INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 3. No. 6. November, 2011, I Part PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES (ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AS A MODERATOR) 1 1 2 3 Nur Naha Abu Mansur , Melati Anuar Ahmed , Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq *, Jawwad Ahmad , Ghulam Ali 4 1 Department of Human Resource Development, Faculty of Management and Human Resource Development 2 Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) (MALAYSIA), Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology, Islamabad (PAKISTAN). PhD Scholar, Department of Human Resource Development Faculty of Management and 3 Human Resource Development Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) (MALAYSIA), COMSATS Institute of 4 Information Technology, Wah Cantt (PAKISTAN), PhD Scholar, Department of Management, Faculty of Management and Human Resource Development Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) (MALAYSIA) *Corresponding author: Ishaq74nk@yahoo.com ABSTRACT This paper examines the relationship of big five personality traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Openness to Experience and Consciousness) with organizational out comes (Job Performance, Job Satisfaction) with culture as a moderating variable. This study will analyze 4 culture dimensions i.e. Individualism, Power Distance, Masculinity and Uncertainty avoidance proposed by (Hofstede, 1980). It is proposed that relationship between extraverts and organizational outcomes will be strong in individualistic culture, relationship between neuroticism and organizational outcomes will be strong in uncertainty avoidance culture but relationship between agreeableness and organizational outcomes will be weak in uncertainty avoidance culture, the relationship between openness to experience and organizational outcomes will be high in masculine culture, the relationship between conscientiousness and organizational outcomes will be high in power distance culture and the relationship between agreeableness and organizational outcomes will be weak in power distance culture. Key words: Neuroticism, Agreeableness, relationship between neuroticism and organizational outcomes 1. INTRODUCTION Personality and organizational outcomes have been an important research area in organizational behavior. There has been growing evidence that big five personality traits play a very important role in determining organizational outcomes (Barrick & Mount,1991; Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Judge, Heller & Mount, 2002; Barrick, Stewart & Piotrowski, 2002; Hogan & Holland, 2003; Erdheim, Wang & Zickar, 2006) and remarkable support that big five personality traits positively relates to performance at work (Barrick, Parks & Mount, 2005). Recent research shows that personality influences the type of environments we seek (Judge & Cable, 1997; Schneider, Smith, Taylor & Fleenor., 1998; Barrick, Mount, & Gupta, 2003;) and plays a vital role in determining what situations one chooses to be in and the types of environments one try to find and the types of people and activities one prefer (Barrick & Mount, 2005). These interests and values have a larger effect on personorganization fit (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). An organization is not a submissive or stable institution and it progresses and develops within an organizational culture (Silverthorne, 2004). Culture assists in determining how well a person “fits” within a particular organization because the “fit” includes feeling comfortable with the culture (O’ Reilly, 1989) which further relates to employee productivity and employee turnover (Rousseau & Parks, 1992; Ryan & Schmit, 1996). Organizational culture helps in establishing the norms for employee’s behavior which have direct impact on P-O fit and this P-O fit has impact on organization outcomes (Silverthorne, 2004). Therefore more the individuals personality traits fits an organizational cultural values the more it will positively relates to organizational out comes. The interaction between personality traits and organization culture will have a significant impact in determining the organizational outcomes. Many researchers have recognized the influence of culture on behavior (Diener & Lucas, 1999; McCrae, 2001; Silverthorne, 2004). But it is yet to be studied that how organizational culture will affect the relationship between personality and organizational outcomes. The objective of the present study is to see the moderating role of organizational culture on the relationship between big five personality traits and organizational outcomes. 