hypothesis. 2004. Actualisation and Safety components of the CASES correlated significantly with all five components of the RBPS as well as with Total RBPS.Conscientiousness was the best predictor of all of the RBPS components and the Total RBPS. Organisation component. and Total RBPS. are no more wholly independent than they are redundant. is supported. The Ego component correlated significantly with only the Job and Organisation components of the 120 . Neuroticism was a significant predictor of the Job component. Nunnally. which indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem (Carmelli and Freund.2. The CASES components are distinct but related and. Agreeableness was a significant predictor of Team component. the CASES components were positively intercorrelated. Career component.23. Hence. The Complexity. The R-square values ranged from . and Total RBPS.12 to . Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure H2: The CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. 4.3.70. The correlation coefficients did not exceed the value of . Innovator component. Furthermore.
RBPS. except for the Career component. and with Total RBPS. The Social component correlated significantly with all of the RBPS components. 121 .
01 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.80** .18** .37** .63** .31** . * Correlation is significant at the 0.25** . Table 24: Correlations of the Components of CASES and RBPS 122 .27** .36** .59** .55** .31** .62** .14** .46** .40** .05 level (1 – tailed).50** .70** .74** .82** .79** .53** .37** .12** .40** .19** .01 level (1 – tailed).0 -.32** Career RBPS .49** .10* .23** .07 .82** .07 .34** .34** .64** .36** .45** .24** .43** .08* -0.28** .38** .39** .46** .37** .20** Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Actualisatio n Social Complexit y Safet y .34** .87** .51** .Job RBPS Career RBPS Innovator RBPS Team RBPS Organisation RBPS Total RBPS Actualisation Social Complexity Safety .12** Ego -.11** .01 .54** .
051 .22.217 -. the Career component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.413 .15.234 7.991 4.249 . a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex 2 (Constant) Complex Safety 3 (Constant) Complex Safety Ego Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.499 .215 .429 .205 .050 1.264 .755 .000 .000 .050 1.341 .000 .049 -. the Job component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.350 -3. .994 6.179 .238 .057 5.169 .044 Standardized Coefficients Beta . The regression revealed that Complexity was the only significant predictor of the Career component of the RBPS and had a beta value of .862 Sig.052 .000 . Error 1. The R-square value was .38 (Table 26).470 8.000 .22 and -.000 .394 5.149 t 9. The R-square value was .000 a.000 .540 .15 respectively (Table 25).328 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Job Table 25: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on CASES Using a stepwise regression analysis. The regression revealed that Complexity.397 .34.809 10.000 .128 . 123 . Safety and Ego were the only significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS and had beta values of . .Using a stepwise regression analysis.
125 10.222 .544 .822 11.050 .056 Standardized Coefficients Beta . Error 1.42 and .000 .000 .917 .379 t 6.013 a. Error Beta 1.449 .127 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Car Table 26: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on CASES Using a stepwise regression analysis.000 a.000 .053 . .531 . The regression revealed that Complexity and Safety were the only significant predictors of the Innovator component of the RBPS and had beta values of .a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.101 t 6.765 9. the Innovator component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES. .589 . Dependent Variable: Perform2In Table 27: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on CASES 124 .481 Sig.182 .239 .686 4.358 .218 2.000 . a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex 2 (Constant) Complex Safety Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std.21.051 .201 .530 Sig.10 respectively (Table 27). The R-square value was .000 .415 .
325 .17 respectively (Table 28). Complexity and Social were the only significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS and had beta values of . Safety.23. the Organisation component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.298 .000 .17 respectively (Table 29).000 .17 and .045 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Tm Table 28: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on CASES Using a stepwise regression analysis.908 .958 6.170 . the Team component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES. .000 . The R-square value was .000 .172 .049 .020 4.000 .010 .049 .050 .047 .048 .240 .000 .654 6.371 .26 and . The regression revealed that Safety.261 .203 .912 4.053 Sig. .127 4. The R-square value was .202 1.449 .000 a. 125 .393 1.Using a stepwise regression analysis.202 .351 . Error Beta 1. .19.17 and .196 . a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Safety 2 (Constant) Safety Complex 3 (Constant) Safety Complex Social Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. The regression revealed that Actualisation.174 t 11.22. Complexity and Social were the only significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS and had beta values of .000 .929 4.657 7.12.000 .217 .086 9.
120 2.274 .000 .076 . .263 . The regression revealed that Complexity and Safety were the only significant predictors of Total RBPS and had beta values of .101 4.060 .180 3.230 .24 respectively (Table 30).314 9.495 Sig.167 .062 .389 .250 .000 .911 4.000 .233 .183 5.002 .199 . Total RBPS was regressed on the five components of CASES.880 3.704 1. Error 1.116 .001 a.291 .060 .250 .258 .262 .296 1.391 .315 .908 3.062 .38 and .235 .782 3.069 .067 6.000 .186 .767 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Org Table 29: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on CASES Using a stepwise regression analysis.553 .000 .220 .493 .164 .238 .000 .26.262 .166 t 5.057 .056 .063 Standardized Coefficients Beta . The R-square value was .a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Actualise 2 (Constant) Actualise Safety 3 (Constant) Actualise Safety Complex 4 (Constant) Actualise Safety Complex Social Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.059 .000 .000 .063 . 126 .000 .217 .031 .166 .293 .161 4.281 .
644 6.406 .247 .041 .378 .587 12. the second hypothesis. . the Innovator component.000 a.000 .032 6. 127 . and Total RBPS. The R-square values ranged from .000 .459 1.098 Sig. which states that the CASES model will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.493 .000 . the Organisation component. Social was a significant predictor for the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS.176 .26. the Career component.171 9. each component of the RBPS as well as Total RBPS had a significant proportion of variance explained by the CASES components. Safety was also a significant predictor of the Job component.147 . Hence. and Total RBPS.000 .041 . Furthermore.084 .709 .a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Complex 2 (Constant) Complex Safety Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. Dependent Variable: Perform2Total Table 30: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on CASES Complexity was the best predictor of the Job component.239 t 11.042 . Error Beta 1. is supported. Ego was a significant predictor for only the Job component of the RBPS. Actualisation and Safety were the best predictors of the Organisation component and Team component of the RBPS respectively.15 to . the Innovator component.
11. the Job component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of the CASES.15. and Social -. The factors of Complexity. FFM and CASES predicting the Job Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.8%. Complexity.20.2% of the variance of the Job component of the RBPS.3. 4. These two factors were from the FFM. Safety.4. Complexity . 128 . From Table 31.9% followed by Neuroticism with 5. from the CASES. Safety and Social. Neuroticism. and Social were the only significant predictors. Neuroticism -. accounted for 4. the beta values are: Conscientiousness .1. Safety . FFM and CASES predicting performance H3: The CASES and FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness explained 126.96.36.199.3.20.
051 -.041 -.000 .051 .238 -6.000 .358 -.180 .058 .254 -.041 -.000 .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.581 Sig.374 -5.176 4.026 -5.041 -.000 .219 -.539 .000 .200 -.002 2. the Career component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of the CASES.3.715 . .537 .241 .3.246 1.648 6.248 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Job Table 31: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES 4.486 4. Error Beta 1.060 .000 .000 .263 .578 4.445 9.008 .000 .469 .297 3.041 -.210 .109 t 8.251 .264 . FFM and CASES Predicting the Career Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.199 .192 .010 10.287 .302 -2.001 .058 .200 .065 . 129 . The regression revealed that Complexity and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors.113 6.333 .000 .233 .139 .259 .881 .947 4.000 .353 7.131 .185 .058 .191 1.211 .000 .000 .502 10.010 a.000 .390 .946 5.114 1.066 .228 .221 .000 .2.969 .148 -.229 .411 2.271 .217 .055 .052 .545 -5.000 .428 4.000 .051 .000 .
1% followed by Neuroticism (2.531 .3. Neuroticism and Safety were the only significant predictors.6% of the variance in the Innovator component of the RBPS.09.000 a.017 . the beta value of the Complexity was . 130 .000 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Car Table 32: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on the FFM and CASES 4.057 -. explained 14.530 7.379 .191 .358 .16.16.827 8. FFM and CASES Predicting the Innovator Component of RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis. . and Social .765 9. which explained 2. the Innovator component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES.056 2.The Complexity component from the CASES model.163 Model 1 2 (Constant) Complex (Constant) Complex Neurotic t 6.38. Error 1.258 . Neuroticism -. From Table 32.7%) and Safety accounted for 0. Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. The Complexity component explained 20.335 -. The regression revealed that Complexity.048 Standardized Coefficients Beta .000 .201 .469 .996 Sig. the beta values are: Complexity .4% of the variance.208 -3.3.34 and for Neuroticism it was -. From Table 33.4% followed by Neuroticism from the FFM.3.000 . Complexity and Safety were from the CASES while Neuroticism was from the FFM.000 .
