Rediscovering personality, 1
Rediscovering Personality at Work
Murray R. Barrick
Michael K. Mount
Tippie College of Business
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242-1000
Rediscovering personality, 2
Rediscovering Personality at Work
Over the years, personality has had at best a checkered reputation at work as a
predictor of work outcomes. From Guion and Gottier (1965) and Mischel (1968) to
Davis-Blake and Pfeffer (1989), personality has been roundly criticized as an ineffective
predictor of performance. In recent years, however, researchers have acknowledged and
documented the fact that we all have personalities, and that personality matters because it
predicts and explains behavior at work. This research, based on a construct-oriented
approach primarily using the “Big Five” traits, has consistently shown that personality
predicts job performance across a wide variety of outcomes organizations value in jobs
ranging from skilled/semi-skilled (baggage handlers, production employees) to
executives. Yet the magnitude of these effects, as reported in a previous article by Kevin
Murphy, can be characterized as modest. If this is true, why should we care about
personality?
We begin this article with a review of what researchers have learned about the role
of personality at work, and conclude with a discussion about personality’s future. Below,
we discuss the findings from six divergent research streams that, taken together, address
the question, “why should we care about personality?”
The first reason is that managers care about personality. Research has shown that
managers’ weight individual personality characteristics as if they were nearly as
important as GMA during the hiring decision (Dunn, Mount, Barrick, & Ones, 1994). In
fact, it is hard to find a manager who says they would prefer to hire someone who is
careless, irresponsible, lazy, impulsive, and low in achievement striving (low in
Conscientiousness). Similarly, being anxious, hostile, personally insecure, and depressed
Rediscovering personality, 3
(low in Emotional Stability) are not traits many managers want to select for. In one
sense, these findings are not particularly surprising, After all, our mothers could have told
us that it would be better if we hired people who are dependable, persistent, goal directed,
confident, secure, and organized. Nevertheless, although it took the field a long time,
there is now consensus that personality traits such as these will be positively related to
performance at work.
Second, a number of meta-analyses (e.g., Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Hogan &
Holland, 2003; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Judge & Ilies, 2002) have
significantly helped us develop our empirical and theoretical understanding of the nature
of the relationship between personality constructs, particularly the Big Five traits and job
performance. By virtue of its ability to extract fairly clear answers from the morass of
data accumulated over the years, meta-analysis has shown that the validities of two of the
Big Five traits, Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability, generalize in the prediction of
overall performance. These two traits refer to the willingness to follow rules and to exert
effort (in the case of Conscientiousness), and the capacity to allocate resources to
accomplish tasks (in the case of Emotional Stability). Thus the two “generalizable
predictors” can be best viewed as measures of trait-oriented work motivation, and it
appears they affect performance in all jobs through “will do” motivational components.
On the other hand, general mental ability affects performance in all jobs primarily
through “can do” capabilities (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).
This research also reveals that the other three personality traits, Extraversion,
Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience, are valid predictors of performance, but
only in specific niches – for specific occupations or for some criteria (Barrick et al.,
Rediscovering personality, 4
2001). For example, Extraversion has been found to be related to job performance in
occupations where a significant portion of the job involves interacting with others,
particularly when that interaction is focused on influencing others and obtaining status
and power (Barrick et al., 2001). In such jobs, represented by sales and management
jobs, being sociable, gregarious, assertive, energetic, and ambitious is likely to contribute
to success on the job. Agreeableness also has been found to be an important predictor in
jobs that involve considerable interpersonal interaction. In this case, however,
Agreeableness matters only when that interaction involves helping, cooperating, and
nurturing others. Thus, if working in a team comprises an important component of the
work, Agreeableness may be the single best personality predictor (Mount, Barrick, &
Stewart, 1998). Employees who are argumentative, inflexible, uncooperative, uncaring,
intolerant, and disagreeable (low in agreeableness) are likely to be less effective at
teamwork and also engage in more counterproductive behaviors. Finally, Openness to
Experience has been found to be related to creativity and to influence the ability to adapt
to radical change (George & Zhou, 2001; LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000). Employees
who are artistically sensitive, intellectual, curious, polished, original, and independent are
likely to deal with change and contribute more to innovation at work. Thus through
application of meta-analysis, combined with the use of meaningful personality constructs,
like the Big Five, researchers have been able to summarize results quantitatively across a
large number of studies to show that personality traits do matter at work.