54 | www.ijar.lit.az INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 3. No. 6. November, 2011, I Part 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Big Five personality traits The big five model of personality has emerged as a strong classification of personality (Digman, 1990). Big 5 personality traits model determined the broad five personality types which are very useful in predicting different kinds of work related attitudes and behaviors. Different Many studies have been conducted to determine the dispositional causes of different kind of organizational outcomes such as the relationship between big 5 personality traits and job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991), personality and organizational commitment (Erdheim, Wang & Zickar, 2006 ) and relationship between big 5 personality traits and job satisfaction (Judge, Heller & Mount, 2002). The researchers are agreed that a five factor model of personality (Digman, 1990) also known as Big Five (Goldberg, 1990), can be used to describe the most salient aspects of personality (Judge et al., 2002) and also generalized across measures, cultures and sources of ratings (McCrae & John, 1992). 2.2. Big Five personality traits and organizational outcomes The big 5 personality traits are independent personality traits which determine five broad personality types including Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness and Openness to Experience (Goldberg, 1990; Barrick & Mount, 1991). 2.3. Extraversion Extraverts are described as sociable, talkative, gregarious, assertive, ambitious and expressive (Barrick & Mount, 1991). They tend to be articulate, expressive, dramatic, active, impulsive and seek for excitement (Goldberg, 1990; Watson & Clark, 1997). Extraverts have a strong desire for praise, social recognition, status and power (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Extraverts are positively related to affective commitment as compare to other big five traits (Erdheim, Wang & Zickar, 2006). Extraverts like to experience positive emotions (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and positive emotions lead to job satisfaction (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000). Extraverts are also emotionally stable individuals, which is the key aspect of happy personality (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998) and this happy personality leads to happy life and also job satisfaction (Judge et al. 2002). Extraverts are also found to be valid predictor of job performance for occupations involving social interaction, management and sales (Barrick & Mount, 1991) 2.4. Neuroticism Neuroticism represents individual differences in the tendency to experience distress and is described as emotionally instable (Costa and McCrae, 1988; McCrae & John, 1992). Neurotics include traits like tense, angry, moody, embarrassed, emotional, worried, insecure and anxious, fearful, depressed (Barrick & Mount, 1991, 1993; Judge and Bono, 2000). Neurotics lack trust in others (Goldberg, 1990), have limited social skills and avoids situations that demand taking control (Judge, Locke & Durham, 1997) and also lack self-confidence and selfesteem (McCrae & Costa, 1991).Neuroticism is closely related to Negative Affectivity (NA) (Watson & Tellegan, 1988). They experience more negative feelings in life than other individuals (Magnus, Diener, Fujita & Pavot, 1993). That’s why neurotics are found to be negatively correlated with job satisfaction (Judge et al., 1999; Judge et al., 2002) and also with Job Performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Neurotics are positively related to continuance commitment (Erdheim, Wang & Zickar, 2006) and continuance commitment is negatively related to overall job performance (Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffm & Jackson, 1989). Results of meta analysis conducted by Meyer et al. (2002) shows that continuance commitment is negatively related to overall performance and Neuroticism is also negatively related to job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett & Burnett, 2003). 2.5. Conscientiousness Conscientiousness personality type includes traits such as hardworking, careful, thorough, responsible, organized, persevering (Barrick & Mount, 1991). High conscientiousness individuals are methodical, dependable, and risk averse (Goldberg, 1990). These individuals are responsible, dependable, persistent, planful, careful, hardworking and achievement oriented which are important attributes for performing work tasks (Barrick & Mount. 1991, 1993). That’s why conscientiousness individuals best correlates with job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2002) and job performance (Barrick and Mount, 1991) among all other traits of big 5 family. Conscientious people have an inclination to form long-term employment exchange relationships and seek to opt an environment where they can have better opportunities for achievement and success (Raja, Johns & Ntalianis, 2004). Conscientiousness people are one of the most consistent and significant predictors of job performance (Barrick et al., 2001; Judge et al., 2002 ) due to their work involvement and possibility of getting formal and informal rewards (Organ and Lingl, 1995). (Erdheim et al., 2006) found out a positive relationship between conscientiousness and affective commitment. 