South East Asian Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law, Vol.

1
ISSN 2289-1560 2012

THE IMPACT OF FIVE - FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY ON JOB SATISFACTION OF

NON- ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES IN SRI LANKAN UNIVERSITIES

U.W.M.R. SampathKappagoda
PhD Research Scholar
School of Graduate Studies
Management and Science University
Malaysia
0940713407005
sampathkappagoda@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Job satisfaction has been identified as an important topic in organizational research due to its many effects on the overall well-
being of the organization. Personality is one of the antecedents of job satisfaction. However, the extent of the association has not
been investigated comprehensively in the context of the Sri Lankan universities. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
investigate the impact of five factor model of personality on job satisfaction of non - academic employees in Sri Lankan
universities. The sample consisted of 150 non – academic employees from university of Rajarata, Wayamba and Sabaragamuwa.
Fifty non-academic employees were selected from each university using convenience sampling method. A questionnaire with two
instruments was administered among the non- academic employees to measure their job satisfaction and five factor model of
personality. The collected data were analyzed using correlation coefficient and regression analysis. The results of the study
indicated that the personality types of extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness of non-academic employees had
significant positive relationships with their job satisfaction. Results further indicated that neuroticism had significant negative
association with job satisfaction. Insignificant relationship was reported between openness to experience and job satisfaction. It
is concluded that five factor model of personality had a strong influence on non – academic employees’ job satisfaction. This
study will help to get a better understanding of non-academic employees’ personality and its relationship to their job
satisfaction. This understanding can also better inform administrators to comprehend the importance of dispositional factor in
determining job satisfaction.

Keywords: Five Factor Model of Personality, Job Satisfaction, Non – Academic Employees, Organizational Commitment

INTRODUCTION

Job satisfaction is an important topic in organizational research because of its many effects on the overall well-being of the
organization. It has received much attention in the work place due to its correlation with many employee behaviors and attitudes.
Job satisfaction is closely associated with job performance (Buitendach & De Witte, 2005; Hunt, Chonko, &
Wood,1985;Christen, Lyer, & Soberman, 2006), employee motivation and performance (Ostroff, 1992),absenteeism and
turnover intension (Buck & Watson, 2002; Mathieu &Zajac, 1990; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993; Whitener & Walz, 1993;
Brooke & Price,1989;Scott andTaylor,1985),organizational citizenship behavior (organ & Ryan, 1995),organizational
commitment (Certin, 2006; Cohrs, Abele, & Dette, 2006; Rayton, 2006).

Since the job satisfaction of employees is one of the key factors in deciding the success or failure of any organization, many
researchers and practitioners have focused their researches to find out the antecedents of job satisfaction. Among them,
dispositional factorshave been identified as one of the important antecedents of job satisfaction. Personality characteristics,
needs, attitudes, preferences and motives that result in a tendency to react to situations in a predetermined manner are the
dispositional factors (House, Shane &Herrold, 1996). Understanding someone’s personality is important to administrators
because this knowledge is also useful for placing people into jobs and it gives them clues about how that person is likely to act
and feel in a variety of situations. According to Kumar and Bakhshi (2010) the dispositional factors are always referring to the
five-factor model of personality namely extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience
(Kumar and Bakhshi, 2010). Big five is one of the most prominent models in contemporary psychology to describe the most
salient aspects of personality (Goldberg, 1990; John &Srivastava, 1999).

Although the researches on identification of antecedents of job satisfaction have increased enormously over the past few years,
dispositional sources are given less consideration. The relationship of the five factor model of personality on job satisfaction is
much less studied (Gelade, Dobson & Gilbert, 2006; Silva, 2006). In Sri Lankan research literature, there were few researches on
personality and job satisfaction but nothing can be found on the impact of five factor model of personality on job satisfaction in
the non-academic employees in Sri Lankan universities.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

In order to improve the job satisfaction of the employees, the managers have to identify the factors influencing on job
satisfaction. In reviewing the literature, lots of researchers have identified different factors influencing to job satisfaction. Among
them, big five personality characteristics of the employees are identified as important factors which shape the employees’ job
satisfaction. Anyway, there were no any researches on the impact of five factor model of personality on job satisfaction among

85
 South East Asian Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law, Vol. 1
ISSN 2289-1560 2012

the non-academic employees in Sri Lankan universities. Therefore, the problem addressed in this study is to investigate “How
does five factor model of personality influence on job satisfaction of non – academic employees in Sri Lankan universities?”

