ccf doctoral thesis - predicting work performance using the five factor model and the cases model...

8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per

1/199

Predicting Work Performanceusing 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


2/199

i

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


3/199

ii

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 LoonKong 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.


4/199

iii

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.


5/199

iv

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.................................................................21.2. PERSONALITY AND WORK PERFORMANCE .........................................................61.3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.............................................................................11

1.3.1. Research Philosophy.......................................................................................... 111.3.2. Research Design ................................................................................................ 11

1.3.3. Survey Instrument.............................................................................................. 121.3.4. Measurement...................................................................................................... 121.3.5. Sampling and Sample Size ................................................................................ 13

1.4. ANALYSES .......................................................................................................131.5. ETHICS ............................................................................................................141.6. LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................15

2.0.CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................16

2.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................162.1.1. What is Personality? .......................................................................................... 172.1.2. How Stable are Personality Traits?.................................................................... 192.1.3. The Objective of Psychometric Instruments...................................................... 20

2.2. THEORIES ON PERSONALITY ............................................................................212.2.1. Psychodynamic Theories ................................................................................... 232.2.2. Humanistic Theories .......................................................................................... 252.2.3. Traits Theories ................................................................................................... 272.2.4. Behaviorist/Cognitive and Social Cognitive Theories....................................... 29

2.3. WHY DOES PERSONALITY MATTER TO ORGANISATIONS? ...............................322.4. TYPES OF PERSONALITY MEASURES................................................................33

2.4.1. The Five Factor Model ...................................................................................... 342.4.2. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator............................................................................. 37

2.5. THE PREDICTIVE POWER OF FFM/MBTI ON PERFORMANCE...........................412.6. SHORTCOMINGS OF FFM AND MBTIMEASURES ............................................42

2.6.1. Five Factor Model.............................................................................................. 422.6.2. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator............................................................................. 46

2.7. THE THEORIES AND CONSTRUCTS OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE .....................472.7.1. Definition of Behavior ....................................................................................... 472.7.2. Factors Influencing Behavior............................................................................. 482.7.3. Current Theories of Work Motivation ............................................................... 502.7.4. The Constructs of this Proposed Model............................................................. 56

2.7.4.1. The First Premise: Behavior is Motivated by Needs ..............................................562.7.4.2. The Second Premise: The Accuracy of Predicting Behavior Depends on

Complexity ................................................................ .............................................592.7.5. Uniqueness of the CASES Personality Measure ............................................... 61

2.8. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES.......................................................622.8.1. Prediction of Performance by the FFM Personality Measure............................ 662.8.2. Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure ....................... 68


6/199

v

2.8.3. The Relationships between FFM and CASES................................................... 692.8.4. Hypotheses......................................................................................................... 71

3.0.CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................72

3.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................72

3.2. RESEARCH PARADIGMS ...................................................................................723.3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.............................................................................743.4. RESEARCH DESIGN ..........................................................................................75

3.4.1. Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................... 753.4.2. Type of Investigation......................................................................................... 773.4.3. Research Method ............................................................................................... 773.4.4. Researchers Interference .................................................................................. 793.4.5. Study Setting...................................................................................................... 803.4.6. Time Horizons ................................................................................................... 813.4.7. Unit of Analysis ................................................................................................. 81

3.5. SURVEY RESEARCH .........................................................................................82

3.5.1. Selection of Survey Method .............................................................................. 823.5.2. Selection of Measurement Techniques .............................................................. 84

3.5.2.1. Personality and Work Performance Measures........................................................843.5.2.2. Self Report..............................................................................................................843.5.2.3. Scales......................................................................................................................84 3.5.2.4. Key Variables.........................................................................................................86

3.5.3. Selection of Survey Layout................................................................................ 893.5.4. Selection of Sample and Sample Size................................................................ 903.5.5. Selection of analytical approach ........................................................................ 92