As Robert Hogan noted, the meta-analysis by Joyce Hogan and Holland (2003) is
important because it illustrates the benefit of matching specific personality traits to
relevant criteria. They found when the criteria relate to “getting along” performance, the
Rediscovering personality, 5
best predictors are Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness. In
contrast, when the criterion reflects “getting ahead”, the best personality predictors were
a facet of Extraversion (Ambition), Emotional Stability, and Conscientiousness.
Although not hypothesized, they found, as we would expect, that the two “generalizable
predictors” (Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability) have high validities for both
criteria, while the “niche traits” (Extraversion and Agreeableness) emerged as important
predictors only with relevant criteria. Thus, these results actually show that it is critical
that the “niche traits” are carefully matched to relevant criteria. Furthermore, as Robert
Hogan notes, this study clearly shows the predictive potential of personality, as the
magnitude of the true-score correlations in this meta-analysis range from .34 to .43,
which is larger than those reported in previous meta-analyses that examined the validity
of individual personality constructs, and are comparable to the true-score correlations
reported for other predictors.
Third, we know these estimates are underestimates of predictive validity because
they report the validity of individual personality traits when used alone. Using a
combination of personality traits can yield higher validities, and in some cases,
substantially higher validities. For example, Judge et al., (2002) report a multiple
correlation, using all of the Big Five traits when predicting leader emergence, of .53 (it
was .48 over both leader emergence and effectiveness). Frei and McDaniel (1998) found
a multiple correlation of .50 when predicting customer service with a composite measure
consisting of personality traits (e.g., Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, and
Conscientiousness). This is very similar to the composite validity ( = .47 for
counterproductive behavior on the jobs;  = .41 for predicting supervisory ratings of job
Rediscovering personality, 6
performance) found for traits reflecting integrity (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993).
Thus, although it enhances our theoretical understanding to focus on the validity of
specific personality traits, it behooves us to examine the multiple correlation or
composite validity to determine the predictive validity of the whole “personality” of an
individual. That is, we must study people, not traits if we are interested in how well
personality predicts. As Robert Hogan noted, this is rarely done in published research
today.
Fourth, research shows that personality contributes incremental validity in the
prediction of job performance above and beyond that accounted for by other predictors,
including general mental ability and biodata (McHenry, Hough, Toquam, Hanson, &
Ashworth, 1990; Mount, Witt, & Barrick, 2000; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). For example,
results from Project A (McHenry et al., 1990) found that the Army can improve the
prediction of job performance by adding non-cognitive personality predictors to its
present battery of selection tests (e.g., R = .33 for extra effort and leadership; R = .11
due to including facets of Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability). Such findings
correspond to evidence showing incremental validity of personality measures for longterm educational outcomes, above and beyond general mental ability (Bagge, Nickell, et
al., 2004). Hence, even modest effects from personality meaningfully contribute to a
selection decision, even after one accounts for other important individual differences.
Fifth, one of the most compelling forms of evidence regarding the utility of
personality is reported in the study by Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, and Barrick (1999).
This study was based on a unique longitudinal data set from the Intergenerational Studies
administered by the University of California at Berkeley. Results revealed that Big Five
Rediscovering personality, 7
personality traits predict multiple facets of career success, including intrinsic and
extrinsic measures, for both subjective reactions and objective indicators, over a span of
50 years or more. Specifically, the results demonstrate that there are enduring
relationships between personality traits (e.g., Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability)
assessed in childhood, and career success assessed in late adulthood, with (uncorrected)
correlations ranging up to .49. Further, these results showed that the Big Five traits, as a
group, explained significant incremental variance in measures of career success even
after controlling for the influence of general mental ability. The joint contribution
(multiple correlation) across all Big Five traits was over .60 when predicting extrinsic
career success, even when success was measured thirty to fifty years after personality was
assessed. These findings show that even though the magnitude of the correlation between
personality and annual supervisory ratings of performance is modest, the effects of
personality are cumulative and compound over time. Thus, the benefits from personality
are obtained every single day the person is at work, and over a lifetime, the cumulative
benefits obtained through personality can be substantial at work. These results show the
strong effects of personality over a lifetime, and provide irrefutable evidence that, indeed,
personality traits do matter.