6%).000 .109 . the beta values are: Safety . Social and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors.529 .3.376 9. Social (2.070 Complex .3%).287 3 (Constant 1.25. the Team component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES. Complexity and Social factors were from CASES while Neuroticism factor was from the FFM. and Neuroticism accounted for 1.000 .000 .182 6.142 Neurotic -.793 Complex .086 2.043 -.161 -4.3% of the variance in the Team component of the RBPS. Error Beta t 1 (Constant 1.12.258 Neurotic -. The regression revealed that Safety.000 . and Neuroticism -.272 5.054 .589 .033 Table 33: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES 4. Complexity.686 2 (Constant 188.8.131.52 .493 .19.403 10.5% followed by Complexity (3.876 . Dependent Variable: Perform2In Sig. FFM and CASES Predicting the Team Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis. Social .168 -4.232 8. The Safety component explained 15. .a Coefficients Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients Model B Std. From Table 34.000 .050 .822 Complex . Complexity .043 -.185 .000 .000 .141 a.000 .3.093 Safety .449 11.051 .573 . Safety. 131 .052 .177 .
657 7.5.010 . 132 .000 . followed by Safety (4.086 9.174 .654 6.217 . Safety. the beta values are: Actualisation .003 a. Error 1.048 1. none of the FFM components were significant.049 .000 . and Social .049 1.325 .17.912 4.958 6.000 .039 Standardized Coefficients Beta . the Organisation component of the RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES.301 4.425 .000 .045 1.210 .170 .001 . FFM and CASES Predicting the Organisation Component of the RBPS Using a stepwise regression analysis.929 4.118 .0%).393 .371 . Dependent Variable: Perform2Tm Table 34: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of the RBPS on FFM and CASES 4.Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. From Table 35.050 . All of these components were from the CASES.053 5.000 .172 .000 .203 . and Social (1.165 .050 .240 .17.202 .8%).202 .000 .139 .050 .048 -.256 .3. Actualisation explained 15.000 .351 .908 .298 . Complexity (2.261 .3%.119 Model 1 2 3 4 (Constant) Safety (Constant) Safety Complex (Constant) Safety Complex Social (Constant) Safety Complex Social Neurotic t 11. .000 .127 4.000 .12. Complexity and Social were the only significant predictors.246 .186 -.339 -3.020 4.047 .3.449 . The regression revealed that Actualisation. Complexity .002 Sig.567 5.281 .196 .000 . Safety .1%).000 .674 3.19.
186 . Neuroticism -.18. Dependent Variable: Perform2Org Table 35: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on FFM and CASES 4.220 .000 .000 .076 .263 . and Conscientiousness .233 .Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.166 .069 .250 .281 . Safety .199 .314 9. Error 1.167 .908 3.274 . Safety. The regression revealed that Complexity.000 .15.063 Standardized Coefficients Beta .002 .238 .553 .258 .3. 133 .767 . From Table 36.183 5.235 .493 .9%).1% followed by Safety (5.161 4.056 .063 .180 3.000 .782 3.911 4.217 .067 6.1%).101 4. FFM and CASES Predicting Total RBPS Performance Using a stepwise regression analysis.060 .28.315 .031 .250 .495 Sig.262 .293 . Neuroticism (2.062 .166 Model 1 2 3 4 (Constant) Actualise (Constant) Actualise Safety (Constant) Actualise Safety Complex (Constant) Actualise Safety Complex Social t 5. Neuroticism and Conscientiousness were the only significant predictors. Complexity and Safety were from the CASES and Neuroticism and Conscientiousness were from the FFM.120 2.062 .000 .000 .262 .391 .880 3.296 1.057 .060 .164 .000 .000 .230 .059 .6.13.000 . .291 .704 1. Complexity explained 21.116 . and Conscientiousness (0.3%).3.389 .001 a. the beta values are: Complexity . Total RBPS was regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES.
Social component of the CASES was a significant predictor of the Job.239 . 134 .587 12.000 .459 .283 . Safety was also a significant predictor of all five components of the RBPS.141 .000 .365 .171 9. Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. Safety component of the CASES was the best predictor of the Team component of the RBPS.000 .692 6. the Innovator component.176 6. Complexity was also a significant predictor of the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS.154 .000 .493 .041 1.180 -.010 a. 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. .186 .126 Model 1 2 3 4 (Constant) Complex (Constant) Complex Safety (Constant) Complex Safety Neurotic (Constant) Complex Safety Neurotic Conscientous t 11.522 8.472 .340 . Error 1.142 .232 .000 .176 .Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients B Std.644 6.304 . and Total RBPS.034 . Actualisation component of the CASES was the best predictor of the Organisation component of the RBPS. except for the Career component.054 Standardized Coefficients Beta .000 .159 .000 .034 1.220 .000 .214 .138 .562 5.000 .271 4.084 .613 .048 .791 -4.709 .378 .247 .000 .271 -4.043 .225 -.042 .406 .081 2.098 7.598 Sig.044 -.147 .041 1.000 .000 . and Total RBPS.040 -.032 6.000 .
29. The principal components analysis of the CASES yielded a five-component measure that accounted for 57. The Cronbach’s alphas for the FFM components range from . is supported. 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.73.e.4. 4. Each of the components (i. which states that the CASES and FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance. Ego and Social) has 4 items. The original sub-scales had ten items 135 .0% of the variance. Agreeableness and Neuroticism components each have four items. and Total RBPS.4% of the variance in the FFM items.01 level (1-tailed).17 to .Conscientiousness component of the FFM was the best predictor of the Job component and a significant predictor of Total RBPS.. the third hypothesis. Hence. CONCLUSION The principal components analysis of the FFM yielded a five-component measure that accounted for 47. The original subscales had ten items each. except for the Organisation component. Neuroticism component of the FFM was a significant predictor of all the RBPS components. Complexity. The R-square values ranged from . The Openness and Conscientiousness components each have five items while the Extraversion. The five factors are all intercorrelated significantly at the 0. Actualisation. Safety.57 to .
81. Safety. Complexity and Safety were significant predictors of the Innovator component and Total RBPS. Safety.each. Complexity was the only significant predictor of the Career component of the RBPS. The Cronbach’s alphas for these components ranged from .0% of the variance. Conscientiousness and Agreeableness were significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS.01 level (1-tailed). Complexity. Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM were significant predictors of the Job. Each component of the RBPS had a significant proportion of its variance explained by the FFM components. Safety and Ego were significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS. From the stepwise regression.12 to . The R- 136 . Actualisation. The principal components analysis of the RBPS yielded a five-component measure that accounted for 80. the first hypothesis. All five CASES components were intercorrelated significantly at the 0. All of the components retained their original 4items except for the Organisation component. The R-square values ranged from . Complexity and Social were significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS.23. is supported.93.89 to . Career. for which one item was removed. Hence. Complexity and Social were significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS.48 to . Conscientiousness. From the stepwise regression. Agreeableness and Neuroticism were significant predictors of the Team component and Total RBPS. The Cronbach’s alphas for the CASES components ranged from . and Innovator components of the RBPS. which states that the FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.
29. had a significant proportion of its variance explained by both the CASES and the FFM components.14 to . The R-square values ranged from . the third hypothesis. From the stepwise regression. Complexity and Safety of the CASES and Neuroticism and Conscientiousness of the FFM were significant predictors of Total RBPS. Safety and Social of the CASES were significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS. Safety. which states that the CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.26. Each component of the RBPS had a significant proportion of its variance explained by the CASES components. Hence. Safety. the second hypothesis. 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 and Neuroticism of the FFM were significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS. is essentially supported. which states that the CASES and FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.square values ranged from .17 to . Actualisation. 137 . Each component of the RBPS. Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM and Complexity. Complexity and Safety of the CASES and Neuroticism of the FFM were significant predictors of the Innovator component of the RBPS. is supported. Complexity and Social of the CASES were significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS. Hence. except for the Organisation component which was significantly predicted only by components of CASES.
1. CHAPTER FIVE – CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 5.0. which revealed a five-component solution consisting of Openness 138 . The original 50-item FFM measure (Goldberg. DISCUSSION OF THE MAIN FINDINGS 5.5. 1999) was analysed using principal components analysis. the limitations of the study.2.2. 5. and finally a conclusion. 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. 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. and suggestions for future research.1.
