HUMAN PERFORMANCE, 18(4), 359–372

Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Yes, Personality Matters: Moving

on to More Important Matters
Murray R. Barrick and Michael K. Mount
Tippie College of Business
University of Iowa

Over the years, personality has had at best a checkered reputation as a predictor of
work outcomes. From Guion and Gottier (1965) and Mischel (1968) to Da-
vis-Blake and Pfeffer (1989), personality has been roundly criticized as an ineffec-
tive predictor of performance. In recent years, however, researchers have ac-
knowledged and documented the fact that we all have personalities (e.g.,
Goldberg, 1993), and that personality matters because it predicts and explains be-
havior at work. This research, based on a construct-oriented approach primarily
using the “Big Five” traits, has consistently shown that personality predicts job
performance across a wide variety of outcomes that organizations value, in jobs
ranging from skilled and semiskilled (e.g., baggage handlers, production employ-
ees) to executives. Yet the magnitude of these effects, as reported in the Murphy
and Dzieweczynski (this issue) article, can be characterized as modest, at best. If
this is true, why should we care about personality?
We begin this article with a review of what researchers have learned about the
role of personality at work, and conclude with a discussion about personality’s fu-
ture. Later, we discuss the findings from seven divergent research streams that,
when taken together, demonstrate why we should care about personality.
The first reason is that managers care about personality. Research has shown
that managers weight individual personality characteristics as if they were nearly
as important as general mental ability, during the hiring decision (Dunn, Mount,
Barrick, & Ones, 1995). In fact, it is hard to find a manager who says they would
prefer to hire someone who is careless, irresponsible, lazy, impulsive, and low in
achievement striving (low in Conscientiousness). Similarly, not many managers
seek to hire individuals who are anxious, hostile, personally insecure, and de-

Correspondence should be sent to Murray R. Barrick, Tippie College of Business, University of

Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-1000. E-mail: m-barrick@uiowa.edu
360 BARRICK AND MOUNT

pressed (low in Emotional Stability). In one sense, these findings are not particu-
larly surprising, After all, our mothers could have told us it would be better if we
hired people who are dependable, persistent, goal directed, confident, secure, and
organized. Nevertheless, because of recent advancements in understanding the
structure of personality and improved ways of assessing personality constructs,
there is now overwhelming evidence that personality traits such as these will be
positively related to performance at work.
Second, a number of meta-analyses (e.g., Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Ho-
gan & Holland, 2003; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Judge & Ilies, 2002)
have significantly helped us develop our empirical and theoretical understanding
of the nature of the relation between personality constructs, particularly the Big
Five traits, and job performance. By virtue of its ability to extract fairly clear an-
swers from the morass of data accumulated over the years, meta-analysis has
shown that the validities of two of the Big Five traits, Conscientiousness and Emo-
tional Stability, generalize in the prediction of overall performance. These two
traits refer to the willingness to follow rules and to exert effort (in the case of Con-
scientiousness), and the capacity to allocate resources to accomplish tasks (in the
case of Emotional Stability). Thus, the two “generalizable predictors” can be best
viewed as measures of trait-oriented work motivation, and it appears they affect
performance in all jobs through “will do” motivational components. On the other
hand, general mental ability affects performance in all jobs primarily through “can
do” capabilities (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).
This research also reveals that the other three personality traits, Extraversion,
Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience, are valid predictors of performance,
but only in specific niches—for specific occupations or for some criteria (Barrick
et al., 2001). For example, Extraversion has been found to be related to job perfor-
mance in occupations where a significant portion of the job involves interacting
with others, particularly when that interaction is focused on influencing others and
obtaining status and power (Barrick et al., 2001). In such jobs, especially sales and
management jobs, being sociable, gregarious, assertive, energetic, and ambitious
is likely to contribute to success on the job. Agreeableness also has been found to
be an important predictor in jobs that involve significant interpersonal interaction.
In this case, however, Agreeableness matters only when that interaction involves
helping, cooperating, and nurturing others. Thus, if working in a team comprises
an important component of the work, Agreeableness may be the single best per-
sonality predictor (Mount et al., 1998). Employees who are argumentative, inflexi-
ble, uncooperative, uncaring, intolerant, and disagreeable (low in Agreeableness)
are likely to be less effective at teamwork and also engage in more counterproduc-
tive behaviors. Finally, Openness to Experience has been found to be related to
creativity and to influence the ability to adapt to change (George & Zhou, 2001;
LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000). Employees who are artistically sensitive, intel-
lectual, curious, polished, original, and independent are likely to deal with change
 REDISCOVERING PERSONALITY AT WORK 361