The sixth and final reason we should care about personality is researchers have
found personality to be meaningfully related to many work-related behaviors and
outcomes managers and researchers care about, and that matter to organizations. These
include less counterproductive behavior, turnover, absenteeism, tardiness, and more
citizenship behaviors, success in groups, job satisfaction, safety, leadership effectiveness,
and task performance. They also influence the fit with other individuals (e.g.,
Rediscovering personality, 8
supervisors), a team or an organization (Barrick, Mitchell, & Stewart, 2003; Johnson,
2003). In addition, personality has been found to predict individuals’ quality of life, such
as freedom from trauma, marital satisfaction and life satisfaction, and even how long
people live, which may be the ultimate criterion (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Friedman,
Tucker, Tomlinson-Keasey, Schwartz, Winegard, & Criqui, 1993). Importantly, general
mental ability does not predict these outcomes (or predicts them poorly). Thus, the
statement that general mental ability predicts job performance better than personality is
not entirely true. It depends on which aspects of performance one is examining.
Given this, maybe the question should be, “who wouldn’t care about personality?”
Robert Hogan suggests one explanation why we continue to question the utility of
personality is that at times there is an anomalous disregard for data in the field. Taken
together, the contributions from these diverse research streams illustrate that personality
plays a meaningful role in nearly all facets of work and our daily lives. For these
reasons, we must further investigate the role of personality at work.
Future Research Directions
Let me turn to the future of personality and focus on three issues that particularly
deserve our attention as we move forward. The first issue pertains to the affects of the
situation. Kevin Murphy’s insight that it may be insufficient to rely solely on job analytic
data to determine when specific personality traits are likely to be relevant to success is
important. Empirical evidence demonstrating that situational strength moderates the
personality-behavior relationship (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Beaty, Cleveland, & Murphy,
2001; Gellatly & Irving, 2001; Hochwarter, Witt, & Kacmar, 2000) underscores the idea
that researchers must broadly account for situational affects to determine whether
Rediscovering personality, 9
personality is relevant to behavior or not, and that those affects extend beyond the
requirements of the job.
Studies demonstrating the effect of situational strength show that situations can
restrict the extent to which an individual can behave in accordance with his or her
personality. When situations are exceptionally strong all individuals tend to behave in
the same way regardless of their personality traits. As a result, strong situations have been
shown to decrease the observed relationships between personality and behavior. In
contrast, weak situations are characterized by few expectations, or many ambiguous
demands, and consequently individuals have considerable discretion in how to behave.
Unlike in strong situations, behavior is not externally constrained in weak situations, and
therefore it will be expressed in ways that are in accordance with one’s personality traits.
Consequently, the validity of personality traits in predicting performance has been found
to be larger when the situation is characterized as “weak” rather than “strong”.
Similarly, evidence that individuals are attracted to join organizations they fit and to
leave those they do not fit (Judge & Cable, 1997; Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor,
1998) demonstrates the role organizational level variables have on personality at work.
Interestingly, Schneider et al., (1998) report the three “niche” traits account for the largest
effects on homogeneity or fit within an organization (R2 = .08, .04, and .02 respectively
for Agreeableness, Openness to Experience, and Extraversion). This is consistent with
earlier comments indicating these three traits are more susceptible to contextual effects.
Research on team composition also is increasingly examining the role of personality
(Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Neuman, Wagner,
& Christiansen, 1999). Although much of this research has targeted main effects on team
Rediscovering personality, 10
effectiveness (Barrick et al., 1998), results also show that the traits of the team’s
members influences the groups processes (Neuman et. al., 1999) and these influences
vary based on the contextual demands inherent in the group and the amount of team
interdependence among team members (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). The critical point is
that neither the team nor organizational effects on personality, as indicated in these
studies is accounted for in traditional job analyses.
Recognizing the influence of situational strength, as well as group and
organizational context, on personality shows that predictive validity is likely to vary by
more than job demands alone. Thus, researchers increasingly are going to have to take
the interactionist perspective seriously – to fully understand how personality relates to
behavior at work we must account for the situation. However, the situation must be
broadly defined, beyond any understanding derived solely from a traditional job analysis.
For all the arguments that the situation is all important, little is empirically known or even
theorized about how different types of situations (broadly defined) influence personality
or behavior, particularly at work (Barrick et al., 2003). Furthermore, beyond job
analysis, little is known about what the basic kinds of situations are or what variables are
useful for comparing one situation with another (Stewart & Barrick, 2004). Today, a
framework for characterizing the psychologically influential aspects of situations is
sorely needed, as is a method for assessing these variables.
