Predicting Work Performance

using the Five Factor Model

and the CASES Model of
Personality

Chong Chien Fatt

B.Sc (Mech. Eng.) Honours, M.Eng. (Ind. Eng. and Mgmt.)

This dissertation is submitted for the

Degree of Doctor of Business Administration,
University of Newcastle, Australia

January, 2006
 STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP

I hereby certify that the work embodied in this dissertation project is the result of

original research and has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other

University or Institution.

-----------------------------------

CHONG CHIEN FATT

January 2006

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am sincerely grateful to all the following people who have assisted and encouraged
me throughout this research programme.

My wife, Lee Sock Hiah, sons Ming Hoong and Yao Hoong, my mother and relatives
for their support and understanding during this period.

Dr Gian Casimir, for his dedication, commitment and friendly supervision of this
research programme.

Dr Nik Rahimah Yacob for her invaluable advice at any time of the day.

Mr Bernard Tan, A.T., for allowing some of the concepts and items of the K.Y.K.O.
Instrument to be used in the research.

Mark Loon Kong Chew, for his various ideas in my research and assistance in the
report preparation.

Cik Rohana Haron, for her diligent data entry and report preparation.

My numerous friends, who have consented and assisted in the data collection from
their organisations and their moral support.

The dedicated personnel (Alex, Connie, Grace, Iris, Winnie and others) in Segi.

ii
 DEDICATION

I dedicated this work to my beloved Mother, Madam Yew Hor, who always

gives her undivided love and care to her 11 children. May God bless her with

good health and happiness.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENT

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP ...................................................... I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................II
DEDICATION .......................................................................................................... III
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................... IX
1.0. CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION ...............................................................1
1.1. THE ROLE OF PSYCHOMETRIC TESTS.................................................................2
1.2. PERSONALITY AND WORK PERFORMANCE .........................................................6
1.3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................................11
1.3.1. Research Philosophy.......................................................................................... 11
1.3.2. Research Design ................................................................................................ 11
1.3.3. Survey Instrument.............................................................................................. 12
1.3.4. Measurement...................................................................................................... 12
1.3.5. Sampling and Sample Size ................................................................................ 13
1.4. ANALYSES .......................................................................................................13
1.5. ETHICS ............................................................................................................14
1.6. LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................15
2.0. CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................16
2.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................16
2.1.1. What is Personality? .......................................................................................... 17
2.1.2. How Stable are Personality Traits?.................................................................... 19
2.1.3. The Objective of Psychometric Instruments...................................................... 20
2.2. THEORIES ON PERSONALITY ............................................................................21
2.2.1. Psychodynamic Theories ................................................................................... 23
2.2.2. Humanistic Theories .......................................................................................... 25
2.2.3. Traits Theories ................................................................................................... 27
2.2.4. Behaviorist/Cognitive and Social Cognitive Theories....................................... 29
2.3. WHY DOES PERSONALITY MATTER TO ORGANISATIONS? ...............................32
2.4. TYPES OF PERSONALITY MEASURES ................................................................33
2.4.1. The Five Factor Model ...................................................................................... 34
2.4.2. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator............................................................................. 37
2.5. THE PREDICTIVE POWER OF FFM/MBTI ON PERFORMANCE...........................41
2.6. SHORTCOMINGS OF FFM AND MBTI MEASURES ............................................42
2.6.1. Five Factor Model.............................................................................................. 42
2.6.2. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator............................................................................. 46
2.7. THE THEORIES AND CONSTRUCTS OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE .....................47
2.7.1. Definition of Behavior ....................................................................................... 47
2.7.2. Factors Influencing Behavior............................................................................. 48
2.7.3. Current Theories of Work Motivation ............................................................... 50
2.7.4. The Constructs of this Proposed Model............................................................. 56
2.7.4.1. The First Premise: Behavior is Motivated by Needs ..............................................56
2.7.4.2. The Second Premise: The Accuracy of Predicting Behavior Depends on
Complexity .............................................................................................................59
2.7.5. Uniqueness of the CASES Personality Measure ............................................... 61
2.8. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES .......................................................62
2.8.1. Prediction of Performance by the FFM Personality Measure............................ 66
2.8.2. Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure ....................... 68

iv
 2.8.3. The Relationships between FFM and CASES ................................................... 69
2.8.4. Hypotheses......................................................................................................... 71
3.0. CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................72
3.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................72
3.2. RESEARCH PARADIGMS ...................................................................................72
3.3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................................74
3.4. RESEARCH DESIGN ..........................................................................................75
3.4.1. Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................... 75
3.4.2. Type of Investigation ......................................................................................... 77
3.4.3. Research Method ............................................................................................... 77
3.4.4. Researcher’s Interference .................................................................................. 79
3.4.5. Study Setting...................................................................................................... 80
3.4.6. Time Horizons ................................................................................................... 81
3.4.7. Unit of Analysis ................................................................................................. 81
3.5. SURVEY RESEARCH .........................................................................................82
3.5.1. Selection of Survey Method .............................................................................. 82
3.5.2. Selection of Measurement Techniques .............................................................. 84
3.5.2.1. Personality and Work Performance Measures........................................................84
3.5.2.2. Self Report..............................................................................................................84
3.5.2.3. Scales......................................................................................................................84
3.5.2.4. Key Variables .........................................................................................................86
3.5.3. Selection of Survey Layout................................................................................ 89
3.5.4. Selection of Sample and Sample Size................................................................ 90
3.5.5. Selection of analytical approach ........................................................................ 92
3.5.5.1. Central Tendency and Dispersion...........................................................................92
3.5.5.2. Principal Components Analysis..............................................................................92
3.5.5.3. Reliability ...............................................................................................................92
3.5.5.4. Validity...................................................................................................................93
3.5.5.5. Hypothesis Testing .................................................................................................94
3.5.6. Implementation .................................................................................................. 94
3.5.6.1. Cost and Time Estimates ........................................................................................94
3.5.6.2. Data Collection.......................................................................................................96
3.5.6.3. Data Entry ..............................................................................................................97
3.5.6.4. Categorising............................................................................................................97
3.6. RESEARCH PLAN .............................................................................................98
3.7. ETHICAL CONSIDERATION ...............................................................................98
3.8. LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................99
3.8.1. Response Distortions ......................................................................................... 99
3.8.2. Personality Scales .............................................................................................. 99
3.8.3. Stability of Work Performance .......................................................................... 99
3.8.4. Self Rating ....................................................................................................... 100
3.8.5. Work Performance........................................................................................... 101
3.9. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................101
4.0. CHAPTER FOUR – DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................102
4.1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................102
4.2. DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................102
4.2. RESULTS FROM PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS.....................................103
4.2.1. Principal Components Analysis of the FFM Personality Measure .................. 103
4.2.2. Principal Components Analysis of the CASES Personality Measure.............. 107
4.2.3. Principal Components Analysis of RBPS Performance Measure.................... 109
4.2.4. The Relationship between the FFM Dimensions and the CASES Dimensions111
4.3. RESULTS FROM TESTING OF THE HYPOTHESES ..............................................114

v
 4.3.1. Prediction of Performance by the FFM Personality Measure.......................... 114
4.3.2. Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure ..................... 120
4.3.3. FFM and CASES predicting performance....................................................... 128
4.3.3.1. FFM and CASES predicting the Job Component of the RBPS ............................128
4.3.3.2. FFM and CASES Predicting the Career Component of the RBPS.......................129
4.3.3.3. FFM and CASES Predicting the Innovator Component of RBPS........................130
4.3.3.4. FFM and CASES Predicting the Team Component of the RBPS ........................131
4.3.3.5. FFM and CASES Predicting the Organisation Component of the RBPS.............132
4.3.3.6. FFM and CASES Predicting Total RBPS Performance .......................................133
4.4. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................135
5.0. CHAPTER FIVE – CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ....................138
5.1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................138
5.2. DISCUSSION OF THE MAIN FINDINGS .............................................................138
5.2.1. Main Findings for Research Question One...................................................... 138
5.2.2. Main Findings for Research Question Two ..................................................... 143
5.2.3. Main Findings for Research Question Three ................................................... 147
5.3. IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS ....................................................................149
5.3.1. Implications on Professional Practice.............................................................. 149
5.3.2. Implications on Theory.................................................................................... 151
5.4. LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................152
5.5. FUTURE RESEARCH .......................................................................................153
5.6. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................154
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ...........................................................................158
APPENDIX ONE – INFORMATION SHEET ...................................................................182
APPENDIX TWO – CONSENT SEEKING LETTER TO COMPANY ..................................184
APPENDIX THREE – QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................................................186

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Predictors of Work Performance (Yancey and Austin, 2000) .......................4

Table 2: Six of the Most Commonly Used Personality Instruments (Dent and Curd,
2004) .............................................................................................................6

Table 3: The 16 Personality Types with Cognitive Characteristics and Occupational

Tendencies ..................................................................................................40

Table 4: The Possible Associations of Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM

with Complexity and Self-Actualisation of the CASES .............................70

Table 5: Four Categories of Non-experimental Techniques (Grace, 1999).................78

Table 6: Merits of the Four Survey Methods (Grace, 1999)........................................83

Table 7: Role-Based Performance Scale’s Items (Wilbourne et al., 1998) .................88

Table 8: The Breakdown of Companies to be Surveyed Based on Industry (developed

for this study) ..............................................................................................95

Table 9: Total Time Estimated for the Survey (developed for this research)..............96

Table 10: Breakdown of Costs on Survey (developed for this research) ....................96

Table 11: Rotated Component Matrix of FFM ..........................................................104

Table 12: Items of FFM after Principal Components Analysis .................................106

Table 13: Rotated Component Matrix of CASES......................................................107

Table 14: Items of CASES after Principal Components Analysis.............................109

Table 15: Rotated Component Matrix of RBPS ........................................................110

Table 16: Correlations between the Components of FFM and CASES.....................113

Table 17: Correlations of the Components of FFM and RBPS .................................115

Table 18: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM .116

Table 19: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on FFM
...................................................................................................................117

Table 20: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on

FFM...........................................................................................................117

Table 21: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on FFM
...................................................................................................................118

vii
Table 22: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on
FFM...........................................................................................................119

Table 23: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on FFM ............................119

Table 24: Correlations of the Components of CASES and RBPS.............................122

Table 25: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on CASES
...................................................................................................................123

Table 26: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on

CASES ......................................................................................................124

Table 27: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on

CASES ......................................................................................................124

Table 28: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on CASES
...................................................................................................................125

Table 29: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on

CASES ......................................................................................................126

Table 30: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on CASES........................127

Table 31: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM and
CASES ......................................................................................................129

Table 32: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on the
FFM and CASES ......................................................................................130

Table 33: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on

FFM and CASES ......................................................................................131

Table 34: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of the RBPS on
FFM and CASES ......................................................................................132

Table 35: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on

FFM and CASES ......................................................................................133

Table 36: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on FFM and CASES ........134

viii
 ABSTRACT

“Does personality predict work performance” is a question that many researchers

have addressed over the past few decades. Prior to the 1990s, personnel selection

specialists generally did not use personality testing in employee selection due to the

perception it has low validity. However, recent studies using fundamental dimensions

of personality have shown the predictive power of personality for work performance.

Research on the significance of personality suggests that even though other factors are

important in determining the performance of an individual in a given task, personality

provides insight on how well a person will perform a given task. Hence, the more

recent studies have focused on demonstrating the incremental gain in predicting work

performance that can be attained using personality as a predictor.

The study explores the predictive utility of a personality measure that is based on the

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the social cognitive theory of “If-Then” and the

Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality with regards to a multidimensional measure

of work performance. The results confirmed relationships between the dimensions of

the new personality measure (i.e., CASES) and the FFM. Both of the personality

measures support existing literature which claims that personality can predict work

performance with several dimensions of the new personality measure predicting work

performance over and above the FFM. Besides providing a theory-grounded

measurement tool which contributes to research on personality measures and the

prediction of work-related performance, this new personality measure can be offered

as a useful instrument for both practitioners and researchers. Practical and theoretical

implications, limitations and possible areas for future research are discussed.

ix
1.0. CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION

Companies spend large amounts of money, time and energy to improve their business

performance by adopting different management philosophies and initiatives such as Six-

Sigma, Learning Organisation, Empowerment, Investors in People, and Relationship

Management. Basically, all of these have one thing in common; people. Employees are

indisputably the most essential resource in any organisation and are the key to attaining and

maintaining competitive advantage. Nevertheless, many organisations pay only lip service

to the adage that “people are our greatest asset” (Yancey and Austin, 2000). For the top

companies in the world, the efforts invested to identify and select the right employees and to

motivate them to give their best to the organisation is an ongoing management initiative.

The validity of the current measures of personality is questionable given that each of them is

based on a single-theory of personality. The first objective of this study therefore is to

develop a new measure of personality based on two theories (i.e., Maslow’s Hierarchy of

Needs and Social Cognitive Theory) rather than on a single theory. A second objective is to

examine the criterion utility of this new personality measure with regards to a self-report

multi-dimensional measure of work performance. Furthermore, the incremental criterion

utility of the new measure over the Five-Factor Model of personality, which is a well-

established personality measure, will be examined.

A background of the various perspectives of personality and the rationale for the new

personality measure is provided in the second chapter of this dissertation. The third chapter

of this dissertation outlines the research methodology and design of the study that will be

1
used. The fourth chapter contains the analyses of the survey data. The conclusion on the

various findings, implications and limitations of this study are presented in the fifth chapter

of this dissertation.

1.1. THE ROLE OF PSYCHOMETRIC TESTS

The more we know the people we employ, the more effective we can manage, encourage

and harness them. Moreover, taking into account all expenditure, it is estimated to cost an

average of US$15,000 to recruit one executive or middle manager in United States of

America (Melamed and Jackson, 1995). Hence, it takes only a modest improvement in

selecting, matching and recruiting people to jobs to reduce the possible financial losses

incurred by recruiting employees who are incompatible with the organisation. Table 1

provides a list of various sources of information that are used to predict work performance.

Personality tests are popularly used by organisations as part of selection, recruitment and

development processes as they are able to explore a broad range of personality

characteristics that are relevant to the workplace. Although personality tests rank higher than

other employment tests such as job-knowledge tests, work-samples, cognitive ability test,

and honest/integrity tests, they are not a panacea for selecting the best candidates (Dent and

Curd, 2004). Personality tests only provide an additional tool for recruitment and are not

replacements for interviews, resume, references, employment checks and job probation in

the recruitment and selection process. Personality tests with no right or wrong answers

attempt to measure how little or how much a candidate possesses a specific personality

2
characteristic relevant to the needs of the organisation. The purpose of conducting

personality tests is to gather information and highlight issues for further exploration at

interviews. Exploring these characteristics during an interview to more closely examine the

candidate can provide valid and real evidence to support the final selection decision (Coull

and Eary, 2001).

As part of a development process in organisations, personality tests can assist individuals to

understand the significant aspects of their personality and behavior in a wide variety of work

and social situations. By understanding their behavior, their significant others and their

related job-relevance, individuals would be able to take advantage of the positive aspects of

their personalities and/or take steps to mitigate potential problems arising from any

undesirable aspects which could affect their relationships, work performance and careers.

Personality tests have been in the market for more than 50 years and their popularity has

increased significantly in recent years. Psychometric assessment is big business in the 21st

century as approximately 2,000 million tests are administered annually in the United States

of America alone and some 700 of the Times Top 1000 companies use them for personnel

selection (Coull and Eary, 2001).

Non-exempt staff Middle Senior

management management
Source of information Best Predictor Best Predictor Best Predictor
Interview 75% 67% 66%
Resume 29 42 40
Application form 31 20 22
References 35 44 44
Employment check 33 40 47

3
 Credit check 13 11 9
Job trial/probation 20 20 18
Personality tests 13 13 11
Job knowledge test 11 6 6
Work sample 11 2 2
Cognitive ability test 9 7 2
Assessment centre 4 2 2
Honesty/integrity test 4 2 0
Drug screen 0 0 2
Perceptual/physical 0 0 0
abilities test
Polygraph test 0 0 0

Table 1 – Predictors of Work Performance (Yancey and Austin, 2000)

The increasing pressure on organisations to identify, recruit, develop, and retain critical

personnel has fuelled the desire for more information on current employees as well as

potential recruits. From their traditional use as a tool for selection and recruitment,

psychometric tests have expanded their functionalities to many other areas such as

appraisals, management development programmes, career guidance and training needs

analysis (Dent and Curd, 2004). The most commonly used personality instruments are

shown in Table 2 but they are not necessarily valid or useful. For example, there is no

evidence to indicate a positive relation between specific MBTI types with career success

(Pittenger, 1993).

Test Name Description Common Uses

Myers-Briggs Probably the most popular and well- • Raising self –awareness
Type Indicator researched personality instrument used in
• Identifying strengths and
(MBTI) business today. It looks at an individual’s
development needs
preferences on four dimensions:
• Understanding own behavior
• How you relate to the world
and that of others
• How you gather information
• Team building

4
Test Name Description Common Uses
• How you make decisions, and • Career development
• How you organise yourself • Relationship development
• Selection

16PF This questionnaire measures an • Selection

Questionnaire individual’s personality against 16
• Individual development
(Equivalent to the different personality dimensions.
NEO PI-R of the Developed by Raymond B. Cattell, it • Career development and
Big Five (Rossier helps individuals to understand the various counselling
et al., 2004) facets that determine their personality.
• Leadership development

Occupational Another of the best-researched and most • Selection

Personality widely used tools available today.
• Career development
Questionnaire Designed by Saville and Holdsworth to
(OPQ) provide information on personality • Assessment centres
characteristics, the feedback from which
• Team building
defines a person’s perception of his/her
behaviors at work. In particular, the • Individual development
dimensions measured fall into three
• Change management
categories:
• Relationship awareness
• Relationships with people
• Thinking style, and
• Feelings and emotions

The Belbin Team One of the few UK instruments on the • Team building and
Role Self- market. Developed by Meredith Belbin to development
Perception help team members identify their preferred
• Self-awareness
Inventory roles in teams
• Individual development

Fundamental This inventory looks at a person’s • Individual development

Interpersonal interpersonal style and how he/she relates
• Leadership development
Relationship towards others in three specific areas:
Orientation- • Team development
• Inclusion-which is the need to be part
Behavior (FIRO-
of a social group • Relationship counselling
B)
• Control-which is the need for control • Career counselling and
or influence over others, and development
• Affection-which is about being close
to individuals

Strength This is an incredibly versatile instrument, • Individual motivational

Deployment which was developed by Elias Porter in awareness
Inventory (SDI) the 1960s. It provides users with a
• Team building and
development tool that helps them to learn
development
about themselves and others in the context
of relationship awareness • Relationship management
• Assertiveness training

5
 Test Name Description Common Uses
• Leadership development
• Sales training
• Customer relations training
• Supervisory skills development

Table 2: Six of the Most Commonly Used Personality Instruments (Dent and Curd,
2004)

1.2. PERSONALITY AND WORK PERFORMANCE

The fundamental objective of personality psychology is to understand how personality can

be used to predict behavior (Mayer, 2003). Individuals display consistent patterns of

behavior, thought, and emotion that are relatively stable and which form the basic

conception of personality (Allport, 1937). Personality theories may be classified into five

categories (Ryckman, 1997):

i) The psychoanalytic perspectives of Freud, Jung, and Adler, which are biological in

nature and based on the premise of the unfolding of stages where the particular

behaviors occur;

ii) The traits perspectives of Allport, Cattell, and Eysenck, which assume there are

dispositional factors that determine behavior in various situations;

iii) The cognitive perspectives of Pavlov, Skinner, and Rotter, which assume personality

is never completely determined and that people are always changing and free to

reinterpret their experiences idiosyncratically;

6
iv) The existential or humanistic perspectives of Rogers, Maslow, and McCelland, which

postulate the presence of an innate need for growth which moves individuals towards

achieving their potentialities given the right environmental conditions; and

v) The social behavioristic or interaction perspectives of Bandura and Mischel, which

assume most behavior is learned and purposive and that people are guided by motives

to achieve certain goals. Unlike the psychoanalytic and existential perspectives, the

social or interaction perspective excludes the growth stages. This perspective is similar

to the trait perspective as it also refers to consistencies and regularities in the behavior

of individuals but differs as it asserts that behavior and personality are learned, rather

than innate as people’s interactions and experiences continually influence each other.

In other words, behavior arises as a result of a complex interaction between

environmental influences and inner processes (Bandura, 1977a, 1977b).

The psychometric instruments in Table 2 are all based on single theories. These traditional

models of personality cannot explain the diversity of behavior as human behavior cannot be

explained by a single perspective. Human behavior is a multifaceted phenomenon and any

theory attempting to explain normal human behavior must reflect its multidimensionality

(Leonard, Beauvais and Scholl, 1999).

There is a large body of evidence that the domain of personality can be well represented by

the Five-Factor Model’s (FFM) superordinate constructs (Digman, 1990; De Raad, 1998;

Goldberg, 1993; McCrae and Costa, 1996, 1999; Paunonen, 2003; Paunonen and Ashton,

2001; Rossier, de Stadelhofen and Berhoud, 2004). Although the FFM, which is based on

7
personality traits, is able to describe consistent features of the behavior of an individual it

does not address the key drivers or motives of behavior (Fletcher, 1993).

The proposition that human beings exhibit needs for development and growth is generally

accepted by practitioners due to the intuitive and face validity of this argument. Interest in

the motivation that drives behavior rekindled in the 1990s. Motives are only one of the

determinants of behavior as behavior is also determined by other factors that are

biologically, culturally and situationally determined (Fletcher, 1993).

The personality measure proposed in this dissertation, which is based on Maslow’s

Hierarchy of Needs and social cognitive theories, attempts to explain human behavior

according to key motivators. Maslow posited that needs act as motivators (Arnold, 1988).

Unlike most need theories, which may be classified as deficit or homeostatic theories of

motivation, the Hierarchy of Needs Theory by Maslow advocates the dynamic processes of

need satisfaction, ultimately leading to self-actualisation (Osteraker, 1999; Chung, 1969).

Hence, the power of the Hierarchy of Needs Theory is its ability to identify a range of

needs, including growth needs, which motivate behavior (Wiley, 1997).

Social cognitive theory takes into consideration environmental and internal forces that shape

behavior (Bandura, 1977a). Individual functioning is a continuous interaction between

environmental, behavioral, and cognitive factors (Fedor and Ferris, 1981). Variability in

responses across situations are not dismissed as errors but are regarded as a distinct

characteristic of the individual’s ability to either consciously or unconsciously behave

differently simply because the individual wants to, likes to, or has to (Nikolaou, 2003).

8
The new personality measure proposed in this dissertation is termed CASES because it

comprises five dimensions: i) Complexity, ii) Actualisation, iii) Safety, iv) Ego, and v)

Social. The first dimension, Complexity, is based on the social cognitive theory of “If-

Then”, which explains the variability of an individual’s behavior in different situations. The

other four dimensions are based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs with the exclusion of the

physiological needs which are unlearned and assumed to be of relatively low importance in

current organisational settings.

Does personality predict work performance? Although there are many factors besides

personality that affect work performance, this question has received considerable attention

in the literature (Barrick, Stewart and Piotrowski, 2002; Nikolaou, 2003). Prior to the 1990s,

personnel selection specialists generally did not use personality testing in employee

selection due to its low validity. One of the reasons for this low validity is that many studies

focused mainly on personality traits at the molecular, “inventory” level instead of the

construct level. Recent investigations using higher order personality constructs, such as

those of the FFM, have demonstrated that certain aspects of personality are useful predictors

of work performance. It is inevitable and advantageous that researchers will attempt to

compare the predictive utility of the FFM with other models of personality with respect to

work performance (Robertson et al., 2000; Barrick et al., 2002; Salgado, 2003; Nikolaou,

2003; Kieffer, Schinka and Curtiss, 2004).

Personality traits can be conceptually and empirically related without being redundant

(Judge et al., 2003). There are good reasons to believe that some dimensions of the CASES

measure will be related to some dimensions of the FFM. This, however, does not

9
necessarily indicate that some of the dimensions of the CASES measure are the same as

some of the FFM dimensions. One way to examine whether or not the dimensions of the

two measures of personality are distinct is to examine the incremental criterion validity of

the two personality measures.

The following research questions and hypotheses underlie the current research:

Research Question 1: Does the FFM predict work performance?

The first research question is addressed by the first hypothesis.

H1: The FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.

Research Question 2: Does the CASES measure predict work performance?

The second research question is addressed by the second hypothesis.

H2: The CASES measure will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance

ratings.

Research Question 3: What is the relationship between the FFM and CASES measures?

The third research question is addressed by the third hypothesis.

H3: The FFM and CASES will each explain a significant proportion of unique variance

when used concurrently to predict performance.

10
1.3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

1.3.1. Research Philosophy

The study uses the positivistic paradigm with the hypothetico-deductive approach as it seeks

to explain the relationship between personality, need-induced behaviors and performance.

Furthermore, hypotheses can be empirically substantiated which is essential for such

psychometric tests (Cavana, Delahaye and Sekaran, 2001).

1.3.2. Research Design

This study uses hypothesis testing as there is information available on the variables involved

to enable hypothesis formulation. The investigation is a correlational study as the main

interest is to examine the associations between dimensions of personality and work

performance. This quantitative research method adopts a non-experimental technique of

survey research whereby information about the variables is collected from a large number of

cases to address the research questions. Furthermore, this survey method is efficient and

practical (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 1997; Remenyi, Williams, Money, and Swartz,

1998).

The study setting is a non-contrived setting. Minimal or no interference in a natural

environment by the researcher is adopted as analytical research requires precision and the

control of extraneous variables is performed via statistical techniques (Gill and Johnson,

11
2002). The research also adopts a cross-sectional study and takes a snapshot of the situation

like most behavioral studies that focus on individual’s beliefs, perceptions and attitudes

(Lindell and Whitney, 2001). The unit of analysis is the individual, specifically their

perceptions of their own behavior.

1.3.3. Survey Instrument

Data will be collected via a mail survey. Although mail surveys tend to yield a relatively

low response rate, they allow the targeting of specific respondents in various organisations

and are cost effective. Furthermore, mail surveys are the most commonly used survey

method in studies of personality (Kieffer et al., 2004; Salgado, 2003; Nikolaou, 2003).

1.3.4. Measurement

Five-point Likert scales will be used for all of the items related to personality and

performance. The FFM (Goldberg, 1999), CASES, the new personality measure, and the

work performance measure of Welbourne, Johnson and Erez (1998) will be used for this

research.

12
1.3.5. Sampling and Sample Size

Convenience sampling is used due to the time constraints placed on this research and to the

unknown probability of selecting elements of the population (Cavana et al., 2001). The

minimum targeted number of respondents is 500 as the personality measures have 50 items

each (minimum of 10:1 subject to items ratio, as recommended by Nunnally, 1978).

A total of 40 commercial organisations of various sizes and from various industries, known

to the researcher, will be invited to participate in this research. Each participating

organisation will be given 40 or more questionnaires to distribute to all or part of their

white-collar staff by their respective Human Resource Managers. The respondents will be

given a week to answer the questionnaire at a place of their choice and return the

questionnaire in the self-addressed stamped envelope, which ensures the anonymity and

confidentiality of responses.

1.4. ANALYSES

Data analyses will be conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)

version 13. The questionnaire uses the Likert scale to collect interval-scaled data for each of

the variables involved in the hypotheses.

Descriptive statistics will be computed for all of the demographic variables (i.e., age,

gender, level of education, years of working, and years in current job). Confirmatory factor

13
analysis is a method for assessing construct validity and will be used to test the structures of

the personality and performance measures (Schwab, 1980; Cavana et al., 2001).

Cronbach’s alpha is an internal reliability coefficient that shows how well the items

belonging to a set are correlated to one another. Cronbach’s alpha will be calculated for each

subscale to test its internal reliability. An alpha coefficient of 0.5 to 0.7 is considered

adequate for initial investigations (Nunnally, 1978). Multiple linear regression analyses will

be used to test the hypotheses.

1.5. ETHICS

It is stated explicitly in the information sheet that is provided to all potential participants that

participation is voluntary and that participants can withdraw at anytime during the research

without any obligation or disadvantage. Anonymity and confidentiality are ensured as the

questionnaires have no personal identifiers and only the researchers will have access to the

completed questionnaires and data files. Furthermore, stamped and self-addressed envelopes

will be provided to the respondents. Finally, no demeaning questions will be asked and the

respondents will not be subjected to any mental or physical stress in answering the

questionnaire as they are given a week to complete the questionnaire at their own free will at

a place of their choice.