and contribute more to innovation at work. Thus through application of

meta-analysis, combined with the use of meaningful personality constructs, like
the Big Five, researchers have been able to summarize results quantitatively across
a large number of studies to show that personality traits do matter at work.
As Robert Hogan (this issue) notes, the meta-analysis by Joyce Hogan and Hol-
land (2003) is important because it illustrates the benefit of matching specific
personality traits to relevant criteria. They found that when the criteria relate to
“getting along” performance, the best predictors are Emotional Stability, Con-
scientiousness, and Agreeableness. In contrast, when the criterion reflects “getting
ahead,” the best personality predictors were a facet of Extraversion (Ambition),
Emotional Stability, and Conscientiousness. Although not hypothesized, they
found, as we would expect, that the two “generalizable predictors” (Conscien-
tiousness and Emotional Stability) have high validities for both criteria, whereas
the “niche traits” (Extraversion and Agreeableness) emerged as important predic-
tors only with relevant criteria. Thus, these results show that it is critical that the
“niche traits” are carefully matched to relevant criteria. Furthermore, as Robert
Hogan notes, this study clearly shows the predictive potential of personality, as the
magnitude of the true-score correlations in this meta-analysis range from .34 to
.43, which is larger than those reported in previous meta-analyses that examined
the validity of individual personality constructs, and are comparable to the
true-score correlations reported for other predictors.
Third, we know any meta-analytically derived estimate of the relation between
a specific Five-factor model of personality (FFM) construct and performance mea-
sure is an underestimate because it reports the validity of an individual personality
trait when used alone. When the purpose is to enhance understanding of which per-
sonality constructs predict which components of performance, it is appropriate to
examine the validity of each personality trait individually. However, when the pur-
pose is to maximize prediction, the appropriate approach is to consider the validity
of all relevant personality traits when used together. Murphy and Dzieweczynski
(this issue) fail to make this distinction when they compare the validity of Consci-
entiousness to the validity of cognitive ability. It is important to recognize that the
predictive validity of cognitive ability is based on measures that include multiple
components, usually verbal, math, and spatial relations. In a similar way, it is ap-
propriate to consider all relevant personality traits jointly when examining the pre-
dictive validity of personality. Using this approach will yield higher validities, and
in some cases, substantially higher validities. Several meta-analyses have demon-
strated this finding for diverse types of criteria. Judge, Heller, and Mount (2002)
reported that the multiple correlation using all of the Big Five for predicting over-
all job satisfaction was .41. Judge, Bona, et al. (2002) reported a multiple correla-
tion, using all of the Big Five when predicting leader emergence was .53 (.48 over
both leader emergence and effectiveness). Frei and McDaniel (1998) found a mul-
tiple correlation of .50 when predicting customer service with a composite mea-
362 BARRICK AND MOUNT

sure consisting of personality traits (e.g., Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, and