What further complicates this research is the finding that a person’s traits can also
change the situation (Stewart & Barrick, 2004). For example, having “one bad apple” in
a team can actually change the work environment. Just having one person who is
disagreeable or neurotic (low on Agreeableness or Emotional Stability) has been shown
Rediscovering personality, 11
to lead to less communication, less interdependence, lower workload sharing, and more
conflict (Barrick et al., 1998). Similarly, Barry and Stewart (1996) found teams were
unable to function effectively if they had too many (or too few) extraverts in a team
setting. Thus, situational effects, due to both situational factors and characteristics of
those in the setting, have been shown to be important to personality, but are not captured
through a traditional job analysis. Theoretical explanation requires that these effects be
accounted for to fully understand personality’s affect at work.
A second issue future researchers must examine is the process through which
personality affects behavior at work. As noted above, researchers must account for the
characteristics of the work situation. However, the primary means through which
personality affects work behavior is expected to be through motivation (Barrick et al.,
2003; Kanfer, 1991; Murray, 1938). These motivational affects are likely to be
demonstrated in two ways: first, what would you be happy doing? And second, how do
you do it? Recent research shows that personality influences the type of environments
we seek (Barrick, Mount, & Gupta, 2003; Judge & Cable, 1997; Mount, Barrick, Scullen,
& Rounds, in press; Schneider et al., 1998). For example, extraverted people prefer work
settings that involve social activities or have an “aggressive” organizational culture.
Although this research illustrates personality plays a role in determining what situations
you choose to be in, recent research shows interests are likely to have a larger impact
than personality traits on those choices (Mount et al., in press). That is, interests
influence types of environments we seek and the types of people and activities we prefer.
This explains why a recent large scale meta-analysis of fit relationships shows interests
Rediscovering personality, 12
and values have a larger effect on P-O fit (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, in
press) than do personality traits.
Personality on the other hand, is likely to be the critical dispositional basis for
determining how the person interacts with or is motivated once an individual has chosen
an environment that is consistent with their interests. For example, a recent metaanalysis (Judge & Ilies, 2002) reveals that Big Five traits consistently relate to
performance motivation, whether assessed using goal setting (R = .63), expectancy (R =
.36), or self-efficacy (R = .49) motivation. These findings show, for example, that people
high in Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability are more likely to set goals, have
higher expectations that their efforts will result in favorable consequences, and think they
can do more (have higher self-efficacy), than those low in Conscientiousness or
Emotional Stability. Enhanced performance motivation, in turn, is expected to be an
important predictor of performance.
The research showing motivation is the major mediating link between personality
and performance is important to researchers striving to understand and predict which
behaviors the employee will exhibit at work. Recognizing personality, which is a distal
motivational force, influences behavior through proximal performance motivation
variables like goals, self-efficacy, and expectancies should enable researchers to develop
more comprehensive models of job performance. Such theoretically-driven explanations
demonstrating the role personality plays in how we do our work will enhance scientific
understanding, as noted by Kevin Murphy. Furthermore, these are likely to be important
affects, given the magnitude of the multiple correlations reported by Judge and Ilies
(2002) between Big Five traits and performance motivation.
Rediscovering personality, 13
In contrast, we are not aware of any research which shows that interests are related
to the propensity to set goals, to achieve higher self-efficacy, or increase performance
expectancies. Consequently, understanding the person’s interests will not likely enhance
our understanding of how we do work. This underscores that although interests and
personality are two fundamental, non-cognitive individual difference domains that
influence behavior through motivation, the motivational processes by which they do so
fundamentally differ. By recognizing the different motivational processes involved at
work by these individual differences, future researchers will achieve more dramatic gains
in understanding the specific mechanisms by which personality influences job
performance.
The third issue future researchers should give greater attention to are measurement
problems. Measurement lies at the heart of much of our applied research. If we don’t
assure that we have good measures, then all that we do with those measures is called into
question. This is unfortunate because it isn’t that difficult to do better. How? First, we
need to understand that while personality is fairly stable and so is the ecology, the
response at any one moment is determined by many traits and states and by many
features of the immediate situation. Consequently, traits will usefully predict behavior
only when it is aggregated (Epstein, 1979) either over a category of behaviors (e.g.,
counterproductive behavior) or across time (annual performance or longer). Second, we
have to recognize that global traits (like the Big Five) are best for explanations and theory
development; however, prediction of narrower and more specific behaviors at work will
require correspondingly narrower trait constructs (Mount & Barrick, 1995). Effective
measurement will require addressing both of these concerns.
