scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis

01 Mar 1991-Personnel Psychology (PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY)-Vol. 44, Iss: 1, pp 1-26
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....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
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)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
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)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
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
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors tested the hypothesis that the standard deviation of employee output as a percentage of mean output increases as a function of the complexity level of the job and found that the SDP values for sales jobs are considerably larger than nonsales jobs.
Abstract: The hypothesis was tested that the standard deviation of employee output as a percentage of mean output (SD,,) increases as a function of the complexity level of the job. The data examined were adjusted for the inflationary effects of measurement error and the deflationary effects of range restriction on observed SDy figures, refinements absent from previous studies. Results indicate that SDT increases as the information-processing demands (complexity) of the job increase; the observed progression was approximately 19%, 32%, and 48%, from low to medium to high complexity nonsales jobs, respectively. SDP values for sales jobs are considerably larger. These findings have important implications for the output increases that can be produced through improved selection. They may also contribute to the development of a theory of work performance. In addition, there may be

365 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Factorization yielded eleven factors, of which, on “blind” rotation for simple structure, 9 or 10 proved to be identical with those of the previous study.
Abstract: In connection with a study bridging rating, questionnaire, and objective test factors, confirmation was sought with respect to the twelve personality factors previously found for young adult men. Variables were chosen to clarify and discriminate the nature of related factors. Ratings of and by 373 students were obtained, and the present study describes the separate factorization for the 133 men among them. Factorization yielded eleven factors, of which, on “blind” rotation for simple structure, 9 or 10 proved to be identical with those of the previous study. A new factorM is described.

321 citations


"The big five personality dimensions..." refers background in this paper

  • ...About 10 years later, Cattell (1943, 1946, 1947, 1948) developed a relatively complex taxonomy of individual differences that consisted of 16 primary factors and 8 second-order factors....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI

308 citations


Additional excerpts

  • ...Bond, Nakazato, & Shiraishi, 1975; Noller, Law, & Comrey, 1987); using ratings obtained from different sources (e.g., Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & Takemoto-Chock , 1981; Fiske, 1949; McCrae & Costa, 1987; Norman, 1963; Norman & Goldberg, 1966; Watson, 1989); and with a variety of samples (see Digman, 1990, for a more detailed discussion)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The data of this longitudinal study carried out over five decades strongly indicate that there is a set of personality traits that are generalizable across methods of assessment and are stable throughout adulthood.
Abstract: The longitudinal stability of personality was investigated in a group of several hundred adults who were rated by themselves, their marriage partners, and their acquaintances in 1935-1938 and by themselves and their marriage partners in 1954-1955. For both men and women, there were very similar factorial structures in all five sources of ratings. Individual differences in neuroticism, social extraversion, and impulse control had reasonably high levels of longitudinal stability over a 19-year period. Both the synchronic and diachronic correlations converged across methods and discriminated among traits. Self-report personality inventory data available in 1935-1938 and 1954-1955 provided corroborating evidence of the longitudinal and methodological robustness of personality traits. In data gathered on the same panel in 1980-1981, the questionnaire and the life history correlates of neuroticism and social extraversion displayed patterns indicative of temporal stability, methodological convergence, and discrimination among constructs. The data of this longitudinal study carried out over five decades strongly indicate that there is a set of personality traits that are generalizable across methods of assessment and are stable throughout adulthood.

304 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)....

    [...]

  • ...During the past decade, an impressive body of literature has accumulated which provides compelling evidence for the robustness of the 5factor model: across different theoretical frameworks (Goldberg, 1981); using different instruments (e.g., Conley, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1988; Lorr & Youniss, 1973; McCrae, 1989; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1987, 1989); in different cultures (e.g.....

    [...]

  • ...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, ......

    [...]

  • ...Some define it in terms of responsibilit y or dependability (e.g., Hogan, 1986), whereas others view it as also including volitional aspects, such as hardworking, persistent, and achievementoriented (e.g., Conley, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Krug & Johns, 1986; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1987, 1989)....

    [...]

  • ...The third dimension has generally been interpreted as Agreeableness or Likability (Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985; Goldberg, 1981; Hakel, 1974; Hogan, 1983; John, 1989; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller et al., 1987; Norman, 1963; Smith, 1967; Tupes & Christal, 1961)....

    [...]