Using Personality Assessment for Management and Leadership Development:
An Overview
By Charlice Hurst & Yongsuhk Jung
What is personality?
Personality is one of the most popular areas of research in psychology and is commonly applied
in organizations for the purposes of selection, employee development, and team-building.
Although dozens of personality traits have been studied, a great deal of research over the past
two decades has converged around the Five Factor Model (Costa & McCrae, 1992), which
consists of five broad traits that are commonly referred to as the “Big Five.” The Five Factor
Model conceptualizes personality as a hierarchy in which the Big Five are at the top. At the next
level are “aspects,” which are more specific categories (Young, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007). Each
Big Five trait has two aspects. For instance, agreeableness consists of the aspects of compassion
and politeness. The table in appendix A lists the aspects of the Big Five traits, along with a brief
description of tendencies of individuals high and low in each aspect.
Psychologists define personality as “psychological qualities that contribute to an individual’s
enduring and distinctive patterns of feeling, thinking, and behaving” (Cervone & Pervin, 2008, p.
8). There are two notable features of this definition. The first is that personality represents more
than behavior. It refers also to the way that one thinks, perceives the world, and feels. Second,
the definition suggests that, contrary to what many believe, a score on a single administration of
a personality test does not imply that one is expected to behave a certain way all the time. It
simply suggests that one has a higher probability of behaving that way across many types of
situations. This stable aspect of personality is what is meant by the terms “trait” and
“disposition.” However, you know from your own experience that your thoughts, emotions, and
behaviors vary according to where you are and what you are doing. At any given moment, your
trait personality may influence your thoughts, emotions, and behaviors, but you will also tailor
your behavior to what is going on at that time. For instance, an individual with a high score on an
extraversion scale may be highly sociable at parties and less so during study time at the library.
Nevertheless, that highly extraverted person is likely to behave more sociably relative to
someone with a low score on extraversion across situations, whether at parties or at the library.
Finally, some people appear to be more variable than others in their thoughts, emotions, and
behaviors. People low in emotional stability, for example, have been found to exhibit more
variability in their behaviors toward other people than do people high in emotional stability
(Moskowitz & Zuroff, 2004).
Where does personality come from?
The jury is still out on how exactly personality develops. Based on “twin” studies, there is
evidence that approximately 50% of the variance in each of the Big Five traits is attributable to
genes (Loehlin, McCrae, Costa, & John, 1998). The rest appears to be due to developmental
experiences, both in childhood and throughout adulthood (McAdams & Olson, 2010). Thus,
personality can change. For instance, people tend to increase in agreeableness, emotional
stability, and conscientiousness as they age (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006).
The Influence of Personality on Job Attitudes, Motivation, Performance, and Careers
Personality is a complex phenomenon, much more so than popular sources on the topic tend to
convey. But does it matter? Does it impact outcomes that are important within the context of
business and careers? Hundreds of studies have been conducted to address these questions, and
recent research in the fields of psychology and economics have found that personality may be as
important as cognitive ability and socioeconomic status in predicting long-term career success
and well-being (Heckman, Stixrud, & Urzua, 2006; Roberts, Shiner, Kuncel, Caspi, & Goldberg,
2007). The table in Appendix B provides the meta-analytic correlations between the five-factor
traits and numerous work outcomes. Below, we briefly discuss some of these relationships in
more detail.
Satisfaction & Motivation
Emotional stability (low neuroticism), extraversion, and conscientiousness exhibit modest
correlations with job satisfaction (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). Of the five traits, emotional
stability shows the most consistent relationships with motivation. People who are emotionally
unstable may set lower goals, feel less confident in their ability to do their job, and tend to doubt
whether their efforts will yield favorable results. Together, extraversion and emotional stability
seem to be the most important predictors, among the Big Five, of self-efficacy motivation (i.e.,
motivation based on belief in one’s capabilities). Conscientiousness and agreeableness are also
important to motivation, especially goal-setting. High conscientiousness predicts the setting of
higher goals, while agreeableness is negatively related to goal-setting.