Rediscovering personality, 14
Researchers must recognize that traits predict broad aggregates of behavior much
better than single acts. Consequently, traits will better explain typical behavior at work,
particularly behavior that is aggregated across time and situations. The fact that
personality shows impressive consistencies over time even if the person’s life situation
changes (Conley, 1984; Costa & McCrae, 2002; McCrae et al., 1999; 2000), underscores
why personality can provide valuable information about what a person is likely to
persistently do at work. The stability of traits across situations or over time likely
explains why the correlation between Conscientiousness and indicators of external career
success were greater than .40, even when assessed over a 50-year span (Judge et al.,
1999). Alternatively, it also explains why personality traits cannot predict a single
instance of theft, unless one accounts for other, similar counterproductive behaviors
(Ones et al., 1993). Recognizing this criterion problem, researchers must focus on
meaningful aggregates of behavior.
Researchers must also give greater consideration to the appropriate level of trait
generality. It is well understood that personality can be measured with scales ranging
from specific, narrow facets to broader, more general global traits (Epstein, 1991; Johns,
Hampson, & Goldberg, 1991; McAdams, 1995). Narrow traits rely on explicit
description that may be situated in time, place, or role. Representing personality with
narrower subcomponents makes the finer features of each trait more explicit and narrows
the range of behaviors represented so they are more similar, which enhances the
diagnostic value and offers higher fidelity (predictive accuracy) for specific sets of
behaviors. Thus, a measure of sociability will predict whether you tend to talk to
Rediscovering personality, 15
strangers or not better than Extraversion, particularly if the trait and criterion measures
are matched to context.
In contrast, the broad global traits, like the Big Five, focus on characteristic
responses people persistently make to broad environmental demands. Each of these
measures is composed of many variables that have something in common. This offers
higher efficiency (parsimony), greater bandwidth, and higher cross-situational
replicability. Consequently, Extraversion will predict whether a person likes being with
people, actively influencing, negotiating, and leading others, and prefers to seek
excitement in groups across work and family settings better than sociability. This
explains why the broad factors effectively predict very broad criteria, like extrinsic career
success, but is unable to predict specific criteria. To enhance conceptual clarity,
researchers must match the hierarchical level of personality description to the specificity
of the aggregated criterion (Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996;
Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette, 1996).
Finally, one other measurement issue pertains to the fact that personality measures
are most frequently used for external selection. This means that the validity evidence for
personality traits is based almost exclusively on self-report measures. However, there is a
distinction between the validity of a personality construct such as Conscientiousness, and
the validity of Conscientiousness as measured by self-report methods. For example,
Mount, Barrick and Strauss (1994) showed that the validities of Conscientiousness and
Emotional Stability in predicting supervisor ratings of sales performance were higher
when based on observer ratings of personality than when based on self-reports.
Specifically, when Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability were assessed by co-
Rediscovering personality, 16
workers and customers, the average validities were 50% higher compared to self-reports.
This suggests that the use of self-reports may actually understate the true validity of
personality constructs in predicting job performance. One implication of this is that
researchers should explore the usefulness of personality traits for internal staffing
purposes (e.g. promotions, demotions) or via external references, whereby the traits
would be assessed via observer ratings.
Discussion
This article has reviewed why we should care about personality and advanced an
agenda for future research. There was a period between 1965 and 1990 when many
researchers believed that we had no personalities at work. This was an unnatural,
deficient, and unhappy time. As suggested here, the influence of personality has been
widely accepted by managers and is used by them to guide their decisions about
employees and interactions with others at work. However, the more basic consideration
that makes personality important for study is that it is an enduring predictor of a number
of significant behaviors at work, behaviors that cannot be predicted adequately by general
mental ability, job knowledge, or the situation itself.
Nevertheless, to clearly understand the link between personality and individual job
performance, this paper has highlighted three areas where additional research could make
critical contributions to the future of personality. The first area is investigating the
interaction between personality and context. It is now apparent that we must consider
situational demands that extend beyond the immediate demands of the job, to fully define
whether the context is relevant to a particular personality trait or not. We believe
personality will have its greatest effect on behavior when the situation, broadly defined
Rediscovering personality, 17
by the demands of the job, group, and organization, is relevant to the trait’s expression
and is weak enough to allow the person to choose how to behave in that situation.