Agreeableness (four items) and Neuroticism (four items).30 were questionable. Conscientiousness (5 items). For this research.09. imaginative and intellectual) was found to be negatively correlated to only the Team component of the RBPS with r = -. purposeful. dependable. A value of 0. This finding is not surprising given that conscientious individuals are organised. artistically sensitive. this factor was considered as an inadequate predictor of any of the RBPS components or of Total RBPS. Barrick and Mount (1991) also argued that coefficients below . a correlation coefficient of 0.. Openness (e. hardworking.g. Extraversion (four items).g.. This finding corroborates the finding of Hogan and Holland (2003). achievement oriented and persistent) had the highest correlations with all of the RBPS components and Total RBPS. responsible. The value of the correlation coefficient that can be considered to indicate a useful predictor has been debated over the years. Conscientiousness (e.20 was too low to accept personality as a predictor of work performance. 139 .(5 items). 1997).30. In view of the cut-off value of 0. (1984) argued that a correlation of 0. achievement oriented. The results of the stepwise regression analyses also did not reveal Openness as a significant predictor of any of the RBPS components.. Of the five FFM components.20 was considered by Cohen (1988) as meaningful but Schmitt et al.30 or greater was therefore considered as indicating a valid predictor of performance. responsible. All of these components were intercorrelated as revealed in past research which showed that they were distinct but related factors (Judge et al.
these results demonstrated that being dependable.g. Such low values of the correlation 140 . assertive and sociable) was found to be negatively correlated (r = -.e. Hurtz and Donovan 2000.. Crant 1995. Salgado 1997. persistent. and Sanders 2003).09) with the Career component of the RBPS. Barrick and Mount 1993.. the Conscientiousness construct does seem to be logically related to work performance. Conscientiousness was found to be the best predictor of the components of the RBPS and of Total RBPS. This finding is consistent with the results of Avis et al. Furthermore. that have been examined (e. 1993). dependable. Extraversion (e. From the stepwise regression analysis. 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.g... Conscientiousness has been shown to be a significant predictor of all job-related criteria. It makes sense that individuals who have tendencies to be careful. the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS). Hence. and persistent (Barrick et al. achievement-oriented and responsible (i.. high in Conscientiousness) were positively associated with work-related performance. hard working and thorough will perform better than those who do not have such tendencies. talkative. the Conscientiousness component also predicted Total RBPS better than contextual work performance (i. in all occupational groups. From a theoretical perspective.e. (2002) who posited that the FFM dimensions were better at predicting overall performance measures than those with contextual aspects.dependable.
2%) were from the managerial positions in highly structured jobs. Salgado (1997) revealed that Agreeableness was a valid predictor of work performance for skilled labourers. In line with the findings of the current study. Employees in these types of jobs who were courteous. In the stepwise regression analyses. The stepwise regressions revealed that Extraversion as a non-significant predictor of performance. Agreeableness was only a valid predictor of the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. are often disregarded (Barrick et al. and of Total RBPS. the finding from this study also supported that Agreeableness was a valid predictor of certain aspects of work performance for skilled. Neuroticism was correlated significantly with the Job component of the RBPS and with Total RBPS. Since the majority of the respondents (404 or 74. the Team component. cooperative and forgiving (which were facets of Agreeableness) might be more cooperative and compliant and therefore would perform better in highly structured organisations where there was little ambiguity in their jobs (Barrick and Mount. soft-hearted. and 141 .coefficient. Hogan and Holland (2003) reported that Extraversion was a poor predictor of performance and claimed that this was due to the Extraversion being too broad a construct. the Career component. the Innovator component.30 cut-off value for the correlation coefficient. professionals. Agreeableness can be a predictor of certain components of job performance for managerial staff in highly structured jobs. Hence. professional and managerial staff. 1993). Neuroticism was a predictor of the Job component. even though it is significant at the 0.05 level. Using a 0. trusting. 1993). and managers. Agreeableness was a significant predictor of all the RBPS components and of Total RBPS.
low confidence. organisations and countries. criteria. 2003).e.Total RBPS. Furthermore. Neuroticism encompasses traits such as excessive worry. These findings supported Salgado’s (2003) argument that emotional stability (i.. Agreeableness and Neuroticism could be considered as valid predictors of work performance in an absolute sense if 0. Hence. 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. which states that the FFM will predict a significant of variance of performance ratings. tendencies to experience negative emotions and pessimism.e. the antithesis of Neuroticism) has generalised validity across occupation. the five components of RBPS have components of “getting along and getting ahead”.. agreeableness and neuroticism should predict performance (Hogan and Holland. Barrick and Mount. 142 . If performance criteria are classified as getting ahead and getting along. calm and self-confident (i. Furthermore. Due to their tendency to construe their experiences in a negative light.30 was adopted as the standard. 1993). was supported. low Neuroticism) tend to be evaluated more positively than those who are panicky. then conscientiousness. Hurtz and Donovan (2000) postulated that Conscientiousness. This finding was partially reinforced in this study. employees who are resilient. 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. 2004a). Hypothesis One. Task performance corresponds to getting ahead while contextual performance corresponds to getting along. In the final analysis. 2002.
g.2.46).31 to . Ego and Social).5. Complexity. The new personality measure (i.. The Complexity component (e.2..e.45 and had the highest correlation with Total RBPS (r = . self-regulation or low impulsivity and volition) correlated with all of the components of the RBPS with coefficients ranging from .e. which were correlated positively to each other but to an extent that they could be considered as distinct but related components. 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. Actualisation. Safety. Complexity correlated with the Career component of the RBPS as self-regulation and volition would enhance the attainment of career 143 . 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”.. CASES) comprised five components (i. 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.
This aspect of performance can be linked to passion. growth and progress) was correlated with all of the RBPS components and with Total RBPS. In support of this argument is the finding that high performers perceive events are determined by themselves while low performers perceive events as controlled by chance (Bandura. which includes doing things outside one’s job scope for the betterment of the company. self-esteem and needs for achievement. Complexity correlated with the Innovator component of the RBPS as low impulsivity would enable the creation of ideas and improvements to how one does one’s work. Actualisation correlated with the Organisation component of the RBPS. Actualisation was also correlated with 144 . Using a cut-off value of 0.g. or the Innovator component of the RBPS.30 for the correlation coefficient. Complexity correlated with the Organisation component of the RBPS arguably because self-regulation and volition would promote the virtues of the organisation. action and thought. 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 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. 1977a).opportunities and the advancement of one’s career. passion. Actualisation cannot be considered a valid predictor for the Job component. Actualisation correlated with the Team component of the RBPS. all of which are arguably related to the need for growth. self-esteem and the need for progress.. which includes aspects of performance such as ensuring group success and seeking and responding to group’s needs. the Career component.
. This finding reaffirmed Arnold’s (1988) claim that Actualisation is a predictor of job performance. 2001). It is reasonable that individuals with tendencies to be achievement-oriented. 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. the Safety component is correlated with the Job. and Organisation components of the RBPS and with Total RBPS. Safety correlated with the Job component of the RBPS arguably because orderly and structured facets are antecedents of high quality and high quantity. Safety correlated with Total 145 .30. the Actualisation construct does seem to be logically related to organisational citizenship and total performance. The reason could be the age of the respondents (average age was 34. 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. Team.Total RBPS. systematic. achievement.6 years).g. At this level. passionate and creative would perform better than those who do not have these tendencies. From a theoretical perspective. the drive is to achieve a sense of fulfilment in balancing one’s work and life responsibilities (Stum. the need for growth. Using a cut-off value of . orderly and structured) correlated with all of the components of the RBPS and with Total RBPS. such that the respondents were perhaps too young to be highly motivated to realise their full potential. The Safety component of CASES (e. The stepwise regression analyses revealed that Actualisation was the best and only predictor of the Organisation component of the RBPS. security. which included facets of passion.
Social correlated only with the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS.. The Social component of CASES (e. the CASES model. and Total RBPS. except for the Innovator component. structured and systematic are antecedents of productivity (Cook et al.g. The stepwise regression analyses also revealed that Ego was a significant. these components of performance are related to facets of teamwork and organisational citizenship. with the exception of the Ego component.30 cut-off value. 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. but negatively related. 2000). Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. Based on the preceding discussion of the main findings.g. This finding indicates that the Ego component is detrimental to facets of performance (e.. affiliation. The stepwise regression analyses also revealed that Social was a significant predictor of the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. quality and quantity of work) that constitute the job component of the RBPS. Safety was found to be a significant predictor of the Job. predictor of the Job component of the RBPS. Innovator. In the stepwise regression analyses. and with Total RBPS. companionship and care) correlated significantly with all of the components of the RBPS. Using the 0.RBPS arguable because its facets of orderly. needs for love.. is a useful predictor of the various components of the 146 .
. 5. Safety and Social components of CASES.RBPS and Total RBPS. which states that CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings. This finding might be due to the fact that the Complexity component has facets which included volition (i.e.2.3. was therefore supported. The stepwise regression showed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism. to conform and persevere) whereas the Neuroticism 147 . both of which are components of the FFM. Hypothesis Two. a component of the FFM. were better predictors of the Job component of the RBPS as compared with the Complexity. The stepwise regression revealed that the Complexity component of the CASES was a better predictor of the Career component of the RBPS than Neuroticism. Main Findings for Research Question Three Research Question Three: Do the two models of personality contribute uniquely to the prediction of work performance? The third research question was addressed by the third hypothesis: H3: The CASES and FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance. 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.
component comprises facets such as fear and low confidence regarding career progress and development. 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. The Innovator component addresses behaviors such as finding new ways to do one’s work and requires risk taking and confidence. The stepwise regression showed that for the Innovator component of the RBPS. Safety was the best predictor due probably to the fact that Safety includes aspects (e. Complexity. which is the essence of the Organisation component of the RBPS.g. The stepwise regression revealed that the Safety. This was probably due to the fact that Actualisation includes facets (e. Complexity was the best predictor followed by Neuroticism and Safety. Complexity. Complexity includes self-regulation and volition and not surprisingly 148 . Safety. passion and realisation of one’s potential) that facilitate organisational citizenship. Actualisation was the best predictor. and Social components of the CASES and the Neuroticism component of the FFM were predictors of the Team component of the RBPS. and Social components of CASES were predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS. Neuroticism and Conscientiousness.g. The stepwise regression revealed that the Actualisation. Complexity was the best predictor followed by Safety. and orderly) that enhance facets of teamwork such as seeking information from others and working with others. structured. protection.