2.6. Agreeableness Agreeable describes the characteristics such as altruism, nurturance, caring, and emotional support at one end of the dimension, and hostility, indifference to others and self-centeredness (Digman, 1990). Agreeables include traits such as courteous, flexible, trusting, good natured, cooperative, forgiving, soft hearted, and tolerant (Barrick & Mount, 1991) and tend to be kind, gentle, trusting, trustworthy and warm (Judge & Bono 2000). Agreeableness is considered as the most controversial personality trait of the Big Five model of personality among personality psychologists (McCrae & Costa, 1997). There is a very weak correlation between agreeableness and job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991) and job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2002) and have significant relationship with normative commitment (Erdehim et al., 2006). B a k u , A z e r b a i j a n | 55 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 3. No. 6. November, 2011, I Part 2.7. Openness to Experience Openness to Experience is related to scientific and artistic creativity, divergent thinking, and political liberalism (Judge et al., 2002; McCrae, 1996; Feist 1998). The behavioral tendency generally associated with Openness to Experience include being imaginative, cultured, curious, broad-minded, intelligent having a need for variety, aesthetic and sensitivity (Goldberg, 1990;Digman, 1990;McCrae & John, 1992). Individuals high in openness to experience have a strong desire for change and they are in a better position to understand and adapt to other perspectives (Costa and McCrae, 1988; McCrae, 1996). “Openness to Experience is a ‘double-edged sword’ that predisposes individuals to feel both the good and the bad more deeply” (DeNeve and Cooper, 1998, p. 199) depicting its directional influence on affective reactions like subjective well-being (Judge et al., 2002). That’s why research shows that openness to experience has weak correlation with job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2002). However, the study of Barrick and Mount (1991) founded that openness to experience is strongly correlated with job performance for “training proficiency criterion” as they are creative, perceptive and thoughtful (Judge and Bono, 2000) and also have a very positive attitude towards learning and training experiences (Barrick and Mount, 1991). Openness to experience has a controversial structure and limited research history among big five personality traits and showed a weak significance to organizational behavior (McCrae and Costa, 1997; Raja et al., 2004). 3. BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE The expanding literature on job and organizational choice indicates that perspective employees are attracted to work environments that are compatible with their personal characteristics (Kristof, 1996). Research has indicated the importance of job seekers' and employees' organizational culture preferences in predicting their job choice decisions and work attitudes (Cable & Judge, 1996; Judge & Bretz, 1992; O'Reilly et al., 1991). Hofstede (1980), proposed four cultural dimensions which are uncertainty avoidance, power distance, individualism and masculinity. In present study we will used these four dimensions in influencing the relationship between Big Five personality traits and organizational outcomes. 3.1. Uncertainty Avoidance Uncertainty Avoidance is defined as the” extent to which members of an organization or society strive to avoid uncertainty by reliance on social norms, rituals, and bureaucratic practices to alleviate the unpredictability of future events” (House, Javidan, Hanges & Dorfman, 2002). Uncertainty avoidance indicates how a culture grooms its members to behave in comfortable or uncomfortable manner in situations which are unstructured, novel unknown, surprising and different that usual (Hofstede 2001, 2004). In uncertainty-avoiding cultures strict laws rules and regulations are made to avoid these uncertain situations (Hofstede, 2004). Neuroticism represents individual differences in the tendency to experience distress and described as emotionally instable (Costa & McCrae, 1988; McCrae & John, 1992). Neurotics include traits like tense, angry, moody, embarrassed, emotional, worried, insecure and anxious, fearful, depressed (Barrick & Mount, 1991, 1993; Judge & Bono, 2000) lack trust in others (Goldberg, 1990), have limited social skills and avoids situations that demand taking control (Judge, Locke & Durham, 1997). Neurotic individuals also are inclined to anxiety, and have a tendency to be fearful of novel situations and propensity to feelings of dependence and helplessness (Wiggins, 1996) therefore will not perform well in uncertain situations and will be less satisfied with their job. So the individual with neurotic personality within uncertainty avoidance culture where proper rules and regulations are imposed for uncertainty avoidance will perform well and there performance will be improved. Therefore, it is hypothesize that: H1: Uncertainty avoidance moderates the relationship between neuroticism and out comes such that in high uncertainty avoidance culture relationship is strong and in low uncertainty avoidance culture relationship is weak. 3.2. Individualism In individualist culture, the