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

To investigate the impact of five factor model of personality on job satisfaction of non-academic employees in Sri Lankan
universities.

LITERATURE REVIEW

FIVE FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY

The five-factor model of personality or the Big Five dimensions of personality involves five relatively independent traits that
provide meaningful information about individual differences in an organization and their responses (Kumar and Bakhshi, 2010).
Openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism are the traits of this model. These
dimensions altogether provide a meaningful taxonomy for the study of individual differences. Openness to experience is the
degree to which a person is curious, original, intellectual, creative, and open to new ideas. People high in openness seem to thrive
in situations that require flexibility and learning new things. They are highly motivated to learn new skills, and they do well in
training settings (Barrick& Mount, 1991; Lievens, Harris, Van Keer&Bisqueret, 2003). The most prominent part of this
personality is originality and creativity whereby this type of person is mostly innovators and initiators (Teng, 2008).
Conscientiousness refers to the degree to which a person is organized, systematic, punctual, achievement-oriented, and
dependable. Conscientiousness is the one personality trait that uniformly predicts how high a person’s performance will be
across a variety of occupations and jobs (Barrick& Mount, 1991). This type of personality can be referred as self-discipline and
ability to act obediently (Erdheim, Wang and Zickar, 2006). Extraversion is the degree to which a person is outgoing, talkative,
sociable, and enjoys socializing (Teng, 2008). Employees with this type of personality have the propensity to have more friends
and spend more time in social circumstances. Extraverts have an easier time than introverts do when adjusting to a new job. They
actively seek information and feedback and build effective relationships, which helps them adjust (Wanberg&Kammeyer-
Mueller, 2000).Agreeableness is the degree to which a person is affable, tolerant, sensitive, trusting, kind, and warm (Kumar and
Bakhshi, 2010). People who are high in agreeableness are likeable people who get along with others. Not surprisingly, agreeable
people help others at work consistently; this helping behavior does not depend on their good mood (Ilies, Scott, & Judge,
2006).Neuroticism or emotional stability refers to the degree to which a person is anxious, irritable, temperamental, and moody
(Teng, 2008). It is perhaps the only Big Five dimension where scoring high is undesirable. People very high in Neuroticism
experience a number of problems at work. They have trouble forming and maintaining relationships and are less likely to go for
advice and friendship (Klein, Beng-Chong, Saltz& Mayer, 2004).

JOB SATISFACTION

According to the theoretical and empirical study, there are various conceptualizations of job satisfaction. Most researchers
conceptualize it as cognitive, affective and evaluative reactions. Locke (1976) defines job satisfaction as a pleasurable or positive
emotional states resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience. job satisfactionis a result of employee’s perception
of how well their job provides those things that are viewed as important. According to Henne and Locke (1985), job satisfaction
is an emotional response to a value judgment by an individual worker. If his job values are perceived as being fulfilled, he will
experience the pleasurable emotions of satisfaction. If they are perceived as being frustrated, he will experience unpleasurable
emotion of dissatisfaction. The intensity of these emotional reactions will depend on the importance of the values whose
fulfillment is being facilitated or frustrated by the work experience.Some researchers define job satisfaction in terms of feeling,
attitudes and beliefs. Robbins (2002) defines job satisfaction as a subjective measure of worker attitudes, that is, an individual’s
general attitudes to his or her job. A person with high job satisfaction holds positive attitudes towards the job and one who is
dissatisfied with, has negative attitudes toward it. George and Jones (1996) define it as “the collection of feeling and beliefs that
people have about their current jobs.

FIVE FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY AND JOB SATISFACTION

Several researchers have pointed out the correlation between the big five personality factors and job satisfaction. Initial research
indicated that conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness are positively correlated with job satisfaction, whereas
neuroticism is negatively correlated with job satisfaction. Openness to experience has a negligible impact on job satisfaction.
According to Judge, Heller, & Mount (2002) Conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion and neuroticism have most obvious
connections with job satisfaction.