1997. the various components of the CASES and the FFM are significant predictors of the various components of the RBPS and Total RBPS. 1998. Kieffer et al. Implications on Professional Practice From the classical perspective. 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.. the proposed CASES model. From this point of view. Based on the preceding discussion of the main findings. 5.. 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. 2004). IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS 5. which states that the CASES and FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to predict performance. examining the link between personality and work performance appears to have profound implications for organisations.3.3.1. was therefore supported. Sackett et al. If researchers are able to affirm that certain personality traits are related significantly to work performance. individuals and human resources consultants.was a better predictor than Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. which is based on 149 .
for their client organisations. the CASES model did account for significant variance in work performance over and above that accounted for by the FFM. and formulating effective human resources strategies in training. Although the research methodology and design did not permit statements of causality. has important practical implications. which is a wellestablished model of personality. the CASES model is another useful tool for human resource personnel with respect to designing effective job specifications or roles. The CASES model may also be useful for recruitment consultants in that it may help them to identify effective employees. The CASES model provides a means for individuals to assess their personality so as to develop appropriate strategies to improve their performance and hence their vocational endeavors (Lau and Shaffer. 150 . based on personality traits. The results indicate that the CASES model of personality maybe a useful addition to the array of personality or individual difference measures that are used to predict various facets of work performance. organisations and individuals. The knowledge that personality can influence or even be a determinant of work performance is valuable to recruiting agencies.Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the social cognitive theory of “If-Then”. For organisations. recruiting and promoting personnel. 1999).
cognition and satisfaction are correlated with work performance. personality interacts with cognitive ability and appears to influence work performance (Lowery. The level of job complexity may have a role in whether an interaction occurs between personality and ability when predicting work performance.5. Furthermore.3. there has been a proliferation of psychometric instruments that have been used as part of organisational development and recruitment processes.2. Implications on Theory The first Chapter provided an outline of this study in the context of motivation. such as Malaysia. and psychometric measures. Beadles II and Krilowicz. 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. behavior. values. There is a lot of debate on whether the role of a person on work performance is sculptor or sculpture. many personality measures are based on single theories and therefore their usefulness for predicting performance in actual workplace settings needs to be examined. Moreover. where English is a second language. In recent years. Hence. The need for achievement is also dependent on the fit between environmental factors and personality. 2004) 151 . Two research problems were therefore identified and these guided the current research. personality.
small or medium or large organisations. 5.e. However. which brings into question the representativeness of the sample and therefore the generalisability of the findings. Common method variance and mono-source bias are potential limitations of the current study as they may produce spurious relationships. consciously or unconsciously. which reduces the correlation between items. 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. 2002). the CASES model suggests that certain personality factors or traits have a greater effect on work performance because people can.11. there is no way of estimating 152 . maximum r = . Self-ratings are influenced by social desirability such that responses tend to be skewed toward the favourable end of the Likert scale for each item.Similarly. public or private) would increase confidence in its validity and generalisability. a convenience sample was used. A subsequent study designed to assess personality and work performance over time (longitudinally) using a random sample of the population (i. modify their behavior to improve their work performance. Furthermore.46).. it seems reasonable to conclude that the measures of personality and work performance were assessing separate constructs (Barrick et al. This creates range restriction..4. Given the relatively small correlation coefficients obtained in this study (minimum r = . The predictors and the criteria used in the current study were obtained from self-report data using a single questionnaire.
Hence. organisations may be willing to include the CASES measure in surveys as a preliminary screening for potential employees. possible modifications as well as further validation of the CASES. For the sake of understanding the impact of personality on work performance. Consequently. FFM and the RBPS is recommended.what the variance of the ratings ought to be. further instrument refinement is recommended. 153 . CASES and RBPS would have differed if incentives were provided. it would be interesting to explore these relationships using alternative measurements as certain studies had presented evidence that customer. This study was the first time these measures have been used together in Malaysia. The circumstances of the respondents’ participation did not give any incentive to give inaccurate responses. supervisor or co-worker ratings had equivalent or higher levels of criterion-related validity in comparison with employees’ self-reports. Another impetus for further research is the length of the CASES measure as this personality measure has only 20 items. 5. Hence. In regards to instrumentation. it is not possible to adjust the correlations for the effects of a restricted range.5. due to its brevity. It would be difficult to fathom how the relative validities of the FFM. FUTURE RESEARCH The personality measures of the FFM and the CASES and the RBPS performance measure were self-reports.
job complexity. goal-setting motivation. skilled or semi-skilled. 5. Given that the research on the CASES measure is an initial effort..g. sales. From a more philosophical angle.6. 154 . Systematic replication integrating a variety of individuals representing various ages. The cross-validation of the CASES with other determinants of work performance such as ability. Face validity is always a problem in personality measure.Questions about the generalisability of these findings and external validity issues can be addressed through replications of this study. it should by all means be subjected to replication in various contexts with various work performance measures. income and educational backgrounds are needed to address concerns about the generalisability of the findings obtained in the current study. organisational settings (public. 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. Although face validity may be defined as a “test which looks good for a particular purpose” (Hogan. Future research can also be conducted to ascertain whether the results reported in this study are generalisable to different jobs (e. management or clerical). non-governmental or non-profit organisations) and cultures. validity is a long-term process for any research. job satisfaction and other proximal motivation models that include interaction effects should also be encouraged to further enhance the validation of this personality measure. self-efficacy.
1997).g. While personality-based theories may not necessarily predict behavior or motivation. motivation. 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.g. changes in one’s life can affect the sequence of meeting these needs. 1997). A 155 . or customers) for information on work performance and personality rather than to rely exclusively on self-report data. 474). co-workers. Because needs are met at different stages. supervisors. it would be appropriate to explore this relationship using third-party sources (e. That is. ability. 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. Furthermore.. 1996. p. The strength of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory is its ability to identify those needs which motivate behavior (Wiley. many seemingly appropriate personality tests fail to predict work performance. it is of no use for decision making. there are other dimensions of work performance (e. one should choose the former. job-related learning and knowledge sharing) that are not included in the RBPS. Employee performance is basically determined by three things. Personality measures often have empirical validity but commonly are weak on face validity. and the work environment (Wiley. each individual moves through Maslow’s hierarchy at a different rate.Hogan and Roberts. Furthermore. 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. to understand the impact of personality on work performance. they can provide a basic understanding of what actually energises or motivates individuals..
for example. 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. 1996). 156 . Hogan and Roberts. then the predictive relationship between work performance and personality will improve (Hogan. the individual must balance life and work responsibilities to ultimately achieve a sense of fulfilment. In reality. Hence. With this jockeying to satisfy these needs. personal development and career advice. select and transform stimuli.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. it would be beneficial to individuals to be aware of the limitations and advantages associated with their personality profiles. A comment on the usefulness of research on personality and work performance should also be made. people are not simply reactors to stimuli in their environment in that they can also organise. Besides their indisputable academic importance. 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. If researchers are able to classify jobs by occupation and then consider the performance criteria and the personality dimensional requirements relevant to that occupation. studies that have examined the relationship between personality and work performance can be utilised for recruitment. Although personality is significantly inherited and stable in adulthood.
CASES. 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. this personality measure. In addition to providing a theory-grounded measurement tool. Although the FFM is a well established personality measure. Innovator. some components of the CASES model were found to be better predictors of the Career. CASES.The study has contributed to the literature on personality by providing a new personality measure. the researcher believes that it has made a contribution to research on personality measures and the prediction of work-related performance. Although this is a preliminary study of the validity of the CASES model of personality. Team and Organisation components of the RBPS. Moreover. Hence. CASES can be offered as a useful personality measure for both practitioners and researchers. 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. 2004a. 157 . Hunton and Bryant. can be added as a new contribution to the body of knowledge for personality measure especially in relation to the prediction of work-related performance. and Total RBPS as compared to the FFM which was a better predictor of only the Job component of the RBPS. both situationally and contextually (Wheeler. 2003). Tett and Burnett. 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.
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.
