Included in this review of literature are the main concepts being studied for this research. These are the concepts of “personality” and “work performance,” its theoretical introduction, the relationship between these two main variables. This review shall outline the definition of these two important concepts and the major trends in interpreting their relationships. It shall also point out the alternative explanations of their relationships and how it can be resolved.
According to Phares & Chaplin (1997), personality traits are major constructs in the field of psychology. These have been defined in various respects. Personality traits are described to be internal and individual consistent and individually unique in the tendencies to behave in certain ways as the situation requires. (Tett & Guterman, 2000, p. 398) This description emphasizes five main points related to industrial psychology’s personnel evaluation and prediction.
1. Internal – personal consistencies based on the person’s actions in the past and what his future actions are projected.
2. Between – uniqueness of a person requires the descriptions of personality traits and this enables other people to be selected over the other for their certain qualities.
3. As tendencies, personality traits are covert potentials resting in the person. To know what draws these tendencies is crucial to the understanding of personality in the workplace.
4. Trait inferences are explanation of explicit behavior. Individuals regard it by how we see people and how they act or by their attitudes.
5. Behavioral explanation depends on varying situations; it must be a prime consideration to understand the environment before interpreting the person’s behavior/s.
Meanwhile, job or work performance is simply defined as the activities related to work, that is expected out of a worker or employee and how good these activities are executed. Most managers evaluate work performance of their human resources on a regular (either quarterly or annually) basis to that improvements and/or intervention are presented for further development. (Anderson, et. al., 2002) Boshoff & Arnolds (1995) defined job or work performance as a “multi-dimensional construct that shows how well employees do their jobs or tasks, the initiatives they take and the resourcefulness they demonstrate in solving work related problems. Also, work performance indicates the way they complete tasks, how they utilize their accessible resources and the energy and time they spend on their tasks.”
Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager (1993) suggested eight main categories by which work performance must be considered. These are from the multiplicative combination of general facts, systematic knowledge and motivation, which are all antecedents of personality type. It includes specific job or task proficiency, verbal and written communication task proficiency, etc. Each work performance category comes from a special combination of predictors.
Since the 1990’s, the relationship between personality and work has been one of the strongest topic in organizational psychology. (Koppes, 2007) An ample amount of studies exploring the relationship between personality categories and work behavior and/or attitudes has been published. Research has been done in various areas such as assessment and selection. (Ibid.) These areas focus on measurement and forecasts.
This is because personality is very much related with motivation, a significant dimension of work performance. To be able to motivate employees perfectly, managers must comprehend the motivating factors and the contexts of the roles or functions of the employees in the work set up. A principal study published by Harvard Business Review indicates that a key ingredient in employee motivation is ensuring that they are matched to their jobs in terms of their abilities, interests and personalities. (Carver & Scheier, 2001) The study found that when a manager places people in jobs where the demands of the job matched their abilities, where stimulation offered by the job matched their particular interests, and where the cultural demands of the position matched their personalities, employee turnover decreased dramatically and productivity increased exponentially. (Profiles International, 2010) While there are different factors which affect employee motivation such as coping skills, procedural justice, and locus of control, and organizational involvement, personality type is the main factor. (Wiedmer, 2009)
Similarly, Motowidlo, Borman & Schmit (1997) affirmed the contributions and links of personality variables to work performance. They suggested that personality by ways of habits, knowledge and skills and very much related with situational performance factors like enthusiasm, persistence, volunteerism, cooperation, and other work related traits. They also concluded that personality and cognitive abilities are highly related and personality can influence task performance by task related antecedents. Meanwhile, Organ (1994) also confirmed that personality is also assumed to be a major predictor of behavior in ‘‘weak’’ or vague situations wherein there are just a limited contextual constraints on behaviors.
In contemporary psychology, the "Big Five" factors or Five Factor Model of personality are five broad domains or dimensions of personality that are used to describe human personality. These five broad types of personality traits are: agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness. (Ibid.) They are commonly called CANOE, NEOAC or OCEAN. There are many scholars who believe in these five core personality traits. Over the last sixty years, this theory has been used starting from the works of D. W. Fiske (1949), Norman (1967), Smith (1967), Goldberg (1981), and McCrae & Costa (1987). (McCrae & Costa, 1997)
Conscientiousness is shown by being success oriented, disciplined and organized. Neuroticism describes a person’s level of anxiousness, emotional stability, and impulse. Extraversion is seen by one’s level of assertiveness, sociability and communications skills. Openness is evidenced by a compelling intellectual arousal and a liking for novelty and differences. Lastly, agreeableness describes an individual’s helpfulness, cooperation and sympathy to other people. These five personality traits have become a strong and general model for explaining the relationship between personality and several academic and/or work related behaviors. (Matthews, Deary & Whiteman, 2003)
Several literatures have confounded the correlations between these Big Factor or Five Factor Model of personality such as deviation, job satisfaction, motivation, and teamwork and work performance. These include the studies Colbert, Mount, et. al. (2004), Hochwater, Witt, & Kacmar (2000), Hurtz & Donovan (2000), Judge, Heller, & Mount (2002), LePine & Dyne (2001), and Lim & Ployhart (2004). Likewise, Judge, Martocchio, & Thoresen (1997) related the Five Factor model of personality traits with employee absence.
