© Academy of Management. All rights reserved.
1
Content may NOT be copied, e-mailed, shared or otherwise transmitted without written permission. This non-copyedited article version was
obtained from the Academy of Management InPress website and is intended for personal or individual use.
THE THEORY OF PURPOSEFUL WORK BEHAVIOR: THE ROLE OF
PERSONALITY, JOB CHARACTERISTICS,
AND EXPERIENCED MEANINGFULNESS
MURRAY R. BARRICK
Texas A&M University
e-mail: mbarrick@mays.tamu.edu
MICHAEL K. MOUNT
University of Iowa
e-mail: michael-mount@uiowa.edu
Ning Li
Texas A&M University
e-mail: nli@mays.tamu.edu
2
The Theory of Purposeful Work Behavior: The Role of Personality, Job
Characteristics, and Experienced Meaningfulness
ABSTRACT
The Theory of Purposeful Work Behavior integrates higher-order, implicit goals with
principles derived from the Five-factor Model (FFM) of personality and the expanded job
characteristics model to explain how traits and job characteristics jointly and interactively influence
work outcomes. The core principle of the theory is that personality traits initiate purposeful goal
strivings and when the motivational forces associated with job characteristics act in concert with
these purposeful motivational strivings, individuals experience the psychological state of
experienced meaningfulness. In turn, experienced meaningfulness triggers task-specific motivation
processes that influence the attainment of work outcomes. Testable propositions derived from the
theory are described and directions for future research are discussed.
Manuscript ID:
AMR-10-0479-Original.R2
Title:
THE THEORY OF PURPOSEFUL WORK BEHAVIOR: THE ROLE OF
PERSONALITY, JOB CHARACTERISTICS, AND EXPERIENCED
MEANINGFULNESS
Authors:
Barrick, Murray
Mount, Michael
Li, Ning
Date Submitted:
3
Explaining why people do what they do at work has been the goal of behavioral scientists
for nearly 100 years. Although there are many different ways to address this complex question,
ultimately, any answer includes a discussion of individual characteristics such as personality and
ability and situational factors such as job characteristics and the social context. In this paper we
focus on the motivational processes resulting from the joint effects of personality traits and task or
social job characteristics in explaining work behavior. We refer the reader to excellent articles that
examine the effects of general mental ability on work performance (e.g., Gottfredson, 1997;
Lubinski, 2004; Schmidt & Hunter, 2004), which focus on processes associated with the acquisition
of knowledge and the ability to learn; these are important determinants of job performance but are
outside the scope of this paper.
Behavioral science researchers have focused on two major sets of distal determinants when
seeking to explain an individual’s motivation and subsequent work behavior: the effects of the
person’s dispositions and environmental circumstances. For example, there is substantial empirical
research showing that individual differences in personality traits play important roles in predicting
and explaining employee motivation and behavior (see Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hogan & Holland,
2003; Judge & Ilies, 2002; Salgado, 1997). Similarly, numerous studies have shown that differences
in characteristics of the work situation, such as the redesign of work through job enrichment (e.g.,
Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Humphrey, Nahrang, & Morgeson, 2007; Turner & Lawrence, 1965),
play an important role in impacting employee motivation and behavior at work. In fact, it is difficult
to think of an instance of employee behavior that is not better understood by considering the joint
influence of these two sets of factors (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Gustafson & Mumford,
1995). Nonetheless, it is surprising that most research in the field has examined the effects of
dispositions and task or social characteristics on employee motivation and behavior separately or
has given the other only cursory treatment. Consequently, very little research has systematically
examined the joint and interactive effects of these two sets of motivational influences.
To explain the complex relationship between these two distal determinants of motivated
behavior, we incorporate the role of higher-order, implicit goals or agendas the individual strives to
4
attain (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002; Kanfer & Kanfer, 1991; Locke & Latham, 2004). In
our model, these implicit, higher level goals depict an individual’s purposeful motivational strivings
(DeShon & Gillespie, 2005), which span relatively long time frames and are represented as general
desired end states that may be accessible to consciousness. We propose two self-regulatory
processes associated with these broad motivational goal strivings - purposefulness and experienced
meaningfulness – as key mechanisms through which personality, task attributes, and social
demands affect volitional choice and action at work. Purposefulness refers to having a sense of
desired end states or directedness to one’s behavior; whereas experienced meaningfulness refers to
the perceived significance or meaning an individual draws from engaging in work activities
(DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). Through purposefulness and meaningfulness,
the broad, implicit goals or personal agendas in our theory channel the joint effects from specific
personality traits and job characteristics to determine the individual’s motivated behavior at work.
Although there is relatively little empirical work accounting for the simultaneous influence
of both personality and the work context on work behavior, there are a number of theories that
attempt to explain both sets of influences including the cognitive-affective personality system
(Mischel & Schoda, 1995), job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), sensemaking (Weick,
1993), person-job fit (Edwards, 1991), situational strength (Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2010) or trait
activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003). While these theories embrace the central idea that
motivation is the product of individual attributes and the environment, our theory differs from these
approaches because it proposes the broad, higher-order goal(s) the person is striving to attain is the
integrating mechanism that comprehensively explains how, why, even when an individual will be
intrinsically motivated at work. In this paper, we posit the key to explaining an individual’s level of
intrinsic motivation is to recognize that an individual’s broad implicit goals (to get along with
others) arise from specific personality traits (e.g., an agreeable employee) and interactwith relevant
job or social characteristics (e.g., greater social support, teamwork) to determine behavior (e.g.,
engaging in caring and cooperative behavior towards others). By accounting for the regulatory
influence of these goals, our theory demonstrates that the individual is purposeful and also
5
recognizes the impact of the significance or meaningfulness experienced by the person while
attaining these goals. Thus, what makes our theory distinctive from all other theories integrating
personality and job enrichment is it clearly identifies which specific personality traits and job or
social characteristics matter to explain why we do what we do.
The integrative theory we propose differs in several ways from traditional models of
motivation. First, rather than focus on specific, difficult performance goals that predict particular
individual behaviors or actions (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Locke & Latham, 2004), our approach
draws upon superordinate implicit goals or personal agendas to guide the joint effects from
personality and the situation. Our approach also differs from the traditional approach taken by job
design researchers. The traditional approach posits that differences among employees’ motivation
and satisfaction in enriched jobs can be attributed to one relatively narrow dispositional variable,
growth need strength. We believe a conceptual integration of the two paradigms requires broad
comprehensive measures, which may account for the finding that the empirical research has failed
to consistently support the moderating effects of growth need strength (Johns, Xie, & Fang, 1992;
Tiegs, Tetrick, & Fried, 1992). Recent applications of meta-analysis have resulted in significant
advancements in understanding how motivated behavior and performance are associated with the
Five-Factor Model personality traits (Barrick et al., 2001; Judge & Ilies, 2002) and comprehensive
job design models that recognize both task and social attributes (Humphrey et al., 2007). Now that
the field has achieved a better understanding of both personality traits and characteristics of enriched
jobs, we believe the time is ripe to incorporate these developments to enhance our theoretical
understanding of the joint influence of individual differences and redesigned jobs on motivation.
OVERVIEW OF THE THEORY OF PURPOSEFUL WORK BEHAVIOR
The full model of the Theory of Purposeful Work Behavior (TPWB) is shown in Figure 1.
In the following pages, we describe the major components of the model in detail. Given that the
major contributions of the theory pertain to the processes associated with the left side of the model
shown in Figure 1 (striving for purposefulness and meaningfulness), we focus our discussion on
those processes and provide only a general discussion of subsequent (striving for satisfaction and
6
performance) performance motivation processes shown in the right half of the model. We first
describe the role of personality traits and then describe their relationship to four fundamental,
universal implicit goals that define individuals’ personal agendas. We then describe the roles of task
and social characteristics of work in providing the context in which purposeful work behavior is
interpreted as being personally meaningful. Finally, we propose specific testable hypotheses that
spell out how the higher-order goals, which emerge from the individual’s standing on various
personality traits, interact with the social and task characteristics of jobs to influence task specific
motivation processes and work performance.
----- Insert Figure 1 about here ----Major Components of the Model
FFM personality traits. Funder (2001) defined personality as “an individual’s
characteristic patterns of thought, emotion, and behavior, and together with the psychological
mechanisms – hidden or not – behind those patterns”. Thus, these traits reflect an individual’s
volition or motivational control (i.e., choices, preferences, wishes and desires), and influence
behaviors that are generally consistent over situations and time and that distinguish individuals from
each other. Contemporary research in both personality and industrial/organizational psychology has
converged on the five-factor model (FFM) as a widely accepted taxonomy that comprehensively
captures the critical stable individual differences in personality (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Costa &
McCrae, 1992). The five traits are Extraversion (sociable, dominant, ambitious), Agreeableness
(cooperative, considerate, trusting), Conscientiousness (dependable, hardworking, persistent),
Emotional Stability (calm, confident, secure), and Openness to Experience (imaginative, adaptable,
intellectual). Through application of the FFM, considerable progress has been made over the past
twenty years in understanding how personality traits are associated with employee behavior
(Barrick et al., 2001; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 200; Judge & Ilies, 2002) and the role traits play in
influencing the particular types of job settings individuals actively seek out and prefer (Mount,
Barrick, Scullen, & Rounds, 2005; Stewart, Fulmer, & Barrick, 2005), as shown in Figure 1. What
remains unanswered is a better understanding of how and when these traits affect motivation.