Performance
Job performance consists of numerous dimensions. Task performance consists of behaviors that
fall within the formal definition of one’s work role and relate to carrying out the core activities of
the organization (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
consists of voluntary behaviors carried out for the benefit of coworkers, supervisors, or the
organization in general (Bateman & Organ, 1983). The importance of task performance to the
organization may be obvious, but the importance of OCB less so. Yet, meta-analyses have found
that individual OCB is related to team effectiveness (ρ = .36; LePine, Piccolo, Mathieu, Jackson,
& Saul, 2008) and unit-level OCB is related to unit-level performance (ρ = .35; Podsakoff,
Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). Finally, counterproductive work behavior (CPB) refers to
deviant behaviors directed at individuals (e.g., gossiping, insulting) and the organization (e.g.,
intentional lateness, stealing, slowing down work). Although no meta-analysis has been
conducted on the relationship of CPB to organizational or unit performance, there are individual
studies demonstrating a negative relationship between counterproductive behavior and business
outcomes (e.g., Dunlop & Lee, 2004). It is probably not too far-fetched to presume that CPB has
been at the root of most of the scandals that have damaged or destroyed organizations.
The table in Appendix B exhibits the meta-analytic correlations of the Big Five traits with each
of these dimensions of performance (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Berry, Ones, & Sackett,
2007; Chiaburu, Oh, Berry, Li, & Gardner, 2011). Conscientiousness is a robust predictor of job
performance across settings (e.g., types of jobs and industries) and rating methods (i.e., selfratings or observer ratings). Although not displayed here, of the four facets of conscientiousness,
dependability seems to be the most strongly related to higher citizenship behavior (i.e., helping
coworkers) and lower CPB, while the achievement facet is most strongly related to task
performance (Dudley, Orvise, Lebiecki, & Cortina, 2006). Emotional stability and agreeableness
seem most important as predictors of better individual performance in teams (ρ = .22 and .34,
respectively), possibly because people high in emotional stability are less likely to behave
hostilely toward others while those high in agreeableness are more cooperative. Meanwhile,
openness and extraversion are most strongly related to higher training performance (ρ = .33 and
ρ = .28, respectively). Highly open people tend to be more receptive to new ideas, which should
enhance their ability to benefit from training. Extraverts may perform better in training settings
because they are more proactive and, thus, more likely to ask questions and fully engage in the
learning process.
Although meta-analytic estimates are not available, it is important to note the relationship of trait
openness with creativity. Given support for creativity (e.g., moderate to high time pressure, room
to experiment, opportunities to discuss ideas), people high in openness are more likely to
produce creative solutions at work than those low in openness (Baer & Oldham, 2006; George &
Zhou, 2001). Paradoxically, there is evidence that people low in openness produce higher
creative performance than those high in openness under low levels of time pressure and high
managerial support for creativity. Therefore, people high in openness may find that their abilities
are better-utilized in firms in which there is a need for creativity, managers are supportive of the
creative process, and there is deadline pressure (Baer & Oldham, 2006).
Teams
Appendix B provides an overview of the meta-analytic relationships of team personality with
performance of work teams (Bell, 2007). In most cases, the average level of a given personality
trait in a team seems to be most predictive of how teams will perform. However, in the case of
agreeableness, the lowest score on agreeableness within a team is just as important. One highly
disagreeable member can substantially and negatively impact a team’s performance. This
underscores the notion that team personality composition likely influences performance through
its impact on team processes. For example, several of the Big Five exhibit moderate metaanalytic relationships with team cohesion (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998). Thus,
team personality composition affects how well members of the team coordinate and build
relationships that result in high performance and learning.
Leadership
Together, the Big Five seem to be most influential on the charisma (idealized influence)
dimension of transformational leadership, but also are related to the other dimensions of
transformational leadership and to contingent reward leadership. Extraversion is the strongest
and most consistent Big Five predictor of transformational and contingent reward leadership
(Bono & Judge, 2004).
For decades, scholars have debated whether great leaders are born or made. These data cannot
entirely answer that question. Given that traits are as much influenced by developmental
experiences as they are by genetic influences, the influence of traits on leadership could suggest
the influence of inborn tendencies or of learning. But the data do suggest that high levels of
certain personality traits, such as extraversion, are advantageous for becoming a leader, whether
because they make one a “naturally” better leader or because those traits are simply more valued
in our culture. (Most of this research has taken place in Western—mainly North American—
contexts). This does not mean, of course, that people who are not extraverts, for example, cannot
and do not become leaders. President Barack Obama is well-known to be an introvert. There are
numerous examples throughout history of successful introverted leaders. Research on the
conditions that foster successful leadership among introverts is still rare; however, recent
evidence suggests that introverted leaders are more effective than extraverts when their
employees are proactive because introverted leaders are more receptive to ideas and suggestions
(Grant, Gino, & Hofmann, 2011).