The second area of research entails investigating the motivational processes through
which personality influences job performance. Although personality is likely to affect
both what situations we choose to engage in and how we choose to do it, recent evidence
demonstrates the largest influence is through the latter process, how we do it. This
distinction can be used to guide research linking specific personality traits to specific
performance dimensions by helping to identify theoretically relevant mediating
motivational variables for different sets of behaviors.
The third area of research identifies critical measurement issues unique to assessing
personality. To assure the use of superior personality measures, we must carefully
consider the need to aggregate behavior. Such aggregation should be guided by the need
to balance our ability to predict consistency in behavior without eliminating or “factoring
out” the influence of the situation. Practical and theoretical understanding will only
occur if we account for the influence of the person and the situation on behavior.
In addition, good measurement requires focusing on the appropriate level of
description to reflect meaningful personality structures. Although it will require greater
conceptual clarity, researchers must be more explicit about the role of theoretical
development and predictive validity in our choice of measures. This suggests that future
researchers will need to use hierarchically organized taxonomies that comprehensively
capture the basic lower-level categories of personality, as well as the more global,
superordinate constructs. At present, there is no widely-accepted, meaningful taxonomy
of lower-level personality traits, although there are a number of efforts presently focused
Rediscovering personality, 18
on developing such a framework (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Hofstee, de Raad, &
Goldberg, 1992; Hough, 2003; Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999). It is not within the scope of
this article to fully describe or to theoretically and empirically justify a specific lowerlevel taxonomy. Nevertheless, we believe the development of such a taxonomy will
enable personality research to lift the cloud originating from the “jangle fallacy” that
currently obscures meaningful relations between lower-level personality and criterion
constructs. And more importantly, we believe when lower-level personality and lowerlevel criterion constructs are appropriately linked, the magnitude of these relationships is
likely to be larger than that reported previously using broad, personality constructs.
Conclusion
Critics of personality would have us believe our personality traits do not matter.
That is, how we tend to think, feel, and act is not related to performance. From a
common-sense perspective, this notion seems implausible. Further, based on the findings
that we reviewed earlier, we believe this notion can be rejected on empirical grounds as
well. However, we do not want to pretend that we have answers to all of our questions,
because we do not. The fact of the matter is that human behavior at work is complex, and
understanding the relationship of personality traits to job performance is difficult.
Personality traits are enduring, distal forces that influence behavior, but there are both
mediating and moderating variables that must be accounted for in order to adequately
explain the effects of personality on human behavior. Systematically and carefully
studying these mediating and moderating effects are precisely where we need to head
next in personality research. For these reasons, we remain optimistic that our
Rediscovering personality, 19
personalities do matter at work, and anticipate that personality will more and more be
viewed as an important predictor of performance.
Rediscovering personality, 20
Author Note:
The authors thank Ken Brown, Tamara Giluk, Greg Stewart, and Ryan Zimmerman
for comments on drafts of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Murray R. Barrick, Department of Management and Organizations, Tippie
College of Business, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52241-2000. E-mail: mbarrick@uiowa.edu
Rediscovering personality, 21
References
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, Personality, and Interests:
Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219-245.
Bagge, C., Nickell, A., Stepp, S., Durrett, C., Jackson, K., & Trull, T. J. (2004).
Borderline personality disorder features predict negative outcomes 2 years later.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 279-288.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships
between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 111-118.
Barrick, M. R., Mitchell, T. R. & Stewart, G. L. (2003). Situational and motivational
influences on trait-behavior relationships. M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.),
Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations, 60-82.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M.K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). The FFM personality dimensions
and Job Performance: Meta-Analysis of Meta-Analyses. Invited submission to a
special “selection” issue of International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 930.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member
ability and personality to work team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 377-391.
Rediscovering personality, 22
Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance in selfmanaged groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 6278.
Beaty, J.C., Jr., Cleveland, J.N, & Murphy, K.R. (2001). The Relation Between
Personality and Contextual Performance in “Strong” Versus “Weak” Situations.
Human Performance, 14 (2), 125-148.
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2002). Looking backward: Changes in the mean
levels of personality traits from 80 to 12. In D.Cervone & W. Mischel (Eds.)
Advances in personality science. New York: Guilford. Pp. 219-237.
Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage – the search for dispositional effects
in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 385-400.
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.
Dunn, W. S., Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Relative importance
of personality and general mental ability in managers’ judgments of applicant
qualifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 500-509.
Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: On predicting most of the people much of
the time. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 37, 1097-1126.