7
Our theory argues the fundamental higher-order implicit goals associated with these five
personality traits can be thought of as the “psychological mechanisms” that Funder (2001) suggests
will guide and direct the unique patterns of thought, emotion, and behavior. These psychological
mechanisms or higher-order goals serve to organize the dispositional tendencies to think, feel, and
act associated with each personality trait in ways that differentiate them from those associated with
the other traits. Thus, striving to naturally express personality traits leads us to invest more personal
resources – mental attention, emotional connections, and energetic activity - to fulfill particular
types of higher-order goals. For example, highly extraverted employees who are ambitious,
dominant, and excitement-seeking are predisposed to choose a goal to fulfill their innate desire to
obtain power and influence over others and to create competitive relationships. Such employees
will experience greater motivation when they are able to pursue in unfettered ways those goals that
guide behaviors linked to obtaining greater status and getting ahead of others. As we discuss next,
these implicit, higher-level goals are the key mechanisms by which the distal dispositional
determinants of motivated behavior lead to purposeful work striving.
Higher-order, implicit goals. A basic assumption in the Theory of Purposeful Work
Behavior is that employee behavior is purposeful or directed toward the attainment of goals (e.g.,
Barrick et al., 2002; Locke, 1976). Goals are hierarchically organized, based on their abstraction
(Austin & Vancouver, 1996; Cropanzano, James, Citera, 1993), with higher levels specifying the
“why” or purpose of behavior and lower-level goals detailing the “how” or specific action plans to
attain the overarching goals. The higher-order goals are crucial in our theory, because they represent
fundamental, distal desired motivational objectives that people strive to attain. People often focus
attention on these broad, higher-order goals implicitly, and may not even be consciously aware of
them. This builds on recent research which clearly reveals people are generally unaware of the
higher-level goals that guide their behavior, and further, that the key is attention more than explicit
awareness (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Dijksterhuis & Aarts, 2010). This counterintuitive
distinction is basic to our theory, as activation of attention but not necessarily conscious awareness
is all that is required to act on these higher-order goals.
8
In our model, these implicit, higher-order goals represent essential, enduring personal
agendas that reside at the top of the individual’s goal hierarchy. Although the goals at higher levels
tend to be common across individuals, the importance or value attached to each goal differs
depending on the individual’s personality (DeShon & Gillespies, 2005). If not, a person would be
overwhelmed by conflicts between goals and would be unable to act. This also explains the
fundamental role personality plays in predicting which purposeful implicit goal the individual
actually seeks to attain or considers beneficial.
Building on previous dominant typologies that are common across different motivational
theories (Adler, 1939; Allport, 1955; Barrick, Mitchell, & Stewart, 2003; Baumeister & Leary,
1995; Brunstein, Schultheiss, & Gräsmann, 1998; DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Emmons &
McAdams, 1991; Hogan, 1983; Kehr, 2004; Maslow, 1943; McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger,
1998; Murray, 1938; Steers & Braunstein, 1976), we identified four fundamental goals. As shown
in Table 1, these higher-order implicit goals have different names in different theories.
----- Insert Table 1 about here ----For example, Deci and Ryans’ (2000) self-determination theory suggests that individuals
are motivated to achieve three fundamental goals: striving for competence, autonomy, and
relatedness. In addition to these three basic goals, or perhaps, by splitting relatedness into two
separate goals, other theoretical frameworks have found that individuals are also inspired to engage
in status striving behavior such as seeking power (Barrick et al., 2002; McClelland, 1971; Trapnell
& Wiggins, 1990) in addition to communion or relatedness. Building on these theories, we posit
that the four proposed implicit goals comprehensively capture individual differences in intrinsic
motivation that determines purposefulness and meaningfulness at work.
Barrick et al. (2002) have shown the five factor model personality traits are positively
related to three of these four higher-order goals, reporting that Conscientiousness was associated
with achievement striving, Extraversion was related to status striving, and Agreeableness was
linked to communion striving. These results have been replicated and extended in later studies
(Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007; Hirschfeld, Lawson, & Mossholder, 2004; Parks & Guay, 2009).
9
Although the fourth higher-order goal, autonomy striving has not previously been examined,
autonomy and self-determination have been shown to be related to Openness to Experience (Mount
et al., 2005). In sum, an individual’s habitual patterns of thinking, feeling, and doing (i.e.,
personality) have been shown to lead to purposeful strivings in the pursuit of these four broad
implicit goals.
The significance of the four higher-level goals to our theory is that each leads to quite
different sets of work-related behaviors. First, individuals are highly motivated to achieve
meaningful contact and to get along with others. Following Bakan (1966) and Wiggins and
Trapnell (1996), we call this communion striving. Second, individuals have a desire to exert power
and influence over others within the organizational hierarchy. Following Adler (1939) and Hogan
(1996), we refer to this as status striving. Communion striving and status striving have been
identified as broad goals associated with social interactions (Bakan, 1966). These goal strivings are
so fundamental that they have been linked with evolutionary forces contributing to survival;
successful groups have well-defined leader(s) and require that people cooperate and live together
harmoniously (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Hogan, 1983; Kenrick, Griskevicius, Neuberg, &
Schaller, 2010). Third, individuals are motivated to gain control and understanding of important
aspects of the work environment and to pursue personal growth opportunities. Following de
Charms (1968), Murray (1938), and Steers and Braunstein (1976), we refer to this as autonomy
striving, although it also includes striving for personal growth. Finally, individuals have a powerful
need to demonstrate personal competence and a sense of accomplishment. Following Allport
(1955), McClelland (1951), and White (1959), we refer to this as achievement striving. These latter
two goals function as inner states unique to each individual, which mediate his or her outward
behavior. To be sure, researchers have discussed and conceptualized other motivational strivings,
but considering the literature as a whole, we believe these four broad higher-order goals are both
parsimonious and universal in application.
Task and social characteristics. Theoretical and empirical research has long recognized
that any job consists of task and social characteristics that vary in the degree to which they are
10
intrinsically motivating and so influence job performance (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). To gain
a more thorough understanding of how the work situation affects the employee’s motivation, it is
essential to have a well-defined taxonomy of situations (Herzberg, 1954; Hackman & Lawler,
1971). Endler (1993) first suggested that scholars should develop strategies for systematically
investigating situations, and subsequently other scholars have attempted to define the dimensions of
work situations based on motivational features of work (Campion & Thayer, 1985; Edwards,
Scully, & Brtek, 2000; Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Recently, a
consensus has emerged, building on the seminal work of Hackman and colleagues (Hackman &
Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1976), that the vital motivational attributes of the work
environment can be described through two major components – task characteristics and social
context (Grant, 2007; Humphrey et al., 2007; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006).
Jobs that provide greater task identity (completing from start to finish a whole piece of
work), skill variety (opportunity to use different skills on a variety of tasks), task significance (work
outcomes having a substantial impact on others), autonomy (discretion in decision-making, work
methods, and scheduling work), and feedback (information regarding performance) are more
motivating. Similarly, jobs with enriched social roles that provide opportunities to interact with
other employees or people outside the organization, to develop strong interpersonal relationships,
and to exchange support with others (Grant, 2007; Grant & Parker, 2009; Humphrey et al., 2007)
were identified in the original job characteristics paper (Hackman & Lawler, 1971) and have been
found to significantly relate to job attitudes, work motivation, and job performance (Humphrey et
al., 2007). To more comprehensively account for the motivating characteristics of work, we would
add the dynamics associated with power, including leading and influencing others to get desired
responses from them while striving for status (Barrick et al., 2002; Hogan, 1983; Judge et al., 2002).
Research consistently demonstrates that leadership and social power over others has an important
influence on individual motivation (Bono & Judge, 2003; Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Zaccaro, 2001).
As shown in Figure 1, these work characteristics interact with the personal agendas that
emerge from the individual’s personality traits to determine experienced meaningfulness. Thus,
11
these characteristics facilitate or constrain the extent to which personality traits can be naturally
enacted in the pursuit of higher-order goals and thereby influence whether individuals’ purposeful
work striving is perceived as meaningful. For instance, work situations that are characterized by
social support and interdependence among co-workers provide a setting in which agreeable and
emotionally stable individuals can successfully fulfill their communion goals. Thus, the task or
social characteristics play a key role in the theory because they provide the context in which an
individual’s purposeful work striving is interpreted as being personally meaningful. Without the
interpretive context provided by task and social characteristics of jobs, it would not be possible for
individuals to derive meaning from their purposeful strivings.
Striving for purposefulness and experienced meaningfulness. The centrality of
purposefulness and meaningfulness in our theory arises from the Aristotelian notion of achieving
eudaimonic aspects of well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Ryff, 1989), which refer to psychological
well being, not mere hedonism (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010;
Warr, 1990). Although purposefulness and meaningfulness are clearly related, there are also
important differences between them. Below, we discuss both the importance of and elaborate on the
distinctions between the two concepts.