Traits Outside of the Big Five Model
Although this note has focused on reviewing research related to the Big Five, there are other
traits that are important predictors of work, organizational, and career outcomes. For example,
fundamental beliefs about one’s capabilities and worth (i.e., core self-evaluations; Judge, Locke,
& Durham, 1997) are associated with objective (e.g., income) and subjective (e.g., satisfaction)
career outcomes (Judge & Hurst, 2007; Judge & Hurst, 2008; Judge, Hurst, & Simon, 2009).
Another interesting set of personality traits that is receiving increasing attention is the “Dark
Triad,” which is comprised of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Narcissists, who
have a grandiose sense of self, are more likely to engage in counterproductive work behavior (ρ
= .35; O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012) and to receive low ratings of leadership
effectiveness (Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006). Machiavellianism refers to the tendency to be
cynical about human nature, manipulative, and self-interested and is positively related to
counterproductive work behavior (ρ = .20). Finally, psychopathy refers to a set of tendencies to
be risk-taking, lacking in empathy, callous, and uniquely self-interested. Although scholars are
only beginning to research psychopathy in the corporate setting, one study of 203 “high-
potential” managers in seven organizations found a higher rate of sub-clinical psychopathy (i.e.,
scores that are nearing levels that meet the standards for a psychiatric diagnosis) than has been
found in samples drawn from the general population (5.9% in the corporate sample vs. 1.2% in
the community sample). In 360-degree evaluations, participants found to be high in psychopathy
were rated as higher than low-psychopathy managers in creativity, strategic thinking, and
communication skills but lower in management skills, team behaviors, and overall performance
(Babiak, Neumann, & Hare, 2010). People high in any of the Dark Triad traits may be charming
and may possess characteristics that can actually be advantageous to organizations. Yet, those
advantages do seem to come at a cost, one that may ultimately be too great for most
organizations to tolerate.
Problems with Personality Testing
People are often skeptical about personality tests because such tests seem easy to “fake.” There is
little reason for concern about dishonest responses when personality tests are being used for
employee development or team-building and when employees feel assured that the results of
their tests will not negatively impact their position within the organization. But when personality
measures are used for selection purposes, it seems more likely that people may attempt to fake
their answers. This is a possibility, just as it is possible that people will seek to present
themselves favorably—and perhaps somewhat inauthentically—in any type of job search context
such as interviewing, recruiting events, or social media profiles. Research on faking of
personality tests is rich and ongoing, and psychologists have developed a number of means to try
to minimize it or offset its effects. This includes the use of observer scores and expert ratings,
development of items that do not contain obviously desirable responses, adjusting scores to take
faking into account, test instructions, and testing of measures under “honest” and “faking”
conditions (Rothstein & Goffin, 2006).
Organizations that use personality testing for hiring face other obstacles in addition to faking.
For example, some tests could disparately and negatively impact certain groups of employment
applicants (e.g., people with disabilities; Ellin, 2012). In addition, there are many different
personality assessments available, and some are based on very little empirical investigation of
their validity, defined as their ability to predict subsequent job attitudes or performance. Third, it
is important to take into account the relevance of the trait measure to the job in question and to
keep in mind that personality is more complex than disposition alone, a fact that scientists are
only now beginning to appreciate.
Of course, any employment selection mechanism is vulnerable to risks. Although interviewing is
fixture in the selection process, there is ample documentation that it is ridden with the potential
for bias and inaccuracy. The drawbacks of measuring personality, therefore, do not mean that
organizations should avoid doing so entirely. It means that they should do so carefully, with
expert guidance, and with full awareness of how it fits their goals. Applicants, though aware of
the possible drawbacks, should also keep in mind that personality measurement is used by smart
organizations as only one tool of several. Furthermore, self-rated personality tests, which are the
most common type, provide you with an opportunity to tell the organization how you see
yourself rather than hoping that an interviewer will accurately perceive your personality. Finally,
answering personality measures honestly could make it more likely that you will land in an
organization that is a good fit for you.
Personality & Leadership Development
There is extensive evidence that managers who are self-aware are more effective than those who
are not (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992; Fleenor, Brightwater, Smither, Atwater, Braddy, &
Sturm, 2010). Self-awareness refers to accurate and adaptable understanding of one’s identity,
goals, capabilities, weaknesses, and values (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Being self-aware enables
you, for one, to better assess the types of careers and work environments that are going to be
most conducive to your success. Highly open people, for example, may be best-suited to jobs
where they can explore and be creative.