John Wiley & Sons. Cavana. (1943). (1989). Cattell. Cervone. Campbell. 38. Comparison of Factor Structure and Criterion-Related Validity Coefficients for Two Measures of Personality Based on the Five Factor Model. D. A. (1989). The Architecture of Personality. and Freund. American Psychologist. The Social Construction of Needs. D.H. 1001-1013. 43(6). (2001). Evolutionary Psychology and Explanation in Personality Psychology. Personality as Traits. 302-314. J. A. F. 81(6). 7(3). R. Psychological Review. (1996). Psychology and Marketing.Buss.. The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters.. 13. A. Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Miller. (2004)..L. Buttle. and Sekaran... Doverspike. 476-506. Carmeli. D.J. Journal of Applied Psychology. R.B.F. 111(1).D. Work Commitment. Cellar. Cervone. Delahaye.Y. (2004). B. 694704. 161 . Academy of Management Review. 183204. D. M. 6(3). and Lee. 289-309. 44(11). and Klawsky. (1988). C. (2000).. 1378-1388.L. Self Appraisal in Performance Evaluation: Development Versus Evaluation.. D. U.D. Applied Business Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. 197-210. The American Behavioural Scientist. International Journal of Organisation Theory and Behavior.
T. Costa. 12(2). M. Costa. A. K. and McCrae.. Cohen. Jung and Adler. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.R. R. 26(1). J. (1988). European Journal of Psychological Assessment.. Academy of Management Journal.H. (1987). J. and Eary.D. and Sadri. 291-294.. A Markov Chain Model of Human Needs: An Extension of Maslow’s Need Theory. 216-220. Do all carrots look the same? Examining the impact of culture on employee motivation. (2000). 1820. 29-40. (2003). and Bedford. 162 . P. 51. Odessa. Taylor. E. (2001).T. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO FFI) professional manual. Costa.... Odessa. Personality and Self-Rated Work Performance. Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources. Chung. Coull.Cesare. R. Cohen. Coan. and McCrae. and McCrae. An experimental investigation of need for recognition. R. 223-234. and Wolfe. Management Research News... Solid ground in the wetlands: A reply to Block..P. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed. (1992). D. Psychometric assessment under test. R. A. 134-139. Young. (1985). Cook. G. The NEO Personality Inventory manual.T. P. Training Journal. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. (1995). P. Hillsdale. (1969). Stotland. A. J.). FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.R. (1995). Theoretical Orientation in Psychology and the Traditions of Freud. D. 18(2). N. 117..R. 16(3). NJ: Erlbaum. 202-208.W. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice.
(1989). D. 80(4). 55(7). S..R. Structure.M.. CA: Annual Reviews. 532-537. and Curd. (2004). The Proactive Personality Scale and Objective Job Performance Among Real Estate Agents. In M. F. 113-124. (1995). Status. (1998). (1990). Comparative analysis of complex organisations (enlarged. Psychometric tests. 36-38. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. J. pp. Five Big. 25-36. Personality and job performance: Evidence of incremental validity. Journal of Applied Psychology. 41. 73(6). 17.Crant.A. Descouzis. an overview of an increasingly complex world. DeGrandpre. B. (1997). R. 3(2).R.M. Training Journal.. 417-440).M. Palo Alto.W. Etzioni. and Crosscultural Assessment. Higher-Order Factors of the Big Five. Porter (Eds. New York: Academic Press. and Silverman. Day. Rosenweig & L.J. (1975). Big Five Issues: Rationale. Digman. Digman. J. (2000). 14-17. A. 42. Dent. European Psychologist. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual review of psychology (Vol. D. 163 . (1989). Psychological types of tax preparers.).). 721-739. Content. J. The Science of Meaning: Can Behaviorism Bring Meaning to Psychological Science? American Psychologist. 1246-1256. De Raad. J. Journal of Psychological Type. Personnel Psychology.
49-58. 691-697. (2002). Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. and Carr. (2003). A.R.B.. Personnel Management. and Einhorn. C. 46-50. Fletcher. Psychoanalytic Psychology. Integrating OB Mod with Cognitive Approaches to Motivation. 115-125. C. (1998). and Ferris. Trans. (Original work published 1923). The Journal of Business.. Triebe and Their Vicissitudes: Freud’s Theory of Motivation Reconsidered. Human Motivation. Frank. (1976). The ego and the id (J.. 4th Edition. A. Freud. van Schaik. 24(6). Riviere. Jr. 20(4). The Academy of Management Review.E. A comparison of Multi-Item Likert and Visual Analogue Scales for the Assessment of Transactionally Defined Coping Function. 6(1).). (2003).J. R. Organisations.. (1960). 348-365.R. Motivation Theory and Job Design. D. Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance are correlated? Possible sources of a commonsense theory. and van Wersch. Fisher. Flynn. (1981).Fedor.. Y. 358. 49(3). G. H. Journal of Managerial Psychology. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 25(12). New York: Norton. P. Gallagher. (2004). D. Gabriel. management and psychoanalysis: An overview. 20(1). W. 17(5). Franken. S. Journal of Organisational Behavior. Testing times for the world of psychometrics.D. 164 . (1993). G. 753-777.
American Psychologist. L. Haynes. Personality Inventory Measuring the Lower-Level Facets of Several Five-Factor models.. Goldberg. Tatham. George. Research Methods for Managers (3rd edn. Deary.E.. (2002).). G.). Grace. Mervielde. Gill.. 165 . Griffith University. 238-247. L. J. R. and Black.C. (1993). Ostendorf (Eds. I. 1998. The structure of phenotypic personality traits.Gelso. F. (2002). Public Domain. Upper Saddle River. (1999). J. Critical variables in Child care services switching: Contrasting consumer and staff perceptions. and Fassinger. Tilburg.S. Content validity in Psychological Assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods.N. A Broad-Bandwidth. & F.. Prentice-Hall. S. Prentice Hall. R.M.R.R. 7 – 28). J. (1995). D. (1992). Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7 (pp.. R. (1999). Anderson. and Kubany. In I.. Exploring the dimensions of service brands: The Service Brand Verdict (SBV) Model. W. Personality Psychology in Europe. 48. De Fruyt. 26-34. D. Griffith University. Development and Counseling Psychology: Depth. Vol. Goldberg. Unpublished Honours Thesis.S. C. 275-298. R. and Johnson. P.A. Psychological Assessment. The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.A. 39(3). 7(3). Ambivalence and Actualisation. and Jones. New Jersey. Great Britain. (2002). Organisational Behavior... Hair. Richard. Personality. Grace. Sage Publications. Journal of Counseling Psychology. D.J. NJ. E.
Hogan. 562-571. P. and Schmidt. F. J. Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and Answers.. 100-112. Journal of Applied Psychology. 16. 51(5). Truxillo.. 469-477..T.L.N. American Psychologist. Herbig. The Honeymoon Effect on Job Performance: Temporal Increases in the Predictive Power of Achievement Motivation. International motivational differences. (2003). Journal of Applied Psychology. and Meyer. Journal of Applied Psychology. Psychological Assessment. T. Sawin.E. 446-455. (1980). and Hammer. (2003). methodological and statistical issues. J. R. Hogan. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. (1996). 107-117. J. J. and Genestre. G.R.L.W.L. 88(3).J. affection and conation. and Carsrud. (1997). B. The trilogy of mind: Cognition. The incremental validity of psychological testing and assessment: Conceptual.. R. Hunter. Hogan. and Holland. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings.M. Bauer. L.M. Management Decision.L. L. 166 .. and Roberts. J. (1990). 185-188. 545-551. (1986). 88(1).. D. Hilgard.B.Helmreich. 71(2).. A Field Study of Frame-of-Reference Effects on Personality Test Validity.. Hunsley... Using Theory to Evaluate Personality and Job Performance Relations: A Socioanalytic Perspective. Hunthausen. 35(7). Newbury Park: Sage. E.. A. 15(4). A. (2003). B.