According to Furnham and Zacherl (1986) there is a positive relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction. Furthermore,
people with high extraversion scores correlated positively with all sub dimensions of job satisfaction. Extraversion tend to
experience positive affect and to get more out of social interactions (Watson and Clark, 1997). Therefore, they are likely to
experience higher levels of job satisfaction. Judge et al, (2002) also found a similar result.Extraverts are predisposed to
experience positive emotions (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and positive emotionality likely generalizes to job satisfaction.

Rhodes & Hammer (2000) stated that agreeableness is a reliable predictor of job satisfaction, and people with personality
similarities have better relationships. Furthermore, they measured the similarity of supervisors and subordinates using

86
 South East Asian Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law, Vol. 1
ISSN 2289-1560 2012

agreeableness. They compared these similarities to job satisfaction. They found that job satisfaction tends to increase when
agreeableness similarity between supervisor and subordinate increases. McCrae and Costa (1991) argued that agreeableness
should be related to happiness because agreeable individuals have greater motivation to achieve interpersonal intimacy, which
should lead to greater levels of well-being.Agreeableness individuals get along with coworkers in enjoyable ways (Organ and
Lingl, 1995) which should lead to higher levels of job satisfaction.

Organ and Lingl (1995) and Judge et al, (2002) pointed out a positive relationship between conscientiousness and job
satisfaction. Since the conscientiousness represents a general work involvement tendency and thus leads to a greater likelihood of
obtaining satisfying work rewards, both formal (e.g., pay, promotions) and informal (e.g., recognition, respect, feelings of
personal accomplishment) it should be related to job satisfaction (Organ and Lingl,1995).

There is a negative relationship between neuroticism and job satisfaction (Judge et al, 2002; Bowling,Beehr,&Lepisto2006;
Connoly&Viswesvaran, 2000). Judge et al, (2002) found neuroticism to be the strongest and most consistent correlation of job
satisfaction. Furnham and Zacherl (1986) identified that neuroticism correlated negatively with job satisfaction. Employees with
high neuroticism scores tended to be less satisfied with the amount of work, their coworkers and their pay. Similarly Brief,
Butcher and Roberson (1995) found that neuroticism has the strongest negative correlation with job satisfaction. Neurotic
individuals experience more negative life events than other individuals (Magnus, Diener, Fujita, &Pavot, 1993) therefore they
would lead to diminished levels of job satisfaction.

According to empirical evidence the openness to experience has not correlated with job satisfaction. People who are high in
openness to experience not related to job satisfaction (Judge et al, 2002).Based on these empirical evidences, the following
hypotheses are formulated.

H1: There will be a positive relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction of non-academic employees
H2: There will be a positive relationship between agreeableness and job satisfaction of non-academic employees
H3: There will be a positive relationship between conscientiousness and job satisfaction of non-academic employees
H4: There will be a negative relationship between neuroticism and job satisfaction of non-academic employees
H5: There will not bea correlation between openness to experience and job satisfaction of non-academic employees

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

THE RESEARCH DESIGN

The current study employed a correlational research design in order to explore the relationship between non-academic
employees’ big five personality (independent variable) and non - academic employees’ job satisfaction (dependent variable).
This field study is conducted in natural environment in the university sector under non-contrived settings. The unit of study is
individual.

POPULATION AND SAMPLE

The population of this study is all the permanent non –academic employees who work in universities of Rajarata, Wayamba and
Sabaragamuwain Sri Lanka.Three newly established universities – university of Rajarata, university of Wayamba and university
of Sabaragamuwa- were selected for this study. Then, with the permission of the Registrar/Bursar, 150 non-academic employees,
50 from each university were selected using convenience sampling method.

MEASURES

Non - academic employees’ job satisfaction was the dependent variable and five factor model of personality of the non-academic
employees is the independent variable of this research. These variables were measured usingstandard instruments. The
questionnaire was separated into three sections for demographic data, big five personality types and job satisfaction. Six
questions were included to get the demographic information. The big five inventory (John, Donahue, and Kentle,1991) was used
to measure big five personality. It was measured using 44 questions including 8,9,9,8,10 questions for measuring extraversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience respectively.16 questions were used to measure the
job satisfaction under five dimensions (Work itself, pay, promotion, supervision and coworkers).