A major tenet of the Theory of Purposeful Work Behavior is that individuals are motivated
to pursue the four fundamental higher-order goals to greater or lesser degrees. Although there are
many reasons the individual adopts and pursues one of these broad goals over the other, the
individual’s personality traits (and to a lesser extent values and interests) are seen as important
determinants of which specific goal emerges to guide and direct the individual. Because personality
is relatively stable throughout adulthood (Roberts, 2006), the goals individuals focus on are
generally consistent over time, have meaningful connections across different work situations, and
can be distinguished from other individuals. Thus, purposefulness is the dynamic motivational
process by which personality traits are enacted through the pursuit of these implicit goals.
In contrast, meaningfulness refers to individuals’ perception that their actions are valuable,
useful and worthwhile (Kahn, 1990, 1992). According to Pratt and Ashforth (2003: 310-311)
12
meaningfulness arises when work is “perceived by its practitioners to be, at minimum, purposeful
and significant”. A central tenet of our theory is that personality traits, through the pursuit of higherorder implicit goals, and job characteristics jointly influence experienced meaningfulness at work.
Hackman and Oldham (1975) suggested that motivational work characteristics impact behavioral and
attitudinal outcomes through their influence on three “critical psychological states”: experienced
meaningfulness of the work, experienced responsibility for the outcomes of the work, and knowledge of
the results of the work activities. They defined experienced meaningfulness of the work as “the degree to
which the employee experiences the job as one which is generally meaningful, valuable, and
worthwhile” (1975: 162). Although they originally proposed that each of the critical psychological states
would independently act as mediators, research by Johns et al. (1992) and Oldham (1996) suggested that
experienced meaningfulness may serve as the strongest mediator between work characteristics and work
outcomes. More than 20 years later, Humphrey et al. (2007: 1341) confirmed this supposition in their
regression analyses based on meta-analytically derived correlations among social and task characteristics
and work outcomes: “Thus, the results suggested that experienced meaning was the “most critical”
critical psychological state, consistent with Johns et al.” Further, they state, “The results suggest a
modified mediation model for the motivational characteristics in which the primary mediator of the
motivational characteristics–work outcome relationships is experienced meaning. Its inclusion in the
mediation model led to the greatest level of mediation.” (2007: 1346). Drawing on these findings,
experienced meaningfulness plays a key role in our theory as it is the critical mediator of the dynamic
interplay of traits and job characteristics affecting subsequent motivation and work outcomes.
Application of this theory reveals that the social and task characteristics of the job interact
dynamically with the purposeful work strivings (that emanate from one’s personality traits) by
providing the context in which the individual interprets the significance or worthiness of work (e.g,
Grant, 2008; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). This is a core principle in our theory as we posit when the
behaviors, emotions, and thoughts linked to these goals are enacted in a context that reinforces the
perception that one’s actions are purposeful, this in turn evokes the psychological state of
experienced meaningfulness, i.e., feelings of significance, worthiness, and usefulness at work. For
13
example, when individuals who are highly extraverted and who strive to attain status and power are
placed in leadership situations, they are in a concordant work situation. Accordingly, when they are
charged with creating change, managing multiple functions, or setting performance expectations for
others, they are likely to feel a sense of significance and to feel their actions are useful, and
consequently experience the psychological state of meaningfulness. Such eudaimonic reactions
then lead to a greater sense of energy, dedication, and absorption in an individual’s role as a leader,
which triggers task-specific motivational processes such as self-efficacy, expectancy beliefs and
self-set goals. However, it should be noted that in our model goal fulfillment does not refer to how
well individuals accomplish goals (e.g., how well they cooperate and create harmonious
relationships with others), as this performance-oriented component occurs later in the process.
Rather, it refers to the extent to which an individual is able to naturally enact personality traits in the
pursuit of higher order goals. Thus, in our theory, once the individual experiences meaningfulness,
it triggers task specific motivational processes (e.g., self-efficacy, expectancy beliefs) that lead to
performance outcomes.
Discordant work situations refer to circumstances where there is inconsistency or lack of
compatibility between one’s higher-order goals, given their personality and the job characteristics
inherent in the situation. Consequently, these situations are not perceived as meaningful because the
individual perceives that his or her actions lack personal importance, usefulness or significance.
This perspective is consistent with predictions from conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll,
1989), which delineates self-regulatory processes relating to the allocation of effort (Halbesleben,
2006; Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004; Shirom, 2003). Paraphrasing the theory, discordant work
situations create hindrances or obstacles that individuals must overcome to be successful. In these
situations individuals are unable to pursue their implicit goals in unfettered ways. Because they
cannot fulfill their goal striving the situations are not perceived as personally meaningful to the
individual (except in a negative way); in fact, the situations are especially taxing to an individual
psychologically and physically because they cause individuals to “swim upstream”. Individuals are
forced to engage in tasks they do not prefer or have much interest in, to use skills they do not use
14
frequently or are not necessarily good at, and/or to interact with people whom they have little in
common with or who have different interpersonal styles (e.g., Holland, 1959, 1971). In low
meaningfulness situations such as these, there is a constant need to consciously direct energy and
attention to overcome these hindrance demands or obstacles, which depletes individuals’ energy
and leaves them feeling emotionally drained, frustrated and worn out.
Fundamental assumptions of the model. Before describing specific hypotheses, we
discuss five fundamental assumptions of the theory. First, we assume the fundamental implicit
goals can be satisfied on a continuing basis without a decrease in the strength of striving for
additional satisfaction, because theoretically these goals can never be completely fulfilled or
satiated. In fact, rather than resulting in complacency, we expect that early fulfillment of one of
these goals could actually increase the strength of the desire for future satisfaction of that goal. At
any rate, since personality is the primary determinant of which goal to pursue, these traits serve as a
way to replenish the employee’s energy and desire to strive for these goals since traits cannot be
“drained”. Consequently, fulfillment of a fundamental goal on one occasion does not mean it will
stop serving as a source of purposeful striving in subsequent occasions.
Second, the theory focuses on volitional behavior. This is noteworthy because it is possible
that the effects of situational demands can over-ride the motivational effects of personality traits,
such as the threat of termination or the lack of availability of resources, including time, money,
supervisor support or even inadequate skill and ability to do the work. When this occurs, the job
characteristics approximate a “strong” situation, affording workers less freedom and choice in
deciding whether to perform or not perform the behavior (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1993; Mischel,
1968). In strong or constrained situations, extrinsic rewards or threats can overpower individual
differences and the intrinsic rewards associated with pursuing meaningful or socially satisfying
work. When this occurs, the individual feels less free to act as they want or as they “really are”
(Barrick & Mount, 1993; Meyer et al., 2010). For the motivational effects from either the
employee’s personality or characteristics of the job to predict behavior, the person has to have both
perceived and actual control over one’s goals and behavior.
15
Third, although the pursuit of purposefulness arises from intrinsic sources associated with
personality traits, experienced meaningfulness arises from the joint influence of intrinsic sources
and extrinsic situations. An interaction-based perspective clarifies that the pursuit of meaning
cannot be determined solely within the person (intrinsic), but must include the context in which the
traits are enacted, such as the availability of social rewards or natural incentives associated with
performing tasks (extrinsic). Thus, although purposefulness arises primarily from one’s personality
traits, experienced meaningfulness is the result of the cumulative effects of internal forces (i.e.,
personal agendas and personality) and external forces (the job attributes and social roles).
Fourth, a key assumption is that the individuals’ perceptions are critical - a person can only
respond to the situation (job characteristics) he or she perceives, and the strength of the motivational
striving is determined by the individual him or herself (Endler & Magnusson, 1976). Thus we focus
on subjective perceptions of characteristics of the situation, rather than objective characteristics,
because the same objective setting may be perceived very differently depending on the motivational
goals being pursued by each individual (Endler & Magnusson, 1976). Even though situational
attributes such as the task itself and the social aspects of the job are “external” to the person, the
source of motivation due to the situation still springs from within due to the individual’s perception
of the situation (e.g., high perceived autonomy in the job may be seen as undesirable to some
employees). In fact, previous research has shown that subjective perceptions of job characteristics
are two to three times as strong as objective characteristics when predicting employee reactions
(Fried & Ferris, 1987). Since individuals are likely to be more sensitive to those social and task
characteristics that reinforce their goals and personality traits. Furthermore, people may choose
which situation to be in, and our personality, values, and interests play a major role when selecting
jobs (Mount et al., 2005; Schneider, 1987). Thus, to understand why individuals do what they do,
we need to understand how they perceive the situation they chose to be in (or are placed in by the
organization) and how this determines what motivational goals direct their effort at work.
Finally, in this paper we link broad dispositional and situational antecedents to predict
broad, aggregated attitudes and behaviors, averaged over time (e.g., annual performance ratings, job
16
satisfaction). The compatibility principle (Ajzen & Fisbbein, 1974) recognizes that these broad
predictors and behaviors must be matched at compatible levels of generality or aggregation to
provide the most explanatory power (Ajzen & Fisbbein, 1974; Barrick et al., 2002; Epstein, 1979;
Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006). Thus, we match these traits and job or social characteristics to
an equally broad aggregated personal goal, which in turn, predicts broad criteria of employee
effectiveness consisting of job satisfaction and job performance. Though there may be merit in
predicting behavior that changes moment-to-moment across specific settings (Ajzen, 1991), our
intent is instead to explain archetypical performance over long periods of time.
