ccf doctoral thesis - predicting work performance using the five factor model and the cases model...
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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.
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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.
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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.
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
15/199
5
Test Name Description Common Uses
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
Individual development
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
Individual development
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
Individual development
Leadership development
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
16/199
6
Test Name Description Common Uses
Leadership development
Sales training
Customer relations training
Supervisory skills development
Table 2: Six of the Most Commonly Used Personality Instruments (Dent and Curd,
2004)
1.2. PERSONALITY AND WORK PERFORMANCE
The fundamental objective of personality psychology is to understand how personality can
be used to predict behavior (Mayer, 2003). Individuals display consistent patterns of
behavior, thought, and emotion that are relatively stable and which form the basic
conception of personality (Allport, 1937). Personality theories may be classified into five
categories (Ryckman, 1997):
i) The psychoanalytic perspectives of Freud, Jung, and Adler, which are biological in
nature and based on the premise of the unfolding of stages where the particular
behaviors occur;
ii) The traits perspectives of Allport, Cattell, and Eysenck, which assume there are
dispositional factors that determine behavior in various situations;
iii) The cognitive perspectives of Pavlov, Skinner, and Rotter, which assume personality
is never completely determined and that people are always changing and free to
reinterpret their experiences idiosyncratically;
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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).
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
20/199
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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,
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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.
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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.
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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.
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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).
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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).
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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).
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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.
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
39/199
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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).
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
42/199
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
43/199
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
45/199
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
46/199
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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.
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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).
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
50/199
40
Table 3: The 16 Personality Types with Cognitive Characteristics and Occupational
Tendencies
-
8/6/2019 CCF Doctoral Thesis - Predicting Work Performance using the Five Factor Model and the Cases Model (KYKO) of Per
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