751-765..A. and Gerhardt.E. Jang.. and Bono. Occupational Health and Safety. Erez.. W.. Iachini.A. (2004).W. XVI (4).. The Personality of Familiar and Significant People: The Lay Perceiver as a Social-Cognitive Theorist. and Donovan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (2002).J. J. Ilies.. 167 . Bono. Starting the “Fire” under an unmotivated employee. Judge. Inderrieden. 1556-1565.. Five-Factor Model of Personality and Transformational Leadership..J. McCrae. (1998). 74.. 85(5). 72(3). and Livesley. 869-870. 460-482. J.. 18-20. Bono. T. G. Riemann. Personnel Psychology. L.. R. and Keaveny. 50.. Idson. 585-596. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. J. 765-780. Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Jolibert. and Thoresen.J. Judge. (2000). K. 80(4). Journal of Managerial Issues. R. C. 87(4). R.J. (2001). J. 675-688. T. and Baumgartner.R. W. Allen. T. Journal of Applied Psychology. E. Motivations and Personal Goals: Revisited.C. A. 14(7).. Journal of Applied Psychology. 85(6). A. R. T.. Psychology & Marketing. G. (1997). Judge. M. Values. (2003). Personality and Job Performance: The Big Five Revisited. A. 303-331.E. Journal of Applied Psychology. Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: Support for a hierarchical model of personality. Angleitner. (2003).J. and Mischel.Hurtz. (2000). The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure..E. Managerial Discretion in the Use of Self-ratings in a Appraisal System: The Antecedents and Consequences.A.M. J..L.E.
and Kahn.Hull) Princeton. Revision by R. Canadian Psychology. (H. J.H. M. Five Factor Model of Personality and Employee Absence. New York: Wiley. The collected works of C. R. Kieffer.. and Ilies. 87(4). Martocchio. Judge. (2002). S. (1971). Princeton University Press (Original work published 1921). 51(2). 745-755. American Psychologist.L.. 168-177. Review of General Psychology. Work Teams: Selecting Members for Optimal Performance.F. The Psychology of Worldviews.. Kichuk. T. and Curtiss.. C. Trans.).G. D. Jung. Baynes. Group and Organisation Studies. (2004). 82(5). 797-807. 168 . Kaufman. Schinka.A.Jung. (1976).C. The Meanings of Personality Predicates. K. J..Judge. W. NJ. Bollingen Series XX. T.M.6). Journal of Applied Psychology. Relationship of Personality to Performance Motivation: A Meta-Analytic Review. 1(4). C.J. Person-Environment Congruence and Personality Domains in the Prediction of Job Performance and Work Quality. Kagan.J. R.E. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 3-58.. 23-32. The social psychology of organisations (2nd ed. (1988). Organisational Improvement: A Review of Models and an Attempted Synthesis. 614-620. (2004). G. (1998). (1997). 39(1-2).. (Vol.A. (1978). J. and Thoresen.G. and Wiesner. Journal of Applied Psychology. R. Psychological types.L. 43(8).A.G. Koltko-Rivera.. Katz. 8(1). 474-495.
(1999). S. Human Resource Planning. D. Lindell. S. M.html Laribee. A personality profile of CPAs in public practice. Rogers.W. L.. and Whitney. (2003).. 114-121. A. 37-42. J. 86(1). 52(8). Psychological contracts in the 21st Century: What employees value most and how well organisations are responding to these expectations.. Available at: http://www. (1999). K. N. Journal of Accounting Education. R. (1994). M. Leonard.swcollege. Beauvais. Human Relations. (2003).G. and Shaffer. (2001).L. Kwiatkowski. Journal of Accounting and Computers. S. and Scholl. and Fisher. 382-394. Journal of Psychological Type.. J. R. Journal of Applied Psychology. 4/4. Jr. 18(5). The psychological types of college accounting students. Work Motivation: The incorporation of self-concept-based processes.. Ott. The Ohio CPA Journal (Winter). 29-34.. Computer usage and psychological type characteristics in accounting students. 225-230.. and Harrell. J.H.P..L. Lester. H. Accounting for Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional Research Designs.A. 969-983. McKeon.M. Trends in organisations and selection: An Introduction. R. R. R. and Post. 21. and Kickul... L.. Journal of Managerial Psychology.L. (2001).com/acct/jac/jac12.. 10-21. Kreiser. 24(1). Career Development International.W. 75-94. Landry.M. Lau. 12. Personality preferences of accounting students: A longitudinal case study.W.E.Kovar. 28. (1990). D. (1996). Career success: the effects of personality. V. 169 .
Lubinski.. 370396. Lowery. 134-145.A. The measurement of personality across cultures: Historical. Conceptual and Methodological Issues and Considerations. American Psychologist. History of Psychology. G. 170 . L.M. New York: Harper & Row.C. Psychology.J. Journal of Managerial Psychology. consultancy and managerial roles. Bradford. 21-29.P. Dubanoski. T. Lombardo. 1-10. 2(2). Motivation and personality (2nd ed. and Latham. (2000).). A. R.. Maslow.. G. Beadles II. Applied individual differences research and its quantitative methods. E. and Morse. 123-142.P. G. (1970).. R. Hamada. Maslow. European Psychologist. 7(2). (1996). Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey. Locke.H. H.P.. 10(4). 44.. Psychological Review. 50.H. 705717.J. and Foschi. 21. (2002). A. D. Lombardo. The Concept of Personality in 19th Century French and 20th Century American Psychology. (1943). W.. Public Policy and Law. (1995). 57(9). 3. Linking an Intervention model to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Using Personality and Cognitive Ability to Predict Job Performance: An Empirical Study. A Theory of human motivation. (2002). (2003). 187-203. A. and Krilowicz. 6(2). The American Behavioral Scientist. J. C.Lindon.. The European Origins of “Personality Psychology”. N.N. (2004). Marsella. International Journal of Management. and Foschi.
Mayer. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Bridge Between Counseling and Consulting. New York: Guilford Press. 886-887. Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior. P.H.T. (1999). 100-122.C. (2001).J. In A.T. P. The Psychology of Life Stories.. 52(2).R. 31. 324-329. Wiggins (Ed).. A five-factor theory of personality.Maurer. and Costa.P. The five-factor model of personality (51-87).J. and Costa. Mayer. Review of General Psychology.P. McCaulley. T. The Achieving Society. J. 7(4). New York: Guilford Press. A Comparison of Likert Scale and Traditional Measures of Self-Efficacy. Van Nostrand. R. D.S.). (2001). 5(2). Handbook of personality: Theory and research (139153). A Convergence of the Tender-Minded and the ToughMinded? American Psychologist. (1961). McCrae. R. In J. M. 83(2).. McC Dachowski. McClelland. M. Structural Divisions of Personality and the Classification of Traits. (1998). H. Pervin (Eds. Princeton. NJ. McCrae. D. Lawrence and O. and Pierce. Primary Divisions of Personality and their Scientific Contributions: From the Trilogy-of-Mind to the Systems Set. (1996). (2003). 381-401. McAdams.R. 449-477. 171 . 42(9). J. Review of General Psychology.D. 117-132. (2000). (1987).R. Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five factor model. Journal of Applied Psychology.D. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research.
246-268. (1998). and Darling. C. G. 29. 531-540.J. G. Cross-cultural assessment of the Five Factor Model: The revised NEO Personality Inventory. (1995). M. R. Journal of Business Ethics. 80-88. W. The impact of behavioral style assessment on organisational effectiveness: a call for action. Gliner.A. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.A. Shelton..T. 38(12).H.R. 27(4). Quantitative Research Approaches. The Academy of Management Review.McCrae. 314-322. J. Melamed. Mele. and Harmon. Coata. The challenge of humanistic management.K. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology. (1995). (2002). Mischel.. (1982). Psychometric instruments: Potential benefits and practical use. Psychometric problems and issues involved with creating and using ipsative measures for selection. R.. Morgan. 44(1). 172 . 1595-1597. McKenna.. 11-18. Mitchell. and Parker. New York: Wiley. 77. T.. Y. 77-88. Psychological Review. W. T. A Cognitive-Affective System Theory of Personality: Reconceptualising Situations. J.R. Personality and assessment. Motivation: New directions for theory research and practice. Rolland. Meade. and Shoda. Mischel. P. Dispositions.W. (1999).. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal. J. (2003).R. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.P.. D. (2004). and Jackson. W. 7(1). del Pilar..D.D. (1968). D. Industrial and Commercial Training. 23(6). 102(2)... 171-188. Dynamics and Invariance in Personality Structure. A..
.L. (1992). Palo Alto.Morgan. T. I. (2003). (1980). Dialectica. I. The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resources management. (1951). CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Nhundu. 639-648. Journal of Education for Business.K. Mustafa. McCaulley.A. Fitting the person to the organization: Examining the personality-job performance relationship from a new perspective. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management.A. 152-200. Murray. 111-115. Nicholson. (1993). 5. Journal of Educational Administration. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 13. (Nov/Dec). Accounting students’ performance and personality types. and Cherry. Nikolaou. 491-500. H. M.. MBTI Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. (1994). (1998). K.C. I. A. 52-68. The Contributions of Psychology to the Study of Administrative Behavior. M. (1998). and Hammer. L. 15-27. History of Psychology. Nourayi.R. 173 .. A.M. and Smircich. Mount. 1897-1937. Third Edition. Character and the “Culture of Personality”. The relationship between self and supervisor appraisals with role clarity and job satisfaction. Myers. The International Journal of Public Sector Management. Some basic psychological assumptions and conceptions.. 266-292.B. 30(1). 5(4). 5(4).A. Academy of Management Review. 1(1). The Case of Qualitative Research. 29-42. M. H. and Barrick.. M. G. Quen. 18(7). Gordon Allport.. (1992).