Testable Propositions
Our formulation and presentation of the hypotheses unfolds in the following way. We
organize each set of hypotheses around one of the four higher-order, implicit goals. For each goal
we discuss the way relevant personality traits lead to purposeful striving and how relevant task and
social job characteristics translate purposeful strivings into experienced meaningfulness. We
---- Insert Table 2 about here ----acknowledge that it is possible that a trait or job characteristic is relevant to multiple implicit goals.
For example, in our model extraversion is relevant to both communion and status striving goals.
However, to keep our model parsimonious, we link personality traits and job characteristics to their
most relevant goal. Thus, we focus on only one or a very few traits or characteristics when
considering each implicit goal. Table 2 illustrates the relationship between FFM personality traits
and relevant task and social characteristics for each of the four higher-order, implicit goals. This
table summarizes one of the primary contributions of this theory: it clearly specifies which traits and
job characteristics are linked to each higher order goal. Recognizing that the individual’s higher
order goals or personal agenda(s) determine the relevance of specific personality traits and particular
task or social characteristics is an important contribution over previous theories, including Trait
Activation theory and general theories of person-job fit. We conclude by discussing how
meaningfulness triggers task-specific motivation processes that lead to better performance.
However, because this process is similar for each of the higher-order goals, to avoid repetition we
17
only formulate specific hypotheses regarding the way experienced meaningfulness triggers taskspecific motivation processes (self-efficacy, expectancy and goal setting) for communion striving.
Communion striving motivation. Striving for communion is a fundamental goal that
evolved for survival purposes and represents an individual’s motivation to obtain acceptance in
personal relationships and to get along with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Hogan, 1996). As
shown in Figure 2, the two dimensions of the FFM that are most strongly related to striving for
----- Insert Figure 2 about here ----communion are Agreeableness and Emotional Stability (Barrick et al., 2002; Mount et al., 2005;
Traupman, Smith, Uchino, Berg, Trobst, & Costa, 2009). Agreeable individuals are altruistic,
sympathetic, and eager to help others (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Digman,
1990). Goldberg (1992) found Agreeableness to be associated with tendencies toward kindness,
unselfishness, generosity, and fairness. Based on these clear linkages between Agreeableness and
affiliation and friendliness, we expect Agreeableness will be linked to motivational strivings to
interact in harmonious ways with others at work, which encourages communion striving (Barrick et
al., 2002; Traupman et al., 2009). In addition, as previously stated, emotionally stable individuals
are calm, relaxed, less depressed, less stress prone, and more confident (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
They are pleasant to be around, interact well with others, and thereby maintain positive relations
with others (e.g., getting along with people). Thus individuals who are high on agreeableness and
emotional stability engage in purposeful work striving in pursuit of communion goals.
Three characteristics of the work situation provide social cues that facilitate individuals’
motivational communion striving: social support, interdependence among employees, and
interpersonal interaction outside the organization. A job with higher levels of social support
provides more opportunities for advice and assistance from others (Karasek, 1979; Karasek,
Brisson, Kawakami, Houtman, Bongers, & Amick, 1998; Sims, Szilagyi, & Keller, 1976).
Interdependence reflects the degree to which doing or completing the task depends on others and
that others rely on the individual to also complete his or her work (Kiggundu, 1981). Jobs with
extensive interaction outside the organization require employees to interact and communicate with
18
individuals external to the organization (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006; Sims et al., 1976). These
three situational attributes provide individuals with opportunities to interact with others at work in
cooperative and harmonious ways, and provide the context in which agreeable and emotionally
stable individuals interpret whether their purposeful strivings are personally meaningful. When the
social characteristics of jobs are salient (social support, interdependence among employees, and
interpersonal interaction outside the organization) the perceived meaningfulness is enhanced. In
fact, there is a dynamic process whereby individuals high in agreeableness and emotional stability
actively seek jobs with these social characteristics in order to fulfill communion striving.
When an individual’s personality traits are concordant with the attributes of the job
situation, it enables individuals to freely and fully draw on self-regulatory processes associated with
the allocation of attention and effort to attain their communion goals. As shown in Figure 1, this
results in the psychological state of experienced meaningfulness, which leads to task-specific
motivational processes (self-efficacy, expectancy, and goal setting). For example, highly agreeable
and emotionally stable individuals’ task-specific, self-efficacy about affiliative behaviors is
enhanced because their communion goals are concordant with the situation, which leads to greater
feelings of competence in the ability to form cooperative relationships (Graziano, Bruce, Sheese, &
Tobin, 2007). Their expectancy beliefs are stronger because the situation (which includes other
people who also are likely to be highly affiliative) facilitates the likelihood that engaging in
considerate and cooperative behavior will lead to greater harmony in the group (De Dreu &
Weingart, 2003). Further, individuals will be more likely to self-set task-specific goals in order to
achieve affiliative success, e.g., “Whenever I interact with others, I will do so in a friendly,
compassionate, trusting and nurturing manner.” The outcome of these task-specific motivational
processes is expected to be greater satisfaction and better performance.
Conversely, when highly agreeable and emotionally stable individuals encounter
discordant job situations, such as where there is no social support, when interdependence among
employees is low, and/or when the nature of the relationships is competitive, the person experiences
low meaningfulness and, consequently, motivational striving is hindered (Hogan & Holland, 2003).
19
These circumstances inhibit the individual’s ability to marshal the cognitive resources needed to
fulfill communion goals. This may lead to feelings of incompetence in the situation, weaker
perceptions that cooperative behaviors will make a difference to outcomes that matter to the person,
and fewer self-set goals to achieve affiliative success. In turn this leads to a reduction in the
motivational force associated with communion striving, which in turn leads to less effective
performance due to delayed and inefficient behavioral responding.
Proposition 1a: Agreeableness and Emotional Stability will be positively related to
purposeful work striving in the pursuit of communion goals.
Proposition 1b: Highly agreeable and emotionally stable employees will have a preference
for and self-select into jobs with higher levels on three job characteristics: social support,
interdependence, and interaction outside the organization.
Proposition 1c: The relationship between communion striving (arising from Agreeableness
and Emotional Stability) and experienced meaningfulness will be moderated by three critical job or
social characteristics: social support, interdependence, and interaction outside the organization.
Proposition 1d: Experienced meaningfulness will mediate the effects of the interaction
between the purposeful striving for communion and these three job characteristics with task-specific
motivation (self-efficacy, action goals, and expectancy). In turn, greater task specific motivation will
lead to greater satisfaction and performance.
Status striving motivation. Striving for status is linked to an individual’s motivation to
obtain power, influence and prestige within a status hierarchy (Barrick et al., 2002; Deci & Ryan,
2000; Hogan, 1983). Prior research has demonstrated that one personality trait, Extraversion, is
directly related to a strong desire for power and dominance within a status hierarchy (Barrick et al.,
2002; Mount et al., 2005; Traupman et al., 2009). Extraverts are described as energetic, ascendant,
and ambitious. The primary essence of extraversion is said to be a sensitivity to obtain rewards and
dominate others rather than sociability (Gray, 1987; Lucas, Diener, Grob, Suh, & Shao, 2000).
Because rewards (e.g., promotions or salary increases) are usually obtained by excelling relative to
20
others, extraverts are motivated by a desire to get ahead of others (Barrick et al., 2002; Stewart,
1996). Research also shows that extraverts tend to feel more pleasant affect even when they are
working alone, which implies that they are not driven by striving for communion (Lucas et al.,
2000). Therefore, extraverted employees engage in purposeful work striving when they are striving
for status.
Three job characteristics, task significance, feedback from others, and power and status, are
particularly likely to influence the extent to which individuals strive to attain status goals. Task
significance reflects the degree to which a job influences the lives or work of others, whether inside
or outside the organization (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). This is consistent with the essential idea of
status striving – to achieve higher status and the esteem of others by doing work that has a
significant impact on others. Simply stated, influencing the lives of others enhances one’s own
reputation (Hogan, 1983). Feedback from others reflects the extent to which others in the
organization provide information about performance (Hackman & Lawler, 1971). To get ahead of
others implies a social comparison process that conveys information about the satisfactoriness of an
individual’s performance compared to others (Hogan & Holland, 2003). Feedback from others thus
can inform individuals about his or her position within a status hierarchy, and hence fulfill or
frustrate the intention to get ahead of others. Finally, power and status directly measure the degree to
which a job provides opportunities to lead others and to achieve dominance or influence over others
(Steers & Braunstein, 1976). Individuals who achieve power and status within the organizational
hierarchy are able to strive to fulfill a desire to get ahead of others and have others defer to them
(Hogan & Holland, 2003).