14
1.6. LIMITATIONS

The research relies on self-report data that can be affected by response distortion (Barrick

and Mount, 1996) and social desirability bias such as “telling the way they like to be seen”

(Hogan, Hogan and Roberts, 1996). Furthermore, the effect of leniency associated with self-

assessment could raise concerns about the legitimacy of the data collected. Additionally, the

stability of work performance as a construct may not be totally valid (Thoresen et al., 2004)

as job satisfaction, organisational hygiene, cognitive ability, motivation level and role clarity

may influence self-reported performance ratings (Kieffer et al., 2004). Finally, as this study

uses a convenience sampling, its findings may not be generalisable to different types of

organisations such as public sector or non-profit organisations, different types of jobs (e.g.,

blue-collar and clerical employees), or different countries.

15
2.0. CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. INTRODUCTION

Psychometric tests have been used by organisations as part of their development and

recruitment processes. The number of such psychometric instruments has increased

considerably in the last few decades and has led to confusion and increased complexity in

selecting an appropriate instrument (Dent and Curd, 2004). With some 2,000 million tests

administrated yearly and 700 of the Times Top 1,000 companies in United States of

America using such instruments, psychometric assessment will be a major business sector in

the 21st century (Coull and Eary, 2001). Many organisations use psychometric testing as part

of their recruitment and development processes to select candidates who will excel in their

jobs. These tests, which are normally based on a single theory, are not able to explain the

diversity of behavior, as human behavior cannot be fully covered by any one single theory

(Leonard et al., 1999).

The increasing pressure on organisations to select/recruit, develop and retain key

employees has increased the interest of managers for more information on current

employees and potential recruits alike. Although such instruments are traditionally used

as a tool in the selection and recruitment processes, the functionality of such personality

tests is becoming more widespread and they now have an integral place in many human

resources activities such as career guidance, training needs analysis, management

development programmes, and appraisals. However, the debate on the reliability and

16
validity of such instruments and the value of such concepts such as personality traits

continues in the academic literature (Fletcher, 1993). The continuing debate may be due

to the fact that although some instruments may be found to be valid predictors of work

performance; it does not mean that all such instruments are. Also, using well-proven

instruments do not confer automatic validity on their application in an organisation.

Hence, when using psychometric instruments, “caveat emptor” should still be applied.

2.1.1. What is Personality?

Personality can be broadly defined as the durable characteristics of an individual, for

example, values, traits, attitudes, beliefs, dispositions and needs (Gelso and Fassinger,

1992). The construct of personality is based on the assumption that an individual can be

characterised by distinctive qualities that are relatively invariant over time and across

situations. Personality is conceptualised as a stable system which influences how an

individual construes, selects and processes information and generates social behaviors

(Mischel and Shoda, 1995).

The concept of personality can be traced to the work of Allport, who assumed the presence

of “neuropsychic” structures (i.e., traits), which are the building blocks of personality

(Marsella et al., 2000, p. 45). George and Jones (2002, p. 43) defined personality as “the

pattern of relatively enduring ways in which a person feels, thinks and behaves”. Robbins

(2001, p. 92) takes personality as “the sum total of ways in which an individual reacts to and

interacts with others. It is most often described in terms of measurable traits that a person

17
exhibits.” Hogan et al. (1996, p. 2) defined personality in two ways; one is the “factors”

inside a person that explain the behavior while the other refers to the person’s distinctive

interpersonal characteristics in a variety of situations. Personality can also be defined as an

organised and dynamic set of characteristics of a person that influence cognitions,

motivations and behaviors (Lau and Shaffer, 1999).

Personality psychologists postulate that personality or individual dispositions are significant

determinants of behavior with the following underlying assumptions:

(i) there are individual differences in ways of behaving;

(ii) individual behavior is relatively stable over time, and

(iii) individual behavior is consistent across situations (Pervin, 1975).

Hence, when describing someone’s personality, we are trying to explain the differences of

that person from others. This aspect is called individual differences whereby we categorise

people as neurotic, introverted, extraverted, and so on. Personality is explained as existing in

the individual as opposed to outside the person and focuses on overall psychological trends.

For example, personality is explained based on overall motivation rather than the

understanding of neural pathways of motives (Mayer, 2001).

Personality is too vast a field and differentiated for a single approach. Hence, most

personality researchers divide personality into different areas or divisions and try to explain

how each area works individually and with others. The four structural divisions of

personality which are repeatedly used to classify traits are: (a) Freud (1960)’s structural

18
division of id, ego and superego, (b) the trilogy of mind (Hilgard, 1980), (c) the five factor

model (Goldberg, 1993; Costa and McCrae, 1985); and (d) the systems set (Mayer, 2001,

2003; Pervin, 2001). The more developed approaches use traits in the personality structure.

2.1.2. How Stable are Personality Traits?

Psychological experience is made up of two features, change and consistency, that appear to

contradict each other (Cervone, 2004). The contents of consciousness change rapidly.

Emotions and actions shift in response to the environment. Yet, individuals are significantly

consistent across time and place. They display unique patterns of emotions, behavior and

thought that are relatively consistent to form the basis of the conception of personality

(Allport, 1937).

Costa and McCrae (1995) posited that personality is heritable and highly stable over time

while Jang et al. (1998) revealed that some 20%-50% of variation in the dimensions is

attributable to genetic sources. Another study by Bouchard (1994) showed that about 66%

of the reliable variance in the personality traits is due to genetic influence while Zawadzki et

al. (2001) revealed that on average, 40% of the phenotypic variance of given traits is

attributed to genetic sources while 60% is accounted for by the environment. However,

genes do not influence behavior directly but instead influence physiological structures

(Brody, 1997).

Vaidya et al. (2002) posited that the transition during adulthood is often marked by

substantial affective and personality changes caused by environmental changes. These

19
environmental changes, such as a strong peer culture, independence from protective shelter

and parental control, stimulation for the intellect as well as new outlets for emotions, could

account for much of the psychological change that occurs during early adulthood. Such

changes or variations in personality traits can be explained by the fact that we are adapting

to life in face-to-face groups (Bouchard, 1994). Nevertheless, most organisational and

personality researchers agree that individual behavior involves both variable and stable

aspects but there still remains disagreement regarding this quantum (Wright, Cropanzano

and Meyer, 2004).

2.1.3. The Objective of Psychometric Instruments

The field of psychology has tried to define human behavior with the same accuracy that

scientists use to describe the motion of atoms and stars. Human behavior is difficult to

describe with such precision since it has a large number of causes. Many theories of

personality rely excessively on behavioral models, which conform to statistical theories to

explain these complexities rather than on behavioral realities (Wolfe, 1998). A good

personality measure, however, should have at least two features; that is, the measurements

are temporally stable and credible evidence linking the measure to meaningful non-test

behavior (Hogan et al., 1996).

There is a growing realisation that traditional models of personality do not explain the

diversity of behavior found in organisational settings, as human behavior cannot be

explained by any one factor (Leonard, Beauvais and Scholl, 1999). Human behavior is

20
clearly a multivariate phenomenon and a theory trying to explain normal human behavior

must reflect this multidimensionality. Hence, it is unlikely that any instrument can claim to

be the best as the usefulness of an instrument is also situational and contextually specific

(Tett and Burnett, 2003; Wheeler, Hunton and Bryant, 2004a).

What people do—their behavior—is a function of their personalities. Behavior is used to

interpret and evaluate people’s personalities. Behavior is like the weather, changing from

context to context and from moment to moment but personality is consistent and stable over

time. If personality does change, it changes gradually; the stable components affect our

lives. It will be useful for people to know their personalities so that they can take advantage

of the positive aspects of their personalities or steps to mitigate potential problems arising

from any undesirable aspects, which could affect their work performance and careers

(Hogan, et al., 1996; Sackett, Gruys and Ellingson, 1998; Tett and Burnett, 2003).

2.2. THEORIES ON PERSONALITY

The history of personality psychology has been dominated by several theoretical paradigms

(Cervone, 2000). Psychoanalytical approaches were the first theories followed in the early

part of last century by behavioral approaches, the humanistic approaches of the 1950s and

almost at the same time, the typological and trait-factor theories. In the mid 1950s, the

cognitive and the social cognitive approaches were developed (Gelso and Fassinger, 1992).

Psychoanalytical, humanistic, and behavioral doctrines were particularly influential in the

past but social-cognitive and trait theories predominate today. These personality theories

21
differ from each other in fundamental ways as they have different categories of personality

variables. In essence, they adopt different units of analysis for conceptualising and

explaining intraindividual coherence and individual differences in personality functioning

(Allport, 1939). Personality psychologists have to address a wide range of phenomena and it

could be impossible to identify an overarching mission in this field. Nevertheless, the

various “grand theories” of Allport, Levin, Cattell, Murphy, and Murray all emphasised the

coherence and consistency of normal personality and perceived the individual organism as a

complex but organised structure.

The various historical, cultural and cognitive factors in the West emphasise the forces within

the individual as the important determinant of behavior rather than the forces within the

situations. This emphasis on the individual is dominant in the psychodynamic, behavioral,

humanistic and trait approaches (Marsella et al., 2000). Allport differentiated descriptors of

social evaluation and temporary states from those traits descriptors which were considered

to be more personality relevant. Eysenck emphasised biologically-based disposition

variables but excluded abilities, attitudes and intelligence. Other researchers cast wider nets,

for example, some German personality descriptors contained abilities and temperament

terms while others such as Goldberg uses attitude and mood terms like conservative, jealous

and anxious as dispositions (Saucier, 1997).

22
2.2.1. Psychodynamic Theories

Psychodynamic psychologists (e.g., Freud, Jung, Adler), were more concerned with the

interplay of conscious awareness and unconsciousness to explain personality (Coan, 1987).

They explained personality in terms of mental mechanisms and drives that seek satisfaction

within the boundaries of reality (Cervone, 2000).

Freud’s structural set is the id, the ego and the superego. Id, the animalistic part of

personality, described as a boiling and bubbling cauldron of aggressive and animal-like

urges. Ego is the conscious part and is responsible for the individual’s behavior and

understanding of the outside world. The ego does the systematic trial and error thinking and

seeks to ensure the survival of the individual. The superego is the overseer of the ego which

ensures it is morality and strives for ideals (Mayer, 2001). This set represents the struggles

among bodily desires, rational understanding or expectations, and social ideals (Mayer,

2003).

According to Freud (1960), we have three levels of consciousness: conscious, pre-conscious

and unconscious. The conscious level deals with that part of our awareness which is in

touch with the reality of our life. It explains our mental activity in which all thought

processes occur. The pre-conscious level is where information of our past is stored which

could be called “available memory”. We select and respond to the stimuli that we perceive

can satisfy our personal goals. When we select the stimuli, two mental processes take place.

One takes in the stimuli using our five senses. Another takes in the stimuli, processes them

and sees many different ways of responding to them. These stimuli are subsequently stored

as information in the pre-conscious level and they become our experiences. When we

23
respond and act on the stimuli two mental activities take place. One is to act on the stimuli

using our feelings by retrieving the information from our past experiences at the pre-

conscious level. The other is to use our thinking (intellect) at the conscious level to process

the stimuli and see alternative responses to them. Apparently, when people act on a

particular situation using their feelings, they do not have a choice. Alternatively, when they

use their thinking (mental faculty), they have many choices of responding to it.

Freud discovered the unconscious level as a source of motivation and a way of hiding

thoughts and desires from awareness (Gabriel and Carr, 2002). The unconscious has all the

things that are not easily accessible to the awareness level such as our drives or instincts

which originate from there and others that are put there such as bad memories or emotions

associated with trauma because we cannot bear to look back. The unconscious is believed to

be the source of our motivations such as desires for sex or food and neurotic compulsions or

ambitions. Freud posits that all human behavior is motivated by instincts or drives, which

are neurologically represented by the physical needs in the life and death instincts. Hence,

the distress and miseries in modern life (e.g., child abuse, mental illness, and crimes) are due

to the repression of pain or instinct by the superego contents.

The psychodynamic psychologists believe that behavior is a function of psychological

processes operating within these three levels of consciousness. Generally, they agree that

personality patterns can be best understood from the dynamics of the psychological

processes acting on the unconsciousness within the context of an individual’s phenomenal

field. They explain personality in terms of the mental drive mechanisms that try to satisfy

the drives within the boundaries of reality (Cervone, 2000). It is this dynamic and active

24
view of the unconscious which is the heart of the field of psychology known as

psychoanalysis (Gabriel and Carr, 2002).

2.2.2. Humanistic Theories

Humanistic psychologists (e.g., Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, David McClelland) view

existence as a process of learning, growing, becoming and being a better person or

developing the human virtue, in all forms, to its fullest extent (Mele, 2003). The joy of

living is to prepare oneself for experiencing and progressing towards higher levels of

functioning. Humanistic psychologists emphasise learning from one’s subjective past

experiences to develop and actualise one’s potentials. They believe that people are

responsible for their life. Given reasonable and conducive life conditions, they assume that

people will be positively motivated to actualise their potential. Self-actualisation can be

defined as the process of learning, growing, becoming and being a perfect person (Franken,

1998). For Maslow, self-actualisation is achieving “what a man can be, he must be” (Mele,

2003, p. 80).

The Mayo-Hawthorne studies demonstrated that the hourly paid employee was motivated

by other needs besides economic rewards (Gallagher and Einhorn, 1976). Mayo showed that

an employee’s psychological and social desires play an important role in production

efficiency based on social aspects of human behavior. Mayo’s work paved the path for more

humanistic theories. Although Mayo may be considered the pioneer of the “humanistic”

approach, a major contemporary champion was Abraham Maslow with his Hierarchy of

Needs Theory whereby he posited that human beings are motivated by basic needs that are

species-wide, apparently unchanging and instinctual or genetic in origin (Kaufman, 1976).

25
The hierarchy has five categories, ascending from “physiological” to “safety”, “social”,

“social and self esteem” and culminating to “self actualisation”. Maslow enlarged the

concept of human personality by capturing the higher levels of needs in human. This model

is applicable to any industrial setting (Mele, 2003).

Drawing from Maslow’s ideas, Douglas McGregor developed his Theory X-Theory Y

model of behavior whereby the “carrot and stick” theory was effective if employees were at

the subsistence level of survival. McGregor in Theory Y postulated that human talent and

potential are greater than usually assumed. Furthermore, the need for self-actualisation is

also an important factor of the Theory Y where the satisfaction of the individual’s needs for

self-actualisation is the best method to obtain commitment. He posited that human beings

will, under conductive conditions, accept and even seek responsibility and contribute

creatively to the organisation (Mele, 2003).

Herzberg, another contributor to humanistic theories, made a distinction between rewards to

workers that facilitate personal growth and those that alleviate discomfort. They are termed

as motivators and hygiene factors respectively. All of these humanistic psychologists

believed that human behavior is motivated by needs. This phenomenological approach has

contributed immensely to personality psychology in the U.S., which promotes the individual

based on the concepts of self-actualisation and oneself (Lombardo and Foschi, 2002).

26
2.2.3. Traits Theories

Trait theories conceptualise personality as an individual-difference construct which explains

an individual’s average tendency to manifest one versus another type of behavior (Cervone,

2000). Common traits are produced by both cultural contexts and by biological variation in

the population in general using the nomothetic approach while the individual traits or

personal dispositions are the domain of the idiographic approach (Lombardo and Foschi,

2002). Traits describe the thematic tendencies of a person: intelligence, emotionality and the

like. They tend to omit consideration of other structures such as self-regulation, self-

concept, characteristic adaptation, significant other schemas, and similar entities (Mayer,

2001).

Traits are the foundation of individuality. Personality traits are considered as behavioral

constants which emphasise individual differences in response to identical situations or

stimulation. Trait psychologists normally seek to uncover the psychological dimensions

along which individuals differ and the manner in which traits group within individuals. The

main focus is on enduring or lasting behavior and attention is on the content of behavior

rather than the psychological processes causing the behavior. Hence, its emphasis is on the

outcomes instead of the process itself (Buss, 1989). Traits can also be inferred as a quality

or dimension that can be used to identify a unique pattern of how a person behaves, thinks,

and feels. Narrow behaviors or specific responses of a person define a characteristic mode

or habitual response pattern of behavior. Paunonen (1998) defined trait as a combination of

several such habitual response tendencies while Marsella et al. (2000) postulated that traits

are inferred through observed similarities in behavior across various situations.

27
Traits are relatively independent from each other; they can be empirically measured and

evaluated; rooted in the “neuropsychic” systems. Hence, traits are useful for describing

one’s personality and statistically defining the distribution of these characters in a larger

population. Nevertheless, if a trait measure is linked to past behavior, then trait-performance

correlations would involve the prediction of current behavior from past behavior. In this

case, traits would predict but not explain behavior (Locke and Latham, 2002).

Trait psychologists studied what makes us recognisably the same and different from each

other; what our unique behavior patterns and their characteristics are and how settings may

influence them. Trait theories of Allport (1937) and McCrae and Costa (1996) conceptualise

personality as small sets of inferred structures which manifest themselves as behavioral

dispositions or tendencies (Cervone, 2000). Cattell (1943) sought to organise and reduce the

thousands of personality traits into clusters (i.e., factors) using quantitative methods.

The architecture of personality traits postulated by Allport includes cardinal, superordinate,

central, and peripheral traits. These structures are domain general which have constructs

such as “agreeableness” (McCrae and Costa, 1996), a unit of analysis which does not make

any distinction between being agreeable toward one’s date and towards one’s child. Both

are agreeable acts. Performing both of them would move the scale up on an inferred

structure of agreeableness. Individuals can be characterised in terms of a comprehensive but

small set of factors or dispositions which are stable over decades of adult life, across

different situations and can explain a wide spectrum of behaviors (Idson and Mischel,

2001). Furthermore, Allport posited that to understand personality, it is necessary to study

28
the inter-relationships of the traits and that the “whole personality” is different from the sum

of these individual traits (Lombardo and Foschi, 2003).

One of the problems of the trait theories is that personality is not able to explain all variation

in behavior as the environment does have a significant effect on behavior (Sanders, 2003).

Using traits to predict behavior in the past has yielded mixed results partly because of

methodological problems. Generally, correlations between laboratory behavior and

personality traits tend to be modest, often not exceeding 0.4. This finding has been used to

support critics who claim that personality traits are unimportant (Buss, 1989).

2.2.4. Behaviorist/Cognitive and Social Cognitive Theories

Stimulus-Response or Behavioral Theorists posit that behavior is a function of our past

experiences. They use classical and operant conditioning to understand animal and human

behavior. Based on the deductions from their experiments, they found that there are some

similarities in human and animal behavior where “motivation” is externally generated in the

form of punishers and reinforcers (Locke and Latham, 2002). Behavior can be repeatedly

reinforced or diminished through the use of reward and punishment and is one explanation

of why certain dimensions of personality are dominant (DeGrandpre, 2000). The famous

Pavlovian typology of temperament posits that there are four properties of the central

nervous system that are responsible for individual differences in reacting to conditioning:

strength of inhibition, strength of excitation, mobility of nervous processes, and balance.

29
This typology has a strong influence on personality psychology (Lombardo and Foschi,

2002).

Behaviorists denied the existence of the complex higher-order factors (e.g., the intra-

individual, psychological explanatory mechanisms such as memory, conscious deliberation

and perception) which mediate between stimuli and responses. Radical behaviorists such as

Skinner and Watson ruled out emotional, cognitive and motivational mediators in the

stimulus-response relationship due to the fact that such constructs were not measurable

independently by an outside disinterested party (Bargh and Ferguson, 2000).

Cognitive psychologists view behavior as a function of cognition, learning and experiences.

They assert that people organise their values, expectations and goals to guide and direct their

behavior. This set of personal standards is unique in each person and grows out of one’s life

experiences (Andersen and Chen, 2002; Bargh and Ferguson, 2000; Bauer and McAdams,

2004). We learn from our experiences. We learn that both pleasurable and painful

experiences can lead to positive and negative outcomes. The old axiom of Stimulus-

Response Theory that pleasure begets pleasure and pain begets pain becomes unresolved

and mooted. We begin to use our intellect to process the stimuli and anticipate the outcomes

of our behavior before we respond to pains and pleasures.

Integrating the behavioral and cognitive perspectives with respect to motivation produces

the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977a), which does not overly emphasise either

environmental or internal forces when explaining behavior. Moreover, individual

functioning is considered as a continuous interaction among behavioral, cognitive and

30
environmental factors (Fedor and Ferris, 1981). The three overarching principles of the

social cognitive approach are; (i) personality is a complex system, (ii) reciprocal

interactionism, and (iii) personality variables (Cervone, 2004).

Furthermore, social cognitive theorists postulate that the intuitive and perceived sense of

coherence and consistency in personality/self/character can arise from three sources:

a. how people assign meanings to social information;

b. how people establish causal linkage over their lives through self-reflective and self-

knowledge processes; and

c. how people organise disparate and multiple experiences and life events within a larger

cognitive framework of goals, expectation and aspirations (Marsella et al., 2000).

Over the past few decades, social cognitive psychologists have been developing theories in

an attempt to explain the complexities by careful observation of the human behaviors with

the environment and their relations. They posit that each of the mechanisms (e.g., self-

regulatory and goals mechanisms, self-reflective capabilities, and cognitive constructs used

to give meaning to events) possesses a spectrum of possible inputs. These mechanisms are

contextualised by these social-learning processes, which cause some inputs to become

particularly salient to an individual or are grouped with other inputs into an equivalent class

and are domain-specific (Cervone, 2000).

31
2.3. WHY DOES PERSONALITY MATTER TO ORGANISATIONS?

For several decades prior to the 1990s, personnel selection specialists generally did not use

personality testing in employee selection due to pessimistic conclusions drawn by

researchers that resulted in a perception that “personality tests have low validity” (Hurtz and

Donovan, 2000). Nevertheless, Hurtz and Donovan (2000) show that the Conscientiousness

dimension has a moderate impact on performance and appears rather stable and

generalisable across occupations and criteria.

Meta-analyses have consistently and repeatedly shown that under specific conditions,

personality measures can predict work performance quite accurately and a given trait value

is situational specific (Tett and Burnett, 2003). By paying attention to the psychological

processes where traits can be expressed in work performance, the selection/recruitment

systems would be more beneficial and can provide practitioners greater advantage in

utilising trait information in work settings. Another study by Judge, Martocchio and

Thoresen (1997) revealed that conscientious and introverted employees are less likely to

play truant or to be absent. As these traits are considerably stable and probably genetic in

origin, a more beneficial strategy for an organisation is to select relatively more

conscientious and less extroverted employees to reduce absenteeism and improve

productivity.

Hogan and Holland (2003) found that the measures of Emotional Stability, “Getting Along”

and “Getting Ahead”, are more potent predictors of occupational performance although

other factors such as values, interest, mental ability, opportunities and health are also

important determinants. In a Thinking and Judging consulting world, knowledge of the

32
personality types of the clients could be used to enhance communication, which in turn

saves money via the reduction of errors/mistakes and improved morale. Such knowledge

also assists management on how to understand and express feeling so as to minimise

conflicts and to see their differences as an asset instead of as a liability (McCaulley, 2000).

Wheeler, Hunton and Bryant (2004a) found homogeneity of personality types that are

attracted and retained in accounting firms. Groups comprising members with Sensing and

Intuition preferences outperformed groups with only Sensing-preference members.

Similarly, a group of Introverts may benefit from the presence of an Extrovert for better

communication; the presence of some Thinking types may provide some structure to

decision-making in a group of all Feeling types. Also, certain traits correlate with higher

performance for certain tasks, jobs and technologies.

McClelland conducted a study of the phenomenon of constructive activity beyond the

physiological or survival requirements and classified the traits as “need for achievement”.

He found that extrinsic rewards such as money are only one form or method of “keeping

score” for high achievers. The satisfaction derived from achievement is what stimulates

their performance (Arnold, 1988).

2.4. TYPES OF PERSONALITY MEASURES

Historians recognise the year 1937 to be the birth of personality psychology by its founder,

Gordon W. Allport (Nicholson, 1998) with individuality as its object of study (Pelham,

1993). Personality theorists began to focus more on the differences within persons, termed

33
as idiographic. Nomothetic is the other term that refers to the classical, between subject

analyses of personality. Allport’s idea of personality is a psychology of the mature and

normal personality (Lombardo and Foschi, 2003).

There are many approaches to the measurement of personality (see Table 2)) but this

discussion will be restricted to the Five Factor Model (FFM) by Tubes and Christal (1961)

and McCrae and Costa (1996), which is essentially a smaller set of trait variables derived

from the 16-Factor Model of Cattell (1943) (Rossier et al., 2004), and the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator (MBTI) which is based on Jungian theory. These psychometric instruments

have been selected as they are the most popular instruments used by commercial

organisations for personal development, occupational selection, career development, and for

developing more effective teams (Dent and Curd, 2004; Kwiatkowski, 2003). Furthermore,

they are the most researched psychometric instruments according to a search conducted in

PsycINFO (981 articles on FFM and 540 on MBTI as at October 2004). No discussion or

critique is carried out on the other instruments as there is very little publicly available

research on them.

2.4.1. The Five Factor Model

The Five Factor Model (FFM), also known as the Big Five, posits that there are five

personality dimensions (i.e., Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion,

Agreeableness and Neuroticism) which represent the highest levels of a personality

hierarchy (Paunonen and Ashton, 2001; Toomela, 2003). The anagram of the FFM is

34
O.C.E.A.N. (De Raad, 1998). These factors represent a continuum, where people exhibiting

a high, moderate or low degree of each quality. As defined by Judge and Bono (2000);

a. Factor 1, Extraversion, represents the tendency to be outgoing, assertive, active and

excitement seeking. Individuals scoring high on Extraversion are strongly predisposed

to the experience of positive emotions.

b. Factor 2, Agreeableness, consists of tendencies to be kind, gentle, trusting, trustworthy

and warm.

c. Factor 3, Conscientiousness, is indicated by two facets: achievement and dependability.

Consciousness is the trait that best correlates with work performance.

d. Factor 4, Emotional Adjustment, often labelled by its opposite, Neuroticism, which is

the tendency to be anxious, fearful, depressed and moody. Emotional Adjustment is the

principal trait that leads to life satisfaction and freedom from depression and other

mental ailments.

e. Factor 5, Openness to Experience (sometimes labelled as Intellectance), represents the

tendency to be creative, imaginative, perceptive and thoughtful. Openness to Experience

is the only trait to display appreciable correlations with intelligence.

There is considerable debate regarding how many personality factors are needed to

understand and predict behavior although the generalisability and robustness of FFM has

been shown across different rating sources, languages, types of assessment and cultures

(Hogan and Holland, 2003). Paunonen (2003) revealed that the construct validity of these

35
inventories is supported by the consistency and strong convergence in their predictions and

measurements. These dimensions are cross-culturally generalisabled (Perugini, Gallucci and

Livi, 2000; McCrae, et al., 1998; Paunonen and Aston, 2001; Allik and McCrae, 2004;

Hogan and Holland, 2003; Toomela, 2003) and are endogenous and biologically determined

(McCrae and Costa, 1996, 1999). Although studies by Jang et al. (1998) and Pedersen et al.

(1988) showed that about 20% to 55% of the trait variation in personality dimensions is

linked to genetic sources, these studies also revealed substantial variation due to non-genetic

factors (Toomela, 2003).

After five decades of research on personality psychology (i.e., the way one describes oneself

and others in everyday life transactions), the FFM seems to dominate not only the theory but

also the evaluation of personality (Goldberg, 1993; Tsaousis, 2004). Several studies have

shown that the well-known instruments for personality assessment (Eysenck Personality

Inventory, MBTI, California Personality Inventory) may be assumed to be part of the FFM

(Salgado, 1997). It has reached somewhat of a consensus that the FFM is an appropriate

taxonomy of personality (Burke and Witt, 2004). Although there is no universal agreement

among theorists and researchers on the comprehensiveness of the five dimensions (Tett and

Burnett, 2003; Hogan and Holland, 2003; Judge et al., 2002; Ashton et al., 2004; Hurtz and

Donovan, 2000), other researchers are of the opinion that virtually all traits of personality

are reasonably contained in the factor space of the FFM (e.g., Saucier and Goldberg, 1998;

Judge and Bono, 1997; Judge, Martocchio and Thoresen, 1997). The identification of these

factors is based on principal components analyses (Burke and Witt, 2004).