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

The questionnaire which was prepared for non-academic employees consists of 02 instruments (big five personality and job
satisfaction). Big five inventory is a standard questionnaire which has been developed and assured the content validity. The
instrument which is used to measure job satisfaction was developed after correctly identifying the relevant dimensions and
indicators. Therefore, it can be assured that the instrument has content validity.

87
 South East Asian Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law, Vol. 1
ISSN 2289-1560 2012

Table 01: Alpha value for test retests reliability

Variables Alpha value

Extraversion 0.83
Agreeableness 0.87
Conscientiousness 0.81
Neuroticism 0.86
Openness to experience 0.84
Job Satisfaction 0.87

Table 02: Cronbach coefficient alpha value for internal consistency

Variables Cronbach alpha value

Extraversion 0.80
Agreeableness 0.84
Conscientiousness 0.91
Neuroticism 0.87
Openness to experience 0.89
Job Satisfaction 0.86

It can be concluded that the instruments possesses high test retest reliability and the internal consistency reliability is satisfactory
owing to the data represented in table 01 and 02.

METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS

The data were analyzed using correlation coefficient and regression analysis. SPSS data analysis package of 17th version was
used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

The results of the univariate data are given in table 03 and 04. According to the data, the level of job satisfaction is high among
the non-academic employees. They are highly satisfied with their coworkers whereas they have comparatively low satisfaction
with their pay.According to the table 04, lots of non-academic employees are agreeable individuals. Neuroticism is the lowest
personality trait among the non-academic employees.

Table 03: The results of univariate analysis– job satisfaction

Variables Mean Std.Deviation

Work itself 3.47 0.52

Pay 3.01 0.61
Promotion 3.89 0.54
Supervision 3.77 0.65
Coworkers 3.79 0.60
Job Satisfaction 3.59 0.57

Table 04: the results of univariate analysis- five factor model of personality

Variables Mean Std.Deviation

Extraversion 3.60 0.71

Agreeableness 4.37 0.51
Conscientiousness 4.12 0.56
Neuroticism 2.39 0.70
Openness to experience 3.67 0.61

88
 South East Asian Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law, Vol. 1
ISSN 2289-1560 2012

Table 05: Correlation coefficient between independent variables and dependent variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1.Work itself -
2.Pay .25* -
3.Promotion .32** .11 -
4.Supervision .19* .08 .28** -
5.Coworkers .07 .15 .12* .21 -
6.Job Satisfaction .65** .84** .62** .73** .36** -
7.Extraversion .11** .06* 24** .13* .41** .25** -
8. Agreeableness .17** .21* .15 .29** .56** .27** .31** -
9.Conscientiousness .23** .29** .19** .09* .30** .20** .28** .25* -
10.Neuroticism -.26** -.37** -.11* .14 -.32** -.31** -.38** -.20* -.34** -
11.Openness to .13 .04 .09** .21* .32** .04* .32** .19* .24** -.18 -
experience
*p<.05, **p<.01

Table 05 shows correlation coefficient between five factor model of personality and job satisfaction of non-academic employees
in Sri Lankan universities. According to the results which is reported in the table, the correlation between extraversion and job
satisfaction(r = .25, p<0.01), agreeableness and job satisfaction (r = 0.27, p<0.01), conscientiousness and job satisfaction (r =
0.20, p<0.01) were significant and positive. It was reported a significant negative relationship between neuroticism and job
satisfaction (r = -0.31, p<0.01).The relationship between openness to experience and job satisfaction was weak positive (r = 0.04,
p<0.05).

Table 06: Results of regression analysis

β R2 P value F value

Extraversion 0.13 0.19 0.00 53.21

Agreeableness 0.21 0.27 0.00 69.11
Conscientiousness 0.24 0.21 0.00 55.24
Neuroticism -0.19 0.30 0.00 76.41
Openness to experience 0.09 0.05 0.06 2.36

The result of the regression analysis is reported in table 06. Similar to the resultsof correlation coefficient, the relationship
between extraversion and job satisfaction (β = .13, p < .01),agreeableness and job satisfaction (β = .21, p < .01),
conscientiousness and job satisfaction (β = .24, p < .01) were significant and positive. A significant negative relationship was
reported between neuroticism and job satisfaction (β = -0.13, p < .01). Anyway, the relationship between openness to experience
and job satisfaction was not significant according to the regression analysis.

