Michael K. Mount

Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis

This study reports results of a meta-analysis linking traits from the 5-factor model of personality to overall job satisfaction. Using the model as an organizing framework, 334 correlations from 163 independent samples were classified according to the model. The estimated true score correlations with job satisfaction were -.29 for Neuroticism, .25 for Extraversion, .02 for Openness to Experience, .17 for Agreeableness, and .26 for Conscientiousness. Results further indicated that only the relations of Neuroticism and Extraversion with job satisfaction generalized across studies. As a set, the Big Five traits had a multiple correlation of .41 with job satisfaction, indicating support for the validity of the dispositional source of job satisfaction when traits are organized according to the 5-factor model.

Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance.

In this study we investigated the moderating role of autonomy on the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and supervisor ratings of job performance. On the basis of data from 146 managers, results indicated that two dimensions of personality, Conscientiousness (r =.25) and Extraversion (r =.14), were significantly related to job performance. Consistent with our expectations, the validity of Conscientiousness and Extraversion was greater for managers in jobs high in autonomy compared with those in jobs low in autonomy. The validity of Agreeableness was also higher in high-autonomy jobs compared with low-autonomy ones, but the correlation was negative

Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting.

The authors used 91 sales representatives to test a process model that assessed the relationship of conscientiousness to job performance through mediating motivational (goal-setting) variables. Linear structural equation modeling showed that sales representatives high in conscientiousness are more likely to set goals and are more likely to be committed to goals, which in turn is associated with greater sales volume and higher supervisory ratings of job performance. Results also showed that conscientiousness is directly related to supervisory ratings. Consistent with previous research, results showed that ability was also related to supervisory ratings of job performance and, to a lesser extent, sales volume

Five-Factor Model of personality and Performance in Jobs Involving Interpersonal Interactions

In this article, the results of a meta-analysis that investigates the degree to which dimensions of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality are related to performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions are reported. The article also investigates whether the nature of the interactions with others moderates the personality-performance relations. The meta-analysis was based on 11 studies (total N = 1,586). each of which assessed the FFM at the construct level using the Personal Characteristics Inventory. Results support the hypothesis that Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability are positively related to performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Results also support the hypothesis that Emotional Stability and Agreeableness are more strongly related to performance in jobs that involve team- work (where employees interact interdependently with coworkers), than in those that involve dyadic interactions with others (where employees provide a direct service to custom...

The interactive effects of conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance.

The authors hypothesized that the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance would be stronger for persons high in agreeableness than for those low in agreeableness. Results of hierarchical moderated regression analyses for 7 independent samples of employees across diverse occupations provided support for the hypothesis in 5 of the samples. In samples supporting the hypothesis, among the highly conscientious workers, those low in agreeableness were found to receive lower ratings of job performance than workers high in agreeableness. One explanation for lack of an interaction between conscientiousness and agreeableness in the other 2 samples is that those jobs were not characterized by frequent, cooperative interactions with others. Overall, the results show that highly conscientious workers who lack interpersonal sensitivity may be ineffective, particularly in jobs requiring cooperative interchange with others.

Validity of observer ratings of the big five personality factors.

The authors examined the validity of observer ratings (supervisor, coworker, and customer) and selfratings of personality measures. Results based on a sample of 105 sales representatives supported the 2 hypotheses tested. First, supervisor, coworker, and customer ratings of the 2 job-relevant personality dimensions—conscientiousness and extraversion—were valid predictors of performance ratings, and the magnitude of the validities were at least as large as for self-ratings. Second, supervisor, coworker, and customer ratings accounted for significant variance in the criterion measure beyond self-ratings alone for the relevant dimensions. Overall, the results suggest that validities of personality measures based on self-assessme nts alone may underestimate the true validity of personality constructs. In the past 10 years, the views of many personality psychologists have converged regarding the structure and concepts of personality. Generally, researchers agree that there are five robust factors of personality that can serve as a meaningful taxonomy for classifying personality attributes (Digman, 1990). This taxonomy has consistently emerged in longitudinal studies; across different sources (e.g., ratings by self, spouse, acquaintances, and friends); with numerous personality inventories and theoretical systems; and in different age, sex, race, and language groups. It also has some biological basis, as suggested by evidence of heritability (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992; Digman, 1990). Although the names for these factors differ across researchers, the following labels and prototypical characteristics are representative: (a) extraversion (sociable, talkative, assertive, ambitious, and active), (b) agreeableness (good-natured, cooperative, and trusting), (c) conscientiousness (responsible, dependable, able to plan, organized, persistent, and achievement oriented), (d) emotional stability (calm, secure, and not nervous), and (e) openness to experience (imaginative, artistically sensitive, and intellectual). The emergence of the five-factor model has enabled researchers to conduct construct-oriented meta-analytic reviews of the predictive validity of personality (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp, & McCloy, 1990; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). Although these reviews have adopted slightly different personality frameworks, the conclusions can be summarized in terms of the Big Five taxonomy. The Barrick and Mount (1991) and Hough et al. (1990) reviews demonstrated that only one dimension of the Big Five, conscientiousness (achievement and dependability in the Hough et al. frame