(1984). M. Ott.V. An empirical investigation into the interactive effects of student personality traits and method of instruction (lecture or CAI) on student performance in elementary accounting. Hierarchical Organisation of Personality and Prediction of Behavior.T..C.. (1978). Paunonen. A. 11(2). New York.M. Motivtion Needs and Their Relationship to Life Success. B. and Ashton. (1998). R. M. and Chusmir. S. 174 . (2004). C. 538-556. (1999). Human Relations. (1990).V. 29-36. S. L. 524-539.H. 411-424. Paunonen. P.V. Osteraker. McGraw-Hill. Bradford. Big Five Factors of Personality and Replicated Predictions of Behavior.H. New York: 44(12). Do CPAs have a unique personality? Are certain personality types found more frequently in our profession? The Michigan CPA (Spring).C. Big Five Factors and Facets and the Prediction of Behavior. Mann. 73-79. Parker. O’Cass. Psychometric Theory (2nd edn. (2003). 1301-1308.). S. J. Journal of Accounting Education. Otter. 81(3).Nunnally. Unpublished Master of Business Thesis. 17-35. Measuring motivation in a learning organisation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. (1991). (2001). Journal of Workplace Learning. 74(2).. 84(2). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. QUT. Political Marketing: The Application of Marketing to Politics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. M. Paunonen. and Moores. 8.
L. interaction: The history of a controversy and a discussion of theoretical models..E. 44(2). (1988). Pittenger.A. L. (1993). B. Perugini. Academy of Management Review. 14. The Idiographic Nature of Human Personality: Examples of the Idiographic Self-Concept. Neuroticism. S. N. Looking for a Simple Big Five Factorial Structure in the Domain of Adjectives.. assessment and research. European Psychologist. Pelham. 172-176. Pervin. R. American Psychologist. The consequences of unmet needs: The evolving role of motivation in consumer research. M. 6(3). Plomin.. (2004). 375-387. 64(4). Extraversion and related traits in adults reared apart and reared together. L. Measuring the MBTI And Coming Up Short. 55. A Dynamic Systems Approach to Personality. Environment and Genes: Determinants of Behavior. (1989). 950-957. 3(4). Wiley. Pervin. (2001). G. Gallucci. Journal of Career Planning and Placement.J.A. 105-111. Journal of Consumer Behavior. McClearn. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.W. M. (1993). Pincus. L. New York. 87-97. situations.. (2000). 350-360. and Friberg. Persons. J. (1975). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (1989). 175 . Personality: Theory. 16(2). R.Pedersen.. Pervin. D.L. and Livi. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Plomin. 665-677.A.
171-180. Review of General Psychology. Prentice-Hall. A. J. G. Upper Saddle River. D. and Nyfield. 27-38. http://members. (2001). (1998). S. 1/2. and Ahadi. Remenyi.P. S. The Hierarchical Structures of the NEO PI-R and the 16 PF 5.A. Rothbart. S. Doing Research in Business and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method. (2004). Money.P. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Research Report.Ramlall. B. 55-66.T..htm Robbins. Williams. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Temperament and the Development of Personality. P. Rings.K...com/~Personality Institute/Myers-BriggsTypeIndicator. 5. Robertson..tripod. 20(1). Ryckman. B. S. (2000). Journal of Abnormal Psychology.. Multifaceted Nature of Intrinsic Motivation: The Theory of 16 Basic Desires. H. Reiss. and Swartz. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology. M.. and Berhoud. Sage Publications.M. (2004). de Stadelhofen. MacIver. 73. Rossier. Theories of Personality. Great Britain. S. London. (1997). NJ. A review of employee motivation themes and the implications for employee retention within organisations. Organisational Behavior. 52-63. 8(3). 103(1). Gibbons. 179-193. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.. R.. Baron. 176 . E. (2004). Journal of American Academy of Business.. I. R. F.M. (1998). (1994). Conscientiousness and managerial performance..
(1998). The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the five factor model. 495-524..R. L. (2003).A. Saunders. What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of Personality. 66. (1996). 323-346.. D. Salgado. Maybe there’s no such thing as a “good cop”..). In J.S. Journal of Psychological Type. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Saucier. and Thornhill.R. (1996).E. 313-328. 695-708. Factor Structure of English-Language Personality Type-Nouns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. M. Ability-personality interactions when predicting job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. Satava. and Goldberg. G. G.Sackett. local firms. P. Research Methods for Business Students. (1997). 36. and Goldberg. Saucier.R. G. L. 26(2). Pitman Publishing. Personality types of CPAs: National vs. (1997).F. 82(1). J. The five factor model of personality (p 21-50). J.. Saucier. 1296-1312. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology.. New York: Guilford Press. (2003). 73(6). 545-556. Salgado. Effects of Variable Selection On the Factor Structure of Person Descriptors. The Five Factor Model of Personality and Job Performance in the European Community. G. P. J. 36-41. Lewis.L.F. Wiggins (Ed. Journal of Applied Psychology. Saucier. B.. (1998). (1997). 85(4). (2003). Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality measures. A. 76. and Ellingson. An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management. Sanders. 177 . M. 83(4). Gruys. London. 30-43.
. and Kirsch. 407-422. Gooding.L. R. (1984). G. 93-105. Research in Organisational Behavior. I. Trait Brandwidth and Stages of Job Performance: Assessing Differential Effects for Conscientiousness and its Subtraits.. Personnel Psychology. Toward a Paradigm in Personality: Comment on Eysenck’s (1997) view. and Schloemer. 37.. Schwab. P. 153-160. American Psychologist.S. Accounting Horizons (December). C.G. Optimising the value of performance appraisals. V.. M.W. D. Schwarz. Stelmack. 2. (1999). (1997). The personality types and preferences of CPA firm professionals: An analysis of changes in the profession. Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers.M. (2000). 1238-1241. 84(6). and Sumners. Personnel Psychology. Schweiger. M. 122-123. Kihm. N. (1980). Stewart. (1997). Schmitt. 3-7.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. J. N. 3-43. (1980). The accountant stereotype: Myth or reality? Accountancy (November). 9(8). Journal of Applied Psychology.E. M. R. 54(2). B.. 73(6). 53(1)..Z.J. (1994). 178 . and Robie. G. Meta-analyses of validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics. Managerial Auditing Journal. Shackleton. Construct validity in organisational behaviour. 24-39. Schmit.A. (1999). 959-968.Schloemer. Development of a global measure of personality.P.A. Noe.
D. The Academy of Management Review.E.C. 29(4). 20(3). M.D. Tubes . R. TX: U. E. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.L.P.D. A Personality Trait-based Interactionist Model of Job Performance. (2003). R. (2003).E. and Ekeberg.S.. D. Bliese. Townsend. 500-517. Journal of Psychological Assessment. 723-735. Relationships Between Personality Structure. (1993). 89(5). (2004). Air Force. What’s in it for me? The Journal for Quality and Participation. Maslow revisited: Building the employee commitment pyramid. 4-9. 88(3). J. 16(2). and Cognitive Ability: A Study of Cultural Mechanisms of Personality. Strategy and Leadership. and Thoresen. I. and Burnett. Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (Technical Report ASD-TR-61-97). The Traits Personality Questionnaire 5(TPQue5): Psychometric Properties of a Shortened Version of a Big Five Measure.. (1961). Tsaousis..C. Journal of Applied Psychology. 179 .. P. C.J. Badley. and Gebhardt. A.E. Tett.E. J. S. 180-191. 85(4). 835-853. 180-199.16(1). The Role of Intentions in Work Motivation: Implications for goal-setting theory and research. Tubbs. Thoresen. (2001). and Christal. (1991). J. Toomela.Stum. Structure of Word Meaning.. Journal of Applied Psychology. D. The Big Five Personality Traits and Individual Job Performance Growth Trajectories in Maintenance and Transitional Job Stages. Lackland Air Force Base.L.. (2004).. 8-11. P.
1469-1484. and Bryant. 83(6). 540-555. P. (2004b). A metaanalytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople.R. J. (1998).C. F. J. 763-764. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. Wheeler.M.E.. Johnson. C.K. Authors’ Reply to Commentary on Accounting Information Systems Research Opportunities Using Personality Type Theory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. S. 71(4). International Journal of Manpower. (2004a)...I. Hunton. On the Temporal Stability of Personality: Evidence for Differential Stability and the Role of Life Experiences.. Journal of Information Systems. Vinchur.. Accounting Information Systems Research Opportunities Using Personality Type Theory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.B. J. Wheeler. 18(1). J. and Terry. Gray. Schippmann. 18(3). S. and Bryant. (1998). D.. Welbourne..Vaidya. Hunton.S.. III.P. 387-397. E.M. American Psychologist. 83(4). J. (2000). Vancouver.. T.E. Goals and Environmental Interactions. Journal of Information Systems..L. 180 . C. (2002). Wiley. 1-19. 3538. Haig. (2000). D.G. 41(5). 263-275.R. Karageorghis. J.J. A. Switzer.. and Erez.. Jr.. and Watson. P. Automaticity.A. S. and Roth. and Scherbaum. P. The Role-Based Performance Scale: Validity Analysis of a Theory-based Measure. 55(7).E. P. (1997). C. A. Vlachopoulos. 586-597.M.. Academy of Management Journal. Motivation profiles in sport: A self-determination theory perspective.. 18(1). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology..S. Journal of Applied Psychology. What motivates employees according to over 40 years of motivation surveys.