Conscientiousness). This is very similar to the composite validity (ρ = .47 against
counterproductive behavior on the jobs; ρ = .41 for predicting supervisory ratings
of job performance) found for traits reflecting integrity (Ones, Viswesvaran, &
Schmidt, 1993). Thus, although it enhances our theoretical understanding to focus
on the validity of specific personality traits, it behooves us to examine the multiple
correlation or composite validity to determine the predictive validity of the whole
“personality” of an individual. That is, we must study people, not traits, if we are
interested in how well personality predicts. As Robert Hogan (this issue) notes,
this is rarely done in published research today.
Fourth, research shows that personality contributes incremental validity in the
prediction of job performance above and beyond that accounted for by other pre-
dictors, including general mental ability and biodata (McHenry, Hough, Toquam,
Hanson, & Ashworth, 1990; Mount, Witt, & Barrick, 2000; Schmidt & Hunter,
1998). For example, results from Project A (McHenry et al., 1990) found that the
Army can improve the prediction of job performance by adding noncognitive per-
sonality predictors to its present battery of selection tests (e.g., R = .33 for the crite-
rion of extra effort and leadership; ∆R = .11 due to the inclusion of facets of Con-
scientiousness and Emotional Stability). Such findings correspond to evidence
showing incremental validity of personality measures for long-term educational
outcomes, above and beyond general mental ability (Bagge et al., 2004). Hence,
even modest effects from personality meaningfully contribute to a selection deci-
sion, even after one accounts for other important individual differences.
Fifth, most personality traits, certainly the Big Five, reveal small to nonexistent
mean score differences between racial or ethnic groups (Hough, 1998; Hough,
Oswald, & Ployhart, 2001; Mount & Barrick, 1995). This is of enormous signifi-
cance because most organizations are keenly interested in hiring a more diverse
workforce. Clearly, the use of cognitive ability tests will result in significant ma-
jority–minority differences, which, as Murphy and Dzieweczynski (this issue)
note, has resulted in a number of employment discrimination lawsuits. Conse-
quently, for social and legal reasons, personality variables should be included in
personnel selection batteries.
Sixth, one of the most compelling forms of evidence regarding the utility of per-
sonality is reported in the study by Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, and Barrick (1999).
This study was based on a unique longitudinal data set from the Intergenerational
Studies administered by the University of California at Berkeley. Results revealed
that Big Five personality traits predict multiple facets of career success, whether
assessed intrinsically (i.e., satisfaction) or extrinsically (e.g., occupational status),
using either subjective reactions or objective indicators, over a span of 50 years or
more. Specifically, the results demonstrate that there are enduring relations be-
tween personality traits (e.g., Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability) assessed
in childhood, and career success assessed in late adulthood, with (uncorrected)
correlations ranging up to .49 (Judge et al., 1999). Further, these results showed
 REDISCOVERING PERSONALITY AT WORK 363

that the Big Five traits, as a group, explained significant incremental variance in
measures of career success even after controlling for the influence of general men-
tal ability. The joint contribution (multiple correlation) across all Big Five traits
was over .60 when predicting occupational status and income, even when success
was measured 30 to 50 years after personality was assessed. These findings show
that although the magnitude of the correlation between personality and annual su-
pervisory ratings of performance is modest, the effects of personality are cumula-
tive and compound over time. Thus, over a lifetime, the cumulative benefits ob-
tained through personality can be substantial at work. This is more evidence that
personality traits do matter.
The seventh and final reason we should care about personality is that research-
ers have found personality to be meaningfully related to many work-related behav-
iors and outcomes that managers care about, and that matter to organizations.
These include less counterproductive behavior, turnover, absenteeism, tardiness,
and more citizenship behaviors, success in groups, job satisfaction, safety, leader-
ship effectiveness, and task performance. They also influence the fit with other in-
dividuals (e.g., supervisors), a team, or an organization (Barrick, Mitchell, &
Stewart, 2003; Johnson, 2003). In addition, personality has been found to predict
individuals’ quality of life, such as freedom from trauma, marital satisfaction and
life satisfaction, and even how long people live, which may be the ultimate crite-
rion (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Friedman et al., 1993). Importantly, general mental
ability does not predict these outcomes (or predicts them poorly). Thus, the state-
ment that general mental ability predicts job performance better than personality is
not entirely true. It depends on which aspects of performance one is examining.
Taken together, the results from these seven diverse research streams illustrate
that personality plays a meaningful role in nearly all facets of work and our daily
lives. Consequently, we think it is time to move beyond debating questions like
“Does personality matter?” or “Who cares about personality?” In light of the re-
search evidence, it simply is not feasible to suggest that being hard working and
persistent doesn’t matter, or that being cooperative and considerate is not relevant
in team settings, or that being ambitious and sociable is unimportant. We believe it
is time to move on from this debate, and begin addressing the more challenging is-
sues that are likely to advance our understanding in this area.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Let us turn to the future of personality and focus on three issues that particularly
deserve our attention as we move forward. The first issue pertains to the effects of
the situation. Kevin Murphy’s and Jessica Dzieweczynski’s (this issue) insight
that it may be insufficient to rely solely on job analytic data to determine when spe-
cific personality traits are likely to be relevant to success is important. Empirical
evidence demonstrating that situational strength moderates the personality-behav-
364 BARRICK AND MOUNT