Self-awareness may also help you to understand where you need to focus your developmental
efforts. If you score high on agreeableness, for instance, you may privilege harmony with others
over advocating for yourself and your point-of-view, even when your coworkers or organization
would benefit from your advocacy. For instance, people high in agreeableness are less likely to
exercise “voice,” which means constructively challenging the status quo (LePine & Van Dyne,
2001). Research based on several large data sets has also found that highly agreeable people are
at an earnings disadvantage relative to disagreeable people, and the gap is much greater among
men (an 18% advantage for disagreeable men relative to agreeable men vs. a 5.5% advantage for
disagreeable women vs. agreeable women; Judge, Livingston, & Hurst, 2012). Some of this
effect appears to be due to gender stereotyping, but it may, in part, be attributable to the
possibility that highly agreeable people do not as often pursue goals that will advance their selfinterests, such as higher pay and promotions. This, of course, does not mean that you should try
to become highly disagreeable. Agreeable people confer many benefits on their organizations
and enjoy many personal benefits as well. They engage in higher levels of helping behavior and
are more cooperative (Chiaburu et al., 2011; LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). Moreover, they tend to
get fired less often, are more satisfied with their jobs, and enjoy more positive social
relationships at work and in their personal lives (Judge et al., 2002; Judge et al., 2012; Nahrgang,
Morgeson, & Ilies, 2009). The moral, therefore, is not to attempt to change entirely but to be
alert to situations in which your disposition may be working against you.
As a leader, a realistic understanding of yourself may lead to greater authenticity and humility.
You may be more likely to solicit input from others if you are aware of your shortcomings. For
example, leaders who are highly extraverted are biased toward risky decision making and
impulsive action. Knowing this about yourself, you may ask other people to help you evaluate
the downside of an option that you are favoring. Should you choose the riskier option, you may
invest more time in contingency planning and partner with people who are likely to proceed in a
more measured manner than you would on your own.
Conclusion
Personality assessment is no crystal ball. It provides but one lens into the complex whole that is
you. It can provide information that you can incorporate into your understanding of yourself and
use to build your career and your life. Therefore, take the results of your assessment, along with
the research described here, not as a pronouncement on your fate but as a means of developing
into the type of leader you want to be.
References
Atwater, L.E. & Yammarino, F.J. (1992). Does self–other agreement on leadership perceptions
moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology,
45, 141–164.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338.
Babiak, P., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2010). Corporate psychopathy: Talking the walk.
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 174–193.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the
beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next?
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9-30.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability
and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 377-391.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship
between affect and employee "citizenship." Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587595.
Bell, S.T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595-615.
Berry CM, Ones DS, Sackett PR. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and
their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
410–424.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901-910.
Cervone, D., & Pervin, L.A. (2008). Personality: Theory and research (10th ed.). New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I.-S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011). The five-factor model
of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96, 1140-1166.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and the
NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects
of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880-896.
Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M. 2006. A meta-analytic
investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the
intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 40-57.
Dunlop, P. D., & Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, and
business unit performance: The bad apples do spoil the whole barrel. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25, 67–80.
Ellin, A. (2012). Woman sues over personality test job rejection. ABC News. Retrieved from
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/personality-tests-workplacebogus/story?id=17349051#.UG2A45iU2So.
George, J.M. & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related
to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513524.
Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership
advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 528550.
Heckman JJ, Stixrud J, Urzua S. (2006). The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on
labor market outcomes and social behavior. Journal of Labor Economics, 24, 411–482.
Fleenor, J.W., Smither, J.W., Atwater, L.E., Braddy, P.W., & Sturm, R.E. (2010). Self–other
rating agreement in leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1005-1034.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530-541.
Judge, T.A. & Hurst, C. (2008). How the rich (and happy) get richer (and happier): Relationship
of core self-evaluations to trajectories in attaining work success. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 849-863.
Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. (2007). Capitalizing on one’s advantages: Role of core self-evaluations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1212-1227.
Judge, T.A., Hurst, C., & Simon, L. (2009). Does it pay to be smart, attractive, or confident (or
all three)?: Relationships among general mental ability, physical attractiveness, core selfevaluations, and income. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 742-755.
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807.
Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). The narcissistic personality: Relationship with
inflated self-ratings of leadership and with task and contextual performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91, 762-776.
