The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigated the relation of the Big Five personality dimensions (extraversion, emotional stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience) to three job performance criteria (job proficiency, training proficiency, and personnel data) for five occupational groups (professionals, police, managers, sales, and skilled/semi-skilled).
Abstract: This study investigated the relation of the “Big Five” personality dimensions (Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience) to three job performance criteria (job proficiency, training proficiency, and personnel data) for five occupational groups (professionals, police, managers, sales, and skilled/semi-skilled). Results indicated that one dimension of personality, Conscientiousness, showed consistent relations with all job performance criteria for all occupational groups. For the remaining personality dimensions, the estimated true score correlations varied by occupational group and criterion type. Extraversion was a valid predictor for two occupations involving social interaction, managers and sales (across criterion types). Also, both Openness to Experience and Extraversion were valid predictors of the training proficiency criterion (across occupations). Other personality dimensions were also found to be valid predictors for some occupations and some criterion types, but the magnitude of the estimated true score correlations was small (ρ < .10). Overall, the results illustrate the benefits of using the 5-factor model of personality to accumulate and communicate empirical findings. The findings have numerous implications for research and practice in personnel psychology, especially in the subfields of personnel selection, training and development, and performance appraisal.
Citations
More filters
01 Jan 1999
TL;DR: The Big Five taxonomy as discussed by the authors is a taxonomy of personality dimensions derived from analyses of the natural language terms people use to describe themselves 3 and others, and it has been used for personality assessment.
Abstract: 2 Taxonomy is always a contentious issue because the world does not come to us in neat little packages (S. Personality has been conceptualized from a variety of theoretical perspectives, and at various levels of Each of these levels has made unique contributions to our understanding of individual differences in behavior and experience. However, the number of personality traits, and scales designed to measure them, escalated without an end in sight (Goldberg, 1971). Researchers, as well as practitioners in the field of personality assessment, were faced with a bewildering array of personality scales from which to choose, with little guidance and no overall rationale at hand. What made matters worse was that scales with the same name often measure concepts that are not the same, and scales with different names often measure concepts that are quite similar. Although diversity and scientific pluralism are useful, the systematic accumulation of findings and the communication among researchers became difficult amidst the Babel of concepts and scales. Many personality researchers had hoped that they might devise the structure that would transform the Babel into a community speaking a common language. However, such an integration was not to be achieved by any one researcher or by any one theoretical perspective. As Allport once put it, " each assessor has his own pet units and uses a pet battery of diagnostic devices " (1958, p. 258). What personality psychology needed was a descriptive model, or taxonomy, of its subject matter. One of the central goals of scientific taxonomies is the definition of overarching domains within which large numbers of specific instances can be understood in a simplified way. Thus, in personality psychology, a taxonomy would permit researchers to study specified domains of personality characteristics, rather than examining separately the thousands of particular attributes that make human beings individual and unique. Moreover, a generally accepted taxonomy would greatly facilitate the accumulation and communication of empirical findings by offering a standard vocabulary, or nomenclature. After decades of research, the field is approaching consensus on a general taxonomy of personality traits, the " Big Five " personality dimensions. These dimensions do not represent a particular theoretical perspective but were derived from analyses of the natural-language terms people use to describe themselves 3 and others. Rather than replacing all previous systems, the Big Five taxonomy serves an integrative function because it can represent the various and diverse systems of personality …
7,787 citations
Additional excerpts
...For example, in studies of job performance (for reviews see Barrick & Mount, 1991; Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1998), the Big Five have been found to relate to important outc mes in the workplace....
[...]
TL;DR: It is argued that the five-factor model of personality should prove useful both for individual assessment and for the elucidation of a number of topics of interest to personality psychologists.
Abstract: The five-factor model of personality is a hierarchical organization of personality traits in terms of five basic dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. Research using both natural language adjectives and theoretically based personality questionnaires supports the comprehensiveness of the model and its applicability across observers and cultures. This article summarizes the history of the model and its supporting evidence; discusses conceptions of the nature of the factors; and outlines an agenda for theorizing about the origins and operation of the factors. We argue that the model should prove useful both for individual assessment and for the elucidation of a number of topics of interest to personality psychologists.