ior relation (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Beaty, Cleveland, & Murphy, 2001; Gellatly
& Irving, 2001; Hochwarter, Witt, & Kacmar, 2000) underscores the idea that re-
searchers must broadly account for situational affects to determine whether per-
sonality is relevant to behavior, and that those affects extend beyond the require-
ments of the job.
Studies demonstrating the effect of situational strength show that situations can
control how an individual behaves rather than his or her personality. When situa-
tions are exceptionally strong, all individuals tend to behave in the same way re-
gardless of their personality traits. As a result, strong situations have been shown
to decrease the observed relations between personality and behavior. In contrast,
weak situations are characterized by few expectations, or many ambiguous de-
mands, and consequently individuals have considerable discretion in how to be-
have. Consequently, the validity of personality traits in predicting performance
has been found to be larger when the situation is characterized as “weak” rather
than “strong.”
Similarly, evidence that individuals are attracted to join organizations they fit
and to leave those they do not fit (Judge & Cable, 1997; Schneider, Smith, Taylor,
& Fleenor, 1998) demonstrates the role organizational level variables have on per-
sonality at work. Interestingly, Schneider et al. (1998) reported that the three
“niche” traits account for the largest effects on homogeneity or fit within an orga-
nization (R2 = .08, .04, and .02, respectively, for Agreeableness, Openness to Ex-
perience, and Extraversion). This is consistent with earlier comments indicating
these three traits are more susceptible to contextual effects. Research on team com-
position also is increasingly examining the role of personality (Barrick, Stewart,
Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Neuman, Wagner, &
Christiansen, 1999). Although much of this research has targeted main effects on
team effectiveness (Barrick et al., 1998), results also show that the traits of the
team’s members influence the group’s processes (Neuman et. al., 1999), and these
influences vary based on the contextual demands inherent in the group and the
amount of team interdependence (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). The critical point is
that neither the team nor organizational effects on personality, as indicated in these
studies, is accounted for in traditional job analyses.
Recognizing the influence of situational strength, along with group and organi-
zational context, on personality, shows that predictive validity is likely to vary by
more than job demands alone. Thus, researchers increasingly need to take the
interactionist perspective seriously—that is, to fully understand how personality
relates to behavior at work we must account for the situation. However, the situa-
tion must be broadly defined, beyond understanding derived solely from a tradi-
tional job analysis. For the arguments that the situation is all important, little is em-
pirically known or even theorized about how different types of situations (broadly
defined) influence personality or behavior, particularly at work (Barrick, Mitchell,
et al., 2003). Furthermore, beyond job analysis, little is known about the basic
 REDISCOVERING PERSONALITY AT WORK 365