36
Allick and McCrae (2004) posited that the FFM personality structure is biologically

determined and universal. That is, the traits are rooted in biology and transcultural

universals. Allick and McCrae (2004) did not claim that the environment is irrelevant to

personality functioning but rather that personality is manifested through culture. There is

still a lack of evidence to support the notion that culture shapes personality. Nevertheless,

McKenna, Shelton and Darling (2002) posited the FFM model is applicable to all people

regardless of the gender, age, race, religion, ethnicity, socio-economic background and

country of origin. Saucier and Goldberg (1996) and Digman (1997) postulated the FFM

model to be descriptive summaries while Marsella et al. (2000) claimed that the FFM can

only satisfy the nomothetic, descriptive and molar goals of Allport. The idiographic,

explanatory and molecular contextual accounts of personality are still subjects of debate.

2.4.2. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Jungian theory (Jung, 1971) posits that variation in human behavior is due to basic and

observable differences when people use their minds to gather and process information.

Personality is the mediating and integrating factor in numerous psychological processes

(e.g., individual development, information processing and the role of the unconscious)

(Wheeler, Hunton and Bryant, 2004a). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a

psychometric instrument developed from Jung’s theory of personality and is designed to

sort human beings into different personality types.

Jung’s typology assumes that people differ in their choice of two attitudes, Extroversion and

Introversion, and their preferences for four mental functions (i.e., Sensing/Intuition and

Thinking/Feeling). It postulates three bipolar dimensions and the fourth bipolar, the

37
Judgement/Perception dimension, a later addition by Myers and Briggs, resulting in four

dimensions with 16 distinct personality types as shown in Table 4 (Myers et al., 1998;

McCaulley, 2000).

The 4 dimensions (Pittenger, 1993) are:

a. Extroversion (E) versus Introversion (I): This dimension reflects the perceptual

orientation of the individual. Extroverts are said to react to immediate and objective

conditions in the environment. Introverts, however, looks inward to their internal and

subjective reactions to their environment.

b. Sensing (S) versus Intuition (N): People with a sensing preference rely on that which

can be perceived and are considered to be oriented towards that which is real. People

with an intuitive preference rely more on their non-objective and unconscious perceptual

processes.

c. Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F): A preference for thinking indicates the use of logic and

rational processes to make deductions and decide upon action. Feeling represents a

preference to make decisions that are based on subjective processes that include

emotional reactions to events.

d. Judgment (J) versus Perception (P): The judgment-perception preferences were invented

by Briggs and Myers to indicate if rational or irrational judgments are dominant when a

person is interacting with the environment. The judgmental person uses a combination

of thinking and feelings when making decisions whereas the perception person uses the

sensing and intuition processes.

38
Since MBTI is a theory of types, one can have only one preference. Although people can

develop a complimentary style (e.g., an introvert can become more extroverted when in

groups), the primary preference always dominates the person’s personality. The scores from

the MBTI test are used to determine the person’s type and labels are attached based on one’s

primary preferences for the four dimensions (Pittenger, 1993).

Extroverted types are more outgoing while introverted types are deemed to be more

detached and contemplative. The Judging types are more committed and decisive while the

Perceiving types are more questioning and open-minded. Metaphorically, Intuition types

“see the forest” (i.e., more insightful and creative) while Sensing types “see the trees” (i.e.,

more factual and observant). Similarly, Thinking types connect ideas and experiences by

logic, (i.e., logical and rational natures) while Feeling types incorporate personal and group

values in the decision-making process (i.e., more idealistic and compassionate) (Wheeler,

Hunton and Byrant, 2004a; Lindon, 1995).

Extroversion-Introversion of the MBTI is comparable with McCrae and Costa’s

Extraversion. Similarly, Sensing-Intuition is comparable to the Openness factor. Thinking-

Feeling may not be directly comparable to Agreeableness but it does clearly measure a

similar dimension. The Judging types are described as organised, self disciplined, structured

(like Conscientiousness) whereas Perceptive types are adaptable, spontaneous and flexible.

The MBTI does not cater for the neuroticism dimension which is certainly an important

variable (McC Dachowski, 1987). Although there is insufficient evidence that the MBTI is a

valid instrument, its popularity has not diminished despite research which shows it has low

validity (McKenna, Shelton and Darling, 2002).

39
Table 3: The 16 Personality Types with Cognitive Characteristics and Occupational
Tendencies

40
2.5. THE PREDICTIVE POWER OF FFM/MBTI ON PERFORMANCE

Judge and Ilies (2002) found that neuroticism and conscientiousness were the most

consistent and most strongly correlated with performance motivation. Neuroticism primarily

influences performance through motivation while conscientiousness influences performance

by being decisive and orderly. Both of these dimensions are dominant in predicting work

performance across a variety of work (Kichuk and Wiesner, 1998). Mount and Barrick

(1994) found that conscientiousness has the strongest correlation with work performance

and is positively correlated with task orientation while neuroticism has a strong negative

correlation with task orientation (Burch and Anderson, 2004). Agreeableness via its main

effect and extraversion and openness via their interaction are associated with work

involvement while openness correlates with support for innovation (Bozionelos, 2004).

Shackleton (1980), Jocoby (1981), Otter (1984), Descouzis (1989), Kreiser et al. (1990),

Satava (1996) and Schloemer and Schloemer (1997) found that accountants, audit partners

and managers are predominantly STJ in the MBTI matrix and another set of studies reveal

that the STJ type is dominant in accounting undergraduate students (Laribee, 1994; Landry

et al., 1996; Kovar et al., 2003). Sensing and Thinking type students perform better with a

lecture mode while Intuition and Feeling types prefer and perform better under a computer-

assisted method (Ott et al., 1990). Moreover, Sensing type students outperformed the

Intuition students in certain subjects and in an overall accounting grade (Nourayi and

Cherry, 1993).

A study on the relationship between need for achievement and need for power with six

measures of life success revealed that need for achievement had a high correlation with

41
success strivings for professional fulfilment, contribution to society and status-wealth.

Furthermore, need for achievement was negatively related to security and personal

fulfilment. The need for power was highly correlated with professional fulfilment and

status-wealth but was negatively related with family relationships (Parker and Chusmir,

1991). If personality requirements are derived for an individual job, personality can provide

an incremental validity over ability in picking the optimal candidate (Day and Silverman,

1989; Hogan et al., 1996).

2.6. SHORTCOMINGS OF FFM AND MBTI MEASURES

2.6.1. Five Factor Model

The FFM, a widely used trait group, is unusual as its contents are defined by the lexical

hypothesis instead of primary parts (Mayer, 2001). The lexical method hypothesises that the

significant individual differences are encoded in single-term descriptors of underlying traits

that find their expression in language (De Raad, 1998). Hence, measures of personality

based on the lexical method consist of adjectives that are representative subsets of terms

describing people in a given language (Cellar et al., 1996; Rossier, de Stadelhofen, and

Berhoud, 2004; De Raad, 1998). This structure is essentially derived from an atheoretical

trait factor approach (Gelso and Fassiinger, 1992), which has the advantage of getting

around the problem of breaking personality into areas. Its disadvantages are that numerous

traits are motivational in nature (Buss, 1989) and hence other good dimensions of

42
personality may have been omitted (Paunonen and Aston, 2001; Mayer, 2001; Aston et al.,

2004; Digman, 1997; Cervone, 2004; Mayer, 2003).

Digman (1990) highlighted two basic weaknesses of the FFM: (i) it is descriptive in nature

and as such does not provide any possible causes to personality; and (ii) it cannot account

for exceptions to the typical behaviors on which it is based. That is, the exceptions which

depart from the usual due to situational effects. Furthermore, it has nothing to say about

personality development.

It is fair to argue that adjectives are the most appropriate and versatile class of personality

descriptors in English and languages linguistically linked to English but many languages do

not have a big adjectival word-class. Hence, over-reliance on the adjectival approach may

limit the cross-cultural generalisability of the FFM. A better approach is to use noun factors

that provide a well-delineated and more coherent description and represents the more

extreme meanings of the adjective dimensions (Saucier, 2003). Moreover, Toomela (2003)

finds that due to the scientific word meaning structure used, the FFM may only be

“universal” for that specific stratum of society.

The FFM is not universally accepted as the integrative model of personality (Cellar et al.,

1996) and is criticised for its questionable conceptual and methodological assumptions of

the lexical hypothesis (Wheeler, Hunton and Byrant, 2004b; Toomela, 2003) as well as its

focus on narrow aspects of personality (Paunonen and Aston, 2001; Aston et al., 2004;

Digman, 1997; Tett and Burnett, 2003; Paunonen, 2003; Cellar et al., 1996). Moreover, the

debate on cultural specificity and the universality of personality structure continues. It may

43
be accepted that there are a relative small number of socially or biological determined

behavioral dimensions (e.g., introversion-extroversion) but cultural variations may shape: (i)

their display patterns, (ii) the interpersonal responses to them, (iii) the situations where they

are elicited, (iv) the meanings they are assigned, and (v) the value or utility of behavioral

descriptions (Marsella et al., 2000). Furthermore, the conceptual equivalence (i.e., the

similarity in the meaning and nature of a concept) may differ. For example, dependency in

Western culture implies childishness, helplessness, immaturity and many other derogatory

terms but can be viewed positively in the Japanese culture. In addition, many non-Western

societies are unfamiliar with linear or graduated scales like the Likert scales as they do not

see their world in that fashion. Some cultural groups have problems with Likert scales and

they tend to take the middle position. The adoption of self-report questions is already a

complex task. It is further complicated when the questions are applied in different cultures

since these people may have different reasons to participate and perceptions of the task from

those on whom the concept and the scale were constructed. These motivational and

perceptual differences are: (i) fear of possible persecution, (ii) desire to conform socially,

(iii) concern only in giving the right instead of the accurate answer, (iv) limited insight and

self-awareness, (v) desire to please authorities, (vi) variation in the construction of

personality and personhood, and (vii) confusion with the implication of words and terms

used in the question as well their perceived meaning (Marsella et al., 2000). Finally, in

terms of normative equivalence, the norms of a particular instrument that are based on

Western culture may give rise to questionable conclusions if applied to, for example,

Chinese respondents.

44
The development of a descriptive typology such as the FFM can be done without a clear

knowledge of the causal relationships of things but the proof or validation of the structure

falls on that theoretical construct (Stelmack, 1997). Unfortunately, the FFM does not offer

answers to the causes of personality nor accounts for exceptions to the selected dimensions

and has no link to personality development (Digman, 1997). Furthermore, the FFM’s

taxonomy has been criticised by some researchers as being incomplete because important

relationships may be obscured under the five factor model but not under a seven-factor

model (Hogan and Holland, 2003). Idson and Mischel (2001) postulated that traits cannot

provide the psychologist with more than a psychology of a stranger; that is, trait ratings

provide only a “first read” on an individual as people seek information which is

contextualised as they get to know each other better.

Nevertheless, the FFM has the following advantages: (i) it has a parsimonious taxonomy,

(ii) it provides a structure for integrating results from studies carried out to investigate

personality as well as the relationships between personality and other variables such as job

performance, and (iii) it can advance our understanding of work-related variables (e.g.,

performance) by linking them to personality dimensions (Salgado, 1997). Several studies

have found the FFM to be unrelated to cognitive ability (Sanders, 2003). In the final

analysis, the FFM does provide an initial structure of human individuality; characteristic

adaptations like developmental tasks and motives fill in the details; while life stories provide

the meaning and integration (McAdams, 2001).

45
2.6.2. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Jung’s (1971) hypothesis states that types and preferences are invariant and innate in

individuals. Although this hypothesis has received empirical support with temporal stability

studies, it is not suitable for analysis looking for before and after treatment effects (Wheeler,

Hunton and Bryant, 2004a). The type preferences are dichotomous (i.e., a forced-choice

format) (Rings, 1998). Each dichotomy is a selection between qualities of equal value, with

no intrinsic bad or good, wrong or right (i.e., no value judgment attached). Hence, it does

not capture the strength of a preference but its direction which is only appropriate for sorting

(Wheeler, Hunton and Bryant, 2004b).

Data are described as ipsative when a given group of responses always add to the same total.

The most common one is the forced-choice ipsative data (FCID) as employed in MBTI. The

correlations between ipsative factors are negative. If the number of traits is large, the

correlations between these orthogonal factors will tend towards zero even though they are

highly correlated in the population. Factor analysis will not be appropriate. Furthermore, the

true and error scores of the FCID’s ipsative data are contaminated across scales at the outset

which do not provide any legitimate justification in conducting factor analysis (Meade,

2004).

Reliability is defined as the consistency in measurement of a test while validity tests are for

goodness of the measure, that is, measuring the concepts the measurement instrument is

designed to measure (Dent and Curd, 2004; Cavana et al., 2001). The notion of estimating

reliability is based on the assumption that the reliability indices estimate that part of the

variance that is due to true scores. The formulae for these reliability estimates based on the

46
classical test theory are simply not applicable or tenable with ipsative data. Furthermore,

Pittenger (1993) finds large variances as much as 50% in some “test-retest” personality

studies while the “factor analysis” of the four dimensions of MBTI theory identifies six

different factors and shows significant correlations of these dimensions which are

supposedly independent of each other.

In addition, there is no evidence to indicate a positive relation between specific MBTI types

with career success. Hence, ESFPs are neither better nor worse salespeople than INTJs.

Similarly, there is no data that show certain types are more contented in specific occupations

than others or stay longer in one occupation.

2.7. THE THEORIES AND CONSTRUCTS OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE

2.7.1. Definition of Behavior

Behavior is the way organisms like human beings act. In general, behavior is interpreted as

conduct by most people but in the fields of psychology and behavioral science, it is regarded

as any activity of a human being (The World Book Encyclopaedia) which is partly

determined by heredity and environment but can be modified through learning (Plomin,

1989).

Behavior is used to evaluate and interpret one’s personality (Hogan et al., 1996). Any single

behavior is a narrow bandwidth, high fidelity expression of a personality disposition. What

47
an individual does is a function of the kind of person he or she is – that is, his or her

personality.

2.7.2. Factors Influencing Behavior

Motivation is fundamental to behavior as most behavior is influenced by it (Mitchell, 1982;

Cesare and Sadri, 2003). The objective of motivation theories is often to predict behavior.

Motivation is not behavior itself and is not performance. Behavior is the criterion which is

chosen. In most cases, the chosen actions are good reflections of performance (Mitchell,

1982).

Extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation and amotivation are three distinct motivational

forces that can influence behavior (Vlachopoulos, Karageorghis and Terry, 2000). An

example of an intrinsic motivation is the participation in some activities for the satisfaction

and pleasure derived from it; that is, the motive of participation lies in the process of

participation instead of the derived external reward or avoidance of possible negative

consequences for non-participation (Pincus, 2004). On the other hand, it would be extrinsic

motivation when the person participates in the activity to avoid negative consequences or

gain external rewards. Amotivation is the lack of intent to engage in a specific behavior,

which represents a lack of motivation.

The word “motivation” suggests energised behavior directed towards some goals that is,

motivation is a process that moves a person towards some action (Arnold, 1988). Pincus

(2004) defined motivation as a desire or an emotion operates willingly and causing it to act.

48
Mitchell (1982) postulated motivation as those psychological processes that cause the

arousal, persistence of voluntary actions and directions that are goal directed. Motivational

theories are used to predict behavior as motivation is about the actions and the external and

internal forces that influence an individual’s choice of action. Motivation is to do with the

quality and direction of the effort, not the amount. Hence, motivation is the degree to which

an individual wants and chooses to engage in certain specific behaviors (Mitchell, 1982). In

this respect, “motivations provide the motor for behavior” (Pincus, 2004).

It is generally accepted that motivation is (Mitchell, 1982):

(i) an individual-level phenomenon. Different people have different needs, attitudes,

values, expectations, reinforcement histories, and goals;

(ii) intentional, (i.e., under the individual’s control) (Tubbs and Ekeberg, 1991); and

(iii) multifaceted.

Motivational theorists have different ideas on where the source of energy is derived from

and the particular needs which an individual is trying to fulfil. Nevertheless, need theories

identify the internal factors which energise behavior. As human needs are psychological or

physiological deficiencies, which arouse behavior, these needs can be weak or strong, and

can vary over place and time due to environmental influences (Ramlall, 2004). Contrary to

the dispositional view, others believe that behavior is determined by environmental or

situational factors and that similarity in behavior is a result from similarity of environmental

or situational circumstances. That is, personality traits accounted for little variance in

49
behavior across situations. Nevertheless, there are some studies that are able to support the

predictive validity of the personality/dispositional view (Leonard et al., 1999).

In recent years, most researchers have adopted an interactionist view, which assumes

behavior is a function of both personality and the environment (Pervin, 1989; Rothbart and

Ahadi, 1994; Leonard et al., 1999). According to this view, the person has a dynamic

reciprocal interaction with the situation/environment. Hence, models are developed which

can explain why people, when shifting from one situation to another, are able to exhibit

different patterns of behavior yet are able to retain a recognisable personality structure

(Pervin, 1975). The trait-situation debate peaked with the works of Mischel (1968) and

Mischel and Shoda (1995) which posited that situational factors determine behavior, not

personality or dispositions (Marsella et al., 2000).

2.7.3. Current Theories of Work Motivation

Work motivation is defined as “the process by which behavior is energised, directed and

sustained in organisational settings” (Leonard et al., 1999, p. 970). The theories proposed by

deCharmes, Deci, Katz and Khan, and Etzioni point to three sources of motivation:

motivation based on goal internalisation, intrinsic process motivation, and extrinsic or

instrumental motivation.

Individuals who perform a behavior because it is “fun” are said to be motivated intrinsically.

That is, the individual enjoys the work and feels rewarded by just performing the task.

Furthermore, there are no external forces regulating the behavior. The other source of

50
motivation stems from external forces. Such motivation is referred to as legal compliance

and external rewards by Katz and Khan (1978) or alienative or calculative involvement by

Etzioni (1975). Nevertheless, motivation is complex in that:

(i) the needs of individuals differ;

(ii) there is considerable variability in the conversion of needs into action;

(iii) there is inconsistency in the final action taken; and

(iv) the difference in reactions by individuals for the fulfilment of needs.

There exist several “mini” theories of individual difference in motivation which suggest the

existence of motivational traits (Pincus, 2004);

(i) the need for achievement (McClelland, 1961);

(ii) the need for cognition (Cohen et al., 1995);

(iii) the need for affiliation (Atkinson, 1958); and

(iv) the need for power (Atkinson, 1958).

Murray’s “variables of personality” theory adopts motives as the fundamental element of

personality (Winter et al., 1998). Murray posited that human being can be characterised by a

set of needs and that individual differences in behavior can be explained by individual

differences in the strength of the needs (Franken, 1998). Needs can be requested or

expressed in immature or mature ways. The more psychologically immature a person is, the

51
more literal is the gratification of the needs. For the more psychologically mature person,

most needs can be satisfied or expressed symbolically (Frank, 2003).

The expectancy and equity theories focus on extrinsic motivational factors and assume that

individuals are “rational maximiser(s) of personal utility” (Leonard et al., 1999, p. 972).

These theories are, however, unable to account for the complete range of motivated

behavior, such as changes in behavior across situations when valences and expectancies

remain constant.

Leonard et al. (1999) posited that individual disposition or personality is a significant

determinant of behavior. Behavior is motivated by goal internalisation when an individual

adopts behaviors and attitudes because they are congruent with one’s value system. Values

are motivations and the gratification of a need is a value (Jolibert and Baumgartner, 1997).

As values determine our needs, our needs determine our behavior or acts (Osteraker, 1999).

Frank (2003) maintained that the characteristics of triebe characterise the vicissitudes of

needs. Hence, needs can be unconscious and repressed or disavowed and conscious, denied

or turned into the opposite. Needs can also be sublimated and gratification can be delayed,

or compromised.

The Theory of Human Motivation postulated by Maslow (1943), which is in the

functionalist tradition of James and Dewey, is fused with the holism of Goldstein,

Wertheimer and Gestalt Psychology (Chung, 1969) and has the dynamism of Adler and

Freud. Maslow claimed that the five needs are universal and innate, and are termed

instinctoid. These needs are instinctually weak and their effect on behavior can be

52
accelerated, inhibited or modified by the environment. Even though the needs are innate,

only those behaviors that satisfy the physiological needs are unlearned that is, all other

behaviors are learned (Buttle, 1989).

Maslow postulated that an individual’s needs act as motivators and are the centre of

motivation (Arnold, 1988). Based on the premise that motivation comes from within an

individual and cannot be imposed, Maslow proposed a hierarchy of needs, consisting of: (a)

physiological needs - for hunger, thirst and so forth; (b) safety needs - to feel secure, safe

and out of danger; (c) belongingness and love needs - to affiliate with others, be acceptable

and belong; (d) esteem needs - to achieve, be competent and gain approval and recognition;

and (e) self-actualisation needs - to find self-fulfilment and realise one’s potential.

According to Maslow:

(i) human beings are demanding beings, their behavior is determined by unsatisfied needs

and satisfied needs do not motivate behavior;

(ii) the five needs exist in a hierarchy of significance or importance; and

(iii) higher needs are different from lower needs as they can never be completely satisfied.

The upper levels of the Needs Hierarchy attempt to explain why an individual continue to

strive for excellence when the lower needs are met. Hence, it is a dynamic model that posits

multiple needs operating simultaneously (Herbig and Genestre, 1997; Chung, 1969). It is

shown that the greater a need’s deprivation, the higher its strength, desirability or

importance. This may be true for lower-order needs and less so of higher-order needs.

53
Alderfer (1969) modified Maslow’s Theory by suggesting there are only three needs (i.e.,

existence, related and growth). Alderfer argued that people can move up and down the

hierarchy and can be motivated at any time by multiple needs. More like piano keys than

stairways, it must be repeated that an individual does not concentrate all energies on one

need and then when that need is fulfilled, move on to the next need. At any instant, an

individual may concentrate mostly at one level but at the same time may, to a lesser degree,

be concerned with needs on other levels of the primary need (Townsend and Gebhardt,

1993).

Maslow’s need hierarchy is generally applicable to all with regards to cultural differences.

Tests have shown that people across the world are essentially motivated by the same

fundamental needs. The major difference lies in the definition of need satisfaction. For

example, self-actualisation may mean different things to individuals from collectivistic

cultures than it does to individuals from individualistic cultures (Cesare and Sadri, 2003).

This Hierarchy of Needs is claimed to be a universal theory of human motivation and the

needs or motives are identified to human behavior (Iachini, 2003).

Unlike most of the above traditional need theories that can be classified as homeostatic or

deficit theories of motivation, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory advocates the dynamic

processes of need satisfaction which leads towards the ultimate goal of self-actualisation.

Maslow’s theory is dynamic in the sense that human beings are postulated as wanting

beings that search constantly for the fulfilment of their needs in an expanding needs system

(Chung, 1969). Needs are constantly changing within the individual (Osteraker, 1999).

54
Maslow proposed that needs must be studied in totality or holistically rather than

independently as needs are seldom found in isolation but in a variety of combinations

(Chung, 1969). For example, a particular behavior may be caused by many needs.

Conversely, a specific behavior can meet more than one need. Furthermore, Maslow (1943)

postulated that the theories of motivation are not synonymous with theories of behavior.

Motivations are only one group of determinants of behavior. Behavior is almost always

motivated by other factors that are culturally, biologically and situationally determined.

Although personality-based theories may not necessarily predict behavior or motivation,

they do provide an understanding of what motivates or energises the individual. The power

of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory is the identification of the needs of each individual

that motivate behavior (Wiley, 1997).

Workplace behavior is posited to be influenced by a person’s existing state of needs in a

certain universal needs taxonomy. The adoption of Maslow’s needs is appropriate for the

CASES personality measure as it has face validity with plausible explanatory power. In

additional, the scope of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is broad and is able to explain a wide

range of behaviors. The Needs Hierarchy is also elegant and parsimonious. Mustafa (1992)

postulated that the significance of the needs hierarchy lies in understanding the motivational

factors for the individuals. Its structure is appealing in terms of its simplicity and apparent

completeness (Gallagher and Einhorn, 1976).

55
2.7.4. The Constructs of this Proposed Model

Most broad-based personality theories have assumed that specific motivations determine

how personality and self develop function. Any adequate model must therefore address

motivation. This model of personality (CASES) postulates that personality is a function of

psychological needs and their interactions with the environment/situation. The

psychological needs are based on the motivational underpinnings of the Maslow’s

Hierarchy of Needs Theory and the environment/situation interactions are explained by the

social cognitive theory.

Most, if not all, existing psychometric instruments have personality dimensions which are

temporally stable over various situations. The proposed personality model of CASES

attempts to explain personality with dimensions from the Hierarchy of Needs theory. The

variability of these dimensions from the Needs theory is explained by the complexity

dimension based on the social cognitive theory of “If-Then”.

2.7.4.1. The First Premise: Behavior is Motivated by Needs

An analysis of a person’s behavior can produce a range of instrumental motives with end

goals, which complete the “behavior chain”. A person taking up a second job for the extra

money (instrumental motive), may desire the money to purchase health insurance

(instrumental motive) and hopes that the health insurance will benefit the person and family

(end goal). The end goals are classified as drives and intrinsic motives by social

56
psychologists (Reiss, 2004). Furthermore, needs have been equated with “drive” in

experimental psychology (Fedor and Ferris, 1981).

Freud wrote, “A better term for an instinctual impulse (i.e., triebe) is need” (Frank, 2003, p.

694). Although Freud did not elaborate further on the idea of needs, the need definition

should be given more consideration as postulated:

(i) the need for one's physical needs to be deemed legitimate;

(ii) the need for identity, recognition and affirmation;

(iii) the need for interpersonal boundaries;

(iv) the need for understanding the causes of events;

(v) the need for optimal emotional availability of a love object; and

(iv) the need for a resilient responsiveness by one's love objects.

Motives refer to people’s desire, wishes and goals. Motives are the “why” of behaviors

(Winter et al., 1998). However, particular actions or behaviors associated with a certain

motive may not have high correlations with the motive behaviors because they can vary

according to the situation, incentives, expectancies, skills and other motives. Motives are

reasons a person holds for initiating and performing voluntary behavior. They provide the

meaning of human behavior. A person with a motive to gain social status may behave in

ways linked with upper class status, may enjoy the feeling of self-importance and may think

of issues pertaining to wealth (Reiss, 2004). Motives can be ends-based or means-based

57
depending on the individual’s objective for performing the behavior. Ends-based motives

are indicated when one engages in a behavior because one desires to do so with no other

apparent reason. For example, a student reading a textbook out of curiosity or a child

kicking a ball just for the fun of it.

On the other hand, means-based motives are indicated when one performs an act for a

specific instrumental value. For example, a professional footballer playing the game for a

salary or a student studying diligently to obtain a degree. In these examples, the behavior is

enacted as it is a means to obtain something else (e.g., salary or degree). Hence, motives

involve wishes, desires or goals (Winter et al., 1998).

Drive theories define drives as psychological states that move the organism towards a goal

whereas needs are physiological states of deprivation (Pincus, 2004). Human wants can be

regarded as specific desires for these deeper needs. While people’s wants are many, their

needs are fewer. These wants are shaped and reshaped continuously by the institutional and

social forces. Similarly, needs are socially constructed and historically situated (Buttle,

1989). Wants and needs are based on both inherited characteristics and environmental

conditions and behavior is motivated to satisfy needs and wants (Koltko-Rivera, 2004).

Needs that people desire and require vary according to the value system in which they are

oriented as different values systems induce different needs (Yamaguchi, 2003). Maslow

(1970) posited that the gratification of any need is a value while Murray (1951) claimed that

needs operate in the service of values. Values are cognitive representations of biological,

interactional and societal needs. Our values determine our needs and our needs influence

58
our acts (Osteraker, 1999; Jolibert and Baumgartner, 1997). Based on these factors, CASES

posits that the needs subsume motives (implicit and explicit), desires, drives and values.

CASES’s first premise is that personality dimensions can be represented by Maslow’s

Hierarchy of Needs. Physiological needs, however, are not considered as they are unlearned

and assumed to be of relatively in low importance in current organisational settings. Hence,

the four dimensions of self are proposed as follows:

(i) Self-Actualising self, which represents the needs for growth, progress, self

development, achievement, and fulfilment.

(ii) Safety self, which represents the needs for security, system, structure, order, and

protection;

(iii) Egocentric self, which represents the needs for power, image, and control; and

(iv) Sociocentric self, which represents the needs for love, care, companionship, and

affiliation.