DISCUSSION

The main objective of this study was to examine the impact of five factors model of personality on job satisfaction of non-
academic employees in Sri Lankan universities.

The results of correlation coefficient and regression analysis indicated that personality types of extraversion, agreeableness and
conscientiousness of the non - academic employees havesignificantly and positively correlated to their job satisfaction.These
findings generally supported the research hypotheses one, two and three. There is statistical evidence to accept the fourth
hypothesis which was formulated in this study because there is a significant negative relationship between neuroticism and job
satisfaction. The fifth hypothesis was that there would not be acorrelation between openness to experience and job satisfaction.
According to the results of correlation analysis a weak positive relationship was reported. Anyway, it was not significant due to
the results of regression analysis.

The personality type of extraversion has significantly explained 19% of variance in job satisfaction. The agreeableness and
conscientiousness have an ability to explain 27% and 21% variance of job satisfaction respectively. The neuroticism personality
of non-academic employees has significantly explained 30% variance in their job satisfaction. It was the strongest predictor of
job satisfaction among the other personality types. The openness to experience is not a significant predictor of job satisfaction. F
values represent that there are significant linear relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction (53.21), agreeableness and
job satisfaction (69.11), conscientiousness and job satisfaction (55.24), neuroticism and job satisfaction (76.41).

The finding of this research was consistent with the earlier finding of Judge, Heller, & Mount (2002). The evidence shows that
extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism have most obvious connections with job satisfaction.

89
 South East Asian Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law, Vol. 1
ISSN 2289-1560 2012

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of the study, it can be concluded that five factor model of personality had a strong influence on non-
academic employees’ job satisfaction.Extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism are the strong predictors of
job satisfaction. Extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness have significantly and positively correlated to job satisfaction
whereas neuroticism has significant negative relationship with job satisfaction. Anyway, openness to experience is not a
significant predictor of job satisfaction according to the findings of this research.

LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The results must be considered in the context of several limitations. The first has to do with its generalizability as the data
collection was confined to three newly established universities. Second limitation was of relying on self-reported data. The types
of personality and job satisfaction of the non - academic employees were measured according to the respondents’ own attitudes.
Thirdly, the difficulty of exploring the psychological factors like personality through the structured questionnaire was another
limitation of this study.

The present study provides many potential paths for future researchers. In this study five factor model of personality and job
satisfaction were the major variables of interest. However, exploration of how personality influences other areas in an
organization and life may be fruitful. For example, the question of how personality affects organizational commitment, job
performance, organizational citizenship behavior, leadership styles, withdrawal intention, turnover, family conflict and stress etc.
The research study attempted to demonstrate the direct relationship between five factor model of personality and job satisfaction.
The further researches would be advantages to explore potential moderators for this connection. This research focused only the
university sector but other researchers can expand the sample to the other service organizations or different organizations in Sri
Lanka.