kinds of situations or what variables are useful for comparing one situation with
another (Stewart & Barrick, 2004). Today, a framework for characterizing the psy-
chologically influential aspects of situations is sorely needed, as is a method for as-
sessing these variables.
What further complicates this research is the finding that a person’s traits can
also change the situation (Stewart & Barrick, 2004). For example, having “one bad
apple” in a team can actually change the work environment. Just having one per-
son who is disagreeable or neurotic (low on Agreeableness or Emotional Stability)
has been shown to lead to less communication, lower interdependence, less work-
load sharing, and more conflict (Barrick et al., 1998). Similarly, Barry and Stewart
(1997) found that teams were unable to function effectively if they had too many
(or too few) extraverts in a team setting. Thus, situational effects, due to both situa-
tional factors and characteristics of those in the setting, have been shown to be im-
portant to personality but are not captured through a traditional job analysis. Theo-
retical explanation requires that these effects be accounted for to fully understand
personality’s affect at work.
A second issue future researchers must examine is the process through which
personality affects behavior at work. As noted earlier, researchers must account
for the characteristics of the work situation. However, the primary means
through which personality affects work behavior is expected to be through moti-
vation (Barrick, Mitchell, et al., 2003; Kanfer, 1991; Murray, 1938). These moti-
vational affects are likely to be demonstrated in two ways: first, what would you
be happy doing? And second, how motivated will you be doing it? Recent re-
search shows that personality influences the type of environments we seek
(Barrick, Mount, & Gupta, 2003; Judge & Cable, 1997; Mount, Barrick, Scullen,
& Rounds, in press; Schneider et al., 1998). For example, extraverted people
prefer work settings that involve social activities or have an “aggressive” organi-
zational culture. Although this research illustrates that personality plays a role in
determining what situations one chooses to be in, recent research shows voca-
tional interests are likely to have a larger impact than personality traits on those
choices (Mount et al., in press). That is, interests influence the types of environ-
ments we seek and the types of people and activities we prefer. This explains
why a recent large scale meta-analysis of fit relations shows that interests and
values have a larger effect on person-organization fit (Kristof-Brown, Zim-
merman, & Johnson, in press) than do personality traits.
Personality, on the other hand, is likely to be the critical dispositional basis for
determining how the person interacts or is motivated once an individual has cho-
sen an environment that is consistent with his or her interests. For example, a re-
cent meta-analysis (Judge & Ilies, 2002) reveals that Big Five traits consistently
relate to performance motivation, whether assessed using goal setting (R = .63),
expectancy (R = .36), or self-efficacy (R = .49) motivation. These findings show,
for example, that people high in Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability are
366 BARRICK AND MOUNT

more likely to set goals, have higher expectations that their efforts will result in fa-
vorable consequences, and think they can do more (have higher self-efficacy),
than those low in Conscientiousness or Emotional Stability. Enhanced perfor-
mance motivation, in turn, is expected to be an important predictor of perfor-
mance.
Research showing that motivation is the major mediating link between person-
ality and performance is important to researchers striving to understand and pre-
dict which behaviors employees will exhibit at work. Recognizing that personality
is a distal motivational force, which influences behavior through proximal perfor-
mance motivation variables like goals, self-efficacy, and expectancies, should en-
able researchers to develop more comprehensive models of job performance. Such
theoretically driven explanations demonstrating the role personality plays in how
we do our work will enhance scientific understanding, as noted by Murphy and
Dzieweczynski (this issue). Furthermore, these are likely to be important affects,
given the magnitude of the multiple correlations reported by Judge and Ilies (2002)
between Big Five traits and performance motivation.
In contrast, we are not aware of any research which shows that interests are re-
lated to the propensity to set goals, to achieve higher self-efficacy, or increase per-
formance expectancies. Consequently, understanding the person’s interests will
not likely enhance our understanding of how we do work. This underscores that al-
though interests and personality are two fundamental, noncognitive individual dif-
ference domains that influence behavior through motivation, the motivational pro-
cesses by which they do so differ. By recognizing the different motivational
processes involved at work by these individual differences, future research will
achieve more significant gains in understanding the specific mechanisms by which
personality influences job performance.
The third issue future researchers should give greater attention to are measure-
ment problems. Measurement lies at the heart of much of our applied research. If
we don’t assure that we have good measures, then all that we do with those mea-
sures is called into question. This is unfortunate because it isn’t that difficult to do
better. How? First, we need to understand that although personality is fairly stable
and so is the context, the response to items on a personality inventory at any one
moment is determined by many traits and states and by many features of the imme-
diate situation. Consequently, traits will usefully predict behavior only when it is
aggregated (Epstein, 1979), either over a category of behaviors (e.g., counterpro-
ductive behavior) or across time (annual performance or longer). Second, we must
recognize that global traits (like the Big Five) are best for explanation and theory
development; however, prediction of narrower and more specific behaviors at
work will require correspondingly narrower trait constructs (Mount & Barrick,
1995). Effective measurement will require addressing both of these concerns.
Regarding the former point, traits will better explain typical behavior at work,
particularly behavior that is aggregated across time and situations. The fact that
 REDISCOVERING PERSONALITY AT WORK 367