Situations that provide high task significance, power and status, or feedback that enhance
competition in the work unit provide the context in which highly extraverted employees who are
striving for status can interpret whether their behaviors are personally meaningful. This should lead
them to strive to attain implicit goals that lead to status, reputation, and glory. For example,
Extraversion has been shown to be the single best personality predictor of leadership emergence
(Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). Due to extraverts’ ambitious nature, they prefer to engage in
21
activities which have high impact and are important because such activities are more likely to
garner attention from others. This also illustrates how personality traits can influence the way a
situation is interpreted, as extraverted workers are more likely to perceive feedback from others as
providing competitive “comparisons” which they like. Thus, extraverted employees are more likely
to use feedback to judge how well they are competing with others. Opportunities for leadership (i.e.,
power) and competition also enable the person to be the center of attention, which are attributes
extraverts are motivated to achieve. Jobs with high task significance, that endow more power and
prestige, or feedback that encourages competition, are meaningful to extraverts because they
provide greater opportunities to influence others, which helps them fulfill their desire for status
(Hogan & Holland, 2003).
However, when an extraverted employee is in a job where the task is not significant, where
there is little chance to acquire power, or there is no head-to-head competition with others, then the
person-situation interaction is discordant and it has low meaningfulness for the individual, which
means the strength of the person’s status striving will be weak. Similarly, an introverted employee,
who is shy, quiet, and doesn’t like attention, will not be motivated to strive for status, even if the
task has significance to others and provides the chance to engage in leadership or to compete with
others. In both cases, the individual's personality is discordant with the demands or opportunity
inherent in the work setting. As described earlier, this discordant interaction is not meaningful to the
individual and this inhibits the individual’s ability to allocate attentional resources needed to fulfill
status striving goals, resulting in lower satisfaction and less effective performance. Thus, we
propose that:
Proposition 2a: Extraversion will be positively related to purposeful work striving in the
pursuit of status goals.
Proposition 2b: Extraverted employees will have a preference for jobs with higher levels on
three job characteristics: task significance, power and status, and feedback from others.
22
Proposition 2c: The relationship between status striving (arising from Extraversion) and
experienced meaning will be moderated by three job characteristics: task significance, power and
status, and feedback from others.
Autonomy striving motivation. Striving for autonomy is linked to a desire to have control
over what to do, when to do it, and how to do it (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006; Mount et al.,
2005). de Charms (1968: 215) maintains that gaining control and understanding over our
environment is one of the most fundamental goals people strive to attain. This is illustrated in his
statement that “man’s primary motivational propensity is to be effective in producing changes in his
environment.” Striving for autonomy also incorporates growth goals, as a person who grows and
learns is more likely to develop the capacity to affect (i.e., control) the environment.
Two dimensions of the FFM, Openness to Experience and Extraversion, have been found
to be related to striving for autonomy goals. Individuals high on openness to experience have an
intense desire for autonomy (Mount et al., 2005), as they are imaginative, cultured, curious, original,
broad-minded, intelligent, and artistically sensitive (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Costa & McCrae,
1992). Thus, they have strong preferences for working with ideas, engaging in divergent thinking,
and doing things that are not clear or well-defined. In addition, to a lesser extent, Extraversion (e.g.,
individuals are energetic, ascendant, and ambitious) has been linked to autonomy (Mount et al.,
2005). However, these attributes have only modest relationships with striving for autonomy and do
not reflect this goal-orientation as well as does Openness to Experience. Because Openness to
Experience captures the heart of striving for autonomy, and Extraversion has a more direct impact
on other fundamental goals, we will focus exclusively on Openness to Experience. Thus,
individuals high on openness engage in purposeful work behaviors when they are striving to attain
autonomy.
Two work design characteristics, autonomy and task variety, are relevant to goals
associated with autonomy striving. Autonomy in the job refers to the extent to which a job allows
freedom, independence, and discretion to schedule work, make decisions, and choose the methods
used to perform tasks (Breaugh, 1985; Wall, Jackson, & Davids, 1992; Wall, Jackson, &
23
Mullarkey, 1995). Thus, a job with high autonomy allows individuals to engage in divergent and
creative mental activities which are the essence of striving for autonomy. Task variety refers to the
degree to which a job requires employees to perform a wide range of tasks on the job (Morgeson &
Humphrey, 2006), which indicates whether the tasks are well defined. Thus, task variety is also
relevant to fulfillment of an individual’s tendency to strive for autonomy. Individuals who are high
on openness in jobs that are high on autonomy and task variety will experience enhanced meaning.
Individuals who are high on openness to experience, actively seek opportunities to gain
autonomy and personal growth through imaginative, curious and creative behaviors. Moreover,
these individuals will proactively seek opportunities at work that allow them to fulfill their
motivational striving for autonomy (Hogan & Holland, 2003; Mount et al., 2005). When the work
situation has high autonomy, open individuals who are striving for autonomy find the situation
highly meaningful and will be less constrained when engaging in creative activities. They have
greater freedom to explore and experiment with alternative methods at work and to satisfy their
curious nature. Similarly, when the work situation is characterized by task variety, it offers open
individuals opportunities to engage in divergent thinking activities. As a result, in concordant
situations such as when the work situation is characterized by freedom, independence and discretion
and the employee is high in openness to experience, individuals are highly motivated to pursue
autonomy goals and will perceive high meaningfulness in the work they accomplish.
When the person desires autonomy, but works in an environment they cannot control, the
individual will experience frustration or blocked goal achievement (Langer, 1975). A creative and
intellectually curious (high openness) individual who is in a job that requires a great deal of
repetition and a narrow range of tasks that are well defined, will feel highly constrained and stunted
in personal growth (de Charms, 1968). This discordant situation weakens the individual’s
motivation to achieve their autonomy goals. The person feels less competent in this situation
because they cannot engage in activities that they are best suited for; they exert less effort because
they do not believe that working harder will make a difference in attaining autonomy; and they are
24
less likely to set goals related to attaining autonomy which leads to less job satisfaction and less
effective performance.
Proposition 3a: Openness to Experience will be positively related to purposeful work
striving in the pursuit of autonomy goals.
Proposition 3b: Employees higher on Openness to Experience have a preference for jobs
with higher levels on two work design characteristics: autonomy and task variety.
Proposition 3c: The relationship between autonomy striving (arising from Openness to
Experience) and experienced meaning will be moderated by level on two job characteristics:
autonomy and task variety.
Achievement striving motivation. Striving for achievement refers to the employee’s
desire to complete things in a timely, careful, efficient way, and is characterized by a strong focus
on getting things done (Barrick et al., 2002). This goal relates to the desire to increase competency
and to enhance self-worth that is essential to nearly all people (Deci & Ryan, 1985; White, 1959); at
work this translates into a strong desire to execute the task at hand to the standards prescribed and to
do work that has value. From the personality perspective, prior research shows that
Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability are associated with the tendencies to strive for
achievement (Barrick et al., 2002; Mount et al., 2005).
Conscientious people are organized, reliable, hardworking, determined, self-disciplined,
rules-abiding, and achievement oriented (Barrick et al., 2002; Barrick et al., 2003; Costa & McCrae,
1992; Goldberg, 1992; Mount et al., 2005). Emotionally unstable (neurotic) people do not see
themselves as worthy, are less confident, are frequently distracted by worrying and become
obsessed with details, and consequently, are more dissatisfied with themselves, their jobs and lives.
Thus, they are more motivated to avoid failures than they are to accomplish tasks (Barrick et al.,
2002). In contrast, individuals high in emotional stability tend to exhibit higher desire for
achievement (Mount et al., 2005). They are motivated to achieve, primarily because they
experience less anxiety and depression and have a greater ability to focus on the task (Barrick &
Mount, 1991; Costa & McCrae, 1992). In sum, highly conscientious and emotionally stable
25
employees engage in purposeful work behavior through their pursuit of achievement at work. This
is a major reason why both traits have been shown to be generalizable predictors of job
performance across jobs (Barrick, et al. 2001). Thus, it should be possible to optimize these
employees’ motivation at work by providing opportunities in the work situation to fulfill goals
related to achievement striving.
From the situational perspective, there are three work design factors, task identity and
feedback, whether from the job or another, that provide relevant situational cues that enable the
individual to strive for achievement. Task identity reflects the degree to which a job involves a
whole piece of work, and thereby enhances the “identity” or value of the work (Sims et al., 1976),
while feedback from the job or coworker refers to the degree to which the job or coworker, even
supervisor, provides direct and clear information about the effectiveness of task performance
(Hackman & Oldham, 1976). These three task characteristics let the employee know how they are
doing relative to organizational expectations and provide the context in which purposeful work
behavior leads to experienced meaningfulness for conscientious and emotionally stable people.
When the job provides feedback, whether from the job or others, it affects the relationship
between Conscientiousness and to a lesser extent, Emotional Stability, on the extent of motivation
towards achievement goals. Empirically, Frink and Ferris (1999) found job accountability (a
construct similar to task identity) moderated the Conscientiousness – performance relationship;
specifically Conscientiousness was significantly related to performance under high accountability
situations but not low accountability situations. A highly conscientious employee wants to get
things done and feedback will help them strive for achievement (Barrick et al., 2002). Thus it makes
sense that these employees will be more engaged to achieve when they know how they are doing.