2.7.4.2. The Second Premise: The Accuracy of Predicting Behavior Depends on

Complexity

“Complexity” reflects the extent to which people are complex and difficult to understand

(Koltko-Rivera, 2004). To explain why some individuals are highly predictable and some

are unpredictable, the model uses the social cognitive theory to provide an explanation for

complexity. Social cognitive theorists postulate that human beings are neither mechanical

59
conveyors of animating influences of the environment nor autonomous agents. The capacity

to control one’s action, motivation or thought processes is a unique human characteristic

(Bandura, 1977a). Human behavior is purposive. Complex behavior is believed to be

mediated by the individual’s current purposes and intents, active construal of the

environment, and by the exercise of conscious decisions and choices based on these

purposes and construals (Bargh and Ferguson, 2000).

Andersen and Chen (2002) posited that personality and self are largely shaped by

experiences and personality is a function of the different situations individuals encounter.

This self-regulation involves overriding an individual’s responses or modulating them on

the basis of some threatening experience such as a disturbing emotional state. Even though

the contents and processes by which self-regulation occur are multifaceted, self-regulation is

activated by a threat indicating that something is not “normal” and that adjustment may be

needed. Not all threats require adjustments, such as when the threat is insufficiently

threatening or when the individual lacks the motivation or necessary cognitive resources to

deal with the threat.

The “If-Then” approach defines personality based on different responses (i.e., “then”) that

an individual displays in various classes of situations (i.e., “if”). This approach assumes that

every individual possesses an idiosyncratic constellation of “if-then” relations and the

overall pattern of “if-then” responses of the individual reflects the individual unique

“personality signature” (Mischel and Shoda, 1995: Anderson and Chen, 2002).

60
No two human beings are alike. The nature of low complexity behavior is conditioned while

the nature of high complexity behavior is cognitive. Low complexity traits describe the

characteristics of people who are predictable. CASES postulates that people with a low

complexity have relatively static personalities. Evidently, a low complexity person would

normally manifest the traits of the other four dimensions consistently and persistently over

time and across situations. For example, if an individual with low complexity is gullible,

then he/she will tend to be gullible at all times and situations. Complex people are harder to

predict. The traits of the other four dimensions are dynamic and are manifested on the need

to suit a purpose. Complex people have dynamic personalities. For example, at a particular

situation and time, a person can be hard, but at another situation and time, the person can be

soft. Apparently, being hard or soft is a person’s choice and is manifested with intent to

achieve a purpose.

CASES’s second premise states that human beings can be placed on a complexity

continuum thereby producing a fifth self-dimension known as the Complexity Dimension,

viz.

(i) Complex self, representing the need to adapt, change and be flexible to survive in a

turbulent dynamic environment.

2.7.5. Uniqueness of the CASES Personality Measure

The notion that humans exhibit needs for growth and development has traditionally enjoyed

considerable acceptance by practitioners owing possibly to the face validity and intuitive

61
appeal of the arguments. Defining personality with these theories allows for variability in

personality across various situations while maintaining stability at the level of the

individual’s “personality signature” (Mischel and Shoda, 1995). From this approach,

variability in an individual’s responses across situations will not be dismissed or averaged

over. That is, variations in responses are not assumed to be an error.

The CASES model of personality recognises the idiographic differences in how human

beings make sense of varying situations and their responses to them. Furthermore, CASES

posits that an individual is not a “hostage” of his/her traits but rather is an active personality

which has stable, dispositional personality characteristics. The individual, however, has the

ability either unconsciously or consciously to alter his/her behavior simply because he/she

likes to, wants to, or has to (Nikolaou, 2003).

2.8. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Prior to the 1990s, personnel selection specialists did not generally use personality testing in

employee selection due to the perception it had low validity. These tests, however, focused

on personality traits at the molecular, “inventory” level instead of the construct level. There

has been a resurgence of interest in the role of personality in work performance (Robertson

et al., 2000). “Does personality predict work performance?” is a question that many

researchers have addressed over the past few decades. There are many other possible factors

that influence work performance such as intelligence, competence, experience, motivation,

62
satisfaction, and organisation (Barrick et al., 2002; Barrick and Mount, 1993; Sanders,

2003).

Recent studies using more fundamental dimensions of personality have shown the

predictive power of personality for work performance (Kieffer et al., 2004). Several studies

have shown that all personality dimensions or factors are valid predictor of work

performance (Salgado, 1997; Sackett, Mellissa and Ellington, 1998). Burke and Witt (2004)

postulated that personality tests account for a certain unique variance in work performance’s

measures beyond the variance accounted for by mental ability tests, assessment centre

ratings, and interviews. Research on the significance of personality suggests that even

though other factors are important in determining the performance of an individual in a

given task, personality provides very little insight on what and why the person will do in a

given job. Hence, more recent studies are focusing on demonstrating the incremental

variance in work performance with the use of personality predictors (Sackett, Mellissa and

Ellington, 1998).

Work performance is affected by role clarity, motivation and satisfaction levels, work

attitude, and ability (Carmeli and Freund, 2004). Schmit et al. (2000) posited that the core

work performance factors are thinking, administration, interpersonal, work orientation,

leadership, self management and motivation. Tett and Burnett (2003) used a work

performance taxonomy that had eight categories (i.e., procedural knowledge, job-specific

task proficiency, oral and written communication task proficiency, results from

multiplicative combination of declarative knowledge, and motivation). Performance is often

measured as training academy performance, peer or supervisor reports on the job or failure

63
measures such as being fired or quitting (Sanders, 2003). There exists some degree of

difficulty in measuring work performance and linking specific work tasks to personality

dimensions. Several researchers have stressed that other factors such as occupational

socialisation, work stress, and the work environment can significantly influence an

individual’s behavior.

Global measures of work performance and personality measures often correlate poorly

(Cook et al., 2000). This could be due to the confusion of the two dimensions of personnel

performance evaluation: (a) citizenship behavior (social behavior at work) and (b)

performance in productivity. These two dimensions of performance show little correlation

when measured objectively but exhibit high correlation when measured subjectively.

Furthermore, work performance comprises “will-do” and “can-do” components where the

former are best predicted by personality measures (Barrick, Mount and Strauss, 1993).

A contributing factor for the poor correlation between personality and work performance is

the “halo” effect, where one person assessing another person’s work tends to rate all aspects

of it as good or all aspects as poor (Cook et al., 2000; Schweiger and Sumners, 1994).

Another contributing factor is when supervisors evaluate their subordinates, they also rely

on other factors such as pleasant disposition, cooperativeness, and helpfulness, beside the

worker’s productivity (Hunter and Schmidt, 1990). To ensure a full representation of work

performance, a measure should include variables in citizenship behavior and productivity as

well as steps to prevent the “halo” effect.

64
Subjective self-performance appraisal is the performance rating conducted by the ratee. This

system of self-assessment of work performance is emerging as a popular trend in

performance appraisal although it has not yet gained wide acceptance because of the general

unfavourable research findings that individuals generally rate themselves higher than others

do. Some studies of self-assessment also showed that self-ratings do not correlate with

counter-position ratings and more halo (less differentiation). The strong standing taken by

Campbell and Lee (1988) with regards to the limited usefulness of self-ratings as an

evaluation tool has elicited doubts on its use in the performance appraisal process. The

effect of leniency associated with it raises concerns about its legitimacy. Questions of

response bias arise when self-ratings are used (Inderrieden, Allen and Keaveny, 2004).

Lester and Kickul (2001) highlighted the concerns of the presence of common method

variance. Participants are giving the survey responses to both the outcome measures as well

as the psychological contract items. It is likely that these participants may exhibit a social

desirability bias when assessing their behavior. This may have a confounding effect on the

correlations found between the constructs.

However, other researches produced conflicting findings which indicated that the two forms

of ratings demonstrated significant correlation and self-ratings are significantly lower than

counter position ratings (Nhundu, 1992). Self-rating has one distinctive advantage on the

study of work performance and personality as they are less subject to “halo” but more

“lenient” than other measures of performance (Cook et al., 2000). Respondents have no

obvious reason to “fake good” since the assessment does not have any career implications.

65
Self-rating may be skewed towards the favourable end of each dimension. This may restrict

the range of responses and thereby reduces correlations with the personality dimensions.

This research uses self-ratings rather than ratings by superiors. Although few studies have

used self-ratings, they have become popular in more recent research as it has been validated

against other work performance measures (Cook et al., 2000). Difficulties such as self-

enhancement, reliability and objectivity may be an issue; several studies have shown that

such self-evaluation measures are more valid than originally perceived (Carmelli and

Freund, 2004). Although self-evaluation may have a bias of general method variance and be

susceptible to percept-percept inflation than others, the adoption of usable and validated

measures can reduce method variance (Carmelli and Freund, 2004). A study showed

correlations of 0.4-0.5 between objective measures of clerical ability and self-ratings while

another reported a correlation of 0.5 for self assessment with measures of leadership (Cook

et al., 2000).

To ensure a relatively good representation of work performance, the Role-Based

Performance Scale (RBPS) by Wilbourne, Johnson and Erez (1998) based on self-appraisal

is adopted. The RBPS has five variables or components consisting of job, innovator, career,

team, and organisation.

2.8.1. Prediction of Performance by the FFM Personality Measure

There has been a revival of interest in the prediction of work performance using personality

measures due to the emergence of the FFM (Barrick and Mount, 1993). Numerous studies

66
have validated the FFM in predicting work performance and its cross-cultural

generalisability (Burke and Witt, 2004). In general, many studies indicate that

Conscientiousness, one of the dimensions of the FFM, is a valid predictor for all job-related

criteria and occupational groups (Barrick and Mount, 1993; Barrick et al., 2002; Crant,

1995; Sanders, 2003; Salgado, 1997; Vinchur et al., 1998; Hurtz and Donovan, 2000).

Conscientious people are reliable, hardworking, self-disciplined, determined, achievement

oriented (Barrick et al. 2002); dependable, persistent, responsible (Barrick and Mount,

1993); and also motivated in goal-directed behavior (Crant, 1995).

Over the past few decades, many studies have shown that personality can be fairly

represented by the FFM and that the FFM is an effective predictor of work performance

(Salgado, 1997; Stewart, 1999; Tett and Burnett, 2003). Hurtz and Donovan (2000) showed

that Conscientiousness is stable and generalisable across criteria and occupations and has a

moderate influence on performance. Other factors of the FFM have also been shown to

predict work performance. Judge, Martocchio and Thoresen (1997) found that conscientious

and introverted employees are less likely to be absent or play truant. Hogan and Holland

(2003) found that the measures of Emotional Stability are good predictors of occupational

performance while Tett and Burnett (2003) revealed that personality measures predict work

performance satisfactorily and is situationally specific. This view is further supported by the

body of FFM research revealing the existence of a personality-work performance

relationship but other factors such as job requirements, personality interactions and aspects

of the occupational environment may influence the relationship’s nature and strength

(Kieffer et al., 2004). As the FFM reveals the existence of a personality-work performance

67
relationship in other countries but not done in Malaysia, the research question posed is

“Does the FFM predict work performance?”

2.8.2. Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure

It is inevitable that researchers will attempt to examine the relationship between the FFM

and other personality measures/models. The second research question is whether the

CASES measure of personality is able to predict work performance. Studies by Barrick et

al., (2002) and Lowery, Beadles II and Krilowicz (2004) revealed that the need for

achievement and creativity, which are facets of self-actualisation, are predictors of work

performance. Furthermore, McCelland identified traits for “need for achievement” and it is

this satisfaction of achievement that facilitates high performance (Arnold, 1988). Nikolaou

(2003) and Lowery et al. (2004) postulated that cognitive ability and volition, which are

facets of the complexity dimension based on Vancouver and Scherbaum (2000) and Koltko-

Rivera (2004), have moderating effects on the relationship between personality and

performance.

Behavior is a function of expectancy of actions which will lead to certain reinforcement. In

Bandura’s view, people’s high expectations guide their actions to produce high performance

(Lau and Shaffer, 1999). High performers perceive that events as determined by themselves

while low performers perceive events as controlled by chance. Since the CASES model

measure contains the dimension of complexity which has facets of volition, low impulsivity

and self-regulation, and the dimension of self-actualisation which has facets of self

68
fulfilment, need for achievement, realisation of one’s potential, internalisation, positive

mental health, creativity, passion, and self esteem, the research postulates that the CASES

model will predict work performance.

2.8.3. The Relationships between FFM and CASES

The third research question considers how the CASES measure of personality compares

with the FFM with respect to predicting work performance. Conscientiousness in the FFM

comprises competence, order, dutiful, achievement-striving, self-discipline, deliberation,

planful, determined, persistent, responsible, reliable, dependable, and hard working (Costa

and McCrae, 1992) whilst Neuroticism comprises fearful, anxious, depressed, impulsivity,

low confidence/self esteem, not resilient, and hostility (Judge et al., 1997). The facets of

positive mental health and self -esteem in the self-actualisation dimension and low

impulsivity in the complexity dimension of the CASES are inversely related to the

Neuroticism dimension of the FFM. Similarly, the facets of need for achievement, passion,

and realisation of one’s potential in the self-actualisation dimension and the facets of self-

regulation and volition in the complexity dimension of the CASES are related to the facets

of achievement-striving, determined, persistent, deliberation, and planfulness of the

Conscientiousness dimension in the FFM. Furthermore, Barrick and Mount (1991) posited

that Conscientiousness is associated with volition variables such as persevering and

conforming which is similar to the complexity dimension of the CASES. As personality

traits can be conceptually and empirically related without being redundant, as shown in

Table 4, there are good reasons to believe that the Complexity and Self-actualisation

69
dimensions of the CASES are related to the Conscientiousness and Neuroticism dimensions

of the FFM.

Dimensions of the FFM Dimensions of CASES

Conscientiousness Neuroticism Complexity Self-Actualisation
i) Reliable i) Self-regulation
ii) Self discipline ii) Volition
iii) Deliberation (persevering,
iv) Planful conforming)
v) Dependable
vi) Order
vii) Dutiful
viii) Perseverance
i) Responsible i) Realisation of
ii) Hardworking one’s potential
iii) Determined ii) Passion
iv) Achievement iii) Need for
striving achievement
i) Fearful i) Positive mental
ii) Anxious health
iii) Depressed
i) Low confidence i) Self-esteem
ii) Low self-esteem
i) Impulsivity i) Low impulsivity
Table 4: The Possible Associations of Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the
FFM with Complexity and Self-Actualisation of the CASES

This does not necessarily imply that the CASES model includes the Neuroticism or

Conscientiousness. However, this assumption will be tested and raised in the third research

question, “What is the relationship between the CASES model and the FFM model?”

70
2.8.4. Hypotheses

The first research question is addressed by the first hypothesis.

H1: The FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.

The second research question is addressed by the second hypothesis.

H2: The CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.

The third research question is addressed by the third hypothesis.

H3: The CASES and the FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique

variance when used concurrently to predict performance.

71
3.0. CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. INTRODUCTION

The previous chapter analysed and reviewed the relevant literature on personality theories

with respect to predicting work performance. It highlighted the shortcomings of various

existing personality measures; specifically, they do not account for the variations in

behavior due to environmental factors and the complexity of an individual. A new

personality measure with five dimensions based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, which

postulates that behavior is motivated by needs, and on the social-cognitive construct of “If-

Then” was used to explain why some individuals are more predictable than others. This

chapter covers the selected research methodology and design that will be used to obtain data

to examine the research questions. The two broad social science perspectives or paradigms

of research, positivism and phenomenology, are discussed before proceeding to the research

method adopted and the administration and development of the data collection processes.

3.2. RESEARCH PARADIGMS

The structure, direction, and process of social science are linked to assumptions about

ontology, human nature and epistemology (Morgan and Smircich, 1980), which give rise to

various theoretical perspectives or paradigms ranging from phenomenology to positivism.

72
Phenomenology views reality as a projection of human imagination. According to

phenomenology, humans are transcendental beings and are not restricted by external laws.

Its basic epistemological stance is to obtain information on how individuals interpret the

world. On the other end of the continuum, positivism views reality as a concrete structure

and is objective whereby human beings are rational responders (Morgan and Smircich,

1980). The view that the social world is a concrete structure taken by objectivists

encourages an epistemological approach that stresses the significance of studying the

relationships among those elements forming that structure. From this point of view, the

knowledge of the social world would imply a need to map out and understand the social

structure, giving rise to positivism which emphasises the empirical analysis of relationships

(Morgan and Smircich, 1980). Positivism also provides an objective form of knowledge

which specifies the regularities, relationships and the precise nature of laws among the

phenomena measured. Positivism emphasises empirical facts, causal relationships and

predictions.

As this research seeks to explain the relationships between need-induced behavior,

personality, and work performance, this study adopts a positivistic paradigm with a

hypothetico-deductive approach. This approach uses a statement of a hypothesis and

conclusions may be drawn from it via the analysis of quantitative data (Baker, 2001). The

possible shortcomings of this approach would be the apparent loss of richness of concepts

due to the mechanisation of variables and concepts.

73
3.3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Most research in the social science disciplines is conducted using quantitative

methodologies, with surveys as the main research method (Morgan and Smircich, 1980;

Morgan, Gliner and Harmon, 1999; Lubinski, 1996). The psychology of individual

differences has a number of empirically established foundations on which a more scientific

foundation may be built for a better understanding of human behavior (Lubinski, 1996).

Assessment tools are developed with the aim of facilitating the optimal utilisation and

development of human capital where measures of individual differences are the most

common criteria of interest.

The aim of such research is to assess human variations in factors (e.g., vocational

preferences, personality, and abilities) that have real-world significance. The quantitative

methods, which are principally drawn from natural sciences, are appropriate to capture a

view of the social world or reality as a concrete structure. It is a structure comprising of a

network of finite relationships between constituent parts. Reality can be found in the

relationships between these components and concrete behavior. Human beings are assumed

to be products of external forces in the environment. Stimuli from the environment

condition them to respond to events in determinate and predictable ways. Causal

relationships link all aspects of behavior to the specific context. Although human perception

or cognition may influence the process, people always respond to the situation in a lawful

manner. By manipulating data with various sophisticated quantitative tools, the social world

can be “frozen” into structured immobility and the role of human beings is reduced to

74
elements which are subject to deterministic sets of forces. This quantitative methodology

based on the positivist paradigm is objective, promotes value-free inquiry, adheres to strict

rules and uses statistics extensively. Any generalisation is inductive which comprises

nomothetic statements.

From the framing of the research questions and hypotheses, a quantitative methodology has

the ability to provide an objective view of the various external factors. Moreover, various

studies, as mentioned in the previous chapter, have used this approach effectively. Based on

these grounds, a quantitative methodology is adopted and provides the framework for the

research design.

3.4. RESEARCH DESIGN

Research design involving a series of logical decision-making steps basically comprises the

purpose of the study (descriptive, exploratory, case study or hypothesis testing), the types of

investigation, the extent of researcher interference, the time horizon and the unit of analysis

(Cavana et al., 2001). Although the processes in research design are depicted in distinct

sequential activities, these activities often interact or occur at the same time.

3.4.1. Purpose of the Study

Studies can be descriptive, exploratory, case study or hypothesis testing. Hence, the nature

of the study depends on how far the knowledge on the research subject has advanced. An

75
exploratory study is carried out when little or no information is known about the subject.

Such studies are appropriate to obtain an initial grasp of the phenomena of interest (Cavana

et al., 2001).

Descriptive studies are carried out to ascertain and describe the characteristics of the

variables studied but no associations or comparisons are made as only one variable is

considered at a time (Morgan, Gliner and Harmon, 1999). The purpose of descriptive

studies is to describe aspects of the situation from an organisational, industry or individual

perspective such as age, gender, educational level, or race.

The case study method involves a systematic gathering of in-depth information on an

organisation or entity. Such an undertaking is appropriate when the three criteria of

uniqueness, critical and revelatory are met (O’Cass, 2004). It is generally qualitative in

nature and used as a managerial decision-making tool (Cavana et al., 2001).

Hypothesis testing is employed in studies that seek to establish the independence of various

factors in a situation or the differences among groups or to explain the nature of

relationships. It provides an enhanced understanding of the various relationships between

variables as well as establishing their causalities (Cavana et al., 2001; Morgan et al. 1999).

This study uses hypothesis testing as there is extensive knowledge, information and

variables on the topic to enable the formulation of hypotheses as articulated in Chapter 2.

76
3.4.2. Type of Investigation

There are three approaches of investigation: clarification, correlational and causal.

Clarification investigation is used to gain a better understanding of the phenomena or

concepts under investigation. Exploratory and descriptive studies using qualitative methods

follow this approach as it allows the researcher to be flexible in exploring the issues being

studied. Quantitative methods may be used to give a more definite answer.

With a better understanding of the concepts, the next stage is to determine the relationships

between the variables or concepts. This can be done with a correlational or causal approach.

A causal relationship occurs when one variable or concept causes a change in another

whereas a correlational relationship only indicates that two variables or concepts are

associated. A causal study delineates the cause of one or more problems whereas a

correlational study delineates the variables or concepts that are associated with the problem.

The investigation carried out in this study is a correlational study as the interest is to

delineate the variables which are associated with the problem (Cavana et al., 2001).

3.4.3. Research Method

When the purpose of the study and the type of investigation has been determined, the next

step is to decide on the type of research method that will be used. Quantitative research

methodology, as adopted for this research, consists of two distinct collection methods; that

is, experimental and non-experimental. Experimental research involves the manipulation of

one or more variables in order to study the effects of such manipulations on the subjects

77
under study and is generally applied to answer the questions of why and how (Grace, 1999).

Non-experimental research does not involve the manipulation of variables or assigning

subjects to groups and requires minimal interference from the researcher. Since the research

questions posted for this study are on behavior, personality, and the work performance of

individuals, it is not possible to manipulate these variables or assign participants to groups.

Hence, the non-experimental research is considered the more appropriate approach to adopt

in this study.

As shown in Table 5, there are four broad categories of non-experimental techniques:

observational, archival, case study, and survey.

Method Description Answers

Observational Observation of subjects in their own How and Why?
Research environment or researcher participating in
naturally occurring groups and recording
observations.
Archival Research Using data that were collected for a purpose Who, What,
other than the problem at hand. Where, How Much
and How Many?
Case Study Research Research investigates a particular situation How and Why?
or problem. Is case-specific.
Survey Research Goal is to collect information about the Who, What,
same variables or characteristics from a Where, How Much
number of cases where the end result is a and How Many?
data matrix or a structured or rectangular set
of data.

Table 5: Four Categories of Non-experimental Techniques (Grace, 1999)

It is clear that observational research is not appropriate as some of the variables are not

observable. Similarly, this study is not case-specific, which rules out case study, nor is it

78
suitable for archival research as there are new personality variables to be measured. Hence,

the survey method is the most appropriate method for data collection in this study because

of its ability to address the research questions as well as its efficiency and practicality.

3.4.4. Researcher’s Interference

There are varying degrees of interference in research ranging from minimal, moderate to

excessive. The extent of interference by the researcher in the flow of work in the workplace

has an important bearing on the research decisions. There is minimal interference in an

exploratory or descriptive study conducted in an organisation. For a causal study,

manipulation of the variables may be done to study the effects of such manipulation on the

dependent variables. Hence, such studies have considerable interference with the normal or

natural settings. An excessive interference occurs especially in a causal study whereby an

artificial setting is created and manipulated in a laboratory environment.

This study does not require interference as the objective is to collect data on the personality

of individuals and their work performance. The adoption of nil or minimal interference for

this study is supported by Gill and Johnson (2002) who postulated that analytical studies

require precision and the control of extraneous variables can be handled via statistical

techniques. This approach facilitates the external validation and generalisability of the

findings within similar environments (Baker, 2001).

79
3.4.5. Study Setting

The setting of the study can be either contrived or non-contrived. In a non-contrived setting,

the research is conducted whereby the work proceeds normally in the natural environment.

Exploratory or descriptive studies usually fall under this category whereas rigorous causal

studies are often undertaken in contrived settings.

Exploratory or descriptive studies carried out in organisations are known as field studies.

Correlational or causal studies which use environmental settings where the employees

usually function are known as field experiments. A laboratory experiment is one with a

contrived setting and considerable interference by the researcher (Cavana et al., 2001).

Control imposed on a study gives it better internal validity as the extraneous variables are

removed or controlled in order to facilitate investigation of the variables of interest. A

contrived environment, however, may reduce the external validity due to “reactivity”

(Baker, 2001). External and internal validities are competing aspects. Hence, there are trade-

offs between internal and external validities. Efforts to strengthen internal validity will

diminish external validity and vice-versa (Cavana et al., 2001).

Remenyi et al. (1998) postulated that the level of control is least relevant for research

methods using surveys. Furthermore, it is more important to capture the variables or

concepts in the study than to establish the cause and effect relationships (Saunders, Lewis

and Thornhill, 1997). This research will be conducted via a survey with minimal researcher

interference in a natural environment as the variables under investigation are the personality

dimensions of individuals and their perceptions of their own work performance within their

80
normal work environments. To control for extraneous and irrelevant factors, variables which

are reliable, valid and unambiguous will be included after proper screening by subject

matter experts (SME) to ensure content, internal, and external validities and plausible

explanations of the variances of the independent and dependent variables (Remenyi et al.,

1998).

3.4.6. Time Horizons

This research adopts a cross-sectional study instead of a longitudinal study as it will take a

snapshot of the situation under study (Remenyi et al., 1998). This method is appropriate as

the objective of this research is to examine whether a new personality measure will provide

incremental validity over and above that of the FFM in the prediction of work performance.

Hence, the passage of time is inconsequential. Moreover, Lindell and Whitney (2001)

postulated that most behavioral studies are cross-sectional as such studies focus on

individual’s attitudes, beliefs and perceptions.

3.4.7. Unit of Analysis

The research objective determines the unit of analysis, which can be individual, dyads,

groups, organisations, or cultures. As this research is on the measurement of personality

dimensions of individuals and their work performance, the data collected will be the

81
individuals’ demographics, and their perceptions of their behaviors and work performance

(Cavana et al., 2001). Hence, the unit of analysis is at the individual level.

3.5. SURVEY RESEARCH

The survey research consists of several steps as listed below.

3.5.1. Selection of Survey Method

As survey research has been selected as the appropriate method for collecting data, these

data can be obtained by using one or a combination of methods that include personal,

telephone, mail, or computer interviews. The merits of these methods are shown in Table 6.

The personal interview method provides an excellent response rate but can be costly in

terms of finance, effort, and time, and also has the problem of the interviewer’s influence on

the interviewee’s responses. The personal interview method is not used on topics of

personality and work performance as these topics lie in the positivism paradigm (Morgan

and Smircich, 1980). Together with the inherent costs as well as the time constraints of this

research, this method is considered inappropriate for this study.

82
 Criterion Mail Telephone Personal Computer
Ability to handle complex Poor Good Excellent Good
questionnaire
Ability to collect large amount Fair Good Excellent Good
of data
Accuracy of sensitive questions Good Good Fair Good
Control of interviewer effects Excellent Fair Poor Excellent
Degree of sample control Fair Excellent Fair Fair
Time required Fair Excellent Good Good
Probable response rate Fair Fair Fair Fair
Cost Good Good Fair Fair

Table 6: Merits of the Four Survey Methods (Grace, 1999)

Computer and telephone interviews offer expedient and low-cost options but they are not

appropriate for reaching the targeted potential respondents in the organisations. Hence, these

two interview methods are also considered to be inappropriate for this study.

Although mail survey does not provide a good response rate, it is cost effective and allows

specific respondents in various organisations to be targeted. Mail survey is commonly used

in studies of personality and work performance (Robertson et. al., 2000; Barrick et al., 2002;

Nikolaou, 2003; Salgado, 2003; Kieffer et al., 2004). Hence, the mail survey is considered

the most appropriate method for this study.

83
3.5.2. Selection of Measurement Techniques

3.5.2.1. Personality and Work Performance Measures

Several studies on personality measures and work performance that can be used for this

study were identified and the respective authors were contacted for copies of their measures.

Copies of the FFM measure (Goldberg, 1999) and the self-rated work performance measure

(RBPS) by Welbourne, Johnson and Erez (1998) were obtained and used in this study.

3.5.2.2. Self Report

Self-report is a primary source of data in social science research. From public opinion

surveys to laboratory experiments, researchers depend on the answers that participants

provide in order to learn about the behavior, feelings, and thoughts of participants. Although

self-reports can be a fallible source of data, where minor changes in question format, context

or wording can cause major changes in the results, this study uses this method whilst

recognising factors and processes that affect self-reports to improve the questionnaire design

and data quality (Schwarz, 1999; Marsella et al., 2000).

3.5.2.3. Scales

The measures of personality and performance are nebulous and do not lend themselves to

precise measurements due to their subjective nature. The reduction of such abstract concepts

84
to some form of tangible measurements in a continuum is often used for such measures and

is an appropriate choice especially for hypothesis testing (Cavana et al., 2001). Such

measures use an interval scale as interval scales are able to group respondents into

categories, tap the order of such groups, and enable the computation of the means and

variances of the measured variables.