personality shows impressive consistencies over time even if the person’s life situ-
ation changes (Conley, 1984; Costa & McCrae, 2002; McCrae et al., 1999, 2000),
underscores why personality can provide valuable information about what a per-
son is likely to do at work. The stability of traits across situations or over time
likely explains why the correlation between Conscientiousness and indicators of
external career success were greater than .40, even when assessed over a 50-year
span (Judge et al., 1999). Alternatively, it also explains why personality traits can-
not predict a single instance of theft. Recognizing this criterion problem, research-
ers must focus on meaningful aggregates of behavior.
Researchers must also give greater consideration to the appropriate level of
trait generality. It is well understood that personality can be measured with
scales ranging from specific, narrow facets to broader, more general, global
traits (John, Hampson, & Goldberg, 1991; McAdams, 1995). Narrow traits rely
on explicit description that may be situated in time, place, or role. Representing
personality with narrower subcomponents makes the finer features of each trait
more explicit and narrows the range of behaviors represented so they are more
similar, which enhances the diagnostic value and offers higher fidelity (predic-
tive accuracy) for specific sets of behaviors. Thus, a measure of sociability will
predict whether one tends to talk to strangers better than the broader construct,
Extraversion, particularly if the trait and criterion measures are matched to
context.
In contrast, the broad global traits, like the Big Five, focus on characteristic re-
sponses people persistently make to broad environmental demands. Each of these
measures is composed of many variables that have something in common. This of-
fers higher efficiency (parsimony), greater bandwidth, and higher cross-situational
replicability. Consequently, Extraversion will predict whether a person likes being
with people, actively influencing, negotiating, and leading others, and preferring
to seek excitement in groups across work and family settings better than sociabil-
ity. This explains why the broad factors effectively predict very broad criteria, like
extrinsic career success, but are less likely to predict specific criteria. To enhance
conceptual clarity, researchers must match the hierarchical level of personality de-
scription to the specificity of the aggregated criterion (Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts,
1996; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996; R. J. Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette, 1996).
Finally, one other measurement issue pertains to the fact that the validity evi-
dence for personality traits is based almost exclusively on self-report measures.
However, there is a distinction between the validity of a personality construct such
as Conscientiousness, and the validity of Conscientiousness as measured by
self-report methods. For example, Mount, Barrick, and Strauss (1994) showed that
the validities of Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability in predicting supervi-
sor ratings of sales performance were higher when based on observer ratings of
personality than when based on self-reports. Specifically, when Conscientiousness
and Emotional Stability were assessed by coworkers and customers, the average
368 BARRICK AND MOUNT

validities were 50% higher compared to self-reports. This suggests that the use of
self-reports may actually understate the true validity of personality constructs in
predicting job performance. One implication of this is that researchers should ex-
plore the usefulness of peer or other ratings on personality traits for internal staff-
ing purposes (e.g., promotions).

DISCUSSION

This article has reviewed why we should care about personality and advanced an
agenda for future research. There was a period between 1965 and 1990 when some
researchers advocated that we had no personalities at work. As suggested here, the
influence of personality has been widely accepted by managers and is used by
them to guide their decisions about employees and interactions with others at
work. However, the more basic consideration that makes personality important is
that it is an enduring predictor of a number of significant behaviors at work, behav-
iors that cannot be predicted adequately by general mental ability, job knowledge,
or the situation itself.
Nevertheless, to clearly understand the link between personality and individual
job performance, this article has highlighted three areas where additional research
could make critical contributions to the future of personality. The first area is in-
vestigating the interaction between personality and context. It is now apparent that
we must consider situational demands that extend beyond the immediate demands
of the job to fully define whether the context is relevant to a particular personality
trait. We believe personality will have its greatest effect on behavior when the situ-
ation, broadly defined by the demands of the job, group, and organization, is rele-
vant to the trait’s expression and is weak enough to allow the person to choose how
to behave in that situation.
The second area of research entails investigating the motivational processes
through which personality influences job performance. Although personality is
likely to affect both what situations we choose to engage in and how motivated we
are to do them, recent evidence demonstrates that the largest influence is through
the latter process, performance-oriented motivation. This distinction can be used
to guide research linking specific personality traits to specific performance dimen-
sions by helping to identify theoretically relevant mediating motivational vari-
ables for different sets of behaviors.
The third area of research identifies critical measurement issues unique to as-
sessing personality. To assure the more effective use of personality measures, we
must carefully consider the need to aggregate behavior. Such aggregation should
be guided by the need to balance our ability to predict consistency in behavior
without eliminating or “factoring out” the influence of the situation. Practical and
 REDISCOVERING PERSONALITY AT WORK 369