Wright. O. R. Riemann. Zawadzki. Credit Union Executive Journal.. D. (2000). The predictive power of hiring tools. E. and Austin. Strelau. W.. and Meyer. R. 20(2). 181 . Traits and Motives: Toward an Integration of Two Traditions in Personality Research. 365-384.C. 230-250. European Psychologist. and Duncan.G.. T. G. Stewart. (1998)..R. 18(4).B.. Cropanzano. M. D... Yancey.E. 324-344. State and Traits Correlates of Job Performance: A Tale of Two Perspectives. (2004)... Genetic and Environmental Influences on Temperament: The Polish-German Twin Study Based on Self-Report and Peer-Rating. and Angleitner. (2001). 12-18. L. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Spring . needs and equity sensitivity. I. American Demographics. 40(4). Wolfe. Onoszczenko.G. 18(3).J. The relationships among individual differences. J. Klohnen.A. A.. John. (1998).P. B. (2003). Psychological Review. 105(2).B.Winter. A. Yamaguchi. Journal of Business and Psychology. D. 6(4). What your customers can’t say. 272-286. 2429.
As part of my studies. your Organisation will be provided with a report that will be recommended for distribution to staff. 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 findings of this study may be published in a scholarly journal but neither you. which will be shredded after the data have been entered into a spreadsheet.edu. The confidentiality of your responses is assured as only Chong Chien Fatt and Gian Casimir will have access to the completed questionnaires. nor your organisation will be named or be able to be identified from the published report. 182 . 2005 Subject: Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality Measure Dear Potential Participant. We are therefore not interested in the specific responses of any particular individual. 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. I am conducting a research project titled “Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality Measure”.au CHONG Chien Fatt Tel: +60123760133 Fax: +60331602894 Email: chongchienfatt@yahoo.APPENDIX ONE – INFORMATION SHEET Newcastle Graduate School of Business Faculty of Business and Law Level 3. You are required to complete a questionnaire on personality and work performance.com September 15. You are invited to take part in this research project which examines the relationship between work performance and personality. On completion of the study. I am Chong Chien Fatt. We are interested only in the overall relationships between Personality and Work Performance. 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.Casimir@newcastle.
with return of the questionnaire through stamped and self-addressed envelopes to the researcher. Research Office. if an independent person is preferred. If you want to take part in the study. However. email: HumanEthics@newcastle. If you would like more information. Callaghan NSW 2308. the University’s Human Research Ethics Officer. The University of Newcastle. Chancellery. The Chancellery. telephone (+61 249 216 333. please contact Chong Chien Fatt or Gian Casimir or if an independent person is preferred. your decision to participate. The questionnaire will be distributed by the Human Resources Managers. please complete the questionnaire and return it to the researchers in the stamped self-addressed envelope provided. or. Research Branch.au. University Drive. email HumanEthics@newcastle. it may be given to the researcher. The University requires that should you have concerns about your rights as a participant in this research. Thank you for taking time to consider this invitation. 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.edu. to the Human Research Ethics Officer. Bus-Law/SEGi/1/32:05A). Mr Chong Chien Fatt Dr Gian Casimir Complaints Clause: This project has been approved by the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee.Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. telephone +61 249 216 333. 2308. or to not participate. Approval No . Yours sincerely. or you have a complaint about the manner in which the research is conducted.au) 183 . University of Newcastle.
the questionnaires will be shredded. 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. This questionnaire is a personality and work performance measures and should take approximately twenty minutes to complete.APPENDIX TWO – CONSENT SEEKING LETTER TO COMPANY Newcastle Graduate School of Business Faculty of Business and Law Level 3. 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. 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. 2005 Subject: Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality Measure. 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. 184 .Casimir@newcastle. The confidentiality of responses is assured as only Chong Chien Fatt and Gian Casimir will have access to the completed questionnaires.com September 15. After the data have been entered into a spreadsheet.au CHONG Chien Fatt Tel: +60123760133 Fax: +60331602894 Email: chongchienfatt@yahoo. 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. Mr Chong is conducting this study as part of his Doctor of Business and Administration Degree and Dr Gian Casimir is his research supervisor. If your organisation is willing to participate. Dear Sir. Please see the attached information sheet for participants.edu. This study examines the relationship between personality and work performance. We would greatly appreciate your organisation’s participation.
The University of Newcastle. your organisation will be provided with a report. Callaghan NSW 2308. nor your department will be named or be able to be identified from the published report. The University requires that should you have concerns about your rights as a participant in this research. or you have a complaint about the manner in which the research is conducted. Thank you for taking time to consider this invitation. to the Human Research Ethics Officer. Research Office. Yours sincerely. University Drive. please contact Chong Chien Fatt or Gian Casimir. if an independent person is preferred. email HumanEthics@newcastle. telephone (+61 249 216 333. please reply to us in writing stating your department’s willingness. The Chancellery. it may be given to the researcher. The findings of this study may be published in a scholarly journal but neither you. Bus-Law/SEGi/1/32:05A).edu. If you agree to take part in the study. Mr Chong Chien Fatt and Dr Gian Casimir Complaints Clause: This project has been approved by the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee. Approval No . which we recommend to be made available to all staff.On completion of the study.au) 185 . or. For further information.
Part 2: Please use the rating scale below to describe how accurately each of the following statement describes you.APPENDIX THREE – QUESTIONNAIRE Personality Measure Questionnaire Title: Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality Measure Part 1: (i) Are you proficient in English? Yes / No (ii) Have you been working in the same job for more than 12 months? Yes / No If there is a No answer in any one above. 1 Very Inaccurate 2 Moderately Inaccurate 3 Neither Accurate or Inaccurate 4 Moderately Accurate 5 Very Accurate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I often feel unhappy I feel comfortable around people I believe in the importance of art I have a good word for everyone I am always prepared I am very pleased with myself I have little to say I am not interested in theoretical discussions I waste my time I am very direct I dislike myself I make friends easily I have a vivid imagination I am critical of others I pay attention to details I am not easily bothered by things 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 186 . Thank you. please do not continue with the survey even though you may have consented to participate. Please tick the answers above and return the full set in the self-addressed envelope. Describe yourself as you generally are now. not as you wish to be in the future nor what you were in the past.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 I keep a low profile I do not enjoy going to art museums I find it difficult to focus on work I believe that others have good intentions I seldom feel unhappy I am not interested in abstract ideas I would describe my experiences as somewhat dull I respect others I do just enough work to get by I am often depressed I am skilled in handling social situations I avoid philosophical discussions I insult people I get chores done right away I have frequent mood swings I carry the conversation to a higher level I don’t like to draw attention to myself I accept people as they are I carry out my plans I panic easily I do not like art I get back at others I make plans and stick to them I am the life of the party I get excited by new ideas I avoid carrying out my duties I make people feel at ease I don’t talk a lot I rarely get irritated I don’t see things through I enjoy hearing new ideas I know how to get people’s attention I feel comfortable with myself I suspect hidden motive in others I easily adapt to the needs of the situation I push myself and others to get things done I am a loving person I am careful in my work I like others to empower me to do my work I am good at interpreting things I like living in style I am pleasant to be around with I hold on to traditions and beliefs I love to seek experiences in life I often weigh the pros and cons of a situation before acting I want to take charge of my work 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 187 .
63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 I have a heart for the less fortunate I like to do things following the proper channels I believe in justice I can spot opportunities and make use of them I like to take the lead to get things done I am sensitive to other people’s feelings I prefer to buy things with guarantee I find great satisfaction in doing a good job I am good at overcoming obstacles to get what I want I am good in pressurizing others to get things done I enjoy the company of others I am law-abiding I seek knowledge and skills to improve myself I am flexible in doing things I can be easily provoked I like to assist my friends in time of needs I believe in doing things step by step I do my work enthusiastically I am good at persuading others to support me I am assertive I like to visit my friends I tend to shelter others from harm I work towards improving my quality of life I like to turn issues/situations to my advantage I like to celebrate in a grand manner I can be easily hurt I am serious in whatever I do I am a reasonable person I will do anything to achieve my goals I tend to use more of “I” than “We” I enjoy working in groups I do not fight with authority I am accountable for my mistakes I do not reveal myself too much I am determined to win in any situation I greet my friends with open arms I need security I make decisions based on bottom-lines 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 188 .
Are you confirm in your job within the normal time frame? 8. For those working for 3 years of more.For the next 20 items. 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. Gender (please circle) Male/Female ____Years____Months ____Years ___ Months Primary School / High School / College / University 4. Between 7% to 10%. How long have you worked in your current job? 6. What is your last annual increment? Less than 3%. Age: ____Years____Months 3. have you been promoted? Yes/No Yes/No 9. Between 3% and 6%. What is your Level in the Organisation? Non-Executive/ Lower Mgmt/Middle Mgmt/ Senior Mgmt 7. How long have you worked in this Organisation? 5. Educational level: 2. More than 10%. 189 .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.