Furthermore, a lazy, irresponsible employee will not be motivated to strive for achievement
(Barrick et al., 2002; Steers & Braunstein, 1976). Extensive feedback will not increase their
motivation to get things done either. In fact, it is possible that this could result in a strong
disengagement effect.
26
Thus in concordant situations such as when the work situation is characterized by task
significance and feedback from the job and others, and the employee is high in conscientiousness
and emotional stability, individuals are even more highly motivated to pursue achievement goals.
Conversely, when highly conscientious and emotionally stable people are in situations whereby it is
difficult to identify one’s contributions to the completed product (low task identity) and/or very little
clear feedback is provided either from the work itself or from others (boss, co-workers, customers)
about how well the work has been performed, the situation is discordant. In discordant situations
individuals feel less competent in their ability to perform effectively, they exert less effort because
they are less interested in the task and do not believe that working harder will enable them to
execute the task, and they are less likely to set goals related to getting things done (Dijksterhuis &
Aarts, 2010). This leads to less job satisfaction and less effective performance. Thus, based on our
reasoning, we propose that:
Proposition 4a: Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability will be positively related to
purposeful work striving in the pursuit of achievement.
Proposition 4b: Employees higher on Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability will have
a preference for and self-select into jobs with higher levels on two characteristics of the job, the
degree of task identity and feedback from the job.
Proposition 4c: The relationship between achievement striving (arising from
Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability) and experienced meaning will be moderated by three
job characteristics: task identity and feedback from the job or others.
THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Comparison of the Theory of Purposeful Work Behavior to Other Theories
Explaining why people do what they do at work is a fundamental question that requires a
complex answer. Generally speaking, any answer to this question must consider the effects of
individuals’ long-term dispositions and environmental circumstances. The existing theories that
have attempted to explain the joint effects arising from personality and work characteristics fall into
two major categories: theories that focus on the meaning of work (e.g., job characteristic theory
27
[JCT], Hackman & Oldham, 1975; engagement theory, Rich, LePine, Crawford, 2010; Tyler &
Blader, 2003; job crafting, Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; sensemaking, Weick, 1993, 1995) and
theories relying on personality-situation interactions (e.g., situational strength research, Meyer et al.,
2010; trait activation theory; Tett & Burnett, 2003; person-job fit theory, Edwards, 2008). Below,
we review these theories and discuss key differences between our theory and previous approaches
and clarify how the Theory of Purposeful Work Behavior builds on and extends current theory.
Theories of the meaning of work. Meaningfulness has long been recognized as an
important source of motivation to an employee at work. Rosso et al. (2010) identified various
sources of the meaning of work and broadly classified them as focused on either external sources,
such as the work context or the social aspects of work (Grant & Parker, 2009; Hackman & Oldham,
1976; Tyler & Blader, 2003), or internal sources, including self motives and cognitive maps
developed through cues received from others (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Wrzesniewski,
Dutton, & Debebe, 2003; Weick, 1993). However, researchers have tended to focus exclusively on
either internal or external sources to explain meaning at work, even when they acknowledge the
affect of the other source. For example, the expanded job characteristics theory posits experienced
meaningfulness at work is primarily determined by the universal effects of task and social
characteristics (discussed previously). Growth need strength is the only individual based moderator
that has the potential to accentuate the effects of these external sources of employee motivation. Yet
even here, the theory does not consider how and why individual differences may contribute to the
individual’s purposefulness, or how the joint interaction may affect the development of experienced
meaningfulness. Similarly, the group engagement model (Blader & Tyler, 2009; Tyler & Blader,
2003) only emphasizes the role of social influences (relationship with leaders, social support, and
organizational justice) as fundamental to shaping employee work identity and engagement.
Theories of sensemaking (Weick, 1993) and job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001)
are seen as internally-focused theories, as they recognize, to varying extents, the role of the self
when trying to understand the meaning of work. Weick explicitly argued that employees actively
engage in an interpretive process to make meaning of their own jobs, roles, and selves at work, by
28
comprehending, understanding, and extrapolating cues received from others. Similarly, the self is
seen as critical to interpreting the motivational gains derived from re-designing work. Thus,
internally-focused theories do recognize that sensemaking or job-crafting requires a self-aware
sensemaker to derive meaning.
Of these, the recent theory of job crafting may do the best job of recognizing the joint
influence that may emerge from internal and external sources of meaning. For example, hospital
cleaners may enhance the meaning they derive at work by changing the core characteristics of the
job, such as by increasing task significance. However, this does not recognize that individuals may
interpret the meaning of work differently, based on their unique personality. Second, the theory
does not explicitly consider the joint interactive effects from both internal (personal goals) and
external (expanded job characteristics) forces simultaneously determining the meaning of work. In
contrast, our theory emphasizes that employees will strive for different types of work meaning (e.g.,
communion or status), based on particular personality traits. Furthermore, in contrast to other
theories, our theory explains which specific characteristics from the expanded job characteristics
model are critical for determining meaningfulness at work. The characteristic(s) that matter depend
on the goals or personal agendas that emerge from the individual’s unique tendencies (i.e.,
personality traits).
Theories of personality-situation interactions. A number of different theories relying on
person-situation interactions have been proposed in the literature. One well known theory is
research on situational strength (Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Meyer et al., 2010). A central tenant
of this theory is that the relationships between personality traits and behaviors are a function of
situational strength, where the strong situation attenuates the personality-behavior relationship,
while the weak situation accentuates the relationship. A situation can be conceptualized as either
strong or weak, depending on the clarity and consistency of the constraints or consequences
inherent in the situation. Thus, research on situation strength helps to answer an important question
of when personality traits lead to actions (i.e., in weak situations). Yet, it is incapable of addressing
other critical questions of how and why individuals express their tendencies to engage in motivated
29
behaviors at work. Furthermore, this theory does not clarify what specific actions are likely to occur,
even if an employee is free to express his or her behavioral tendencies. In contrast, as shown in
Table 2 our theory offers precise predictions of how specific personality interacts with the situation
in predicting employee behavior based on the implicit goal that directs the person’s behavior.
Extending situational strength research, trait activation theory posits that personality traits
are expressed as responses to trait-relevant situational cues (Tett & Burnett, 2003). A key feature of
trait activation theory is the idea of situation-trait relevance. A situation is relevant to a trait if it is
thematically connected by the provision of cues. The theory argues individuals tend to express their
traits when presented with trait-relevant situational cues. Although this theory has proven to be a
significant advance, trait activation theory is silent about the psychological mechanism that drives
employee motivated work behaviors. This omission is critical because employee motivational
forces are the key explaining the effects of personality traits on work behaviors (Judge & Ilies,
2002). To convert the behavioral tendencies of traits into meaningful work behavior, we argue one
must consider the role of higher-order, implicit goals to truly understand the complex interactions
between the person and situation. Thus, we believe the cues from enriched jobs provide the
opportunity to fulfill these goals, but that the goals are central to understanding the interplay
between personality and situations in work motivation.
Research on person-job fit (P-J fit) is also known for explaining the joint effects of the
person and the situation on employee attitudes and behaviors (Edwards, 1991, 2008; KristofBrown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). In general, P-J fit research refers to the match between the
person and environment (Dawis, 1992; Edwards, Caplan, & Harrison, 1998). Although there has
been considerable empirical support for the positive influence of P-J fit on a variety of employee
outcomes (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), the concept suffers notable limitations. First, the research
does not provide clear conceptualizations of the person and environment as it includes many
divergent individual characteristics including abilities, values, and interests (Dawis & Lofquist,
1984; Chatman, 1989; Edwards, 2008; Holland, 1997; Shirom, 1982). For this reason, it is very
difficult to develop an integrative framework explaining the interactive effects of the person and
30
environment. For example, it is hard to compare studies focused on needs–supplies fit between the
person and situation with others focused on value congruence. Moreover, similar to other theories
reviewed above, P-J fit researchers have tended to neglect the underlying motivational processes
that drive employee work behaviors. For example, it is unclear how needs–supplies fit affects the
types of goals described in this paper. Thus, our theory is different from fit research because
fit doesn’t have a unifying theory of why congruence matters for motivation. Our theory
encompasses fit research by giving a more integrated theoretical explanation of why
congruence matters, and it matters because congruence is a type of concordance.
Mischel and Shoda’s (1995) cognitive-affective personality system provides a different lens
to understand the interactions between the person and the situation. The theory highlights the
dominant role of the situation in driving behavior, but recognizes the supporting role personality
traits play in explaining behavior variance across different situations. There are several important
features of the theory. First, rather than predicting an individual’s aggregated behavior over time,
the theory focuses on explaining within-individual variance in behavior across specific situations. In
other words, the theory attempts to explain intra-person variance and more importantly, it
conceptualizes the situation at lower levels (e.g., a specific situation). As a result, it posits that
variation in specific behaviors is caused by variations in the situation. However, in real
organizational settings, work situations such as these job characteristics are relatively stable
(Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Thus, in contrast, our theory strives to predict general measures of
behavioral effectiveness over an extended period at work. Furthermore, as illustrated in Table 2, our
theory makes specific links between which personality traits, job characteristics, and implicit goals
together predict motivated behavior. As a result, we are able to add greater precision to existing
motivational theories that focus on person-situation interactions by positing detailed predictions
derived from specific personality traits and job or social characteristics for each goal.