Barrick, Mount & Judge (2001) statistically generalized fifteen (15) meta-analytic studies that have analyzed the relationship between Five Factor Model personality traits and work performance. Their studies showed that “conscientiousness” is a compelling predictor across performance measures in all works analyzed.
The authors also found out that emotional stability also showed itself as a compelling general predictor in overall work performance. However, emotional stability is less compelling than conscientiousness with special performance criteria and occupations. They also found out that while the other three Big Five traits, namely, agreeableness, extraversion and openness did not predict general work performance. These traits predict success in certain occupations. They also relate to special criteria.
Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski (2002) also reviewed the link between the Five Factor Model of personality and work performance through their research work on sales representatives. Their study have defined two areas of motivation – accomplishment striving and status striving – both are correlated with specific aspects of personality, namely, conscientiousness and extraversion. They considered these two personality traits as subsets of personal motivation, which lead to sales performance. Their data evidenced that status striving leads directly to performance than accomplishment striving. (Ibid.)
Robertson & Fairweather (1998) worked towards broadening this empirical and theoretical framework by providing a study of the evidence of variables of personality and its relation to work performance. They presented a framework relating the said two major variables in order to understand and analyze research results beyond assessment and selection. They also emphasized several important issues such as the importance and the advantages of structural frameworks for the variables of personality such as the Big Five; the value of taking into consideration the interplay of the personality factors, the strength of the predicting the work performance directly based on one’s personality, and the significance of work settings and contexts that influence work performances.
In an analysis of the personality – work performance relationships, Hogan, Hogan & Roberts (1996) generalized that well-defined measures of an average personality are legitimate predictors of an extensive range of work performance. They can be linked with various aspects of performance without prejudice to a group of minority and in terms of predicting overall productivity.
An interesting contrast is a study of Frederick P. Morgeson, Professor of Management at Michigan State University which negates the notion that personality is a strong predictor of work performance. He describes the relationship between personality and work performance as “highly tenuous.” (Amble, 2007) In his article published at Personnel Psychology, Morgeson, together with his colleagues Hollenbeck, Schmitt, Campion, Dipboye, and Murphy revealed the various limitations of the psychological assessments and evaluations framed by the direct relationship of personality and work performance. They argued that potential employees fake their answers and present their best personalities during personality tests and job interviews. The employment process has not resolved this issue and has not initiated an open process of selection and recruitment. (Ibid.) Hence, they consider the validity of personality as work performance predictors as very low.
Nikolaou (2003) also supports this contention by stating that personality dispositions and work performances are indirectly related. In a study of 227 employees’ self-report, he found out that there is an existing relationship between personality and job satisfaction. However, the variables of personality and work performance were not related. Only traits such as agreeableness and openness to experience were related to work performance for specific occupations that require interpersonal dynamics.
The idea of “faking a personality” was also mentioned by Rothstein & Goffin (2006) in their study called “The use of personality measures in personnel selection: What does current research support?” In their review of the major trends that led to the increasing use of personality evaluation in personnel selection, they posited that personality actually has an ability to predict work performance. Specifically, the Five Factor Model of personality traits have been extensively used in various employment related tests and assessments. Other methods are also reviewed including the limited personality measures, meta-analyses of personality–based relationships, moderator and mediator effects, and significant validity of personality over other selection testing procedures.
Goodstein and Lanyon (1999) also acknowledge the applications of the Five Factor Model as setting the universally accepted group of measurement to describe behavior at work correlations. The said model is often used in organizational contexts. According to Rothstein & Jelley (2003), despite contorversies, the said model is still the widely accepted logical taxonomy of personality characteristics.
In short, these authors consider the relationship between personality and work perofrmance based on their specific applications.