UNDERSTANDING THE LATENT STRUCTURE OF JOB PERFORMANCE RATINGS

This study quantified the effects of 5 factors postulated to influence performance ratings: the ratees general level of performance, the ratees performance on a specific dimension, the raters idiosyncratic rating tendencies, the raters organizational perspective, and random measurement error. Two large data sets, consisting of managers (n = 2,350 and n = 2,142) who received developmental ratings on 3 performance dimensions from 7 raters (2 bosses, 2 peers, 2 subordinates, and self) were used. Results indicated that idiosyncratic rater effects (62% and 53%) accounted for over half of the rating variance in both data sets. The combined effects of general and dimensional ratee performance (21% and 25%) were less than half the size of the idiosyncratic rater effects. Small perspective-related effects were found in boss and subordinate ratings but not in peer ratings. Average random error effects in the 2 data sets were 11% and 18%.

Validity of Observer Ratings of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Traits: A Meta-Analysis

Conclusions reached in previous research about the magnitude and nature of personality-performance linkages have been based almost exclusively on self-report measures of personality. The purpose of this study is to address this void in the literature by conducting a meta-analysis of the relationship between observer ratings of the five-factor model (FFM) personality traits and overall job performance. Our results show that the operational validities of FFM traits based on observer ratings are higher than those based on self-report ratings. In addition, the results show that when based on observer ratings, all FFM traits are significant predictors of overall performance. Further, observer ratings of FFM traits show meaningful incremental validity over self-reports of corresponding FFM traits in predicting overall performance, but the reverse is not true. We conclude that the validity of FFM traits in predicting overall performance is higher than previously believed, and our results underscore the importance of disentangling the validity of personality traits from the method of measurement of the traits.

Evidence of the Construct Validity of Developmental Ratings of Managerial Performance

The construct validity of developmental ratings of managerial performance was assessed by using 2 data sets, each based on a different 360 degrees rating instrument. Specifically, the authors investigated the nature of the constructs measured by developmental ratings, the structural relationships among those constructs, and the generalizability of results across 4 rater perspectives (boss, peer, subordinate, and self). A structure with 4 lower order factors (Technical Skills, Administrative Skills, Human Skills, and Citizenship Behaviors) and 2 higher order factors (Task Performance and Contextual Performance) was tested against competing models. Results consistently supported the lower order constructs, but the higher order structure was problematic, indicating that the structure of ratings is not yet well understood. Multisample analyses indicated few practically significant differences in factor structures across perspectives.

The Joint Relationship of Conscientiousness and Ability with Performance: Test of the Interaction Hypothesis

This study investigated whether conscientiousness and ability interact in the prediction of job performance. Although few studies have directly addressed this issue, there is limited evidence that ability moderates the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance. Specifically, it has been reported that the relationship of conscientiousness to performance is positive for high ability and near zero or negative for low ability. Results in the present study provided no support for the interaction of GMA and conscientiousness. Moderated hierarchical regression analyses for three independent samples of participants (146 managers in sample 1, 103 sales representatives in sample 2, and 121 managers in sample 3), showed that the interaction did not account for unique variance in the prediction of supervisory ratings of job performance beyond that accounted for by GMA and conscientiousness. These findings indicate that ability does not moderate the relationship of conscientiousness to job performance. Practical implications for employee selection practices, and theoretical implications for models of job performance, are discussed.