A popular interval scale is the Likert scale which is often used to measure psychometric

properties such as personality and performance (Maurer and Pierce, 1998). Likert scales

typically have five or seven graduated categories to select from and are anchored with

descriptive phases representing the minimum and maximum responses possible (Flynn, van

Schaik and van Wersch, 2004). For this study, the scale adopted is a five-point Likert scale

as a seven-point scale or higher can burden respondents with distinctions that are too fine

and that do not have significant impact on the overall results (Grace, 1999; Cavana et al.,

2001).

In using a Likert scale, a respondent selects a response category ranging from Very

Accurate, Neither Inaccurate nor Accurate or Very Inaccurate as the most representative of

his/her perceived personality or behavior in terms of direction, strength and confidence. A

response on the disagree side is equivalent to a no response and the response on the agree

side is equivalent to a yes response. The strength or confidence of the measurement is

assessed as the distance away from the neutral response (Maurer and Pierce, 1998).

The work performance measure is categorised from Needs Much Improvement to Excellent

with Satisfactory as a neutral response. Hence, all the measures use a five-point Likert scale

85
because of the above merits as well as its ease of construction, administration and cost

effectiveness.

3.5.2.4. Key Variables

(i) The independent variables

(a) The Big Five

The 50 items for the FFM (Goldberg, 1999) measuring Openness to Experience,

Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism, have alpha

values larger than 0.79 for all five dimensions. This measure is regarded as the

best measure developed to date and is used for this study (Crant, 1995;

Hunthausen et al., 2003).

(b) The new personality measure (CASES)

The new personality measure, CASES, contains five personality dimensions of

Complexity, Actualisation, Safety, Egocentric and Socio-centric with each

dimension having 10 items.

(ii) The dependent variable

The dependent variable is the self-appraised work performance of the respondents.

Self-appraisals or self ratings have significant validation against other work

performance measures. Correlations of 0.4 to 0.5 are obtained from self ratings of

86
clerical ability and measures of leadership (Cook et. al., 2000). Self-rating or self-

appraisal also has a substantial advantage in the study of work performance and

personality as they are less affected by the “halo-effect” as compared to other

measures. Furthermore, “halo-effect” tends to obscure the differentiated relationship

between the criteria of personality and work performance.

In view of the stance taken by the Ethics Committee in favour of maintaining

confidentiality and anonymity of respondents, the self-evaluation work performance

measure of Wilbourne et al., (1998) is used. This self-appraisal performance measure,

which is also known as the Role-Based Performance Scale (RBPS), is developed

based on identity theory and role theory in contrast to the traditional, job-related

employee performance measure. The five components of the RBPS are job,

innovator, career, team, and organisation, with each having 4 items as shown in Table

7.

87
(a) My Job (doing things specifically related to my job description)
i. Quantity of work output
ii. Quality of work output
iii. Accuracy of work
iv. Customer service provided (internal and external)
(b) My career (obtaining the necessary skills to progress in the company)
i. Obtaining personal career goals
ii. Developing skills needed for my future career
iii. Making progress in my career
iv. Seeking out career opportunities

(c) Innovator (creativity and innovation in my job and the organisation as a whole)
i. Coming with new ideas
ii. Working to implement new ideas
iii. Finding improved ways to do things
iv. Creating better processes and routines
(d) Team (working with co-workers and team members toward success of the firm)
i. Working as part of a team or work group
ii. Seeking information from others in my work group
iii. Making sure my work group succeeds
iv. Responding to the needs of others in my group
(e) Organisation (going above the call of duty in my concern for the firm)
i. Doing things that help others when it’s not part of my job
ii. Working for the overall good of the company
iii. Doing things to promote the company
iv. Helping so that the company is a good place to be

Table 7: Role-Based Performance Scale’s Items (Wilbourne et al., 1998)

88
3.5.3. Selection of Survey Layout

The physical layout of the questionnaire is important as it has influence in inducing

potential respondents to participate earnestly and facilitates its administration. The

sequence of the instructions, questions and quality of reproduction are addressed. To

minimise error, the written instructions are screened for clarity in instructional content

and presentation. The questions are sequenced in the following manner:

(i) The 50 items for the FFM (Goldberg, 1999) are placed from Q1 to Q50 in the same

order as per the author’s design.

(ii) The second set of 50 items of the new instrument (CASES) is placed as Q51 to Q100.

For the first personality dimension of Complexity (with 10 items), the items are

placed in Q51, Q56, Q61, Q66, Q71, Q76, Q81, Q86, Q91 and Q96. The four other

dimensions with 10 items each (Actualisation, Safety, Egocentric and Socio-centric)

are placed in the same sequence to reduce the influence of the content of the adjacent

similar items in the interpretation of a question by the respondents (Schwarz, 1999).

(iii) The twenty items of the RBPS by Welbourne et al., (1998) are placed from Q101 to

Q120.

(iv) Demographic and other classification questions to address over-inflated self-

administrated job performance appraisal are placed at the end of the survey because

of their personal nature (Grace, 2002).

89
 Although pilot testing is recommended for the items to ensure content validity, it will

not be carried out due to the study’s time constraints. The full questionnaire will be

given to the two supervisors of this study for their comments and review for face and

content validity as the next best alternative (Cavana et al., 2001). Every element or

item is judged on its representativeness, relevance, clarity and specificity for its

particular dimension (Haynes, Richard and Kubany, 1995). The wordings of several

items were changed to reflect the meaning in the local Malaysian context.

3.5.4. Selection of Sample and Sample Size

Sampling is a process whereby a representative number of elements of the population are

selected and through the analysis of the characteristics of the sample subjects, a

generalisation of these characteristics can be made to the population elements (Cavana et

al., 2001). Probability sampling is appropriate when statistical generalisation is required.

The elements in the population under study also must have some known probability of

being selected as sample. When time is tight or the probability of selecting elements of

the population is unknown and generalisability is not essential or critical, a non-

probability sampling method such as convenience sampling can be used. For the above

reasons, convenience sampling is adopted for this study.

A total of 40 organisations will be invited to take part in this research by means of

personal contact with the president or senior managers of the companies concerned.

These firms are in general manufacturing, shipping, transportation, legal, trading and

90
business consulting. Each company will be given 40 questionnaires or more depending

on the size of the organisation and will be requested to distribute the questionnaires to all

or part of their white-collar staff. These companies represent a convenient sample and

they are invited because their offices are in the Klang Valley.

Besides being white-collared staff, the respondents are also required to fulfil several

other essential criteria as follow:

(i) Proficient in the English language to ensure that the respondents are able to

understand and answer the questionnaires properly. Since English is a second

language to many Malaysians, white-collar employees are chosen as they are more

likely to be literate in English.

(ii) Must have been working in the current position for at least one year as personality

characteristics show no or little relationship with performance at the initial period of

work but significant correlations are found after the probationary or honeymoon

period with the job has ended (Helmreich, Sawin and Carsud, 1986).

The researcher hopes to get approval from 50% of the 40 companies and to receive on

average 25 successful respondents from each of these companies thereby providing a

total sample size of 500. As the measures of the FFM and CASES have 50 items each, it

would need at least 500 responses (that is, at least 10:1 subject to items as suggested by

Nunnally (1978)) to provide sufficient rigour and statistical reliability in the principal

components analysis (Avis, Kudisch and Fortunato, 2002).

91
3.5.5. Selection of analytical approach

Data analysis is performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)

version 13.

3.5.5.1. Central Tendency and Dispersion

The range, mean, standard deviation, and variance for each variable will be computed in

SPSS. The frequency distributions of the nominal and demographic variables, means,

range, variance, standard deviation and correlation matrix of all the variables will be

generated for initial examinations.

3.5.5.2. Principal Components Analysis

Principal components analysis will be used to check that the structure of the measures has

held true (Cavana et al., 2001). The measures for the FFM, CASES, and RBPS will be

analysed to determine their structure. The principal-component factor will be varimax-

rotated as the dimensions are assumed to be uncorrelated

3.5.5.3. Reliability

Reliability concerns the extent to which a measure is repeatable and consistent (Baker,

2001). Cronbach’s alpha, the measurement of internal consistency, is one reliability

92
coefficient that indicates how well items in a cluster correlate positively with one

another. An alpha coefficient of 0.7 or more is considered satisfactory (Nunnally, 1978).

All the predictor variables of the Big Five Factor Inventory, CASES and RBPS measures

will be analysed to ascertain their internal reliabilities.

3.5.5.4. Validity

Construct validity is the degree to which the assessment instrument measures the

proposed construct (Borsboom, Mellenbergh and van Heerden, 2004). Construct validity

subsumes all validities including concurrent, predictive and postdictive validity,

convergent and discriminant validity, criterion-related validity, and factor structure.

Content validity gives evidence on the construct validity of an instrument (Haynes,

Richard and Kubany, 1995). Incremental validity essentially means whether a measure

adds to the prediction of a criterion above what can be predicted by other variables

(Hunsley and Meyer, 2003). Hunsley and Meyer (2003) stressed that if personality

inventories do not produce an increment in validity over other inventories that are

obtainable freely in the public domain in the World-Wide-Web (e.g., http://0-

ipip.ori.org.library.newcastle.edu.au:80), there is no psychometric rationale in using

them. Concurrent validity refers to the degree to which a test scores correlates with

another test score that is obtained from another source.

93
The research design is one of a criterion-related validity and incremental validity

(Nikolaou, 2003). The respondents are asked to complete two sets of personality

measures and a set of self-appraisal work performance measure.

3.5.5.5. Hypothesis Testing

To test the criterion and incremental validities of the new personality measure (CASES)

over and above the FFM on work performance, the two measures of personality will be

entered simultaneously in a stepwise regression analysis. The findings from the

descriptive statistics, the correlation matrix, and the stepwise multiple linear regression

results will be used to test the hypotheses.

3.5.6. Implementation

The last stage of the survey research is the implementation stage which consists of time/

cost estimates and data collection/administration.

3.5.6.1. Cost and Time Estimates

Some 40 companies from various industries, known to the researcher, are selected for the

survey with an average of 40 questionnaires given to each organisation and are targeted

94
at white-collared workers from supervisory level upwards. The industry breakdown and

the number of companies to be surveyed are shown in Table 9.

Industry No of companies
1) Manufacturing 27
2) Service 13
Total 40

Table 8: The Breakdown of Companies to be Surveyed Based on Industry

(developed for this study)

A wide spectrum of organisations in terms of industry and size is used to attain the

required minimum sample size of 500 respondents. Each organisation will be given the

Information Sheet and the Consent Seeking Letter. A draft letter approving the staff in

the organisation to participate is also provided for the companies to complete under their

official letter head. The questionnaires will be given to the Human Resource Department

to be distributed to all the white collar staff and instructed to collect them in the self-

addressed envelope a week after distribution. The total time estimated for the survey is

35 days as shown in Table 9.

95
 Activity Estimated Times (Days)
1. Printing and collating of 5
questionnaires
2. Distributing questionnaires to 15
organisations
3. Collecting answered questionnaires 10
from organisations
4. Checking for completeness of 5
answers
Total 35

Table 9: Total Time Estimated for the Survey (developed for this research)

The cost of the survey is estimated at RM1.86 per questionnaire based on the breakdown

as shown in Table 10.

Item Costing and Amount

Computation
Printing the questionnaire (1600 sets 1600*4*RM0.04 RM256.00
of 2 pages (double-sided)
2 envelopes and RM0.30 stamp 1600*RM0.70 RM1120.00
Travelling expenses RM20 per trip for 80 RM1600.00
trips
Total RM2976.00
Table 10: Breakdown of Costs on Survey (developed for this research)

3.5.6.2. Data Collection

The survey adopts a self-administered approach, which has limitations such as low

response rate and the inability of respondents to seek clarification if necessary. The

96
researcher will inform the organisations that he will be available in the organisation’s

premises at the scheduled time if the need for clarification is required. Hence, the survey

is partially personally-administered but self-completed and mail-returned to minimise the

effects of low response rates and lack of clarity while maintaining confidentiality and

anonymity.

3.5.6.3. Data Entry

The data will be entered into SPSS and analysed. Incomplete questionnaires will not be

considered in the analysis but efforts will be made to ensure the completeness of the

questionnaires by conducting briefings in the organisations if permission is granted.

3.5.6.4. Categorising

For negatively worded questions, the scores will be recoded through a Recode program in

the SPSS. The items measuring the variables are grouped together to ensure no mistake is

made due to omission or wrong inclusion.

97
3.6. RESEARCH PLAN

The research plan is based on the timeline provided by the University of Newcastle for

this Doctor of Business Administration (DBA). The research plan is based on completing

the five chapters within the six-month time frame. It is estimated that the dissertation can

be completed within the time frame based on an average of some three hours of work per

day on weekdays and some six hours of work per day on weekends subject to obtaining

clearance from the Ethic Committee within the timeframe allowed.

3.7. ETHICAL CONSIDERATION

It is explicitly stated that participation is voluntary. Participants can withdraw at anytime

during the research without any obligation or disadvantage. Anonymity and

confidentiality of the answers are ensured as the questionnaires do not have any

identifiers. Stamped, self-addressed envelopes are provided so the respondents can

choose to participate or not. Finally, no demeaning questions will be asked and

respondents are not subjected to mental or physical stress in answering the questionnaire

as they are given sufficient time on their own to complete the questionnaire.

98
3.8. LIMITATIONS

3.8.1. Response Distortions

Given the seemingly straightforward nature of the items, it could be likely that some

respondents may try to “beat the test” due to self-deception or impression management.

However, several studies revealed that the distortions by these response deceptions do

not attenuate the predictive validity of the personality constructs (Barrick and Mount,

1996).

3.8.2. Personality Scales

Personality scales are often described as self-report measures but could be misleading as

respondents may use the item responses to tell who they are and the way they would like

to be seen. In that case, item endorsements are not self-reports but self-presentations

(Hogan et al., 1996). It is widely acknowledged that the self-report a person gives about

his/her own personality traits and behavior are related to his/her perception of the

acceptability and the desirability of these traits and behaviors (Kagan, 1988). This may

produce a general method variance (Carmeli and Freund, 2004).

3.8.3. Stability of Work Performance

Due to the implicit assumption that performance is a stable construct and the reliance on

a cross-sectional, one-time measure could lead to erroneous conclusions about the

99
personality-performance relationships (Thoresen et al., 2004). A rudimentary level of

work performance is required for the employees to retain employment in a specific

position. Hence, it is possible that some employees are removed from the positions due to

their inadequate work performance. Conversely, it is possible that some employees who

could have been in the higher end of the work performance are promoted to other

positions outside the parameters of the study. These factors may restrict the range of

dependent variables and produce attenuated correlations.

3.8.4. Self Rating

One limitation is the use of self-ratings and its validity and reliability as an indicator of

work performance. The requirement to maintain the anonymity of respondents restricted

our ability to match the supervisors with the subordinates. Thus, all information comes

from the subordinate.

Self-ratings are known to be more “lenient” than other forms of work performance

measures. The ratings would be markedly skewed towards the positive end of each item.

This will restrict the range and reduce the correlations with the personality measures.

Since there is no way of estimating what the variance should be, it will not be possible to

correct or adjust the correlations for the restricted range. This self rating is also subject to

the common method variance or the percept-percept inflation problem (Cook et al., 2000;

Bozionelos, 2004a).

100
3.8.5. Work Performance

Studies have found linkages between work performance and job satisfaction, motivation

level, ability, role clarity and intelligence (Carmelli and Freund, 2004; Barrick et al.,

2002; Cook et al., 2000; Nikolaou, 2002). These factors have a direct or a moderating

influence on work performance.

3.9. CONCLUSION

Attempts to predict work performance using personality measures have been practised in

organisational research for decades. There is an ample body of knowledge on this subject

to derive some theoretical framework for hypothesis testing. Hence, a positivist paradigm

with a survey instrument via a questionnaire is developed to capture observable behaviors

that reflect the dimensions of the variables or constructs.

Various relevant statistical tools are used to calculate inter-item consistency (i.e., internal

reliability), as well as the content and construct validities of the measures. Convenience

sampling is adopted. There are limitations in this research that may not permit statements

of causality. Also, the adoption of convenience sampling in this study reduces the

generalisability of the findings obtained from this study. Further studies will need to be

conducted to establish the boundary conditions and generalisability of the findings of this

study.

101
4.0. CHAPTER FOUR – DATA ANALYSIS

4.1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter contains four sections. The descriptive statistics of the demographic

variables are presented in the first section. The second section contains the results of

principal components analyses, which were used to verify the structures of the various

scales. The results of the analyses which were conducted to test the hypotheses are

presented in the third section. The fourth section contains a summary of the main

findings.

4.2. DEMOGRAPHICS

A total of 1600 questionnaires were distributed to 40 Malaysian companies of various

sizes who were invited to participate in this study. The number of companies that

responded was 39; a 97.5% rate of participation. A total of 587 questionnaires were

returned (a response rate of 36.7%) and, of these, 544 were usable.

Of the 544 respondents, 246 (i.e., 45.2%) were male and 298 (i.e., 54.8%) were female.

A total of 267 (i.e., 49.2%) of the respondents were degree-holders, 170 (i.e., 31.3%)

were diploma holders, and the remaining 107 (i.e., 19.5%) were school certificate

holders.

102
A total of 140 (i.e., 25.8%) of the respondents were from non-executive or clerical levels

while 198 (i.e., 36.5%) were from lower management or executive levels. The remaining

205 (i.e., 37.8%) respondents were from middle or senior management levels.

The average age of the respondents was 34.6 years (s.d. = 9.1) and the minimum age and

maximum age of the respondents were 19 years and 65 years respectively. The average

organisational tenure of the respondents was 7.0 years (s.d. = 6.7) while the average

number of years that respondents were in their current jobs was 5.29 (s.d. = 5.2).

4.2. RESULTS FROM PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS

Principal Components Analysis with Varimax Rotation was used to examine the structure

of the scales. Items that did not achieve a primary loading of .50 or larger on their

respective components were eliminated from the solution. The recommended cut-off

value of .50 by Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) was used because of the large

number of items being analysed. An examination of the skewness and kurtosis statistics

as well as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic was conducted to examine the distributions

of the variables.

4.2.1. Principal Components Analysis of the FFM Personality Measure

A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (with suppressed loading less

than .50) was conducted on the FFM. This analysis yielded five orthogonal factors that

103
accounted for 47.4% of the variance. Using the .50 loading criterion, five items were

eliminated from each of the Openness and Conscientiousness sub-scales while six items

were eliminated from each of the Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism sub-

scales. The findings from this analysis are presented in Table 11.

Component 1 2 3 4 5

Openness5 .65
Openness8 .64
Openness4 .63
Openness2 .60
Openness6 .57
Conscientious1 .72
Conscientious8 .67
Conscientious7 .66
Conscientious3 .64
Conscientious6 .60
Extraversion7 .67
Extraversion9 .62
Extraversion4 .59
Extraversion2 .54
Agreeableness4 .68
Agreeableness5 .61
Agreeableness9 .55
Agreeableness7 .54
Neuroticism7 .74
Neuroticism1 .71
Neuroticism6 .70
Neuroticism8 .54

Table 11: Rotated Component Matrix of FFM

104
The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < .001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

measure of sampling adequacy was greater than the acceptable level of 0.60. Hence,

factorability was assumed.

The Cronbach’s alphas for the remaining items in the Openness, Conscientiousness,

Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism components were .63, .73, .57, .59, and 64

respectively. According to Hair et al. (1998), a Cronbach’s alpha of .6 is acceptable. All

the components therefore have acceptable internal reliability. The items that were

retained after the principal components analysis are shown in Table 12.

Openness was positively correlated with Extraversion and Neuroticism at the 0.01 level

whilst it was negatively correlated with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness at the 0.05

level. Conscientiousness was positively correlated with Extraversion and Agreeableness

but negatively correlated with Neuroticism at the 0.01 level. Extraversion was positively

correlated with Agreeableness and Neuroticism at the 0.01 level. Agreeableness was

negatively correlated with Neuroticism at the 0.01 level. The intercorrelations resembled

those that have been reported previously. The FFM components are distinct but related

and “are no more wholly independent than they are redundant” (Judge et al., 1997, p. 8).

105
Big 5 Dimensions Items

Openness 2 I am not interested in theoretical discussions

Openness 4 I do not enjoy going to art museums
Openness 5 I am not interested in abstract ideas
Openness 6 I avoid philosophical discussions
Openness 8 I do not like art

Conscientious 1 I am always prepared

Conscientious 3 I pay attention to details
Conscientious 6 I get chores done right away
Conscientious 7 I carry out my plans
Conscientious 8 I make plans and stick to them

Extraversion 2 I have little to say

Extraversion 4 I keep a low profile
Extraversion 7 I don’t like to draw attention to myself
Extraversion 9 I don’t talk a lot

Agreeableness 4 I believe that others have good intentions

Agreeableness 5 I respect others
Agreeableness 7 I accept people as they are
Agreeableness 9 I make people feel at ease

Neuroticism 1 I often feel unhappy

Neuroticism 6 I am often depressed
Neuroticism 7 I have frequent mood swings
Neuroticism 8 I panic easily

Table 12: Items of FFM after Principal Components Analysis

106
4.2.2. Principal Components Analysis of the CASES Personality Measure

A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (with suppressed loading less

than .50) was conducted on the CASES items. This analysis yielded five orthogonal

components that accounted for 57.0% of the variance. Using the .50 loading criterion, six

items were eliminated from each of the Complexity, Actualisation, Safety, Ego and

Social sub-scales. The results from this analysis are presented in Table 13.

Component 1 2 3 4 5

Complexity7 .79
Complexity2 .68
Complexity4 .63
Complexity5 .61
Actualisation7 .69
Actualisation2 .68
Actualisation5 .68
Actualisation4 .62
Safety5 .68
Safety3 .67
Safety9 .56
Safety6 .55
Ego8 .72
Ego6 .65
Ego2 .54
Ego1 .51
Social7 .77
Social10 .74
Social6 .63
Social9 .61

Table 13: Rotated Component Matrix of CASES

107
The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < .001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

measure of sampling adequacy was greater than the acceptable level of 0.60. Hence,

factorability was assumed.

The Cronbach’s alphas for the remaining items in the Complexity, Actualisation, Safety,

Ego and Social components were 73, .81, .64, .48, and .74 respectively. With the

exception of the Ego sub-scale, which had marginal internal reliability, all of the CASES

sub-scales had acceptable internal reliability. The items of the sub-scales are shown in

Table 14.

108
 CASES Dimension Item

Complexity2 I am good at interpreting things

Complexity4 I can spot opportunities a and make use of them
Complexity5 I am good at overcoming obstacles to get what I want
Complexity7 I am good at persuading others to support me
Actualisation2 I love to seek experiences in life
Actualisation4 I find great satisfaction in doing a good job
Actualisation5 I seek knowledge and skills to improve myself
Actualisation7 I work towards improving my quality of life
Safety3 I like to do things following the proper channels
Safety5 I am law-abiding
Safety6 I believe in doing things step by step
Safety9 I do not fight with authority
Ego1 I need security
Ego2 I like living in style
Ego6 I can be easily hurt
Ego8 I like to celebrate in a grand manner
Social6 I like to assist my friends in time of needs
Social7 I like to visit my friends
Social9 I enjoy working in groups
Social10 I greet my friends with open arms

Table 14: Items of CASES after Principal Components Analysis

4.2.3. Principal Components Analysis of RBPS Performance Measure

A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (with suppressed loading less

than .50) was conducted on the RBPS measure of performance. This analysis yielded five

orthogonal components that accounted for 80.0% of the variance. Based on the .50

109
loading criterion, only one item was eliminated and this was from the organisation

component of the RBPS. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 15.

Component 1 2 3 4 5
Job1 .85
Job2 .84
Job3 .81
Job4 .56
Career3 .81
Career2 .78
Career4 .75
Career1 .75
Innovator2 .77
Innovator3 .76
Innovator1 .73
Innovator4 .63
Team2 .80
Team1 .76
Team3 .76
Team4 .73
Organisation3 .85
Organisation4 .84
Organisation2 .79

Table 15: Rotated Component Matrix of RBPS

The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (p < .001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

measure of sampling adequacy was greater than the acceptable level of 0.60. Hence,

factorability was assumed.

The Cronbach’s alphas for the Job component, Career component, Innovator component,

Team component and Organisation component of the RBPS were .89, .90, .91, .90, and

110
.93 respectively. The five performance sub-scales therefore had acceptable internal

reliability. All of the components of the RBPS were correlated with each other at the 0.01

level (one-tailed).

4.2.4. The Relationship between the FFM Dimensions and the CASES
Dimensions

As shown in Table 16, the Complexity component of CASES was correlated positively

with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness but negatively correlated with Openness and

Neuroticism. The Complexity component was not correlated with Extraversion.

The Actualisation component of CASES was positively correlated with

Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Extraversion but negatively correlated with

Openness and Neuroticism.

The Safety component of CASES was positively correlated with Conscientiousness,

Agreeableness and Extraversion but negatively correlated with Neuroticism. The Safety

component was not correlated with Openness.

The Ego component of CASES was positively correlated with Neuroticism,

Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. The Ego component was not correlated with

Openness or Extraversion.

111
The Social component of CASES was correlated positively with Conscientiousness,

Agreeableness and Extraversion but was correlated negatively with Openness. The Social

component was not correlated with Neuroticism.

112
 Conscientiousness Openness Neuroticism Agreeableness Extraversion Actualisation Social Complexity Safety

Openness -.10*

Neuroticism -.22** .18**

Agreeableness .48** -.09* -.13**

Extraversion .15** .29** 19** .22**

Actualisation .56** -.21** -.16** .59** .12**

Social .38** -.26** -.04 .50** .08* .59**

Complexity .58** -.10** -.27** .33** -.07 .51** .31**

Safety .51** -.01 -.17** .46** .26** .49** .43** .34**

Ego .08* .03 .30** .14** -.02 .18** .23** .12** .12**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1 – tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1 – tailed).

Table 16: Correlations between the Components of FFM and CASES

113
4.3. RESULTS FROM TESTING OF THE HYPOTHESES

The findings from the hypothesis testing are presented in the same order as were the

research questions/hypotheses in Chapter 2. The assumptions of normality and the

absence of outliers and singularity underpinning the use of regression were verified by

statistical tables and histogram plots of the respective components. The various

components of the FFM, CASES and RBPS were found to satisfy the conditions for

regression.

4.3.1. Prediction of Performance by the FFM Personality Measure

H1: The FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.

The components of the FFM were moderately correlated (the values of the correlation

among the five factors are less than .30) with each other at the 0.01 level (one-tailed)

except for one correlation of .48. The correlation coefficients did not exceed .70, which

indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem (Carmelli and Freund, 2004; Nunnally,

1978). From Table 17, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Neuroticism were

significantly correlated to all five components of the RBPS and Total RBPS. Openness

and Extraversion were negatively correlated with the Team and Career components of the

RBPS respectively.

114
 Job Career Innovator Team Organisation Total Conscient- Openness Neuroticism Agreeablenes
RBPS RBPS RBPS RBPS RBPS RBPS iousness s
Career .62** 1
RBPS
Innovator .63** .74** 1
RBPS
Team .54** .53** .64** 1
RBPS
Organisation .50** .46** .55** .70** 1
RBPS
Total .80** .82** .87** .82** .79** 1
RBPS
Conscient- .41** .29** .33** .32** .35** .42** 1
iousness
Openness -.01 0.0 -.05 -.09* -.07 -.05 -.10** 1
Neuroticism -.32** -.25** -.28** -.21** -.13** -.29** -.22** .18** 1
Agreeableness .20** .17** .22** .32** .32** .30** .48** -.09* -.13** 1
Extraversion -.02 -.08* -.06 .02 .03 -.03 .15** .29** .19** .22**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1 – tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1 – tailed).

Table 17: Correlations of the Components of FFM and RBPS

115
Using a stepwise regression analysis, the Job component of the RBPS was regressed on

the five components of the FFM. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and

Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS and

had beta values of .36 and -.25 respectively (Table 18). The R-square value was .23.

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.537 .192 8.010 .000
Conscientous .539 .051 .411 10.502 .000
2 (Constant) 2.390 .229 10.445 .000
Conscientous .469 .051 .358 9.238 .000
Neurotic -.259 .041 -.246 -6.353 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Perform2Job

Table 18: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM

Using a stepwise regression analysis, the Career component of the RBPS was regressed

on the five components of the FFM. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness and

Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Career component of the RBPS

and had beta values of .25 and -.20 respectively (Table 19). The R-square value was .12.