Judge, T.A., Livingston, B.L., & Hurst, C. (2012). Do nice guys—and gals—really finish last?
The joint effects of sex and agreeableness on income. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 102, 390-407.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction:
A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151-188.
LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. 2008. A meta-analysis
of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team
effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273–307.
LePine, J.A. & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice & cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of
contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality
characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326-336.
Loehlin, J. C., McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. Jr. & John, O. P. (1998). Heritabilities of common and
measure-specific components of the big five personality factors. Journal of Research in
Personality, 32, 431–453.
McAdams D.P. & Olson B.D. (2010). Personality development: continuity and change. Annual
Review of Psychology, 61, 517–542.
Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2004). Flux, pulse, and spin: Dynamic additions to the
personality lexicon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 880-893.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. 1994. Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475–480.
Nahrgang, J.D., Morgeson, F.P., & Ilies, R. (2009). The development of leader-member
exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member
relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108,
256-266.
O'Boyle, E. H.; Forsyth, D.R.; Banks, George C.; McDaniel, Michael A. (2012). A meta-analysis
of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97, 557-579.
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and
organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122–141.
Roberts BW, Kuncel NR, Shiner R, Caspi A, Goldberg LR. The power of personality: The
comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for
predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 313–345.
Roberts, B.W., Walton, K., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in
personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25.
Rothstein, M. G., & Goffin, R. D. (2006). The use of personality measures in personnel
selection: What does current research support? Human Resource Management Review,
16, 155-180.
Appendix A
Trait
Emotional Stability
People who score high
on this trait tend
toward:
Low levels of negative
emotions
Aspect
Volatility
Withdrawal
Agreeableness
Extraversion
Concern for others &
prioritization of
relationships
Compassion
High levels of positive
emotions
Enthusiasm
Politeness
Assertiveness
Conscientiousness
Achievement-orientation
and dutifulness
Industriousness
Orderliness
People with high scores
on this aspect tend
toward:
Composure, eventemperedness
Low self-consciousness,
calm
Interest in others, empathy,
altruism, gratitude
Nurturance, cooperation,
compliance, concern for
impact of one’s actions on
others
Friendliness, fun-seeking,
comfort around others, not
being easily embarrassed
Taking charge, selfexpression, confrontation,
energy, talkativeness
Purposefulness, efficiency,
self-discipline,
achievement
Planning, avoiding
mistakes, scheduling,
following rules,
People with low scores on
this aspect tend toward:
Hostility, instability,
immoderation
Depression, selfconsciousness, anxiety
Indifference to others’
needs and feelings
Pushiness, arrogance,
conflict-seeking, focus on
personal gain
Keeping a distance from
others, being difficult to
get to know, not easily
excited
Difficulty influencing
others, waiting for others to
lead, withholding opinions
Easily distracted, difficulty
making decisions
Messiness, dislike for
routine
Trait
Openness
People who score high
Aspect
on this trait tend
toward:
Exploration, curiosity, and Intellect
imagination
Openness
People with high scores
on this aspect tend
toward:
Mastery of language, selfexamination, idea
generation, preference for
intellectual challenge,
quick to grasp new
information
Creativity, preference for
change, reflection,
enjoyment of art, seeking
beauty
People with low scores on
this aspect tend toward:
Difficulty grasping abstract
ideas or reading difficult
material, avoidance of
philosophical discussions,
preference for the concrete
and quantifiable
Little interest in art, rarely
daydream or get lost in
thought, seldom get
emotional about art
Appendix B
Meta-Analytic Correlations (ρ) of the Five-Factor Traits with Work Outcomes
Emotional
Job
Goal-Setting
Expectancy
Self-Efficacy
Satisfaction
Motivation
Motivation
Motivation
Performance
.29
.29
.29
.35
.13
Agreeableness
.17
-.29
.13
.09
.13
Extraversion
.25
.15
.10
.33
.12
Conscientiousness
.26
.28
.23
.11
.27
Openness
.02
.15
-.08
.20
.07
Citizenship
Team
Contingent Reward
Transformational
Behavior
Performance
Leadership
Leadership
-.23
.12
.21
.10
.17
Agreeableness
-.46
.14
.34
.17
.14
Extraversion
-.09
.11
.18
.14
.24
Conscientiousness
-.42
.18
.33
.02
.13
Openness
-.04
.14
.25
.03
.15
Stability
Counterproductive
Behavior
Emotional
Stability