3.5.5.1. Central Tendency and Dispersion...........................................................................923.5.5.2. Principal Components Analysis..............................................................................923.5.5.3. Reliability ..................................................... .......................................................... 923.5.5.4. Validity...................................................................................................................93 3.5.5.5. Hypothesis Testing ...................................................................... ...........................94

3.5.6. Implementation .................................................................................................. 943.5.6.1. Cost and Time Estimates .................................................................... ....................943.5.6.2. Data Collection.......................................................................................................963.5.6.3. Data Entry .......................................................... ....................................................973.5.6.4. Categorising............................................................................................................97

3.6. RESEARCH PLAN .............................................................................................983.7. ETHICAL CONSIDERATION ...............................................................................983.8. LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................99

3.8.1. Response Distortions ......................................................................................... 993.8.2. Personality Scales .............................................................................................. 993.8.3. Stability of Work Performance .......................................................................... 993.8.4. Self Rating ....................................................................................................... 1003.8.5. Work Performance........................................................................................... 101

3.9. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................101

4.0.CHAPTER FOUR DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................102

4.1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1024.2. DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................1024.2. RESULTS FROM PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS.....................................103

4.2.1. Principal Components Analysis of the FFM Personality Measure.................. 1034.2.2. Principal Components Analysis of the CASES Personality Measure.............. 1074.2.3. 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


7/199

vi

4.3.1. Prediction of Performance by the FFM Personality Measure.......................... 1144.3.2. Prediction of Performance by the CASES Personality Measure ..................... 1204.3.3. FFM and CASES predicting performance....................................................... 128

4.3.3.1. FFM and CASES predicting the Job Component of the RBPS............................1284.3.3.2. FFM and CASES Predicting the Career Component of the RBPS.......................129

4.3.3.3. FFM and CASES Predicting the Innovator Component of RBPS........................1304.3.3.4. FFM and CASES Predicting the Team Component of the RBPS ........................1314.3.3.5. FFM and CASES Predicting the Organisation Component of the RBPS.............1324.3.3.6. FFM and CASES Predicting Total RBPS Performance .......................................133

4.4. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................135

5.0.CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ....................138

5.1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1385.2. DISCUSSION OF THE MAIN FINDINGS .............................................................138

5.2.1. Main Findings for Research Question One...................................................... 1385.2.2. Main Findings for Research Question Two..................................................... 1435.2.3. Main Findings for Research Question Three................................................... 147

5.3. IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS....................................................................1495.3.1. Implications on Professional Practice.............................................................. 1495.3.2. Implications on Theory.................................................................................... 151

5.4. LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................1525.5. FUTURE RESEARCH .......................................................................................1535.6. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................154BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ...........................................................................158APPENDIX ONE INFORMATION SHEET...................................................................182APPENDIX TWO CONSENT SEEKING LETTER TO COMPANY ..................................184APPENDIX THREE QUESTIONNAIRE.......................................................................186


8/199

vii

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 OccupationalTendencies ..................................................................................................40

Table 4: The Possible Associations of Conscientiousness and Neuroticism of the FFMwith 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 Scales Items (Wilbourne et al., 1998) .................88

Table 8: The Breakdown of Companies to be Surveyed Based on Industry (developedfor 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 onFFM...........................................................................................................117

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


9/199

viii

Table 22: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS onFFM...........................................................................................................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 onCASES ......................................................................................................124

Table 27: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS onCASES ......................................................................................................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 onCASES ......................................................................................................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 andCASES ......................................................................................................129

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

Table 33: Coefficients of the Regression of the Innovator Component of RBPS onFFM and CASES ......................................................................................131

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

Table 35: Coefficients of the Regression of the Organisation Component of RBPS onFFM and CASES ......................................................................................133

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


10/199

ix

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

Maslows 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.