116
 a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.683 .224 7.500 .000
Conscientous .422 .060 .290 7.045 .000
2 (Constant) 2.456 .271 9.049 .000
Conscientous .359 .060 .246 5.965 .000
Neurotic -.235 .048 -.200 -4.858 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Perform2Car

Table 19: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on FFM

Using a stepwise regression analysis, the Innovator component of the RBPS was

regressed on the five components of the FFM. The regression revealed that

Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Innovator

component of the RBPS and had beta values of .29 and -.22 respectively (Table 20). The

R-square value was .16.

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.655 .207 7.993 .000
Conscientous .453 .055 .332 8.188 .000
2 (Constant) 2.436 .249 9.767 .000
Conscientous .389 .055 .285 7.034 .000
Neurotic -.237 .044 -.216 -5.337 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Perform2In

Table 20: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on

FFM

117
Using a stepwise regression analysis, the Team component of the RBPS was regressed on

the five components of the FFM. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness,

Agreeableness and Neuroticism were the only significant predictors of the Team

component of the RBPS and had beta values of .20, .20 and -.14 respectively (Table 21).

The R-square value was .16.

a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 2.122 .187 11.335 .000
Conscientous .400 .050 .324 7.983 .000
2 (Constant) 1.575 .220 7.164 .000
Conscientous .277 .056 .225 4.936 .000
Agree .264 .058 .207 4.541 .000
3 (Constant) 2.035 .256 7.942 .000
Conscientous .242 .056 .197 4.290 .000
Agree .259 .058 .203 4.498 .000
Neurotic -.137 .040 -.138 -3.405 .001
a. Dependent Variable: Perform2Tm

Table 21: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on FFM

Using a stepwise regression analysis, the Organisation component of the RBPS was

regressed on the five components of the FFM. The regression revealed that

Conscientiousness and Agreeableness were the only significant predictors of the

Organisation component of the RBPS and had beta values of .25 and .20 respectively

(Table 22). The R-square value was .15.

118
 Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.724 .218 7.910 .000
Conscientous .504 .058 .348 8.648 .000
2 (Constant) 1.108 .256 4.324 .000
Conscientous .366 .065 .253 5.595 .000
Agree .297 .068 .198 4.385 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Perform2Org

Table 22: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on

FFM

Using a stepwise regression analysis, Total RBPS was regressed on the five components

of the FFM. The regression revealed that Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and

Agreeableness were the only significant predictors of Total RBPS and had beta values of

.31, -.21 and .12 respectively (Table 23). The R-square value was .23.

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.744 .163 10.692 .000
Conscientous .464 .044 .415 10.630 .000
2 (Constant) 2.364 .196 12.031 .000
Conscientous .413 .044 .370 9.474 .000
Neurotic -.188 .035 -.210 -5.373 .000
3 (Constant) 2.064 .222 9.283 .000
Conscientous .348 .049 .312 7.103 .000
Neurotic -.186 .035 -.207 -5.335 .000
Agree .140 .050 .121 2.811 .005
a. Dependent Variable: Perform2Total

Table 23: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on FFM

119
Conscientiousness was the best predictor of all of the RBPS components and the Total

RBPS. Neuroticism was a significant predictor of the Job component, Career component,

Innovator component, Team component, and Total RBPS. Agreeableness was a

significant predictor of Team component, Organisation component, and Total RBPS. The

R-square values ranged from .12 to .23. Furthermore, each component of the RBPS as

well as Total RBPS had a significant proportion of variance explained by the FFM

components. Hence, the first hypothesis, which states that the FFM will predict a

significant proportion of variance in performance ratings, is supported.

4.3.2. Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure

H2: The CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.

From Table 24, the CASES components were positively intercorrelated. The CASES

components are distinct but related and, like the FFM components, are no more wholly

independent than they are redundant. The correlation coefficients did not exceed the

value of .70, which indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem (Carmelli and

Freund, 2004; Nunnally, 1978).

The Complexity, Actualisation and Safety components of the CASES correlated

significantly with all five components of the RBPS as well as with Total RBPS. The Ego

component correlated significantly with only the Job and Organisation components of the

120
RBPS. The Social component correlated significantly with all of the RBPS components,

except for the Career component, and with Total RBPS.

121
 Job Career Innovator Team Organisation Total Actualisatio Social Complexit Safet
RBPS RBPS RBPS RBPS RBPS RBPS n y y
Career RBPS .62**
Innovator RBPS .63** .74**
Team RBPS .54** .53** .64**
Organisation RBPS .50** .46** .55** .70**
Total RBPS .80** .82** .87** .82** .79**
Actualisation .28** .19** .27** .36** .39** .36**
Social .11** .07 .14** .34** .37** .25** .59**
Complexity .40** .38** .45** .31** .34** .46** .51** .31**
Safety .32** .20** .24** .40** .37** .37** .49** .43** .34**
Ego -.08* -0.0 -.01 .07 .10* .01 .18** .23** .12** .12**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1 – tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1 – tailed).

Table 24: Correlations of the Components of CASES and RBPS

122
Using a stepwise regression analysis, the Job component of the RBPS was regressed on

the five components of CASES. The regression revealed that Complexity, Safety and Ego

were the only significant predictors of the Job component of the RBPS and had beta

values of .34, .22 and -.15 respectively (Table 25). The R-square value was .22.

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.755 .179 9.809 .000
Complex .499 .050 .397 10.057 .000
2 (Constant) 1.128 .215 5.234 .000
Complex .413 .052 .328 7.991 .000
Safety .249 .050 .205 4.994 .000
3 (Constant) 1.540 .238 6.470 .000
Complex .429 .051 .341 8.394 .000
Safety .264 .049 .217 5.350 .000
Ego -.169 .044 -.149 -3.862 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Perform2Job

Table 25: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on CASES

Using a stepwise regression analysis, the Career component of the RBPS was regressed

on the five components of CASES. The regression revealed that Complexity was the only

significant predictor of the Career component of the RBPS and had a beta value of .38

(Table 26). The R-square value was .15.

123
 Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.358 .201 6.765 .000
Complex .531 .056 .379 9.530 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Perform2Car

Table 26: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on

CASES

Using a stepwise regression analysis, the Innovator component of the RBPS was

regressed on the five components of CASES. The regression revealed that Complexity

and Safety were the only significant predictors of the Innovator component of the RBPS

and had beta values of .42 and .10 respectively (Table 27). The R-square value was .21.

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.239 .182 6.822 .000
Complex .589 .050 .449 11.686 .000
2 (Constant) .917 .222 4.125 .000
Complex .544 .053 .415 10.218 .000
Safety .127 .051 .101 2.481 .013
a. Dependent Variable: Perform2In

Table 27: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on

CASES

124
Using a stepwise regression analysis, the Team component of the RBPS was regressed on

the five components of CASES. The regression revealed that Safety, Complexity and

Social were the only significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS and had

beta values of .26 and .17 and .17 respectively (Table 28). The R-square value was .22.

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.908 .172 11.086 .000
Safety .449 .045 .393 9.958 .000
2 (Constant) 1.351 .203 6.657 .000
Safety .371 .047 .325 7.912 .000
Complex .240 .049 .202 4.929 .000
3 (Constant) 1.010 .217 4.654 .000
Safety .298 .050 .261 6.020 .000
Complex .202 .049 .170 4.127 .000
Social .196 .048 .174 4.053 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Perform2Tm

Table 28: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of RBPS on

CASES

Using a stepwise regression analysis, the Organisation component of the RBPS was

regressed on the five components of CASES. The regression revealed that Actualisation,

Safety, Complexity and Social were the only significant predictors of the Organisation

component of the RBPS and had beta values of .12, .19, .17 and .17 respectively (Table

29). The R-square value was .23.

125
 Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.262 .238 5.314 .000
Actualise .553 .056 .391 9.880 .000
2 (Constant) .767 .250 3.067 .002
Actualise .389 .063 .274 6.183 .000
Safety .315 .060 .235 5.296 .000
3 (Constant) .493 .258 1.911 .057
Actualise .281 .069 .199 4.101 .000
Safety .291 .059 .217 4.908 .000
Complex .230 .062 .166 3.704 .000
4 (Constant) .293 .262 1.120 .263
Actualise .164 .076 .116 2.161 .031
Safety .250 .060 .186 4.180 .000
Complex .233 .062 .167 3.782 .000
Social .220 .063 .166 3.495 .001
a. Dependent Variable: Perform2Org

Table 29: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on

CASES

Using a stepwise regression analysis, Total RBPS was regressed on the five components

of CASES. The regression revealed that Complexity and Safety were the only significant

predictors of Total RBPS and had beta values of .38 and .24 respectively (Table 30). The

R-square value was .26.

126
 a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.709 .147 11.587 .000
Complex .493 .041 .459 12.032 .000
2 (Constant) 1.084 .176 6.171 .000
Complex .406 .042 .378 9.644 .000
Safety .247 .041 .239 6.098 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Perform2Total

Table 30: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on CASES

Complexity was the best predictor of the Job component, the Career component, the

Innovator component, and Total RBPS. Actualisation and Safety were the best predictors

of the Organisation component and Team component of the RBPS respectively. Safety

was also a significant predictor of the Job component, the Innovator component, the

Organisation component, and Total RBPS. Ego was a significant predictor for only the

Job component of the RBPS. Social was a significant predictor for the Team and

Organisation components of the RBPS. The R-square values ranged from .15 to .26.

Furthermore, each component of the RBPS as well as Total RBPS had a significant

proportion of variance explained by the CASES components. Hence, the second

hypothesis, which states that the CASES model will predict a significant proportion of

variance in performance ratings, is supported.

127
4.3.3. FFM and CASES predicting performance

H3: The CASES and FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique

variance when used concurrently to predict performance.

4.3.3.1. FFM and CASES predicting the Job Component of the RBPS

Using a stepwise regression analysis, the Job component of the RBPS was regressed on

the five components of the FFM and the five components of the CASES. The regression

revealed that Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Complexity, Safety, and Social were the

only significant predictors.

Conscientiousness explained 16.9% followed by Neuroticism with 5.8%. These two

factors were from the FFM. The factors of Complexity, Safety and Social, from the

CASES, accounted for 4.2% of the variance of the Job component of the RBPS. From

Table 31, the beta values are: Conscientiousness .22, Neuroticism -.20, Complexity .20,

Safety .15, and Social -.11.

128
 a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.537 .192 8.010 .000
Conscientous .539 .051 .411 10.502 .000
2 (Constant) 2.390 .229 10.445 .000
Conscientous .469 .051 .358 9.238 .000
Neurotic -.259 .041 -.246 -6.353 .000
3 (Constant) 1.969 .248 7.946 .000
Conscientous .333 .060 .254 5.545 .000
Neurotic -.228 .041 -.217 -5.578 .000
Complex .241 .058 .191 4.113 .000
4 (Constant) 1.715 .264 6.486 .000
Conscientous .263 .065 .200 4.026 .000
Neurotic -.221 .041 -.210 -5.428 .000
Complex .233 .058 .185 4.002 .000
Safety .139 .052 .114 2.648 .008
5 (Constant) 1.881 .271 6.947 .000
Conscientous .287 .066 .219 4.374 .000
Neurotic -.211 .041 -.200 -5.176 .000
Complex .251 .058 .199 4.297 .000
Safety .180 .055 .148 3.302 .001
Social -.131 .051 -.109 -2.581 .010
a. Dependent Variable: Perform2Job

Table 31: Coefficients of the Regression of the Job Component of RBPS on FFM
and CASES

4.3.3.2. FFM and CASES Predicting the Career Component of the RBPS

Using a stepwise regression analysis, the Career component of the RBPS was regressed

on the five components of the FFM and the five components of the CASES. The

regression revealed that Complexity and Neuroticism were the only significant

predictors.

129
The Complexity component from the CASES model, explained 14.4% followed by

Neuroticism from the FFM, which explained 2.4% of the variance. From Table 32, the

beta value of the Complexity was .34 and for Neuroticism it was -.16.

Coefficients a

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.358 .201 6.765 .000
Complex .531 .056 .379 9.530 .000
2 (Constant) 2.017 .258 7.827 .000
Complex .469 .057 .335 8.208 .000
Neurotic -.191 .048 -.163 -3.996 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Perform2Car

Table 32: Coefficients of the Regression of the Career Component of RBPS on the
FFM and CASES

4.3.3.3. FFM and CASES Predicting the Innovator Component of RBPS

Using a stepwise regression analysis, the Innovator component of the RBPS was

regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES. The

regression revealed that Complexity, Neuroticism and Safety were the only significant

predictors.

The Complexity component explained 20.1% followed by Neuroticism (2.7%) and Safety

accounted for 0.6% of the variance in the Innovator component of the RBPS. Complexity

and Safety were from the CASES while Neuroticism was from the FFM. From Table 33,

the beta values are: Complexity .38, Neuroticism -.16, and Social .09.

130
 a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant 1.239 .182 6.822 .000
Complex .589 .050 .449 11.686 .000
2 (Constant 1.876 .232 8.070 .000
Complex .529 .052 .403 10.258 .000
Neurotic -.185 .043 -.168 -4.287 .000
3 (Constant 1.573 .272 5.793 .000
Complex .493 .054 .376 9.142 .000
Neurotic -.177 .043 -.161 -4.093 .000
Safety .109 .051 .086 2.141 .033
a. Dependent Variable: Perform2In

Table 33: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS on

FFM and CASES

4.3.3.4. FFM and CASES Predicting the Team Component of the RBPS

Using a stepwise regression analysis, the Team component of the RBPS was regressed on

the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES. The regression

revealed that Safety, Complexity, Social and Neuroticism were the only significant

predictors.

The Safety component explained 15.5% followed by Complexity (3.6%), Social (2.3%),

and Neuroticism accounted for 1.3% of the variance in the Team component of the

RBPS. Safety, Complexity and Social factors were from CASES while Neuroticism

factor was from the FFM. From Table 34, the beta values are: Safety .25, Complexity

.14, Social .19, and Neuroticism -.12.

131
 Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.908 .172 11.086 .000
Safety .449 .045 .393 9.958 .000
2 (Constant) 1.351 .203 6.657 .000
Safety .371 .047 .325 7.912 .000
Complex .240 .049 .202 4.929 .000
3 (Constant) 1.010 .217 4.654 .000
Safety .298 .050 .261 6.020 .000
Complex .202 .049 .170 4.127 .000
Social .196 .048 .174 4.053 .000
4 (Constant) 1.425 .256 5.567 .000
Safety .281 .050 .246 5.674 .000
Complex .165 .050 .139 3.301 .001
Social .210 .048 .186 4.339 .000
Neurotic -.118 .039 -.119 -3.002 .003
a. Dependent Variable: Perform2Tm

Table 34: Coefficients of the Regression of the Team Component of the RBPS on
FFM and CASES

4.3.3.5. FFM and CASES Predicting the Organisation Component of the RBPS

Using a stepwise regression analysis, the Organisation component of the RBPS was

regressed on the five components of the FFM and the five components of CASES. The

regression revealed that Actualisation, Safety, Complexity and Social were the only

significant predictors.

Actualisation explained 15.3%, followed by Safety (4.1%), Complexity (2.0%), and

Social (1.8%). All of these components were from the CASES; none of the FFM

components were significant. From Table 35, the beta values are: Actualisation .12,

Safety .19, Complexity .17, and Social .17.

132
 Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.262 .238 5.314 .000
Actualise .553 .056 .391 9.880 .000
2 (Constant) .767 .250 3.067 .002
Actualise .389 .063 .274 6.183 .000
Safety .315 .060 .235 5.296 .000
3 (Constant) .493 .258 1.911 .057
Actualise .281 .069 .199 4.101 .000
Safety .291 .059 .217 4.908 .000
Complex .230 .062 .166 3.704 .000
4 (Constant) .293 .262 1.120 .263
Actualise .164 .076 .116 2.161 .031
Safety .250 .060 .186 4.180 .000
Complex .233 .062 .167 3.782 .000
Social .220 .063 .166 3.495 .001
a. Dependent Variable: Perform2Org

Table 35: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS on

FFM and CASES

4.3.3.6. FFM and CASES Predicting Total RBPS Performance

Using a stepwise regression analysis, Total RBPS was regressed on the five components

of the FFM and the five components of CASES. The regression revealed that

Complexity, Safety, Neuroticism and Conscientiousness were the only significant

predictors.

Complexity explained 21.1% followed by Safety (5.1%), Neuroticism (2.3%), and

Conscientiousness (0.9%). Complexity and Safety were from the CASES and

Neuroticism and Conscientiousness were from the FFM. From Table 36, the beta values

are: Complexity .28, Safety .18, Neuroticism -.15, and Conscientiousness .13.

133
 Coefficients a

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.709 .147 11.587 .000
Complex .493 .041 .459 12.032 .000
2 (Constant) 1.084 .176 6.171 .000
Complex .406 .042 .378 9.644 .000
Safety .247 .041 .239 6.098 .000
3 (Constant) 1.613 .214 7.522 .000
Complex .365 .043 .340 8.562 .000
Safety .232 .040 .225 5.791 .000
Neurotic -.142 .034 -.159 -4.176 .000
4 (Constant) 1.472 .220 6.692 .000
Complex .304 .048 .283 6.271 .000
Safety .186 .044 .180 4.271 .000
Neurotic -.138 .034 -.154 -4.081 .000
Conscientous .141 .054 .126 2.598 .010
a. Dependent Variable: Perform2Total

Table 36: Coefficients of the Regression of Total RBPS on FFM and CASES

The Complexity component of the CASES was revealed to be the best predictor of the

Career component, the Innovator component, and Total RBPS. Complexity was also a

significant predictor of the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS.

Actualisation component of the CASES was the best predictor of the Organisation

component of the RBPS. Safety component of the CASES was the best predictor of the

Team component of the RBPS. Safety was also a significant predictor of all five

components of the RBPS, except for the Career component, and Total RBPS. Social

component of the CASES was a significant predictor of the Job, Team and Organisation

components of the RBPS.

134
Conscientiousness component of the FFM was the best predictor of the Job component

and a significant predictor of Total RBPS. Neuroticism component of the FFM was a

significant predictor of all the RBPS components, except for the Organisation

component, and Total RBPS.

Each component of the RBPS as well as Total RBPS had a significant proportion of

variance explained by at least one of the components from the CASES and/or the FFM.

The R-square values ranged from .17 to .29. Hence, the third hypothesis, which states

that the CASES and FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique

variance when used concurrently to predict performance, is supported.

4.4. CONCLUSION

The principal components analysis of the FFM yielded a five-component measure that

accounted for 47.4% of the variance in the FFM items. The Openness and

Conscientiousness components each have five items while the Extraversion,

Agreeableness and Neuroticism components each have four items. The original sub-

scales had ten items each. The Cronbach’s alphas for the FFM components range from

.57 to .73. The five factors are all intercorrelated significantly at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

The principal components analysis of the CASES yielded a five-component measure that

accounted for 57.0% of the variance. Each of the components (i.e., Complexity,

Actualisation, Safety, Ego and Social) has 4 items. The original sub-scales had ten items

135
each. The Cronbach’s alphas for the CASES components ranged from .48 to .81. All five

CASES components were intercorrelated significantly at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

The principal components analysis of the RBPS yielded a five-component measure that

accounted for 80.0% of the variance. All of the components retained their original 4-

items except for the Organisation component, for which one item was removed. The

Cronbach’s alphas for these components ranged from .89 to .93.

From the stepwise regression, Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM were

significant predictors of the Job, Career, and Innovator components of the RBPS.

Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Neuroticism were significant predictors of the

Team component and Total RBPS. Conscientiousness and Agreeableness were

significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS. The R-square values

ranged from .12 to .23. Each component of the RBPS had a significant proportion of its

variance explained by the FFM components. Hence, the first hypothesis, which states that

the FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings, is

supported.

From the stepwise regression, Complexity, Safety and Ego were significant predictors of

the Job component of the RBPS. Complexity was the only significant predictor of the

Career component of the RBPS. Complexity and Safety were significant predictors of the

Innovator component and Total RBPS. Safety, Complexity and Social were significant

predictors of the Team component of the RBPS. Actualisation, Safety, Complexity and

Social were significant predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS. The R-

136
square values ranged from .14 to .26. Each component of the RBPS had a significant

proportion of its variance explained by the CASES components. Hence, the second

hypothesis, which states that the CASES will predict a significant proportion of variance

in performance ratings, is supported.

From the stepwise regression, Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM and

Complexity, Safety and Social of the CASES were significant predictors of the Job

component of the RBPS. Complexity of the CASES and Neuroticism of the FFM were

significant predictors of the Career component of the RBPS. Complexity and Safety of

the CASES and Neuroticism of the FFM were significant predictors of the Innovator

component of the RBPS. Safety, Complexity and Social of the CASES and Neuroticism

of the FFM were significant predictors of the Team component of the RBPS.

Actualisation, Safety, Complexity and Social of the CASES were significant predictors

of the Organisation component of the RBPS. Complexity and Safety of the CASES and

Neuroticism and Conscientiousness of the FFM were significant predictors of Total

RBPS. The R-square values ranged from .17 to .29. Each component of the RBPS, except

for the Organisation component which was significantly predicted only by components of

CASES, had a significant proportion of its variance explained by both the CASES and

the FFM components. Hence, the third hypothesis, which states that the CASES and

FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings, is

essentially supported.

137
5.0. CHAPTER FIVE – CONCLUSIONS AND
IMPLICATIONS

5.1. INTRODUCTION

This final Chapter contains a discussion of the main findings from the study as well as a

discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of the study, the limitations of the

study, and suggestions for future research, and finally a conclusion.

5.2. DISCUSSION OF THE MAIN FINDINGS

5.2.1. Main Findings for Research Question One

Research Question One: Does the FFM model of personality predict work performance?

The first research question was addressed by the first hypothesis:

H1: The FFM will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance ratings.

The original 50-item FFM measure (Goldberg, 1999) was analysed using principal

components analysis, which revealed a five-component solution consisting of Openness

138
(5 items), Conscientiousness (5 items), Extraversion (four items), Agreeableness (four

items) and Neuroticism (four items). All of these components were intercorrelated as

revealed in past research which showed that they were distinct but related factors (Judge

et al., 1997).

The value of the correlation coefficient that can be considered to indicate a useful

predictor has been debated over the years. A value of 0.20 was considered by Cohen

(1988) as meaningful but Schmitt et al. (1984) argued that a correlation of 0.20 was too

low to accept personality as a predictor of work performance. Barrick and Mount (1991)

also argued that coefficients below .30 were questionable. For this research, a correlation

coefficient of 0.30 or greater was therefore considered as indicating a valid predictor of

performance.

Openness (e.g., artistically sensitive, imaginative and intellectual) was found to be

negatively correlated to only the Team component of the RBPS with r = -.09. In view of

the cut-off value of 0.30, this factor was considered as an inadequate predictor of any of

the RBPS components or of Total RBPS. The results of the stepwise regression analyses

also did not reveal Openness as a significant predictor of any of the RBPS components.

This finding corroborates the finding of Hogan and Holland (2003).

Of the five FFM components, Conscientiousness (e.g., dependable, responsible,

achievement oriented and persistent) had the highest correlations with all of the RBPS

components and Total RBPS. This finding is not surprising given that conscientious

individuals are organised, purposeful, achievement oriented, hardworking, responsible,

139
dependable, and persistent (Barrick et al., 1993). Conscientiousness has been shown to be

a significant predictor of all job-related criteria, in all occupational groups, that have been

examined (e.g., Barrick and Mount 1993; Crant 1995; Salgado 1997; Hurtz and Donovan

2000; and Sanders 2003).

Conscientious individuals perform better because they set goals which help them to direct

their effort and achieve challenging goals over a long period of time. Hence, these results

demonstrated that being dependable, persistent, achievement-oriented and responsible

(i.e., high in Conscientiousness) were positively associated with work-related

performance. Furthermore, the Conscientiousness component also predicted Total RBPS

better than contextual work performance (i.e., the Team and Organisation components of

the RBPS). This finding is consistent with the results of Avis et al. (2002) who posited

that the FFM dimensions were better at predicting overall performance measures than

those with contextual aspects.

From the stepwise regression analysis, Conscientiousness was found to be the best

predictor of the components of the RBPS and of Total RBPS. From a theoretical

perspective, the Conscientiousness construct does seem to be logically related to work

performance. It makes sense that individuals who have tendencies to be careful,

dependable, hard working and thorough will perform better than those who do not have

such tendencies.

Extraversion (e.g., talkative, assertive and sociable) was found to be negatively correlated

(r = -.09) with the Career component of the RBPS. Such low values of the correlation

140
coefficient, even though it is significant at the 0.05 level, are often disregarded (Barrick

et al. 1993). The stepwise regressions revealed that Extraversion as a non-significant

predictor of performance. In line with the findings of the current study, Hogan and

Holland (2003) reported that Extraversion was a poor predictor of performance and

claimed that this was due to the Extraversion being too broad a construct.

Agreeableness was a significant predictor of all the RBPS components and of Total

RBPS. Using a 0.30 cut-off value for the correlation coefficient, Agreeableness was only

a valid predictor of the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS, and of Total

RBPS. Salgado (1997) revealed that Agreeableness was a valid predictor of work

performance for skilled labourers, professionals, and managers. Employees in these types

of jobs who were courteous, soft-hearted, trusting, cooperative and forgiving (which were

facets of Agreeableness) might be more cooperative and compliant and therefore would

perform better in highly structured organisations where there was little ambiguity in their

jobs (Barrick and Mount, 1993). Since the majority of the respondents (404 or 74.2%)

were from the managerial positions in highly structured jobs, the finding from this study

also supported that Agreeableness was a valid predictor of certain aspects of work

performance for skilled, professional and managerial staff. Hence, Agreeableness can be

a predictor of certain components of job performance for managerial staff in highly

structured jobs.

Neuroticism was correlated significantly with the Job component of the RBPS and with

Total RBPS. In the stepwise regression analyses, Neuroticism was a predictor of the Job

component, the Career component, the Innovator component, the Team component, and

141
Total RBPS. Neuroticism encompasses traits such as excessive worry, low confidence,

tendencies to experience negative emotions and pessimism. Due to their tendency to

construe their experiences in a negative light, individuals with high neuroticism would be

likely to develop negative attitudes towards their work hence resulting in poor

performance as they devote less time in their jobs (Bozionelos, 2004a). Furthermore,

employees who are resilient, calm and self-confident (i.e., low Neuroticism) tend to be

evaluated more positively than those who are panicky. These findings supported

Salgado’s (2003) argument that emotional stability (i.e., the antithesis of Neuroticism)

has generalised validity across occupation, criteria, organisations and countries.

The emergence of Conscientiousness and Neuroticism as predictors of performance was

not surprising as these two Big Five traits have consistently been found to be the most

relevant predictors of work performance (Judge and Ilies, 2002; Barrick and Mount,

1993). In the final analysis, the five components of RBPS have components of “getting

along and getting ahead”. Task performance corresponds to getting ahead while

contextual performance corresponds to getting along. If performance criteria are

classified as getting ahead and getting along, then conscientiousness, agreeableness and

neuroticism should predict performance (Hogan and Holland, 2003). Furthermore, Hurtz

and Donovan (2000) postulated that Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Neuroticism

could be considered as valid predictors of work performance in an absolute sense if 0.30

was adopted as the standard. This finding was partially reinforced in this study. Hence,

Hypothesis One, which states that the FFM will predict a significant of variance of

performance ratings, was supported.

142
5.2.2. Main Findings for Research Question Two

Research Question Two: Does the CASES model of personality predict work

performance?

The second research question was addressed by the second hypothesis:

H2: The CASES model will predict a significant proportion of variance in performance

ratings.

The current study has provided a theoretical argument for the development of a

personality measure based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the social cognitive

theory of “If-Then”. The new personality measure (i.e., CASES) comprised five

components (i.e., Complexity, Actualisation, Safety, Ego and Social), which were

correlated positively to each other but to an extent that they could be considered as

distinct but related components.