5,838 citations
Cites background from "The big five personality dimensions..."
...…five factors have been shown to predict external criteria from divergent thinking abilities (McCrae, 1987) to marital adjustment and divorce (Kelly & Conley, 1987), to coronary disease endpoints (Dembroski, MacDougall, Costa, & Grandits, 1989), to job performance criteria (Barrick & Mount, 1991)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, a set of 100 unipolar terms for personality traits was developed and compared with previously developed ones based on far larger sets of trait adjectives, as well as with the scales from the NEO and Hogan personality inventories.
Abstract: To satisfy the need in personality research for factorially univocal measures of each of the 5 domains that subsume most English-language terms for personality-traits, new sets of Big-Five factor markers were investigated. In studies of adjective-anchored bipolar rating scales, a transparent format was found to produce factor markers that were more univocal than the same scales administered in the traditional format. Nonetheless, even the transparent bipolar scales proved less robust as factor markers than did parallel sets of adjectives administered in unipolar format. A set of 100 unipolar terms proved to be highly robust across quite diverse samples of self and peer descriptions. These new markers were compared with previously developed ones based on far larger sets of trait adjectives, as well as with the scales from the NEO and Hogan personality inventories.
4,777 citations
TL;DR: Grit demonstrated incremental predictive validity of success measures over and beyond IQ and conscientiousness, suggesting that the achievement of difficult goals entails not only talent but also the sustained and focused application of talent over time.
Abstract: The importance of intellectual talent to achievement in all professional domains is well established, but less is known about other individual differences that predict success. The authors tested the importance of 1 noncognitive trait: grit. Defined as perseverance and passion for long-term goals, grit accounted for an average of 4% of the variance in success outcomes, including educational attainment among 2 samples of adults (N=1,545 and N=690), grade point average among Ivy League undergraduates (N=138), retention in 2 classes of United States Military Academy, West Point, cadets (N=1,218 and N=1,308), and ranking in the National Spelling Bee (N=175). Grit did not relate positively to IQ but was highly correlated with Big Five Conscientiousness. Grit nonetheless demonstrated incremental predictive validity of success measures over and beyond IQ and conscientiousness. Collectively, these findings suggest that the achievement of difficult goals entails not only talent but also the sustained and focused application of talent over time.
4,470 citations
Cites background from "The big five personality dimensions..."
...In a 1991 meta-analysis, Barrick and Mount concluded that Big Five Conscientiousness related more robustly to job performance than did Big Five Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Neuroticism, or Agreeableness (Barrick & Mount, 1991)....
[...]
...In a 1991 meta-analysis, Barrick and Mount concluded that Big Five Conscientiousness related more robustly to job performance than did Big Five Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Neuroticism, or Agreeableness (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Uncorrected correlations between conscientiousness and job performance ranged from r .09 to r .13, depending on the occupational group. In a meta-analysis of confirmatory studies of personality measures as predictors of job performance, Tett, Jackson, and Rothstein (1991) observed a sample-weighted mean correlation between conscientiousness and job performance of r ....
[...]
...As we expected, grit related to Conscientiousness (r .77, p .001) more than to Neuroticism (r .38, p .001), Agreeableness (r .24, p .001), Extraversion (r .22, p .001), and Openness to Experience (r .14, p .001)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, a meta-analysis investigated the relationships between person-job (PJ), person-organization (PO), person group, and person-supervisor fit with pre-entry (applicant attraction, job acceptance, intent to hire, job offer) and postentry individual-level criteria (attitudes, performance, withdrawal behaviors, strain, tenure).
Abstract: This meta-analysis investigated the relationships between person‐job (PJ), person‐organization (PO), person‐group, and person‐supervisor fit with preentry (applicant attraction, job acceptance, intent to hire, job offer) and postentry individual-level criteria (attitudes, performance, withdrawal behaviors, strain, tenure). A search of published articles, conference presentations, dissertations, and working papers yielded 172 usable studies with 836 effect sizes. Nearly all of the credibility intervals did not include 0, indicating the broad generalizability of the relationships across situations. Various ways in which fit was conceptualized and measured, as well as issues of study design, were examined as moderators to these relationships in studies of PJ and PO fit. Interrelationships between the various types of fit are also meta-analyzed. 25 studies using polynomial regression as an analytic technique are reviewed separately, because of their unique approach to assessing fit. Broad themes emerging from the results are discussed to generate the implications for future research on fit.