theoretical understanding will only occur if we account for the influence of the per-
son and the situation on behavior.
In addition, good measurement requires focusing on the appropriate level of de-
scription to reflect meaningful personality structures. Although it will require
greater conceptual clarity, researchers must be more explicit about the role of theo-
retical development and predictive validity in our choice of measures. This sug-
gests that researchers will need to use hierarchically organized taxonomies that
comprehensively capture the basic lower level (i.e., more specific) categories of
personality, and the more global, superordinate constructs. At present, there is no
widely-accepted, meaningful taxonomy of lower level personality traits, although
there are a number of efforts presently focused on developing such a framework
(Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Hofstee, de Raad, & Goldberg, 1992; Hough,
2003; Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999). It is not within the scope of this article to fully
describe or to theoretically and empirically justify a specific lower level taxon-
omy. Nevertheless, we believe the development of such a taxonomy will enable
personality research to lift the cloud originating from the proliferation of personal-
ity constructs that currently obscures meaningful relations between lower level
personality and criterion constructs. And more important, we believe that when
lower level personality and more specific criterion constructs are appropriately
linked, the magnitude of these relations is likely to be larger than those reported
previously using broad, personality constructs.

CONCLUSION

Critics of personality would have us believe our personality traits do not matter in
the workplace. That is, how we tend to think, feel, and act is not related to job per-
formance. From a commonsense perspective, this notion seems implausible. Fur-
ther, based on the findings from seven divergent research streams reviewed earlier,
we believe this notion can be rejected on empirical grounds as well. However, we
do not want to pretend that we have answers to all of our questions. The fact of the
matter is that human behavior at work is complex, and understanding the relation
of personality traits and job performance is difficult. Personality traits are endur-
ing, distal forces that influence behavior, but there are both mediating and moder-
ating variables that must be accounted for to adequately explain the effects of
personality on human behavior. Systematically and carefully studying these medi-
ating and moderating effects are precisely where we need to go in personality re-
search. For these reasons, we remain optimistic that our personalities do matter at
work, and anticipate that personality will more and more be viewed as an impor-
tant predictor of job performance.
370 BARRICK AND MOUNT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Ken Brown, Tamara Giluk, Greg Stewart, and Ryan Zimmerman for
comments on drafts of this article.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for over-
lapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.
Bagge, C., Nickell, A., Stepp, S., Durrett, C., Jackson, K., & Trull, T. J. (2004). Borderline personality
disorder features predict negative outcomes 2 years later. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113,
279–288.
Barrick, M. R., Mitchell, T. R., & Stewart, G. L. (2003). Situational and motivational influences on
trait-behavior relationships. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Recon-
sidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 60–82). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the big
five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111–118.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Gupta, R. (2003). Meta-analysis of the relationship between the
five-factor model of personality and Holland’s occupational types. Personnel Psychology, 56,
45–74.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). The FFM personality dimensions and job perfor-
mance: Meta-Analysis of meta-analyses [Special issue]. International Journal of Selection and As-
sessment, 9, 9–30.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and per-
sonality to work team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
377–391.
Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups:
The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 62–78.
Beaty, J. C., Jr., Cleveland, J. N, & Murphy, K. R. (2001). The relation between personality and contex-
tual performance in “strong” versus “weak” situations. Human Performance, 14, 125–148.
Conley, J. J. (1984). Longitudinal consistency of adult personality: Self-reported psychological charac-
teristics across 45 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1325–1333.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2002). Looking backward: Changes in the mean levels of personality
traits from 80 to 12. In D. Cervone & W. Mischel (Eds.), Advances in personality science (pp.
219–237). New York: Guilford.
Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage — The search for dispositional effects in organiza-
tional research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 385–400.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits
and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197–229.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of
Psychology, 41, 417–440.
Dunn, W. S., Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Relative importance of personality
and general mental ability in managers’ judgments of applicant qualifications. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80, 500–509.
Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: On predicting most of the people much of the time. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097–1126.
Frei, R. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (1998). Validity of customer service measures in personnel selection: A
review of criterion and construct evidence. Human Performance, 11, 1–27.
 REDISCOVERING PERSONALITY AT WORK 371

Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J. S., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Schwartz, J. E., Wingard, D. L., & Criqui, M. H.
(1993). Does childhood personality predict longevity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 65, 176–185.
Gellatly, I. R., & Irving, P. G. (2001). Personality, autonomy, and contextual performance of managers.
Human Performance, 14, 231–245.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to
creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513–524.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34.
Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Person-
nel Psychology, 18, 135–164.
Hochwarter, W. A., Witt, L. A., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Perceptions of organizational politics as a
moderator of the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 472–478.
Hofstee, W. K. B., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the big five and circumplex ap-
proaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146–163.
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job performance relations: A
socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100–112.
Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions:
Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51, 469–477.
Hough, L. M. (1998). Personality at work: Issues and evidence. In M. Hakel (Ed.), Beyond multiple
choice: Evaluating alternatives to traditional testing for selection (pp. 131–166). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hough, L. M., (2003). Emerging trends and needs in personality research and practice: Beyond main
effects. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of per-
sonality in organizations (pp. 289–325). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2001). Determinants, detection, and amelioration of
adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence, and lessons learned. Interna-
tional Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 152–194.
John, O. P., Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (1991). The basic level in personality-trait hierarchies:
Studies of trait use and accessibility in different contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 60, 348–361.
Johnson, J. W. (2003). Toward a better understanding of the relationship between personality and indi-
vidual job performance. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering
the role of personality in organizations (pp. 83–120). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative
and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization at-
traction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359–394.
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.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoreson, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five personality traits,
general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652.
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-
analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797–807.
Kanfer, R. (1991). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette
& L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 75–170). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. Borman, D.
Ilgen, & R. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, industrial and organizational psychology
(Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). New York: Wiley.
372 BARRICK AND MOUNT

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at
work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit.
Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.
LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of general
cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 53, 563–593.
McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person. Journal of Personality, 63,
365–396.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., de Lima, M. P., Simoes, A., Ostendorf, F., Marusic, I., et al. (1999). Age
differences in personality across the adult life span: Parallels in five cultures. Developmental Psy-
chology, 35, 466–477.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Ostendorf, F., Agleitner, A., Hrebickova, M., Avia, M. D., et al. (2000).
Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 78, 173–186.
McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. M., Toquam, J. L., Hanson, M. A., & Ashworth, S. (1990). Project A validity
results—The relationship between predictor and criterion domains. Personnel Psychology, 43,
335–354.
Mischel. W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The big five personality dimensions: Implications for research
and practice in human resource management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Man-
agement, 13, 153–200.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. (2005). Higher order dimensions of the big
five personality traits and the big six vocational interest types. Personnel Psychology, 58, 447–478.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Personality predictors of performance in jobs
involving interaction with others [Special issue]. Human Performance, 11, 145–166.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, J. P. (1994). Validity of observer ratings of the big five per-
sonality factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 272–280.
Mount, M. K., Witt, A, & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Incremental validity of empirically-keyed biographi-
cal scales over GMA and the big five personality constructs. Personnel Psychology, 53, 299–323.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999).The relationship between work-team per-
sonality composition and the job performance in teams. Group & Organization Management, 24,
28–45.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for
personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 609–626.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test
validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679–703.
Saucier, G., & Ostendorf, F. (1999). Hierarchical subcomponents of the big five personality factors: A
cross-language replication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 613–627.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E . (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psy-
chology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 124, 262–274.
Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. (1998). Personality and organizations: A test of
the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 462–470.
Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broadsided by broad traits: How to sink sci-
ence in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 639–655.
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Four lessons learned from the person-situation debate: A re-
view and research agenda. In B. Smith & B. Schneider (Eds.), Personality and organizations (pp.
61–87). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.