The Complexity component (e.g., self-regulation or low impulsivity and volition)

correlated with all of the components of the RBPS with coefficients ranging from .31 to

.45 and had the highest correlation with Total RBPS (r = .46). Complexity correlated

with the Job component of the RBPS as the facets of volition and self-regulation in

Complexity were related with the facets of customer services in the Job component

which required tactful interventions. Complexity correlated with the Career component

of the RBPS as self-regulation and volition would enhance the attainment of career

143
opportunities and the advancement of one’s career. Complexity correlated with the

Innovator component of the RBPS as low impulsivity would enable the creation of ideas

and improvements to how one does one’s work. Complexity correlated with the Team

component of the RBPS as facets of persevering and conforming in volition would

ensure harmonious team formation and group success. Complexity correlated with the

Organisation component of the RBPS arguably because self-regulation and volition

would promote the virtues of the organisation. Complexity had the highest correlation

with Total RBPS arguably because high levels of Complexity enable one to control one’s

motivation, action and thought. In support of this argument is the finding that high

performers perceive events are determined by themselves while low performers perceive

events as controlled by chance (Bandura, 1977a).

The Actualisation component (e.g., passion, self-esteem and needs for achievement,

growth and progress) was correlated with all of the RBPS components and with Total

RBPS. Using a cut-off value of 0.30 for the correlation coefficient, Actualisation cannot

be considered a valid predictor for the Job component, the Career component, or the

Innovator component of the RBPS.

Actualisation correlated with the Team component of the RBPS, which includes aspects

of performance such as ensuring group success and seeking and responding to group’s

needs, all of which are arguably related to the need for growth. Actualisation correlated

with the Organisation component of the RBPS, which includes doing things outside one’s

job scope for the betterment of the company. This aspect of performance can be linked to

passion, self-esteem and the need for progress. Actualisation was also correlated with

144
Total RBPS, which included facets of passion, the need for growth, achievement, and

progress. This finding reaffirmed Arnold’s (1988) claim that Actualisation is a predictor

of job performance. From a theoretical perspective, the Actualisation construct does seem

to be logically related to organisational citizenship and total performance. It is reasonable

that individuals with tendencies to be achievement-oriented, passionate and creative

would perform better than those who do not have these tendencies. At this level, the drive

is to achieve a sense of fulfilment in balancing one’s work and life responsibilities (Stum,

2001).

The stepwise regression analyses revealed that Actualisation was the best and only

predictor of the Organisation component of the RBPS. The reason could be the age of the

respondents (average age was 34.6 years), such that the respondents were perhaps too

young to be highly motivated to realise their full potential.

The Safety component of CASES (e.g., security, systematic, orderly and structured)

correlated with all of the components of the RBPS and with Total RBPS. Using a cut-off

value of .30, the Safety component is correlated with the Job, Team, and Organisation

components of the RBPS and with Total RBPS. Safety correlated with the Job

component of the RBPS arguably because orderly and structured facets are antecedents

of high quality and high quantity. Safety correlated with the Team component of the

RBPS arguably because the facets of the Safety component would provide a sense of

security to achieve success. Safety was correlated to the Organisation component of the

RBPS arguably because the existence of a good system and structure in the company

would provide a good environment to promote the company. Safety correlated with Total

145
RBPS arguable because its facets of orderly, structured and systematic are antecedents of

productivity (Cook et al., 2000). In the stepwise regression analyses, Safety was found to

be a significant predictor of the Job, Innovator, Team and Organisation components of

the RBPS, and Total RBPS.

The Ego component of CASES did not correlate significantly with any of the RBPS

components or with Total RBPS arguably because its facets of good living and

celebrating in style are not relevant to work performance. The stepwise regression

analyses also revealed that Ego was a significant, but negatively related, predictor of the

Job component of the RBPS. This finding indicates that the Ego component is

detrimental to facets of performance (e.g., quality and quantity of work) that constitute

the job component of the RBPS.

The Social component of CASES (e.g., needs for love, affiliation, companionship and

care) correlated significantly with all of the components of the RBPS, except for the

Innovator component, and with Total RBPS. Using the 0.30 cut-off value, Social

correlated only with the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS; these

components of performance are related to facets of teamwork and organisational

citizenship. The stepwise regression analyses also revealed that Social was a significant

predictor of the Team and Organisation components of the RBPS.

Based on the preceding discussion of the main findings, the CASES model, with the

exception of the Ego component, is a useful predictor of the various components of the

146
RBPS and Total RBPS. Hypothesis Two, which states that CASES will predict a

significant proportion of variance in performance ratings, was therefore supported.

5.2.3. Main Findings for Research Question Three

Research Question Three: Do the two models of personality contribute uniquely to the

prediction of work performance?

The third research question was addressed by the third hypothesis:

H3: The CASES and FFM models will each explain a significant proportion of unique

variance when used concurrently to predict performance.

The stepwise regression showed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism, both of which

are components of the FFM, were better predictors of the Job component of the RBPS as

compared with the Complexity, Safety and Social components of CASES. This finding is

consistent with the findings of Barrick and Mount (1993) and Judge and Ilies (2002) that

Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were valid predictors of all categories of work

performance.

The stepwise regression revealed that the Complexity component of the CASES was a

better predictor of the Career component of the RBPS than Neuroticism. a component of

the FFM. This finding might be due to the fact that the Complexity component has facets

which included volition (i.e., to conform and persevere) whereas the Neuroticism

147
component comprises facets such as fear and low confidence regarding career progress

and development.

The stepwise regression showed that for the Innovator component of the RBPS,

Complexity was the best predictor followed by Neuroticism and Safety. The Innovator

component addresses behaviors such as finding new ways to do one’s work and requires

risk taking and confidence, both of which are aspects of Complexity.

The stepwise regression revealed that the Safety, Complexity, and Social components of

the CASES and the Neuroticism component of the FFM were predictors of the Team

component of the RBPS. Safety was the best predictor due probably to the fact that

Safety includes aspects (e.g. protection, structured, and orderly) that enhance facets of

teamwork such as seeking information from others and working with others.

The stepwise regression revealed that the Actualisation, Safety, Complexity, and Social

components of CASES were predictors of the Organisation component of the RBPS.

Actualisation was the best predictor. This was probably due to the fact that Actualisation

includes facets (e.g. passion and realisation of one’s potential) that facilitate

organisational citizenship, which is the essence of the Organisation component of the

RBPS.

The stepwise regression revealed that the Complexity and Safety components of CASES

and the Neuroticism and Conscientiousness components of the FFM were predictors of

Total RBPS. Complexity was the best predictor followed by Safety, Neuroticism and

Conscientiousness. Complexity includes self-regulation and volition and not surprisingly

148
was a better predictor than Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. These results provide

evidence that there are specific aspects of personality that predict work-related

performance over and above that provided by the FFM (Salgado, 1997; Sackett et al.,

1998; Kieffer et al., 2004).

Based on the preceding discussion of the main findings, the various components of the

CASES and the FFM are significant predictors of the various components of the RBPS

and Total RBPS. Hypothesis Three, which states that the CASES and FFM models will

each explain a significant proportion of unique variance when used concurrently to

predict performance, was therefore supported.

5.3. IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

5.3.1. Implications on Professional Practice

From the classical perspective, examining the link between personality and work

performance appears to have profound implications for organisations, individuals and

human resources consultants. If researchers are able to affirm that certain personality

traits are related significantly to work performance, then people can learn how to modify

their personality to improve their work performance and organisations can benefit by

recruiting individuals with personality profiles that may render them as preferred

employees. From this point of view, the proposed CASES model, which is based on

149
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the social cognitive theory of “If-Then”, has important

practical implications.

The knowledge that personality can influence or even be a determinant of work

performance is valuable to recruiting agencies, organisations and individuals. The

CASES model provides a means for individuals to assess their personality so as to

develop appropriate strategies to improve their performance and hence their vocational

endeavors (Lau and Shaffer, 1999). For organisations, the CASES model is another

useful tool for human resource personnel with respect to designing effective job

specifications or roles, and formulating effective human resources strategies in training,

recruiting and promoting personnel. The CASES model may also be useful for

recruitment consultants in that it may help them to identify effective employees, based on

personality traits, for their client organisations.

The results indicate that the CASES model of personality maybe a useful addition to the

array of personality or individual difference measures that are used to predict various

facets of work performance. Although the research methodology and design did not

permit statements of causality, the CASES model did account for significant variance in

work performance over and above that accounted for by the FFM, which is a well-

established model of personality.

150
5.3.2. Implications on Theory

The first Chapter provided an outline of this study in the context of motivation, behavior,

personality, and psychometric measures. In recent years, there has been a proliferation of

psychometric instruments that have been used as part of organisational development and

recruitment processes. These instruments have predominantly been developed in the

Western countries and the question arises as to the generalisability of these instruments to

Asian countries, such as Malaysia, where English is a second language. Moreover, many

personality measures are based on single theories and therefore their usefulness for

predicting performance in actual workplace settings needs to be examined. Two research

problems were therefore identified and these guided the current research.

There is a lot of debate on whether the role of a person on work performance is sculptor

or sculpture. The need for achievement is also dependent on the fit between

environmental factors and personality. Hence, it is not surprising other factors such as

ability, values, cognition and satisfaction are correlated with work performance. The

level of job complexity may have a role in whether an interaction occurs between

personality and ability when predicting work performance. Furthermore, personality

interacts with cognitive ability and appears to influence work performance (Lowery,

Beadles II and Krilowicz, 2004)

151
Similarly, the CASES model suggests that certain personality factors or traits have a

greater effect on work performance because people can, consciously or unconsciously,

modify their behavior to improve their work performance.

5.4. LIMITATIONS

The study was a cross-sectional sample of some commercial organisations of various

sizes in Malaysia which did not allow an assessment of causality. A subsequent study

designed to assess personality and work performance over time (longitudinally) using a

random sample of the population (i.e., small or medium or large organisations, public or

private) would increase confidence in its validity and generalisability. Furthermore, a

convenience sample was used, which brings into question the representativeness of the

sample and therefore the generalisability of the findings.

The predictors and the criteria used in the current study were obtained from self-report

data using a single questionnaire. Common method variance and mono-source bias are

potential limitations of the current study as they may produce spurious relationships.

Given the relatively small correlation coefficients obtained in this study (minimum r =

.11; maximum r = .46), it seems reasonable to conclude that the measures of personality

and work performance were assessing separate constructs (Barrick et al., 2002).

Self-ratings are influenced by social desirability such that responses tend to be skewed

toward the favourable end of the Likert scale for each item. This creates range restriction,

which reduces the correlation between items. However, there is no way of estimating

152
what the variance of the ratings ought to be. Hence, it is not possible to adjust the

correlations for the effects of a restricted range.

5.5. FUTURE RESEARCH

The personality measures of the FFM and the CASES and the RBPS performance

measure were self-reports. The circumstances of the respondents’ participation did not

give any incentive to give inaccurate responses. It would be difficult to fathom how the

relative validities of the FFM, CASES and RBPS would have differed if incentives were

provided. For the sake of understanding the impact of personality on work performance,

it would be interesting to explore these relationships using alternative measurements as

certain studies had presented evidence that customer, supervisor or co-worker ratings had

equivalent or higher levels of criterion-related validity in comparison with employees’

self-reports. In regards to instrumentation, possible modifications as well as further

validation of the CASES, FFM and the RBPS is recommended. This study was the first

time these measures have been used together in Malaysia. Hence, further instrument

refinement is recommended.

Another impetus for further research is the length of the CASES measure as this

personality measure has only 20 items. Consequently, due to its brevity, organisations

may be willing to include the CASES measure in surveys as a preliminary screening for

potential employees.

153
Questions about the generalisability of these findings and external validity issues can be

addressed through replications of this study. Systematic replication integrating a variety

of individuals representing various ages, income and educational backgrounds are needed

to address concerns about the generalisability of the findings obtained in the current

study. Future research can also be conducted to ascertain whether the results reported in

this study are generalisable to different jobs (e.g., skilled or semi-skilled, sales,

management or clerical), organisational settings (public, non-governmental or non-profit

organisations) and cultures.

From a more philosophical angle, validity is a long-term process for any research. Given

that the research on the CASES measure is an initial effort, it should by all means be

subjected to replication in various contexts with various work performance measures.

The cross-validation of the CASES with other determinants of work performance such as

ability, job complexity, self-efficacy, goal-setting motivation, job satisfaction and other

proximal motivation models that include interaction effects should also be encouraged to

further enhance the validation of this personality measure.

5.6. CONCLUSION

The main objective of the current study was to examine the research question as to

whether personality can predict work performance using the FFM and CASES models of

personality. Face validity is always a problem in personality measure. Although face

validity may be defined as a “test which looks good for a particular purpose” (Hogan,

154
Hogan and Roberts, 1996, p. 474), many seemingly appropriate personality tests fail to

predict work performance. Personality measures often have empirical validity but

commonly are weak on face validity. If one is to choose between a test with empirical

validity but no appeal to the layman and a test with face validity with no empirical

validity, one should choose the former. Face validity would enhance the users’

acceptance of a test method and is definitely desirable but if such a face-valid measure

does not predict non-test behavior, it is of no use for decision making.

Employee performance is basically determined by three things; ability, motivation, and

the work environment (Wiley, 1997). The categorisation of work performance

dimensions based on the RBPS could be criticised on the same grounds that were used to

justify the use of the FFM. That is, there are other dimensions of work performance (e.g.,

job-related learning and knowledge sharing) that are not included in the RBPS.

Furthermore, to understand the impact of personality on work performance, it would be

appropriate to explore this relationship using third-party sources (e.g., co-workers,

supervisors, or customers) for information on work performance and personality rather

than to rely exclusively on self-report data.

While personality-based theories may not necessarily predict behavior or motivation,

they can provide a basic understanding of what actually energises or motivates

individuals. The strength of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory is its ability to identify

those needs which motivate behavior (Wiley, 1997). Because needs are met at different

stages, each individual moves through Maslow’s hierarchy at a different rate.

Furthermore, changes in one’s life can affect the sequence of meeting these needs. A

155
promotion may meet the self-actualisation level for an individual but meeting new people

and learning new routines may cause the individual to try to fulfil safety and social needs.

With this jockeying to satisfy these needs, the individual must balance life and work

responsibilities to ultimately achieve a sense of fulfilment. The traditional personality

perspectives are hampered by the mechanistic models which posited that people possess

dispositions or traits which lead them to behave consistently under changing

circumstances. In reality, people are not simply reactors to stimuli in their environment in

that they can also organise, select and transform stimuli.

A comment on the usefulness of research on personality and work performance should

also be made. Besides their indisputable academic importance, studies that have

examined the relationship between personality and work performance can be utilised for

recruitment, personal development and career advice. If researchers are able to classify

jobs by occupation and then consider the performance criteria and the personality

dimensional requirements relevant to that occupation, then the predictive relationship

between work performance and personality will improve (Hogan, Hogan and Roberts,

1996).

Although personality is significantly inherited and stable in adulthood, it would be

beneficial to individuals to be aware of the limitations and advantages associated with

their personality profiles. Hence, for example, neurotic individuals may learn to adjust

their negative outlook of life for better personal success and agreeable individuals can

recognise their natural tendency to downgrade and compromise their personal interests.

156
The study has contributed to the literature on personality by providing a new personality

measure, CASES. Moreover, the CASES model of personality is relatively unique as it is

a two-theory model as compared with many one-theory based personality measures that

appear to be able to explain the multivariate phenomenon of behavior in a

multidimensional manner, both situationally and contextually (Wheeler, Hunton and

Bryant, 2004a; Tett and Burnett, 2003).

The study also showed that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFM are valid

predictors for all jobs and criteria in the sample used in this study. Although the FFM is a

well established personality measure, some components of the CASES model were found

to be better predictors of the Career, Innovator, Team and Organisation components of

the RBPS, and Total RBPS as compared to the FFM which was a better predictor of only

the Job component of the RBPS. Hence, this personality measure, CASES, can be added

as a new contribution to the body of knowledge for personality measure especially in

relation to the prediction of work-related performance.

Although this is a preliminary study of the validity of the CASES model of personality,

the researcher believes that it has made a contribution to research on personality

measures and the prediction of work-related performance. In addition to providing a

theory-grounded measurement tool, CASES can be offered as a useful personality

measure for both practitioners and researchers. The researcher hopes that the combination

of supportive initial research results and high face validity will encourage use of and

research on the CASES model.

157
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

Alderfer, C. (1969). An empirical test of new theory of human needs. Organisational

Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 142-175.

Allik, J., and McCrae, R.R. (2004). Escapable Conclusions: Toomela (2003) and the
Universality of Trait Structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 261-
265.

Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.

Andersen, S.M., and Chen, S. (2002). The Relational Self: An Interpersonal Social-
Cognitive Theory. Psychological Review, 109(4), 619-645.

Arnold, V.D. (1988). Motivation: Turning Theory into Practice. Industrial Management,
30(1), 21-22.

Ashton, M.C., Lee, Kibeom, Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R.E., Di Blas, L., Boies,
K., and De Raad, B. (2004). A Six-Factor Structure of Personality-Descriptive
Adjectives: Solutions from Psycholexical Studies in Seven Languages. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 356-366.

Atkinson, J.W. (1958). Motives in Fantasy, Action and Society. Van Nostrand, Princeton,
NJ.

Avis, J.M., Kudisch, J.D., and Fortunato, V.J. (2002). Examining the incremental validity
and adverse impact of cognitive ability and conscientiousness on job performance.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(1), 87-105.

158
Baker, M.J. (2001). Selecting a Research Methodology. The Marketing Review, 1, 373-
397, (www.themarketingreview.com).

Bandura, A., (1977a), Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall, New York, NY.

Bandura, A., (1977b), “Self efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change”.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory. American Psychologist,

44(9), 1175-1184.

Bargh, J.A., and Ferguson, M.J. (2000). Beyond Behaviorism: On the Automaticity of
Higher Mental Processes. Psychological Bulletin, 126(6), 925-945.

Barrick, M.R., and Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job
Performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Barrick, M.R., and Mount, M.K. (1993). Autonomy as a Moderator of the Relationships
Between the Big Five Personality Dimensions with Job Performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78(1), 111-118.

Barrick, M.R., and Mount, M.K. (1996). Effects of Impression Management and Self-
Deception on the Predictive Validity of Personality Constructs. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81(3), 261-272.

Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., and Strauss, J.P. (1993). Conscientiousness and
Performance of Sales Representatives: Testing of the mediating effects of goal setting.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 715-722.

159
Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L., and Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and Job
Performance: Test of the Mediating Effects of Motivation Among Sales Representatives.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 43-51.

Bauer, J.J., and McAdams, D.P. (2004). Growth Goals, Maturity and Well-Being.
Development Psychology, 40(1), 114-127.

Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G.L., and van Heerden, J. (2004). The Concept of Validity.
Psychological Review, 111(4), 1061-1071.

Bouchard, T.J. Jr. (1994). Genes, Environment and Personality. American Association
for the Advancement of Science, 264(5166), 1700-1701.

Bozionelos, N. (2004a). The big five of personality and work involvement. Journal of
Management Psychology, 19(1), 69-81.

Bozionelos, N. (2004b). The relationship between disposition and career success: A

British study. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 77, 403-419.

Brody, N. (1997). Dispositional Paradigms: Comment on Eysenck (1997) and the

Biosocial Science of Individual Differences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73(6), 1242-1245.

Burch, G. St. J., and Anderson, N. (2004). Measurement person-team fit: development
and validation of the team selection inventory. Journal of Management Psychology,
19(4), 406-426.

Burke, L.A., and Witt, L.A. (2004). Personality and High-Maintenance Employee
Behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(3), 349-363.

160
Buss, A.H. (1989). Personality as Traits. American Psychologist, 44(11), 1378-1388.

Buttle, F. (1989). The Social Construction of Needs. Psychology and Marketing, 6(3),
197-210.

Campbell, D.J., and Lee, C. (1988). Self Appraisal in Performance Evaluation:

Development Versus Evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 13, 302-314.

Carmeli, A., and Freund, A. (2004). Work Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Job
Performance: An Empirical Investigation. International Journal of Organisation Theory
and Behavior, 7(3); 289-309.

Cattell, R.B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476-506.

Cavana, R.Y., Delahaye, B.L., and Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied Business Research:
Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. John Wiley & Sons.

Cellar, D.F., Miller, M.L., Doverspike, D.D., and Klawsky, J.D. (1996). Comparison of
Factor Structure and Criterion-Related Validity Coefficients for Two Measures of
Personality Based on the Five Factor Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 694-
704.

Cervone, D. (2000). Evolutionary Psychology and Explanation in Personality

Psychology. The American Behavioural Scientist, 43(6), 1001-1013.

Cervone, D. (2004). The Architecture of Personality. Psychological Review, 111(1), 183-

204.

161
Cesare, J.D., and Sadri, G. (2003). Do all carrots look the same? Examining the impact of
culture on employee motivation. Management Research News, 26(1), 29-40.

Chung, K.H. (1969). A Markov Chain Model of Human Needs: An Extension of

Maslow’s Need Theory. Academy of Management Journal, 12(2), 223-234.

Coan, R.W. (1987). Theoretical Orientation in Psychology and the Traditions of Freud,
Jung and Adler. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18(2), 134-139.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, A., Stotland, E., and Wolfe, D. (1995). An experimental investigation of need for
recognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 291-294.

Cook, M., Young, A., Taylor, D., and Bedford, A.P. (2000). Personality and Self-Rated
Work Performance. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16(3), 202-208.

Costa, P.T., and McCrae, R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa,
Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P.T., and McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R)
and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P.T., and McCrae, R.R. (1995). Solid ground in the wetlands: A reply to Block.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117, 216-220.

Coull, N., and Eary, J. (2001). Psychometric assessment under test. Training Journal, 18-
20.

162
Crant, J.M. (1995). The Proactive Personality Scale and Objective Job Performance
Among Real Estate Agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 532-537.

Day, D.A., and Silverman, S.R. (1989). Personality and job performance: Evidence of
incremental validity. Personnel Psychology, 42, 25-36.

DeGrandpre, R.J. (2000). The Science of Meaning: Can Behaviorism Bring Meaning to
Psychological Science? American Psychologist, 55(7), 721-739.

Dent, F., and Curd, J. (2004). Psychometric tests; an overview of an increasingly

complex world. Training Journal, 14-17.

De Raad, B. (1998). Five Big, Big Five Issues: Rationale, Content, Structure, Status, and
Crosscultural Assessment. European Psychologist, 3(2), 113-124.

Descouzis, D. (1989). Psychological types of tax preparers. Journal of Psychological

Type, 17, 36-38.

Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. In M.R.
Rosenweig & L.W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 417-440).
Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Digman, J.M., (1997). Higher-Order Factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73(6), 1246-1256.

Etzioni, A. (1975). Comparative analysis of complex organisations (enlarged.). New

York: Academic Press.

163
Fedor, D.B., and Ferris, G.R. (1981). Integrating OB Mod with Cognitive Approaches to
Motivation. The Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 115-125.

Fisher, C.D. (2003). Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance are
correlated? Possible sources of a commonsense theory. Journal of Organisational
Behavior, 24(6), 753-777.

Flynn, D., van Schaik, P., and van Wersch, A. (2004). A comparison of Multi-Item Likert
and Visual Analogue Scales for the Assessment of Transactionally Defined Coping
Function. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20(1), 49-58.

Fletcher, C. (1993). Testing times for the world of psychometrics. Personnel

Management, 25(12), 46-50.

Frank, G. (2003). Triebe and Their Vicissitudes: Freud’s Theory of Motivation

Reconsidered. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 20(4), 691-697.

Franken, R.E. (1998). Human Motivation. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 4th

Edition.

Freud, S. (1960). The ego and the id (J. Riviere, Trans.). New York: Norton. (Original
work published 1923).

Gabriel, Y., and Carr, A. (2002). Organisations, management and psychoanalysis: An

overview. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(5), 348-365.

Gallagher, W.R. Jr., and Einhorn, H.J. (1976). Motivation Theory and Job Design. The
Journal of Business, 49(3), 358.

164
Gelso, C.J., and Fassinger, R.E. (1992). Personality, Development and Counseling
Psychology: Depth, Ambivalence and Actualisation. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
39(3), 275-298.

George, J.M., and Jones, G.R. (2002). Organisational Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.

Gill, J., and Johnson, P. (2002). Research Methods for Managers (3rd edn.). Sage
Publications, Great Britain.

Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American

Psychologist, 48, 26-34.

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A Broad-Bandwidth, Public Domain, Personality Inventory

Measuring the Lower-Level Facets of Several Five-Factor models. In I. Mervielde, I.
Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7 (pp.
7 – 28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Grace, D.A. (1999). Critical variables in Child care services switching: Contrasting
consumer and staff perceptions. Unpublished Honours Thesis, Griffith University.

Grace, D.A. (2002). Exploring the dimensions of service brands: The Service Brand
Verdict (SBV) Model. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy, Griffith University.

Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., and Black, W. 1998, Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Haynes, S.N., Richard, D.C.S., and Kubany, E.S. (1995). Content validity in
Psychological Assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods.
Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238-247.

165
Helmreich, R.L., Sawin, L.L., and Carsrud, A.L. (1986). The Honeymoon Effect on Job
Performance: Temporal Increases in the Predictive Power of Achievement Motivation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 185-188.

Herbig, P., and Genestre, A. (1997). International motivational differences. Management

Decision, 35(7), 562-571.

Hilgard, E.R. (1980). The trilogy of mind: Cognition, affection and conation. Journal of
the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 16, 107-117.

Hogan, R.T., Hogan, J., and Roberts, B.W. (1996). Personality measurement and
employment decisions: Questions and Answers. American Psychologist, 51(5), 469-477.

Hogan, J., and Holland, B. (2003). Using Theory to Evaluate Personality and Job
Performance Relations: A Socioanalytic Perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(1), 100-112.

Hunsley, J., and Meyer, G.J. (2003). The incremental validity of psychological testing
and assessment: Conceptual, methodological and statistical issues. Psychological
Assessment, 15(4), 446-455.

Hunter, J.E., and Schmidt, F.L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and
bias in research findings. Newbury Park: Sage.

Hunthausen, J.M., Truxillo, D.M., Bauer, T.N., and Hammer, L.B. (2003). A Field Study
of Frame-of-Reference Effects on Personality Test Validity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(3), 545-551.

166
Hurtz, G.M., and Donovan, J.J. (2000). Personality and Job Performance: The Big Five
Revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 869-870.

Iachini, J. (2003). Starting the “Fire” under an unmotivated employee. Occupational

Health and Safety, 72(3), 18-20.

Idson, L.C., and Mischel, W. (2001). The Personality of Familiar and Significant People:
The Lay Perceiver as a Social-Cognitive Theorist. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80(4), 585-596.

Inderrieden, E.J., Allen, R.E., and Keaveny, T.J. (2004). Managerial Discretion in the
Use of Self-ratings in a Appraisal System: The Antecedents and Consequences. Journal
of Managerial Issues, XVI (4), 460-482.

Jang, K.L., McCrae, R.R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., and Livesley, W.J. (1998).
Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: Support for a hierarchical
model of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1556-1565.

Jolibert, A., and Baumgartner, G. (1997). Values, Motivations and Personal Goals:
Revisited. Psychology & Marketing, 14(7), 675-688.

Judge, T.A. and Bono, J.E. (2000). Five-Factor Model of Personality and
Transformational Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751-765.

Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R., and Gerhardt, M.W. (2002). Personality and
Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(4), 765-780.

Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E., and Thoresen, C.J., (2003). The core self-evaluations
scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 50, 303-331.

167
Judge, T.A., and Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of Personality to Performance Motivation:
A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 797-807.

Judge, T.A., Martocchio, J.J., and Thoresen, C.J. (1997). Five Factor Model of
Personality and Employee Absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 745-755.

Jung, C.G. (1971). Psychological types. Bollingen Series XX. The collected works of
C.G.Jung, (Vol.6), (H.G. Baynes, Trans., Revision by R.F.C.Hull) Princeton, NJ;
Princeton University Press (Original work published 1921).

Kagan, J. (1988). The Meanings of Personality Predicates. American Psychologist, 43(8),

614-620.

Katz, D., and Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organisations (2nd ed.). New

York: Wiley.

Kaufman, R. (1976). Organisational Improvement: A Review of Models and an

Attempted Synthesis. Group and Organisation Studies, 1(4), 474-495.

Kichuk, S.L., and Wiesner, W.H. (1998). Work Teams: Selecting Members for Optimal
Performance. Canadian Psychology, 39(1-2), 23-32.

Kieffer, K.M., Schinka, J.A., and Curtiss, G. (2004). Person-Environment Congruence

and Personality Domains in the Prediction of Job Performance and Work Quality. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 51(2), 168-177.

Koltko-Rivera, M.E. (2004). The Psychology of Worldviews. Review of General

Psychology, 8(1), 3-58.

168
Kovar, S.E., Ott, R.L., and Fisher, D.G. (2003). Personality preferences of accounting
students: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Accounting Education, 21, 75-94.