ties between individuals are loose, everyone is expected to look after himself or herself (Hofstede 2004). Individualistic societies stress the development and differentiation of a unique personality and identity, autonomy, and the primacy of personal goals and needs (Robert & Wasti, 2002). In individualism people are dominant assertive self confident, independent decision makers (Hofested 2001). Individualism is the tendency to treat the self as the most meaningful social unit (Robert & Wasti, 2002). As individual differences variables, they are called idiocentrism (Triandis, Leung, Villareal & Clack, 1985). Idiocentrism is characterized notions such as independence, uniqueness, and self-reliance (Robert & Wasti, 2002). Extroverts also are assertive, bold, forceful and dominant (Goldberg, 1990), suggesting a link between extraversion and aggressiveness. On the other hand, the aggressiveness of extroverts suggests that they may not value the sensitivity in supportive cultures but they may be attracted to aggressive cultures (Judge & Cable, 1997). Individualism is characterized by aggressiveness and dominance. (O'Reilly et al, 1991) found that two aspects of extraversion, dominance and aggressiveness, were associated with preferences for aggressive cultures which further relates to employee productivity (Rousseau & Parks, 1992). Extraverts positively relates to individualism (Hofestede & McCrae, 2004). So the individual with extravert personality within individualism culture where people feel independence to show their dominance and aggressiveness which are also key attributes extravert will lead to high work performance and job satisfaction. Therefore we hypothesize that: H2: Individualism moderates the relationship between extraverts and out comes such that in high individualist culture relationship will be is strong and in low individualistic culture relationship is weak. 56 | www.ijar.lit.az INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 3. No. 6. November, 2011, I Part 3.3. Masculinity Cultural masculinity stands for a focus on ego, money, things, and work (Hofstede and McCrae, 2004). Masculinity culture has the characteristics of high achievement and high success oriented and supports to do unconventional things. Openness to experience individuals are described as original, unconventional, and independent (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Openness to experience is positively related with masculinity (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004), because openness to experience individuals like to experience new things and in masculine cultures people are more assertive and want sense of accomplishment, achievement, and are independent decision makers. So the individual having openness to experience personality trait within masculine culture where people are unconventional and achievement oriented will feel more comfortable and perform well and their job performance will be improved comparatively. Therefore, we hypothesize that: H3: Masculinity moderates the relationship between openness to experience and outcomes such that in high masculine culture relationship is strong and in low masculine culture relationship is weak. 3.4. Power Distance Power distance is the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations accept and expect that power is distributed unequally (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). This characterize the unequal distribution of wealth and authority, individuals in power distance culture have pre defined roles and responsibilities (Hofestede 2001). Research has shown that conscientiousness individuals tend to be controlled, rule-bound, cautious, and risk averse (Goldberg, 1990). Therefore, conscientiousness may be attracted to detail-oriented cultures because such cultures have norms for meticulousness and accuracy (Sheridan, 1992). The cautious, risk averse nature of conscientious individuals (Goldberg, 1990) does not suit the risk taking, creative and innovative cultures (O'Reilly et al., 1991). Therefore conscientious individuals will be positively influenced by power distance culture. Due to the predefined roles and responsibilities and formal rules and regulations and hierarchy of authority relationship power distance culture are less innovative so conscientiousness will be more suitable for these kinds of culture. The study of (Hofstede et al., 2004) supports that conscientious individuals are positively associated with high power distance culture. So the individual with conscientious personality within power distance culture where people are methodological and have predefined rules and regulations and have known roles and responsibilities will feel more comfortable and this will have a positive impact on their job performance and job satisfaction. Therefore we hypothesize that H4: Power Distance moderates the relationship between conscientiousness and out comes such that in high power distance culture relationship is strong and in low power distance culture relationship is weak. The openness to experience individuals are described as imaginative, original, unconventional, and