4,107 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: To determine the higher order factors defined by scales of the Interpersonal Style Inventory (ISI), data from two male samples and from one female sample were separately analyzed and found five rotated factors established were highly similar across samples.
Abstract: To determine the higher order factors defined by scales of the Interpersonal Style Inventory (ISI), data from two male samples and from one female sample were separately analyzed. Intercorrelations of 14 of the scales were analyzed by the method of principal axes. The five rotated factors established were highly similar across samples. They were interpreted as Socialized vs. Unsocialized, Interpersonally Involved vs. Withdrawn, Autonomous vs. Conforming, Controlled vs. Spontaneous, and Stable vs. Anxious. The findings are compared to constructs established in the PRF and 16 PF.
20 citations
"The big five personality dimensions..." refers background in this paper
...This factor has been most frequently called Emotional Stability, Stability, Emotionality, or Neuroticism (Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985; Hakel, 1974; John, 1989; Lorr & Manning, 1978; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller et al., 1987; Norman, 1963; Smith, 1967)....
[...]
...Based on the evidence cited by Digman (1990), the preponderance of evidence supports the definition of conscientious ness as including these volitional aspects (Bernstein, Garbin, & McClellan, 1983; Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Howarth, 1976; Krug & Johns, 1986; Lei & Skinner, 1982; Lorr & Manning, 1978; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1987, ......
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, two matrices of intercorrelations among the scales of the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) were subjected to oblique multiple group factor analysis, which allowed a direct test of the factor structure implicit in its standard use, and found this structure to provide a satisfactory representation of the data as long as one realizes that the resulting six factors are correlated and contain one dependency.
Abstract: Two matrices of intercorrelations among the scales of the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) were subjected to oblique multiple group factor analysis. In contrast to previous studies, this approach allows a direct test of the factor structure implicit in its standard use. We found this structure to provide a satisfactory representation of the data as long as one realizes that the resulting six factors are correlated and contain one dependency and that Scales Wb and Cm fulfill their postulated roles somewhat more poorly than the remaining scales.
18 citations
"The big five personality dimensions..." refers background in this paper
...Based on the evidence cited by Digman (1990), the preponderance of evidence supports the definition of conscientious ness as including these volitional aspects ( Bernstein, Garbin, & McClellan, 1983; Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Howarth, 1976; Krug & Johns, 1986; Lei & Skinner, 1982; Lorr & Manning, 1978; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1987, ......
[...]
TL;DR: The authors conducted simultaneous factor analysis on English and French language versions of the personality research form and found evidence for the effectiveness of the French language PRF translation, as well as for the presence of common personality dimensions among English-and French-speaking populations.
Abstract: Using the analysis of covariance structures approach, a simultaneous factor analysis was conducted on English (N=1,465) and French (N=695) language versions of the Personality Research Form. A five factor solution that was restricted to be identical in both populations provided a good fit to the data, as measured by the size of residual correlations and difference between x[SUP2] values for respective models. The five factors were labelled: (1) Orientation toward work versus play, (2) Outgoing, social leadership, (3) Dependence versus autonomy, (4) Self-protective versus submissive orientation, and (5) Aesthetic, intellectual achievement. This finding provided evidence for the effectiveness of the French language PRF translation, as well as for the presence of common personality dimensions among English and French speaking populations.
16 citations
"The big five personality dimensions..." refers background in this paper
...Based on the evidence cited by Digman (1990), the preponderance of evidence supports the definition of conscientious ness as including these volitional aspects (Bernstein, Garbin, & McClellan, 1983; Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Howarth, 1976; Krug & Johns, 1986; Lei & Skinner, 1982; Lorr & Manning, 1978; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1987, ......
[...]