Kreiser, L., McKeon, J.M., and Post, A. (1990). A personality profile of CPAs in public
practice. The Ohio CPA Journal (Winter), 29-34.

Kwiatkowski, R. (2003). Trends in organisations and selection: An Introduction. Journal

of Managerial Psychology, 18(5), 382-394.

Landry, R.M. Jr., Rogers, R.L., and Harrell, H.W. (1996). Computer usage and
psychological type characteristics in accounting students. Journal of Accounting and
Computers, 12. Available at: http://www.swcollege.com/acct/jac/jac12.html

Laribee, S. (1994). The psychological types of college accounting students. Journal of

Psychological Type, 28, 37-42.

Lau, V.P., and Shaffer, M.A., (1999). Career success: the effects of personality. Career
Development International, 4/4, 225-230.

Leonard, N.H., Beauvais, L.L., and Scholl, R.W. (1999). Work Motivation: The
incorporation of self-concept-based processes. Human Relations, 52(8), 969-983.

Lester, S.W., and Kickul, J. (2001). Psychological contracts in the 21st Century: What
employees value most and how well organisations are responding to these expectations.
Human Resource Planning, 24(1), 10-21.

Lindell, M. K., and Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for Common Method Variance in
Cross-Sectional Research Designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114-121.

169
Lindon, L. (1995). Linking an Intervention model to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,
consultancy and managerial roles. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Bradford, 10(4),
21-29.

Locke, E.A., and Latham, G.P. (2002). Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal
Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-
717.

Lombardo, G.P., and Foschi, R. (2002). The European Origins of “Personality

Psychology”. European Psychologist, 7(2), 134-145.

Lombardo, G.P., and Foschi, R. (2003). The Concept of Personality in 19th Century
French and 20th Century American Psychology. History of Psychology, 6(2), 123-142.

Lowery, C.M., Beadles II, N.N., and Krilowicz, T.J. (2004), Using Personality and
Cognitive Ability to Predict Job Performance: An Empirical Study. International Journal
of Management, 21, 3.

Lubinski, D. (1996). Applied individual differences research and its quantitative

methods. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 2(2), 187-203.

Marsella, A.J., Dubanoski, J., Hamada, W.C., and Morse, H. (2000). The measurement of
personality across cultures: Historical, Conceptual and Methodological Issues and
Considerations. The American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 1-10.

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A Theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-
396.

Maslow, A.H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

170
Maurer, T.J., and Pierce, H.R. (1998). A Comparison of Likert Scale and Traditional
Measures of Self-Efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 324-329.

Mayer, J.D. (2001). Primary Divisions of Personality and their Scientific Contributions:
From the Trilogy-of-Mind to the Systems Set. Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior,
31, 449-477.

Mayer, J.D. (2003). Structural Divisions of Personality and the Classification of Traits.
Review of General Psychology, 7(4), 381-401.

McAdams, D.P. (2001). The Psychology of Life Stories. Review of General Psychology,
5(2), 100-122.

McCaulley, M.H. (2000). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Bridge Between Counseling

and Consulting. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 52(2), 117-132.

McC Dachowski, M. (1987). A Convergence of the Tender-Minded and the Tough-

Minded? American Psychologist, 42(9), 886-887.

McClelland, D.C. (1961). The Achieving Society. Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.

McCrae, R.R., and Costa, P.T. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories:
Theoretical contexts for the five factor model. In J.S. Wiggins (Ed), The five-factor
model of personality (51-87), New York: Guilford Press.

McCrae, R.R., and Costa, P.T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In A.

Lawrence and O.P.J. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (139-
153), New York: Guilford Press.

171
McCrae, R.R.., Coata, P.T., del Pilar, G.H., Rolland, J.P., and Parker, W.D. (1998).
Cross-cultural assessment of the Five Factor Model: The revised NEO Personality
Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 171-188.

McKenna, M.K., Shelton, C.D., and Darling, J.R. (2002). The impact of behavioral style
assessment on organisational effectiveness: a call for action. Leadership and Organisation
Development Journal, 23(6), 314-322.

Meade, A.W. (2004). Psychometric problems and issues involved with creating and using
ipsative measures for selection. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology,
77, 531-540.

Melamed, T., and Jackson, D. (1995). Psychometric instruments: Potential benefits and
practical use. Industrial and Commercial Training, 27(4), 11-18.

Mele, D. (2003). The challenge of humanistic management. Journal of Business Ethics,

44(1), 77-88.

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.

Mischel, W., and Shoda, Y. (1995). A Cognitive-Affective System Theory of

Personality: Reconceptualising Situations, Dispositions, Dynamics and Invariance in
Personality Structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246-268.

Mitchell, T.R. (1982). Motivation: New directions for theory research and practice. The
Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 80-88.

Morgan, G.A., Gliner, J.A., and Harmon, R.J. (1999). Quantitative Research Approaches.
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38(12), 1595-1597.

172
Morgan, G.A., and Smircich, L. (1980). The Case of Qualitative Research. Academy of
Management Review, 5(4), 491-500.

Mount, M.K., and Barrick, M.R. (1994). The Big Five personality dimensions:
Implications for research and practice in human resources management. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 152-200.

Murray, H.A. (1951). Some basic psychological assumptions and conceptions.

Dialectica, 5, 266-292.

Mustafa, H. (1992). The Contributions of Psychology to the Study of Administrative

Behavior. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 5(4), 15-27.

Myers, I.B., McCaulley, M., Quen, K., and Hammer, A.L. (1998). MBTI Manual: A
Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Third Edition.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Nhundu, T. (1992). The relationship between self and supervisor appraisals with role
clarity and job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(1), 29-42.

Nicholson, I.A. (1998). Gordon Allport, Character and the “Culture of Personality”,
1897-1937. History of Psychology, 1(1), 52-68.

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), 639-648.

Nourayi, M.M., and Cherry, A.C. (1993). Accounting students’ performance and
personality types. Journal of Education for Business, (Nov/Dec), 111-115.

173
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd edn.). McGraw-Hill, New York.

O’Cass, A. (2004). Political Marketing: The Application of Marketing to Politics.

Unpublished Master of Business Thesis, QUT.

Osteraker, M.C. (1999). Measuring motivation in a learning organisation. Journal of

Workplace Learning, Bradford, 11(2), 73-79.

Ott, R.M., Mann, M.H., and Moores, C.T. (1990). An empirical investigation into the
interactive effects of student personality traits and method of instruction (lecture or CAI)
on student performance in elementary accounting. Journal of Accounting Education, 8,
17-35.

Otter, P. (1984). Do CPAs have a unique personality? Are certain personality types found
more frequently in our profession? The Michigan CPA (Spring), 29-36.

Parker, B., and Chusmir, L.H. (1991). Motivtion Needs and Their Relationship to Life
Success. Human Relations, New York: 44(12), 1301-1308.

Paunonen, S.V. (1998). Hierarchical Organisation of Personality and Prediction of

Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 538-556.

Paunonen, S.V. (2003). Big Five Factors of Personality and Replicated Predictions of
Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 411-424.

Paunonen, S.V., and Ashton, M.C. (2001). Big Five Factors and Facets and the
Prediction of Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 524-539.

174
Pedersen, N.L., Plomin, R., McClearn, G.E., and Friberg, L. (1988). Neuroticism,
Extraversion and related traits in adults reared apart and reared together. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 950-957.

Pelham, B.W. (1993). The Idiographic Nature of Human Personality: Examples of the
Idiographic Self-Concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 665-677.

Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., and Livi, S. (2000). Looking for a Simple Big Five Factorial
Structure in the Domain of Adjectives. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,
16(2), 87-97.

Pervin, L.A. (1975). Personality: Theory, assessment and research. New York, Wiley.

Pervin, L.A. (1989). Persons, situations, interaction: The history of a controversy and a
discussion of theoretical models. Academy of Management Review, 14, 350-360.

Pervin, L.A. (2001). A Dynamic Systems Approach to Personality. European

Psychologist, 6(3), 172-176.

Pincus, J. (2004). The consequences of unmet needs: The evolving role of motivation in
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 3(4), 375-387.

Pittenger, D.J. (1993). Measuring the MBTI And Coming Up Short. Journal of Career
Planning and Placement.

Plomin, R. (1989). Environment and Genes: Determinants of Behavior. American

Psychologist, 44(2), 105-111.

175
Ramlall, S. (2004). A review of employee motivation themes and the implications for
employee retention within organisations. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5,
1/2, 52-63.

Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A., and Swartz, E. (1998). Doing Research in
Business and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method. Sage Publications,
Great Britain.

Reiss, S. (2004). Multifaceted Nature of Intrinsic Motivation: The Theory of 16 Basic

Desires. Review of General Psychology, 8(3), 179-193.

Rings, B.P. (1998). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Research Report,

http://members.tripod.com/~Personality Institute/Myers-BriggsTypeIndicator.htm

Robbins, S.P. (2001). Organisational Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Robertson, I.T., Baron, H., Gibbons, P., MacIver, R., and Nyfield, G. (2000).
Conscientiousness and managerial performance. Journal of Occupational and
Organisational Psychology, 73, 171-180.

Rossier, J., de Stadelhofen, F.M., and Berhoud, S. (2004). The Hierarchical Structures of
the NEO PI-R and the 16 PF 5. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20(1),
27-38.

Rothbart, M.K., and Ahadi, S.A. (1994). Temperament and the Development of
Personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(1), 55-66.

Ryckman, R.M. (1997). Theories of Personality. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company,

London.

176
Sackett, P.R., Gruys, M.L., and Ellingson, J.E. (1998). Ability-personality interactions
when predicting job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 545-556.

Salgado, J.F. (1997). The Five Factor Model of Personality and Job Performance in the
European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 30-43.

Salgado, J.F. (2003). Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality
measures. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 76, 323-346.

Sanders, B.A. (2003). Maybe there’s no such thing as a “good cop”. An International
Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 26(2), 313-328.

Satava, D. (1996). Personality types of CPAs: National vs. local firms. Journal of
Psychological Type, 36, 36-41.

Saucier, G. (1997). Effects of Variable Selection On the Factor Structure of Person

Descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1296-1312.

Saucier, G. (2003). Factor Structure of English-Language Personality Type-Nouns.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 695-708.

Saucier, G., and Goldberg, L.R. (1996). The language of personality: Lexical
perspectives on the five factor model. In J.S. Wiggins (Ed.). The five factor model of
personality (p 21-50), New York: Guilford Press.

Saucier, G., and Goldberg, L.R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of
Personality, 66, 495-524.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (1997). Research Methods for Business
Students. Pitman Publishing, London.

177
Schloemer, P.G., and Schloemer, M.S. (1997). The personality types and preferences of
CPA firm professionals: An analysis of changes in the profession. Accounting Horizons
(December), 24-39.

Schmitt, N.W., Gooding, R.Z., Noe, R.A., and Kirsch, M. (1984). Meta-analyses of
validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study
characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 37, 407-422.

Schmit, M.J., Kihm, J.A., and Robie, C. (2000). Development of a global measure of
personality. Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 153-160.

Schwab, D.P. (1980). Construct validity in organisational behaviour. Research in

Organisational Behavior, 2, 3-43.

Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American
Psychologist, 54(2), 93-105.

Schweiger, I., and Sumners, G.E. (1994). Optimising the value of performance
appraisals. Managerial Auditing Journal, 9(8), 3-7.

Shackleton, V. (1980). The accountant stereotype: Myth or reality? Accountancy

(November), 122-123.

Stelmack, B.M. (1997). Toward a Paradigm in Personality: Comment on Eysenck’s

(1997) view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1238-1241.

Stewart, G.L. (1999). Trait Brandwidth and Stages of Job Performance: Assessing
Differential Effects for Conscientiousness and its Subtraits. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84(6), 959-968.

178
Stum, D.L. (2001). Maslow revisited: Building the employee commitment pyramid.
Strategy and Leadership, 29(4), 4-9.

Tett, R.P., and Burnett, D.D. (2003). A Personality Trait-based Interactionist Model of
Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500-517.

Thoresen, C.J., Badley, J.C., Bliese, P.D., and Thoresen, J.D. (2004). The Big Five
Personality Traits and Individual Job Performance Growth Trajectories in Maintenance
and Transitional Job Stages. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 835-853.

Toomela, A. (2003). Relationships Between Personality Structure, Structure of Word

Meaning, and Cognitive Ability: A Study of Cultural Mechanisms of Personality. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 723-735.

Townsend, P.L., and Gebhardt, J.E. (1993). What’s in it for me? The Journal for Quality
and Participation, 16(2), 8-11.

Tsaousis, I. (2004). The Traits Personality Questionnaire 5(TPQue5): Psychometric

Properties of a Shortened Version of a Big Five Measure. Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 20(3), 180-191.

Tubbs, M.E., and Ekeberg, S.E. (1991). The Role of Intentions in Work Motivation:
Implications for goal-setting theory and research. The Academy of Management
Review,16(1), 180-199.

Tubes , E.C., and Christal, R.E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait
ratings (Technical Report ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U.S. Air
Force.

179
Vaidya, J.G., Gray, E.K., Haig, J., and Watson, D. (2002). On the Temporal Stability of
Personality: Evidence for Differential Stability and the Role of Life Experiences. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1469-1484.

Vancouver, J.B., and Scherbaum, C.A. Jr. (2000). Automaticity, Goals and
Environmental Interactions. American Psychologist, 55(7), 763-764.

Vinchur, A.J., Schippmann, J.S., Switzer, F.S. III., and Roth, P.L. (1998). A meta-
analytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(4), 586-597.

Vlachopoulos, S.P., Karageorghis, C.I., and Terry, P.C.. (2000). Motivation profiles in
sport: A self-determination theory perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 71(4), 387-397.

Welbourne, T.M., Johnson, D.E., and Erez, A. (1998). The Role-Based Performance
Scale: Validity Analysis of a Theory-based Measure. Academy of Management Journal,
41(5), 540-555.

Wheeler, P.R., Hunton, J.E., and Bryant, S.M. (2004a). Accounting Information Systems
Research Opportunities Using Personality Type Theory and the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator. Journal of Information Systems, 18(1), 1-19.

Wheeler, P.R., Hunton, J.E., and Bryant, S.M. (2004b). Authors’ Reply to Commentary
on Accounting Information Systems Research Opportunities Using Personality Type
Theory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Information Systems, 18(1), 35-
38.

Wiley, C. (1997). What motivates employees according to over 40 years of motivation

surveys. International Journal of Manpower, 18(3), 263-275.

180
Winter, D.G., John, O.P., Stewart, A.J., Klohnen, E.C. and Duncan, L.E. (1998). Traits
and Motives: Toward an Integration of Two Traditions in Personality Research.
Psychological Review, 105(2), 230-250.

Wolfe, D.B. (1998). What your customers can’t say. American Demographics, 20(2), 24-
29.

Wright, T.A., Cropanzano, R., and Meyer, D.G. (2004). State and Traits Correlates of Job
Performance: A Tale of Two Perspectives. Journal of Business and Psychology, Spring ,
18(3), 365-384.

Yamaguchi, I. (2003). The relationships among individual differences, needs and equity
sensitivity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(4), 324-344.

Yancey, G.B., and Austin, M.R. (2000). The predictive power of hiring tools. Credit
Union Executive Journal, 40(4), 12-18.

Zawadzki, B., Strelau, J., Onoszczenko, W., Riemann, R., and Angleitner, A. (2001).
Genetic and Environmental Influences on Temperament: The Polish-German Twin Study
Based on Self-Report and Peer-Rating. European Psychologist, 6(4), 272-286.

181
APPENDIX ONE – INFORMATION SHEET

Newcastle Graduate School of Business

Faculty of Business and Law
Level 3, University House
Corner King and Auckland Street
Newcastle 2300
AUSTRALIA

For further information:

Dr Gian Casimir
Tel: +61 2 4921 6680
Fax:+61 2 4921 7398
Email: [email protected]

CHONG Chien Fatt

Tel: +60123760133
Fax: +60331602894
Email: [email protected]
September 15, 2005

Subject: Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality

Measure

Dear Potential Participant,

I am Chong Chien Fatt, a student in the Newcastle Graduate School of Business at the University
of Newcastle undertaking a Doctorate of Business and Administration Degree and Gian Casimir
is my research supervisor. As part of my studies, I am conducting a research project titled
“Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality Measure”. You are invited
to take part in this research project which examines the relationship between work performance
and personality. You are required to complete a questionnaire on personality and work
performance.
We are interested only in the overall relationships between Personality and Work Performance.
We are therefore not interested in the specific responses of any particular individual. The
anonymity of your responses is guaranteed because you are not required to provide your name
nor any other information that can be used to identify you. The confidentiality of your responses
is assured as only Chong Chien Fatt and Gian Casimir will have access to the completed
questionnaires, which will be shredded after the data have been entered into a spreadsheet.

On completion of the study, your Organisation will be provided with a report that will be
recommended for distribution to staff. The findings of this study may be published in a scholarly
journal but neither you, nor your organisation will be named or be able to be identified from the
published report.

182
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. The questionnaire will be distributed by the
Human Resources Managers. However, your decision to participate, or to not participate, will
have no effect on your employment and no one will know whether or not you have participated as
completion of the questionnaire will be performed at a location of your choice, with return of the
questionnaire through stamped and self-addressed envelopes to the researcher. If you would like
more information, please contact Chong Chien Fatt or Gian Casimir or if an independent person
is preferred, the University’s Human Research Ethics Officer, Research Branch, Chancellery,
University of Newcastle, 2308, telephone +61 249 216 333, email: Human-
[email protected].

If you want to take part in the study, please complete the questionnaire and return it to the
researchers in the stamped self-addressed envelope provided.

Thank you for taking time to consider this invitation.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Chong Chien Fatt Dr Gian Casimir

Complaints Clause:
This project has been approved by the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee,
Approval No . Bus-Law/SEGi/1/32:05A).

The University requires that should you have concerns about your rights as a participant in
this research, or you have a complaint about the manner in which the research is
conducted, it may be given to the researcher, or, if an independent person is preferred, to
the Human Research Ethics Officer, Research Office, The Chancellery, The University of
Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan NSW 2308, telephone (+61 249 216 333, email
[email protected])

183
APPENDIX TWO – CONSENT SEEKING LETTER TO COMPANY

Newcastle Graduate School of Business

Faculty of Business and Law
Level 3, University House
Corner King and Auckland Street
Newcastle 2300
AUSTRALIA

For further information:

Dr Gian Casimir
Tel: +61 2 4921 6680
Fax:+61 2 4921 7398
Email: [email protected]

CHONG Chien Fatt

Tel: +60123760133
Fax: +60331602894
Email: [email protected]

September 15, 2005

Subject: Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality

Measure.

Dear Sir,
Your organisation is invited to take part in a study which is being conducted by Mr Chong Chien
Fatt and Dr Gian Casimir from the Newcastle Graduate School of Business. Mr Chong is
conducting this study as part of his Doctor of Business and Administration Degree and Dr Gian
Casimir is his research supervisor. This study examines the relationship between personality and
work performance. We would greatly appreciate your organisation’s participation.

If your organisation is willing to participate, you will be asked to distribute a questionnaire (see
attached) to your staff selected by a stratified random procedure that represents a diagonal slice
across levels and functional areas. This questionnaire is a personality and work performance
measures and should take approximately twenty minutes to complete. Please note that all
potential participants should be informed that participation is voluntary and that they will not be
disadvantaged in any way by not participating. Please see the attached information sheet for
participants.

We are interested only in the overall relationship between personality and work performance and
therefore are not interested in the specific responses of any particular individual. The
confidentiality of responses is assured as only Chong Chien Fatt and Gian Casimir will have
access to the completed questionnaires. After the data have been entered into a spreadsheet, the
questionnaires will be shredded.

184
On completion of the study, your organisation will be provided with a report, which we
recommend to be made available to all staff. The findings of this study may be published in a
scholarly journal but neither you, nor your department will be named or be able to be identified
from the published report.

If you agree to take part in the study, please reply to us in writing stating your department’s
willingness. For further information, please contact Chong Chien Fatt or Gian Casimir.

Thank you for taking time to consider this invitation.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Chong Chien Fatt and Dr Gian Casimir

Complaints Clause:
This project has been approved by the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee,
Approval No . Bus-Law/SEGi/1/32:05A).

The University requires that should you have concerns about your rights as a participant in
this research, or you have a complaint about the manner in which the research is
conducted, it may be given to the researcher, or, if an independent person is preferred, to
the Human Research Ethics Officer, Research Office, The Chancellery, The University of
Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan NSW 2308, telephone (+61 249 216 333, email
[email protected])

185
APPENDIX THREE – QUESTIONNAIRE

Personality Measure Questionnaire

Title: Predicting Work Performance using FFM and a non-FFM Personality Measure

Part 1:
(i) Are you proficient in English? Yes / No
(ii) Have you been working in the same job for more than 12 months? Yes / No

If there is a No answer in any one above, please do not continue with the survey even
though you may have consented to participate. Please tick the answers above and return the
full set in the self-addressed envelope. Thank you.

Part 2:
Please use the rating scale below to describe how accurately each of the following statement
describes you.
Describe yourself as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future nor what you were
in the past.

1 2 3 4 5
Very Inaccurate Moderately Neither Accurate Moderately Very Accurate
Inaccurate or Inaccurate Accurate

1 I often feel unhappy 1 2 3 4 5

2 I feel comfortable around people 1 2 3 4 5
3 I believe in the importance of art 1 2 3 4 5
4 I have a good word for everyone 1 2 3 4 5
5 I am always prepared 1 2 3 4 5
6 I am very pleased with myself 1 2 3 4 5
7 I have little to say 1 2 3 4 5
8 I am not interested in theoretical discussions 1 2 3 4 5
9 I waste my time 1 2 3 4 5
10 I am very direct 1 2 3 4 5
11 I dislike myself 1 2 3 4 5
12 I make friends easily 1 2 3 4 5
13 I have a vivid imagination 1 2 3 4 5
14 I am critical of others 1 2 3 4 5
15 I pay attention to details 1 2 3 4 5
16 I am not easily bothered by things 1 2 3 4 5

186
17 I keep a low profile 1 2 3 4 5
18 I do not enjoy going to art museums 1 2 3 4 5
19 I find it difficult to focus on work 1 2 3 4 5
20 I believe that others have good intentions 1 2 3 4 5
21 I seldom feel unhappy 1 2 3 4 5
22 I am not interested in abstract ideas 1 2 3 4 5
23 I would describe my experiences as somewhat dull 1 2 3 4 5
24 I respect others 1 2 3 4 5
25 I do just enough work to get by 1 2 3 4 5
26 I am often depressed 1 2 3 4 5
27 I am skilled in handling social situations 1 2 3 4 5
28 I avoid philosophical discussions 1 2 3 4 5
29 I insult people 1 2 3 4 5
30 I get chores done right away 1 2 3 4 5
31 I have frequent mood swings 1 2 3 4 5
32 I carry the conversation to a higher level 1 2 3 4 5
33 I don’t like to draw attention to myself 1 2 3 4 5
34 I accept people as they are 1 2 3 4 5
35 I carry out my plans 1 2 3 4 5
36 I panic easily 1 2 3 4 5
37 I do not like art 1 2 3 4 5
38 I get back at others 1 2 3 4 5
39 I make plans and stick to them 1 2 3 4 5
40 I am the life of the party 1 2 3 4 5
41 I get excited by new ideas 1 2 3 4 5
42 I avoid carrying out my duties 1 2 3 4 5
43 I make people feel at ease 1 2 3 4 5
44 I don’t talk a lot 1 2 3 4 5
45 I rarely get irritated 1 2 3 4 5
46 I don’t see things through 1 2 3 4 5
47 I enjoy hearing new ideas 1 2 3 4 5
48 I know how to get people’s attention 1 2 3 4 5
49 I feel comfortable with myself 1 2 3 4 5
50 I suspect hidden motive in others 1 2 3 4 5
51 I easily adapt to the needs of the situation 1 2 3 4 5
52 I push myself and others to get things done 1 2 3 4 5
53 I am a loving person 1 2 3 4 5
54 I am careful in my work 1 2 3 4 5
55 I like others to empower me to do my work 1 2 3 4 5
56 I am good at interpreting things 1 2 3 4 5
57 I like living in style 1 2 3 4 5
58 I am pleasant to be around with 1 2 3 4 5
59 I hold on to traditions and beliefs 1 2 3 4 5
60 I love to seek experiences in life 1 2 3 4 5
61 I often weigh the pros and cons of a situation before 1 2 3 4 5
acting
62 I want to take charge of my work 1 2 3 4 5

187
63 I have a heart for the less fortunate 1 2 3 4 5
64 I like to do things following the proper channels 1 2 3 4 5
65 I believe in justice 1 2 3 4 5
66 I can spot opportunities and make use of them 1 2 3 4 5
67 I like to take the lead to get things done 1 2 3 4 5
68 I am sensitive to other people’s feelings 1 2 3 4 5
69 I prefer to buy things with guarantee 1 2 3 4 5
70 I find great satisfaction in doing a good job 1 2 3 4 5
71 I am good at overcoming obstacles to get what I want 1 2 3 4 5
72 I am good in pressurizing others to get things done 1 2 3 4 5
73 I enjoy the company of others 1 2 3 4 5
74 I am law-abiding 1 2 3 4 5
75 I seek knowledge and skills to improve myself 1 2 3 4 5
76 I am flexible in doing things 1 2 3 4 5
77 I can be easily provoked 1 2 3 4 5
78 I like to assist my friends in time of needs 1 2 3 4 5
79 I believe in doing things step by step 1 2 3 4 5
80 I do my work enthusiastically 1 2 3 4 5
81 I am good at persuading others to support me 1 2 3 4 5
82 I am assertive 1 2 3 4 5
83 I like to visit my friends 1 2 3 4 5
84 I tend to shelter others from harm 1 2 3 4 5
85 I work towards improving my quality of life 1 2 3 4 5
86 I like to turn issues/situations to my advantage 1 2 3 4 5
87 I like to celebrate in a grand manner 1 2 3 4 5
88 I can be easily hurt 1 2 3 4 5
89 I am serious in whatever I do 1 2 3 4 5
90 I am a reasonable person 1 2 3 4 5
91 I will do anything to achieve my goals 1 2 3 4 5
92 I tend to use more of “I” than “We” 1 2 3 4 5
93 I enjoy working in groups 1 2 3 4 5
94 I do not fight with authority 1 2 3 4 5
95 I am accountable for my mistakes 1 2 3 4 5
96 I do not reveal myself too much 1 2 3 4 5
97 I am determined to win in any situation 1 2 3 4 5
98 I greet my friends with open arms 1 2 3 4 5
99 I need security 1 2 3 4 5
100 I make decisions based on bottom-lines 1 2 3 4 5

188
For the next 20 items, the rating scales are:

1 2 3 4 5
Needs Much Needs Some Satisfactory Goods Excellent
Improvement Improvement

101 Quantity of work output 1 2 3 4 5

102 Quality of work output 1 2 3 4 5
103 Accuracy of work 1 2 3 4 5
104 Customer service provided (internal and external) 1 2 3 4 5
105 Obtaining personal career goals 1 2 3 4 5
106 Developing skills needed for my future career 1 2 3 4 5
107 Making progress in my career 1 2 3 4 5
108 Seeking out career opportunities 1 2 3 4 5
109 Coming with new ideas 1 2 3 4 5
110 Working to implement new ideas 1 2 3 4 5
111 Finding improved ways to do things 1 2 3 4 5
112 Creating better processes and routines 1 2 3 4 5
113 Working as part of a team or work group 1 2 3 4 5
114 Seeking information from others in my work group 1 2 3 4 5
115 Making sure my work group succeeds 1 2 3 4 5
116 Responding to the needs of others in my work group 1 2 3 4 5
117 Doing things that help others when it’s not part of my job 1 2 3 4 5
118 Working for the overall good of the company 1 2 3 4 5
119 Doing things to promote the company 1 2 3 4 5
120 Helping so that the company is a good place to be 1 2 3 4 5

Part 3: Respondent’s Demographic Data

1. Age: ____Years____Months 2. Gender (please circle) Male/Female

3. Educational level: Primary School / High School / College / University
4. How long have you worked in this Organisation? ____Years____Months
5. How long have you worked in your current job? ____Years ___ Months
6. What is your Level in the Organisation? Non-Executive/ Lower Mgmt/Middle Mgmt/ Senior
Mgmt
7. Are you confirm in your job within the normal time frame? Yes/No
8. For those working for 3 years of more, have you been promoted? Yes/No
9. What is your last annual increment? Less than 3%; Between 3% and 6%; Between 7% to 10%;
More than 10%.

189