11/199

1

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., Maslows 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


12/199

2

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


13/199

3

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 Middlemanagement

Seniormanagement

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


14/199

4

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/physicalabilities test

0 0 0

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-BriggsType Indicator(MBTI)

Probably the most popular and well-researched personality instrument used inbusiness today. It looks at an individualspreferences on four dimensions:

How you relate to the world

How you gather information

Raising self awareness

Identifying strengths anddevelopment needs

Understanding own behaviorand that of others

Team building


15/199

5


How you make decisions, and

How you organise yourself

Career development

Relationship development

Selection

16PFQuestionnaire(Equivalent to theNEO PI-R of theBig Five (Rossieret al., 2004)

This questionnaire measures anindividuals personality against 16different personality dimensions.Developed by Raymond B. Cattell, ithelps individuals to understand the variousfacets that determine their personality.

Selection

Individual development

Career development andcounselling

Leadership development

OccupationalPersonalityQuestionnaire(OPQ)

Another of the best-researched and mostwidely used tools available today.Designed by Saville and Holdsworth toprovide information on personalitycharacteristics, the feedback from whichdefines a persons perception of his/herbehaviors at work. In particular, thedimensions measured fall into threecategories:

Relationships with people

Thinking style, and

Feelings and emotions

Selection Career development

Assessment centres

Team building


Change management

Relationship awareness

The Belbin TeamRole Self-PerceptionInventory

One of the few UK instruments on themarket. Developed by Meredith Belbin tohelp team members identify their preferredroles in teams

Team building anddevelopment

Self-awareness


FundamentalInterpersonalRelationshipOrientation-Behavior (FIRO-B)

This inventory looks at a personsinterpersonal style and how he/she relatestowards others in three specific areas:

Inclusion-which is the need to be partof a social group

Control-which is the need for control

or influence over others, and

Affection-which is about being closeto individuals



Team development

Relationship counselling

Career counselling and

development

StrengthDeploymentInventory (SDI)

This is an incredibly versatile instrument,which was developed by Elias Porter inthe 1960s. It provides users with adevelopment tool that helps them to learnabout themselves and others in the contextof relationship awareness

Individual motivationalawareness

Team building anddevelopment

Relationship management

Assertiveness training


16/199

6



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;


17/199

7

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 peoples 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 Models (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


18/199

8

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 Maslows

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 individuals ability to either consciously or unconsciously behave

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


19/199

9

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 individuals behavior in different situations. The

other four dimensions are based on Maslows 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


20/199


21/199

11

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,


22/199

12

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

like most behavioral studies that focus on individuals 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.


23/199

13

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


24/199

14

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).

Cronbachs alpha is an internal reliability coefficient that shows how well the items

belonging to a set are correlated to one another. Cronbachs 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.


25/199

15

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.


26/199

16

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


27/199

17

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


28/199

18

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 persons 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 someones 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


29/199

19

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


30/199

20

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


31/199

21

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 dotheir behavioris a function of their personalities. Behavior is used to

interpret and evaluate peoples 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


32/199

22

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).


33/199

23

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).

Freuds 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 individuals 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


34/199

24

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 individuals 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


35/199

25

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 ones subjective past

experiences to develop and actualise ones 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 employees psychological and social desires play an important role in production

efficiency based on social aspects of human behavior. Mayos 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).


36/199

26

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 Maslows 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 individuals 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).


37/199

27

2.2.3. Traits Theories

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

an individuals 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.


38/199

28

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

ones 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 ones date and towards ones 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


39/199


40/199

30

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 ones 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


41/199

31

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).


42/199


43/199


44/199

34

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

analyses of personality. Allports 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


45/199


46/199


47/199

37

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 Jungs theory of personality and is designed to

sort human beings into different personality types.

Jungs 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


48/199

38

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.


49/199

39

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 persons personality. The scores from

the MBTI test are used to determine the persons type and labels are attached based on ones

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 Costas

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).


50/199

40

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

Tendencies


51/199

41

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 i

ccf doctoral thesis - predicting work performance using the five factor model and the cases model...

Documents