independent (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Evidence consistently demonstrates that openness to experience is positively related to creativity and divergent thinking (McCrae, 1987) and innovative cultures support creativity and the key attributes through which they do this is through openness, willingness to change, and autonomy (O'Reilly, 1989). Furthermore, because open individuals are extraordinary and autonomous (Goldberg, 1990), they should be less attracted to detailed-oriented cultures that demand adherence to precise rules and procedures (Judge and Cable, 1997). They are negatively related to power distance culture (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). So the individual with openness to experience personality trait within power distance culture where people are people have predefined rules and regulations and have known roles and responsibilities will feel less comfortable and this will have a negative impact on their job performance and job satisfaction. Therefore we hypothesized that: H5: Power Distance moderates the relationship between openness to experience and out comes such that in high power distance culture relationship is weak and in low power distance culture relationship is strong. 4. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS This research paper is an effort to fill the gap in the research of Big Five personality traits, culture and organizational outcomes because unfortunately, there has been very little work in the area of organizational culture. The paper proposed some major findings that the relationship between extraverts and organizational outcomes will be strong in high individualistic culture, relationship between neuroticism and organizational outcomes will be strong in high uncertainty avoidance culture and relationship between conscientiousness and organizational outcomes will be high in high power distance culture. These finding will open new avenues for future research. In future researchers should also focus other organizational outcomes like organizational commitment, turnover and OCB. Following findings are also been proposed form our research the relationship between openness to experience and organizational outcomes will be high in masculine culture, the relationship between and the relationship between agreeableness and organizational outcomes will be weak in power distance culture. Though it is evident that openness to experience and agreeableness are not significantly related with either job satisfaction or job performance but it is proposed that these type of personality traits will comparatively perform better in proposed culture. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This research is funded by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia and Ministry of Higher Education under the GUP funding (Vot No. 04j49) entitled "Personality and Organizational Outcomes (Organizational Culture as a Moderator)". B a k u , A z e r b a i j a n | 57 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 3. No. 6. November, 2011, I Part REFERENCES 1. Barrick M.R., Stewart G.L. & Piotrowski M. (2002) Personality and Job Performance: Test of the Mediating Effects of Motivation Among Sales Representatives Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 4351. 2. Barrick M.R., Mount M.K., Gupta R. (2003) Meta-analysis of the Relationship between the Five-Factor Model of Personality and Holland’s Occupational Types Personnel Psychology, 56, 45-74. 3. Barrick M.R., Parks L. & Mount M.K. (2005) Self-Monitoring as a Moderator of the Relationships between Personality Traits and Performance Personnel Psychology, 58, 745-768. 4. Barrick M.R. & Mount M.K. (2005) Yes, Personality Matters: Moving on to More Important Matters Human Performance, 18, 359-372. 5. Colin Silverthorne, (2004) The impact of organizational culture and person-organization fit on organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(7),592-599 6. Connolly J. J. & Viswesvaran C. (2000) The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: A meta-analysis Personality and Individual Differences,29, 265–281. 7. Costa P. T. & McCrae R. R. (1988) Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; 54: 853-S63. 8. Costa P. T. & McCrae R. R. (1992) Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NP1O Five-Factor Inventory professional manual Odessa, FL Psychological Assessment Resources. 9. D. Kahneman, E. Diener & N. Schwarz (Eds), Well-being the foundations of hedonic psychology (pp 213–229) New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 10. Diener E. & Lucas R. E. (1999) Personality and subjective well-being In D Kahneman, E Diener, & N Schwarz (Eds), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp 213–229) New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 11. Diener E. & Diener M. (1995) Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653–663. 12. Digman J.M. (1990) Personality structure Emergence of the Five-Factor Model Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-40. 