Reflection Paper
I am deeply moved by how personality determines work performance. In hindsight, personality affects and influences all the aspect of one’s life. It is a very potent determinant of one’s success or failure in life. It also spells out happiness or misery for people. In this regard, I am inclined to reflect in the more interventionalist or positivist aspects of nurturing, further developing and making my own personality more inclined to succeed. I also want to be happier.
Although I acknowledge the controversies and the clouds surrounding the compelling use of the relationship theory or the Five Factor Model, I realized that the five personality traits of agreeableness, openess, conscientiousness, extrovertion, and neuroticism are really very evident and explicit factors of success at work and in other realms of endeavors.
When one is agreeable, he/she tends to become popular and everyone agrees with him, with his ideas and his opinions. This is also relative to one’s leadership at work. I am thinking that if I am more agreeable, I can direct others and lead them. Hence, it shall also reflect my leadership traits and skills which will greatly determine my success and performance in my job. If being agreeable is good and advantageous and it is not against my inner nature, I am thinking that if I cultivate this trait, perhaps greater things will come.
Thinking about neuroticism, I realized that I am somehow neurotic. I can get really anxious or nervous at times and this is a negative thing for my health and well being. However, this can be challenged and I can try my best to develop myself to become more positive, relaxed and less self anxious and simply cool. I imagine how managers are supposed to be and I realize that my ideal mentor and manager in my fuutre career is someone who is very casual and confident and cool yet he exudes command and he is on top of what he is doing. I aim for this type of personality and I also like the thought that if I can be more relaxed, others would tend to be more relaxed and we can approach any tasks with greater enthusiasm and comfort.
In terms of extrovertness or sociability, I have actually experienced its benefits. Perhaps it is one of my natural trait and that is why I am easy to talk with and I love to talk with others. I also like to be around with people, pleasing them at times or telling them about some special stories or insights about the world we live in and the people and circumstances I have experienced. I really like sharing stories, even with total strangers. I love telling life lessons and I guess this is what endears me with others.
The thing about this personal trait is that it draws people to you. Once you warm up with them by being open and by revealing yourself, they also become more open and attuned to you. I also like to be with people in some social situations because it makes me learn so much. Going to a social event is not just about attendance. It is more about the interaction with others and what I can learn from them which is more important. This is why I always look forward to meeting people.
I am sure that it takes a whole lot of maturity, knowledge and experience to be able to perform better at work or naywhere else. However, the right attitude is the key. If we just think about being focused on what we want in life and how we will achieve it, even honing our own personalities will be easy. We will approach everything with determination and enthusiasm because we know its purpose.
References:
Amble, B. (December 13, 2007). Personality tests poor predictors of job performance. Management Issues Website. Retrieved on March 18, 2012 from, http://www.management-issues.com/2007/12/13/research/personality-tests-poor-predictors-of-job-performance.asp.
Anderson, N., Ones, D. S., Sinangil, H. K., & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology, Volume 1: Personnel psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Barrick, M., Mount, M., & Judge, T. (March/June, 2001). Personality and Performance at the Beginning of the New Millennium: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1/2). pp. 9-29.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43-51.
Boshoff, C. & Arnolds, C. (1995). Some antecedents of employee commitment and their influence on job performance. South African Journal of Business Management, 26 (4), pp. 125-135.
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (2001). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 460.
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, pp. 599-609.
Goodstein, L. D., & Lanyon, R. I. (1999). Applications of personality assessment to the workplace: A review. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13 (3), pp. 291–322.
Hochwater, 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, pp. 472-478.
Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions. American Psychologist, 51, 469—477.
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, pp. 530-541.
Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. (1997). Five-factor model of personality and employee absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 745-755.
Koppes, L.L. (Ed.). (2007). Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
LePine, J. A., & Dyne, L. V. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, pp. 326-336.
Lim, B., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational leadership: Relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, pp. 610-621.
Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C. (2003). Personality Traits. Cambridge University Press.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1997) Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, pp. 509-516.
Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, pp. 71– 83.
Nikolaou, I. (2003). Fitting the person to the organization: examining the personality-job performance relationship from a new perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18 (7), pp. 639-648.
Organ, D. W. (1994). Personality and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 20, pp. 465–478.
Phares, E. J. & Chaplin, W. F. (1997). Introduction to personality (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
Robertson, I. & Fairweather, J. (August 1998). The Role of Personality in Work Performance: Understanding the Results of Research. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. 106th, San Francisco, CA.
Rothstein, M. G., & Jelly, R. B. (2003). The challenge of aggregating studies of personality. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Validity generalization: A critical review (pp. 223–262). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, pp. 397– 423.
Wiedmer, S. (2009). “An Examination of Factors Affecting Employee Satisfaction.” Missouri Western State University.