REFERENCES

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Bowling,N.A;Beehr,T.A.,&Lepisto, L.R. (2006). Beyond job satisfaction: A five years prospective analysis of the
dispositional approach to work attitudes.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 315-330.
Brief, A., Butcher, A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Cookies, disposition, and job attitudes: the effects of positive moodinducing
events and negative affectivity on job satisfaction in a field experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 62, 55–62.
Brooke, P.P; Russell, D.W; Price, J.L. (1988). Discriminant validation of measures of job satisfaction, job involvement and
organizational commitment.Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 139-145.
Buck, J., & Watson, J. (2002). Retaining staff employees: the relationship between human resource management strategies
and organizational commitment.Innovative Higher Education, 36(3), 175-193.
Buitendach, J.H., & De Witte, H. (2005). Job insecurity, extrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction and affective
organizational commitment of maintenance workers in a parastatal.South African Journal of Business
Management, 36(2), 27-37.
Certin, M. O. (2006). The relationship between job satisfaction, occupational and organizational commitment of
academics.The Journal of American Academy of Business, 8(1), 78-88.
Christen, M., Lyer, G., &Soberman, D. (2006). Job satisfaction, job performance, and Effort: A reexamination using agency
theory. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 137- 150.
Cohrs, J. C., Abele, A. E., &Dette, D. A. (2006). Integrating situational and dispositional determinants of job satisfaction:
Findings from three samples of professionals.The Journal of Psychology, 140(4), 363-395.
Connolly, J., &Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Personality and Individual
Differences, 29, 265–281.
Erdheim, J., Wang, M., &Zickar, M. J. (2006). Linking the Big Five personality constructs to organizational
commitment. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(5), 959-970.
Furnham, A., &Zacherl, M. (1986). Personality and job satisfaction.Personality and Individual Differences, 1, 453–459.
Gelade, G. A., Dobson, P., & Gilbert, P. (2006). National differences in organizational commitment: Effect of economy,
product of personality, or consequence of culture? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(5), 542- 556.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1996). The experience of work and turnover intentions: Interactive effects of value attainment,
job satisfaction, and positive mood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 318–325.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality
& Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.
Henne, D., & Locke, E. A. (1985). Job dissatisfaction: What are the consequences? International Journal of Psychology,
20, 221-240.
Hunt, S.D., Chonko, L.B. & Wood, V.R. (1985). Organizational commitment and marketing.Journal of Marketing, 49(1):
112-127.
House, R. J., Shane, S. A., &Herold, D. M. (1996). Rumors of the death of dispositional research are vastly exaggerated.
Academy of Management Review, 21, 203–224.
Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on
intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior.Academy of Management Journal, 49, 561–575.

90
 South East Asian Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law, Vol. 1
ISSN 2289-1560 2012

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., &Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory. Institute of Personality and Social Research,
University of California, Berkeley, CA.
John, O. P., &Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In E.
Pervin& O. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality (pp. 102 138). New York: Guilford Press.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-Factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541.
Klein, K. J., Beng-Chong, L., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How do they get there? An examination of the
antecedents of centrality in team networks.Academy of ManagementJournal, 47, 952–963.
Kumar, K., and Bakhshi, A. (2010). The Five-factor model of personality and organizational commitment: Is there any
relationship? Humanity and Social Sciences Journal, 5(1), 25-34.
Lievens, F., Harris, M. M., Van Keer, E., & Bisqueret, C. (2003). Predicting cross- cultural training performance: The
validity of personality, cognitive ability, and dimensions measured by an assessment center and a behavior description
interview.Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 476–489.
Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction, In M. D. Dunnette, Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology, Chicago: McNally.
th
Luthans, F. (2000). Organisationalbehaviour. (9 ed.). McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Mathieu, J.E., &Zajac, D.M. (1990).A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of
organizational commitment.Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171–194.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991). Adding liebe und arbeit: The full five- factor model and well-
being.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227–232.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J. & Smith, C. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a
three component conceptualization.Journal of Applied Psychology,87,538-551
Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., &Pavot, W. (1993). Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objective life events: A
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1046–1053.
Organ, D. W., and Lingl, A. (1995). Personality, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior.The Journal of
Social Psychology, 135, 339-350.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational
citizenship behavior.Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.
Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational Level Analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 963- 974.
Rayton, B. A. (2006). Examining the interconnection of job satisfaction and organizational commitment: An application of
the bivariate probit model.International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(1), 139- 154.
Rhodes, L.D., & Hammer, E.Y. (2000). The relation between job satisfaction and personality similarity in supervisors and
subordinates.Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 5, 56-59.
Robbins, S.P. (2002). Organizational Behaviour,9th edition, Pearson Education Asia.
Scott, K.D., & Taylor, G.S. (1985). An Examination of Conflicting Findings on the relationship between Job Satisfaction and
Absenteeism: A Meta-Analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 599-612.
Silva, P. (2006). Effects of disposition on hospitality employee job satisfaction and commitment. International journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18 (4),317-328.
Teng, C.-I. (2008). Personality differences between online game players and non- players in a student sample. Cyber
Psychology & Behavior, 11(2), 232-234.
Thompson, D.P., & McNamara, J.F, (1997). Job satisfaction in educational organizations: A synthesis of research findings.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(1),1-31.
Wanberg, C. R., &Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 373–385.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In S. R. Briggs, W. H. Jones, & R. Hogan
(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology. New York: Academic Press.
Whitener, E. M., &Walz, P. M. (1993). Exchange theory determinants of affective and continuance commitment and
turnover, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 265-281.

91