13. DeNeve K.M & Cooper H. 1998 The happy personality A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being Psychological Bulletin, 124 197-229. 14. Erdheim J., Wang M., Zickar M.J. (2006), "Linking the big five personality constructs to organizational commitment", Personality and Individual Differences, Vol 41 No 5, pp 959-70. 15. Feist G.J. (1998) A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2: 290-309. 16. Goldberg L.R. (1990) An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 1216-1229. 17. Hofstede G. (1980) Culture’s consequences International differences in work-related values Beverly Hills C.A. Sage. 18. Hofstede G. (2001) Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed) Thousand Oaks, CA Sage. 19. Hofstede G., Robert R. McCrae, (2004) Personality and Culture Revisited Linking Traits and Dimensions of Culture Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1) 52-88. 20. Hogan J & Holland B (2003) “Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol 88, pp 100-112. 21. House R. J., Javidan M., Hanges P. & Dorfman P. (2002) Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe An introduction to project GLOBE Journal of World Business, 37, 3-10. 22. Judge T.A., Cable D.M., (1997) Applicant Personality, Organizational Culture and Organization Attraction Personnel Psychology, 50, 359-394. 23. Judge, T A, Locke, A E, & Durham, C C (1997) The dispositional causes of job satisfaction A core evaluations approach In L L Cummings & B M Slaw (Eda), Research in organizational behavior, vol 19 151-188 Greenwich, CT JAI Press. 24. Judge T. A., Higgins C.A., Thorescn J. C. & Barrick R.M. (1999) The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span Personnel Psychology, 52: 621-652. 25.Judge T.A.., Heller D. & Mount M.K. (2002) Five Factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction A Meta-Analysis Journal of Applied Psycology, 87:530-541. 26. Kwan V.S.Y., Bond M.H. & Singelis T.M. (1997) Pan-cultural explanations for life-satisfaction Adding relationship harmony to self esteem Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1038–1051. 27. Magnus K., Diener E., Fujita F. & Pavot W. (1993) Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objective life events A longitudinal analysis Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 1046-1053. 28. McCrae R.R. & John O.P. (1992) An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications Journal of Personality, 2: 375-215. 29. McCrae R.R. (1996) Social consequences of experiential openness Psychological Bulletin 120:323-337. 58 | www.ijar.lit.az INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 3. No. 6. November, 2011, I Part 30. McCrae R.R. & Costa P. (1997) Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience In R Hogan, 1 A. Johnson & S.R. Briggs (Eds), Handbook of personality psychology 825-847 San Diego Academic Press. 31. McCrae R.R. (2001) Trait psychology and culture Exploring intercultural comparisons Journal of Personality, 69, 819-846. 32. Meyer J.P., Paunonen S.V. Gellatly I.R., Goffm R. D. & Jackson D.N. (1989) Organizational commitment and job performance It's the nature of the commitment that counts Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 152156. 33. O’Reilly C.A. (1989) Corporations, culture, and commitment motivation and social control in organizations Management California Review, Vol 31 No 4, pp 9-25. 34. Raja U. Johns G. & Ntalianis F. (2004) the impact of personality on psychological contracts Academy of Management Journal, 47, 350-367. 35. Robert C. & Wasti S.A., (2002) Organizational Individualism and Collectivism Theoretical Development and an Empirical Test of a Measure Journal of Management 28(4) 544-566. 36. Robert P Tett and Dawn D Burnett. 2003 A Personality Trait-Based Interactionist Model of Job Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 500-517. 37. Rousseau D. and Parks J. (1992), “The contracts of individuals and organizations”, in Cummings L.L. and Staw B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol 15, JAI Press, Greenwich C.T., pp 147. 38. Ryan A.M. and Schmit M.J. (1996), “An assessment of organizational climate and P-E fit a tool for organizational change”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis Vol 4 No 1, pp 75-95. 39. Schneider B. Smith D.B., Taylor S. & Fleenor J. 1998 Personality and organizations A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 462-470. 40. Triandis H.C., Leung K., Villareal M. & Clack F.L. 1985 Allocentric vs idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation Journal of Research in Personality, 19: 395-415. 41. Watson D. Clark L.A. & Tellegen A. 1988 Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect The PANAS scales Journal oj Personality and Social Psychology 54 1063-1070. 42. Watson D. & Clark E.A. 1997 Extraversion and its positive emotional core In R Hogan, J A Johnson, & S R Briggs (Eds), Handbook of personality psychology (pp 767-793) San Diego Academic Press. B a k u , A z e r b a i j a n | 59 Copyright of International Journal of Academic Research is the property of International Journal of Academic Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.