Summary and Conclusion. Our article makes several contributions to the existing
literature. First, the theory specifies the mechanisms by which two fundamental determinants of
work motivation, the individual’s personality and the situation’s social roles and task attributes,
31
jointly influence motivation and behavior at work. Our intent is not to engage in a debate about
which of these two approaches is better, but rather to take a comprehensive view that recognizes
both approaches jointly and interactively influence work motivation. Second, we extend our
understanding of person-situation interactions by introducing higher-order goals as the integrative
mechanism that links the distal motivational forces from internal, individual sources (personality)
and external, situational factors (task characteristics and social roles). Also, our approach shifts the
traditional perspective that employee motivational forces are primarily imposed by external,
situational factors (Hackman & Oldham, 1975) to an agentic view that individual motivation is
generated by the desire to pursue high order goals that emanate from one’s personality traits. Thus,
we clarify that in the person-situation interaction equation, personality seves as a driving force of
individual behavior while the situation serves as a moderator. Third, we incorporate the concepts of
purposefulness associated with striving for these higher-order goals and experienced
meaningfulness associated with goal fulfillment, which have been frequently discussed in the
literature but have been rarely integrated. Thus, the proposed theory is intended to be a
comprehensive yet parsimonious explanation of what people are motivated to achieve at work,
based on a limited number of basic higher-goals that regulate human behavior in the workplace.
In conclusion, our theory updates and extends the meaning of work literature as well as
research on person-situation interactions by developing a new integrative theory that explicates the
way specific personality traits lead to personal agendas that in turn interacts with specific job
characteristics to jointly influence the experienced meaningfulness at work, which serves as the key
driver of employee motivated behaviors. Consistent with the idea that different individuals may
have differential interpretations of the meaning of work, we posit that the experienced
meaningfulness of work derives from four higher order goals. In addition, we help to clarify the
sources of the experienced meaningfulness of work by acknowledging the joint influences of
internal sources (i.e., personality traits) and external sources (i.e., work design characteristics) on the
meaning of work, which in turn, transmits the effects of the person-situation interactions on
employee work satisfaction and performance.
32
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50: 179-211.
Ajzen, I. & Fisbbein, M. 1974. Factors influencing intentions and the intention-behavior
relation. Human Relations, 27: 1-15.
Adler, A. 1939. Social Interest. New York: Putnam.
Allport, G. W. 1955. Becoming; basic considerations for a psychology of personality:
Yale University Press.
Austin, J. T. & Vancouver, J. B. 1996. Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process,
and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120: 338-375.
Bakan, D. 1966. The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. 1991. The big five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44: 1-26.
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., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. 2001. Personality and performance at the
beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next?
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9: 9-30.
Barrick, M. R., Mitchell, T. R., & Stewart, G. L. 2003. Situational and motivational
influences on trait-behavior relationships. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.),
Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations:
60-82. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33
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: 43-51.
Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. 1995. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117:
497-529.
Blader, S. & Tyler, T. 2009. Testing and extending the group engagement model:
Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and
extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 445-464.
Bono, J. E. & Judge, T. A. 2003. Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the
motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management
Journal, 46: 554-571.
Breaugh, J. A. 1985. The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations, 38: 551570.
Brunstein, J. C., Schultheiss, O. C., & Gräsmann, R. 1998. Personal goals and emotional
well-being: The moderating role of motive dispositions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 75: 494-508.
Campion, M. A. & Thayer, P. W. 1985. Development and field evaluation of an
interdisciplinary measure of job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 2943.
Chatman, J. A. 1989. Improving interactional organizational research: A model of
person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14: 333-349.
Chen, G. & Kanfer, R. 2006. Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work
teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27: 223-267.
34
Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. 1992. Normal personality assessment in clinical practice:
The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4: 5-13.
Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Citera, M. 1993. A goal hierarchy model of personality,
motivation, and leadership. Research in Organizational Behavior, 15: 267-267.
Dawis, R. V. 1992. Person-environment fit and job satisfaction. In C. J. Cranny & P. C.
S. E. F. Stone (Eds.), Job satisfaction: 69-88. New York: Lexington.
Dawis, R. V. & Lofquist, L. H. 1984. A psychological theory of work adjustment.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
de Charms, R. 1968. Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of
behavior. New York: Academic Press
De Dreu, C. K. W. & Weingart, L. R. 2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team
performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88: 741-749.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior: Springer.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. 2000. The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11: 227-268.
DeShon, R. P. & Gillespie, J. Z. 2005. A motivated action theory account of goal
orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 1096-1127.
Digman, J. M. 1990. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual
Review of Psychology, 41: 417-440.
Dijksterhuis, A. & Aarts, H. 2010. Goals, Attention, and (Un)Consciousness. Annual
Review of Psychology, 61:467-490.
Edwards, J. R. 1991. Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and
methodological critique. In C. L. R. I. T. Cooper (Ed.), International review of
35
industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 6: 283-357. Chichester, England:
Wiley.
Edwards, J. R. 2008. Person-environment fit in organizations: An assessment of
theoretical progress. Academy of Management Annals, 2: 167-230.
Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. 1998. Person-environment fit theory:
Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence, and directions for future research. In
C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress: 28-67. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Edwards, J. R., Scully, J. A., & Brtek, M. D. 2000. The nature and outcomes of work: A
replication and extension of interdisciplinary work-design research. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85: 860-868.
Emmons, R. & McAdams, D. 1991. Personal strivings and motive dispositions:
Exploring the links. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17: 648-654.
Endler, N. S. 1993. Personality: An interactional perspective. In P. J. Hettema & I. J.
Deary (Eds.), Foundations of personality: 251-268. Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Endler, N. S. & Magnusson, D. 1976. Toward an Interactional Psychology of Personality.
Psychological Bulletin, 83: 956-974.
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.
Fried, Y. & Ferris, G. R. 1987. The validity of the job characteristics model: A review
and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40: 287-322.
Frink, D. D. & Ferris, G. R. 1999. The moderating effects of accountability on the
conscientiousness-performance relationship. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 13: 515-524.
36
Funder, D. C. 2001. Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 197-221.
Goldberg, L. R. 1992. The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4: 26-42.
Gottfredson, L. S. 1997. Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence,
24: 79-132.
Grant, A. M. 2007. Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial
difference. Academy of Management Review, 32: 393-417.
Grant, A. M. 2008. The significance of task significance: Job performance effects,
relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93: 108-124.
Grant, A. M. & Parker, S. K. 2009. Redesigning work design theories: The rise of
relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3: 317375.
Gray, J. A. 1987. The psychology of fear and stress. Cambridge University Press.
Graziano, W. G., Bruce, J., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. 2007. Attraction, personality,
and prejudice: Liking none of the people most of the time. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 93: 565-582.
Gustafson, S. B. & Mumford, M. D. 1995. Personal style and person-environment fit: A
pattern approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46: 163-188.
Hackman, J. R. & Lawler, E. E. 1971. Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 55: 259-286.
Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. 1975. Development of Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 60: 159-170.
Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. 1976. Motivation through the design of work.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250-279.
37
Halbesleben, J. R. B. 2006. Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of
the conservation of resources model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 11341145.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. & Bowler, W. 2007. Emotional exhaustion and job performance:
The mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 93-106.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. & Buckley, M. R. 2004. Burnout in organizational life. Journal of
Management, 30: 859-879.
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. 2006. How important are job attitudes?
Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time
sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 305-325.
Herzberg, F. 1954. Temperament measures in industrial selection. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 38: 81-84.
Hirschfeld, R. R., Lawson, L., & Mossholder, K. W. 2004. Moderators of the relationship
between cognitive ability and performance: General versus context-specific
achievement motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34: 2389-2409.
Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44: 513-524.
Hogan, R. 1983. A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation: 55-89. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Hogan, R. 1996. A socioanalytic perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins
(Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives: 180-207.
New York: Guilford Press.
Hogan, J. & Holland, B. 2003. Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance
relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 100112.
38
Holland, J. L. 1959. A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
6: 35-45.
Holland, J. L. 1971. A theory-ridden, computerless, impersonal vocational guidance
system. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1: 167-176.
Holland, J. L. 1997. Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities
and work environments (3rd edn.). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. 2007. Integrating motivational,
social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and
theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92: 1332-1356.
Johns, G., Xie, J. L., & Fang, Y. 1992. Mediating and moderating effects in job design.
Journal of Management, 18, 657-676
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: 765779.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. 2002. Five-factor model of personality and job
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 530-541.
Judge, T. A. & Ilies, R. 2002. Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A
meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 797-807.
Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement
at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 692-724.
Kahn, W. A. 1992. To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations,
45: 321-349
39
Kanfer, R. & Kanfer, F. H. 1991. Goals and self-regulation: Applications of theory to
work settings. Advances in motivation and achievement, 7: 287-326.
Karasek Jr, R. 1979. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications
for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 285-308.
Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., & Amick, B. 1998.
The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally
comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 3: 322-355.
Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. 2010. Renovating the
pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5: 292-314.
Kehr, H. M. 2004. Integrating implicit motives. explicit motives, and perceived abilities:
The compensatory model of work motivation and volition. Academy of
Management Review, 29: 479-499.
Kiggundu, M. N. 1981. Task interdependence and the theory of job design. Academy of
Management Review, 6: 499-508.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. 2005. Consequences of
individuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization,
person-group, and person-supervisor Fit. Personnel Psychology, 58: 281-320.
Langer, E. J. 1975. The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 32: 311-328.
Locke, E. A. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 1: 1297-1343.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
40
Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. 2004. What should we do about motivation theory? Six
recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review,
29: 388-403.
Lubinski, D. 2004. Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years
after Spearman's (1904)''general intelligence,'objectively determined and
measured". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86: 96-111.
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E. M., & Shao, L. 2000. Cross-cultural evidence
for the fundamental features of extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79: 452-468.
Maslow, A. H. 1943. A theory of motivation. Psychological Review, 50: 370-396.
McClelland, D. C. 1951. Personality. Oxford, UK: William Sloane.
McClelland, D. C. 1971. Assessing human motivation. New York: General Learning
Press.
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. 1998. How do self-attributed and
implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96: 690-702.
Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. 2010. A review and synthesis of situational
strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36: 121-140.
Mischel, W. 1968. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.
Mischel, W. & Shoda, Y. 1995. A cognitive-affective system theory of personality:
Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in
personality structure. Psychological Review, 102: 246-268.
Morgeson, F. P. & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ):
Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and
the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1321-1339.
41
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. 2005. Higher-order
dimensions of the big five personality traits and the big six vocational interest
types. Personnel Psychology, 58: 447-478.
Murray, H. A. 1938. Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Oldham, G. R. 1996. Job design. International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 11: 33-60.
Parks, L., & Guay, R.P. (2009). Personality, values, and motivation. Personality and Indivdiual
Differences, 47, 675-684.
Pratt, M. G. & Ashforth, B. E. 2003. Fostering meaningfulness in work. In K. S.
Cameron & J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational
scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline: 309-327. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. 2010. Job engagement: Antecedents and
effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 617-635.
Roberts, B. W. 2006. Personality development and organizational behavior. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 27: 1-40.
Rosso, B., Dekas, K., & Wrzesniewski, A. 2010. On the meaning of work: A theoretical
integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30: 91-127.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. 2001. On happiness and human potentials: A review of
research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology,
52: 141-166.
Ryff, C. D. 1989. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57:
1069-1081.
42
Salgado, J. F. 1997. The Five Factor Model of personality and job performance in the
European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 30-43.
Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. 2004. General mental ability in the world of work:
Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86: 162-173.
Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-453.
Shirom, A. 1982. What is organizational stress? A facet analytic conceptualization.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 3: 21-37.
Shirom, A. 2003. Job-related burnout: A review. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.),
Handbook of occupational health psychology: 245-264. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Sims, H. P., Szilagyi, A. D., & Keller, R. T. 1976. Measurement of Job Characteristics.
Academy of Management Journal, 19: 195-212.
Steers, R. M. & Braunstein, D. N. 1976. Behaviorally-based measure of manifest needs in
work settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9: 251-266.
Stewart, G. L. 1996. Reward structure as a moderator of the relationship between
extraversion and sales performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 619-627.
Stewart, G. L., Fulmer, I. S., & Barrick, M. R. 2005. An exploration of member roles as a
multilevel linking mechanism for individual traits and team outcomes. Personnel
Psychology, 58: 343-365.
Tett, R. P. & Burnett, D. D. 2003. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 500-517.
Tiegs, R. B., Tetrick, L. E., & Fried, Y. 1992. Growth need strength and context
satisfactions as moderators of the relations of the job characteristics model.
Journal of Management, 18: 575.
43
Trapnell, P. D. & Wiggins, J. S. 1990. Extension of the interpersonal adjective scales to
include the Big Five dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 59: 781-790.
Traupman, E. K., Smith, T. W., Uchino, B. N., Berg, C. A., Trobst, K. K., & Costa Jr, P.
T. 2009. Interpersonal circumplex octant, control, and affiliation scales for the
NEO-PI-R. Personality and Individual Differences, 47: 457-463.
Turner, A. N. & Lawrence, P. R. 1965. Industrial jobs and the worker: An investigation
of response to task attributes. Boston: Harvard University.
Tyler, T. R. & Blader, S. L. 2003. The group engagement model: Procedural justice,
social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 7: 349-361.
Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., & Davids, K. 1992. Operator work design and robotics
system performance: A serendipitous field study. Journal of Applied Psychology,
77: 353-362.
Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., & Mullarkey, S. 1995. Further evidence on some new
measures of job control, cognitive demand and production responsibility. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 16: 431-455.
Warr, P. 1990. The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63: 193-210.
Weick, K. E. 1993. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch
disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 628-652.
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Oaks, CA: Sage.
White, R. W. 1959. Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological
Review, 66: 297-333.
44
Wiggins, J. S. & Trapnell, P. D. 1996. A dyadic-interactional perspective on the FiveFactor Model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-Factor Model of personality:
Theoretical perspectives: 88-162. New York: Guilford Press.
Wrzesniewski, A. & Dutton, J. E. 2001. Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active
crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26: 179-201.
Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. 2003. Interpersonal sensemaking and the
meaning of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25: 93-136.
Zaccaro, S. J. 2001. The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical
analysis of success. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
45
TABLE 1
Comparison of Goal Strivings to Dominant Motivation Frameworks
Theory
The present
theory
Motivation a
Taxonomy of fundamental goals at work
Communion
striving
Communion
Status striving
Autonomy/growth
Achievement
striving
striving
Achievement
Status striving
—
Relatedness
—
Autonomy
Competence
Affiliation
Power
—
Achievement
Affiliation
Dominance
Autonomy
Achievement
Altruism/
Prestige /
Relationships
Authority /
with others
Pay
Belongingness
Esteem
Interpersonal
Communion:
Agency:
circumplex g
warmth /
dominance /
sociable /
competitive /
friendly
assertiveness
striving
Selfdetermination b
Implicit
motives c
Needs in work
settings d
Work values e
Need
hierarchyf
Autonomy
Self-actualization
—
striving
Variety /
Prestige / Pay
Selfactualization
—
Notes: a Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002; b Gagné & Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci,
2000; c McClelland, 1971; d Steers & Braunstein, 1976; e Cable & Edwards, 2004; f
Maslow, 1943; g Kiesler, 1996; Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990
46
TABLE 2
The Relationships between Motivational Strivings, Job Characteristics and
Personality Traits
Motivational
Strivings/Fundamental
goals
Task and Social
Characteristics
Personality Traits
Social support
Striving for communion
Interdependence
Emotional stability
Interaction outside
Agreeableness
organization
Power and influence
Striving for status
Task significance
Extraversion
Feedback from others
Striving for autonomy
Autonomy
Openness to experience
Task variety
Extraversion
Task identity
Striving for achievement
Feedback from job or
another
Conscientiousness
Emotional stability
47
48
FIGURE 1
Striving for Purposefulness and Meaningfulness
Striving for
Purposefulness
(Directedness and
Intentionality)
Striving for
Meaningfulness
Perceived significance
Task and Social
Job Characteristics
Work
Outcomes
Motivational
Personality
Trait
Clusters
Purposeful
Goal
Striving
Experienced
Processes
Meaningfulnes
*Self efficacy
*Action goals
*Expectations
s
*Satisfaction
*Satisfactory
-Task
Performance
-Citizenship
-CPBS
-Withdrawal
49
FIGURE 2
Striving for Purposefulness and Meaningfulness: Communion
Striving for Purposefulness
Striving for Meaningfulness
(Directedness and Intentionality of thoughts,
emotions, and behaviors)
(Significance and Importance of thoughts, emotions
and behaviors)
Affiliation Job Characteristics
Social Support, Interdependence,
Interaction Outside Org
Personality Trait
Clusters
Agreeableness, Emotional
Stability
Affiliation Goals
Desire to engage in helping,
cooperating, nurturing,
mentoring
Experienced
Affiliation
Meaningfulness
Perceived meaningfulness
of helping, cooperating,
nurturing, mentoring
50
Biographies:
Murray R. Barrick (mbarrick@mays.tamu.edu) is a Distinguished University Professor and
Robertson Chair in the Mays Business School at Texas A&M University. His research centers on the
impact motivation arising from personality, work teams, and job crafting, has on job performance.
He also studies the influence candidate self-presentation tactics have on the employment interview.
Michael K. Mount (michael-mount@uiowa.edu) is the Henry B. Tippie Research Professor
in the Tippie College of Business at the University of Iowa. His research focuses on the joint
relationships of personality traits, job attitudes and job characteristics in predicting job
performance and counterproductive work behaviors.
Ning Li (nli@mays.tamu.edu) is a doctoral candidate in management at Texas A&M
University. Beginning in the fall of 2012, he will be an assistant professor of Management
and Organizations at the University of Iowa. His current research interests include
individual differences, employee prosocial and proactive behaviors, and team
effectiveness.