Frei, R. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (1998). Validity of customer service measures in
personnel selection: A review of criterion and construct evidence. Human
Performance, 11, 1-27.
Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J. S., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Schwartz, J. E., Wingard, D. L., &
Criqui, M. H. (1993). Does childhood personality predict longevity? Journal of
Rediscovering personality, 23
Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 176-185.
Gellatly, I. R., & Irving, P. G. (2001). Personality, autonomy, and contextual
performance of managers. Human Performance, 14, 231-245.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness
are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 513-524.
Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel
selection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135-164.
Hofstee, W. K. B., de Rand, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five
and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63, 146-163.
Hochwarter, W.A., Witt, L.A., & Kacmar, K.M. (2000). Perceptions of Organizational
Politics as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Conscientiousness and Job
Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (3), 472-478.
Hogan, J. & Holland, B. (2003). Using Theory to Evaluate Personality and Job
Performance Relations: A Socioanalytic Perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 100-112.
Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and
employment decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51, 469477.
Hough, L. M., (2003). Emerging trends and needs in personality research and practice:
Beyond main effects. M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work:
Rediscovering personality, 24
Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations, 289-325. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
John, O. P., Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (1991). The basic level in personalitytrait hierarchies: Studies of trait use and accessibility in different contexts. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 348-361.
Johnson, J. W. (2003). Toward a better understanding of the relationship between
personality and individual job performance. M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.),
Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations, 83120. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and
leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 765-780.
Judge, T.A., Cable, D.M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and
organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359-394.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoreson, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five
personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span.
Personnel Psychology, 52, 621-652.
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation:
A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807.
Kanfer, R. (1991). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M.
D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and 0rganizational
psychology (pp. 75-170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Rediscovering personality, 25
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In
Borman, W., Ilgen, D. & Klimoski, R. (Eds.). Handbook of Psychology: Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, vol. 12. pg. 333-375.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (in press). Consequences of
Individuals’ Fit at Work: A Meta-Analysis of Person-Job, Person-Organization,
Person-Group, and Person-Supervisor Fit. Personnel Psychology.
LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts:
Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience.
Personnel Psychology, 53, 563-593.
McAdams, D.P. (1995). What Do We Know When We Know A Person. Journal of
Personality, 63, 365-396.
McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T., de Lima, M. P., Simoes, A., Ostendorf, F., Marusic, I.,
Bratko, D., Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C. (1999). Age differences in personality
across the adult life span: Parallels in five cultures. Developmental Psychology, 35,
466-477.
McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T., Ostendorf, F., Agleitner, A., Hrebickova, M., Avia, M.D.,
Sanz, J., Sanchez-Bernardos, M.L., Kusdil, M.E., Woodfield, R., Saunders, P.R., &
Smith, P.B. (2000). Nature over nuture: temperament, personality, and life span
development. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 78, 173-186.
McHenry J.J., Hough L.M., Toquam J.L., Hanson M.A., Ashworth S. (1990). Project A
Validity Results - The Relationship Between Predictor And Criterion Domains.
Personnel Psychology, 43, 335-354.
Rediscovering personality, 26
Mischel. W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.
Mount, M.K., Barrick, M.R., Scullen, S.M., Rounds, J. (in press). Higher Order
Dimensions of the Big Five Personality Traits and the Big Six Vocational Interest
Types. Personnel Psychology.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Personality predictors of
performance in jobs involving interaction with others. Invited submission to a
special “personality” issue of Human Performance, 11, 145-166.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, J. P. (1994). Validity of observer ratings of the
Big Five personality factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 272-280.
Mount, M. K., Witt, A, & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Incremental validity of empiricallykeyed biographical scales over GMA and the Big Five personality constructs.
Personnel Psychology, 53, 299-323.
Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S.H., & Christiansen, N.D. (1999).The relationship between
work-team personality composition and the job performance in teams.Group &
Organization Management, 24, 28-45.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in
personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 660-679.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of
integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and
theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679-703.
Rediscovering personality, 27
Saucier, G., & Ostendorf, F. (1999). Hierarchical subcomponents of the Big Five
personality factors: A cross-language replication. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 613-627.
Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E . (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in
personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research
findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.
Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broadsided by broad traits:
How to sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
17, 639-655.
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.
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Four lessons learned from the person-situation
debate: A review and research agenda. B. Smith & B. Schneider (Eds.),
Personality and Organizations, 61-87. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.