020425

Conscientiousness and Neuroticism and Their Relevance to Perceived Mastery and Constraints

Other individual differences, such as personality traits, may account for levels and trajectories of perceived mastery and constraints (Lachman et al., 2011). Among the Big Five personality traits (Goldberg, 1981), the present study specifically addressed conscientiousness and neuroticism considering prior findings on their relevance to perceived control for aging adults (Kandler et al., 2015). Conscientiousness refers to characteristics of being responsible, attentive, self-regulated, and planful; (...) (Bates et al., 2010). Although these and other personality traits are often considered to be relatively stable during adulthood, recent research suggests that they can continue to develop, potentially being shaped by age-related and other life experiences (Bates et al., 2010; Terracciano et al., 2006). (...)

Previous research showed that higher conscientiousness and lower neuroticism are associated with higher levels of perceived control or closely related constructs (Johnson et al., 2009; Kaiseler et al., 2012; Kandler et al., 2015; McEachan et al., 2010).

More formally, self-efficacy is defined as "one's judgment of [one's] capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performance" (Bandura 1986, p.391), with the expectation that one has the ability to adjust to what needs to be done in a specific situation.

Barrick and Mount (1991), in a meta-analysis based on 117 studies, find that conscientiousness and extraversion are related to job performance in various job fields, including sales (corrected r = 0.23 and 0.15, respectively), whereas emotional stability, agreeableness, and openness to experience are poor predictors of performance (r = 0.07, 0.00, and –0.02, respectively).

Yang, B., Kim, Y., & McFarland, R. G. (2011). Individual differences and sales performance: A distal-proximal mediation model of self-efficacy, conscientiousness, and extraversion. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 31(4), 371-381.

Those who had a more adaptive personality profile (e.g., high in agreeableness, low in neuroticism), better quality of social relationships, better health, and higher cognitive functioning were more likely to maintain or increase control beliefs in general and in multiple domains.

Lachman, M. E., Neupert, S. D., & Agrigoroaei, S. (2011). The relevance of control beliefs for health and aging. In Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp. 175-190). Academic Press.

> Other individual differences, such as personality traits, may account for levels and trajectories of perceived mastery and constraints (Lachman et al., 2011)

The estimated true score correlations with job satisfaction were
.29 for Neuroticism, .25 for Extraversion, .02 for Openness to Experience, .17 for Agreeableness, and .26 for Conscientiousness. Results further indicated that only the relations of Neuroticism and Extraversion with job satisfaction generalized across studies. As a set, the Big Five traits had a multiple correlation of .41 with job satisfaction, indicating support for the validity of the dispositional source of job satisfaction when traits are organized according to the 5-factor model.

Extraversion

Whereas Neuroticism is related to the experience of negative life events, extraverts are predisposed to experience positive emotions (Costa & McCrae, 1992), and positive emotionality likely generalizes to job satisfaction, as demonstrated by Connolly and Viswesvaran’s (2000) meta-analysis of PA–job satisfaction relationships. Evidence also indicates that extraverts have more friends and spend more time in social situations than do introverts and, because of their social facility, are likely to find interpersonal interactions (such as those that occur at work) more rewarding (D. Watson & Clark, 1997).

Conscientiousness

Organ and Lingl (1995) argued that Conscientiousness should be related to job satisfaction because it represents a general work involvement tendency and thus leads to a greater likelihood of obtaining satisfying work rewards, both formal (e.g., pay, promotions) and informal (e.g., recognition, respect, feelings of personal accomplishment). Indirectly, the subjective well-being literature also suggests a positive relationship between Conscientiousness and job satisfaction (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998).

We also were not surprised that Extraversion displayed nonzero relationships with job satisfaction across studies. Emotional stability (low neuroticism) and Extraversion are key aspects of the “happy personality” (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998); one would expect that the factors that cause emotionally stable and extraverted individuals to be happy in life would also lead them to be happy in their jobs. As Tokar, Fischer, and Subich (1998) noted in their qualitative review, “Greater job satisfaction is related to lower neuroticism and its variants, as well as to higher extraversion and related traits” (p. 144). Our findings provide quantified support to this conclusion.

Although the positive effects of Conscientiousness in terms of job performance have been clearly demonstrated (Barrick & Mount, 1991), the potential positive effects of conscientiousness in terms of job satisfaction have been virtually ignored in the literature (see Organ & Lingl, 1995). Our results suggest that this is an oversight. Of the Big Five traits, Conscientiousness displayed the second strongest correlation with job satisfaction. However, it is important to note that the 80% credibility interval for Conscientiousness (just) included zero. Of the 79 Conscientiousness correlations, 9 were negative, although it should be noted that 7 of these 9 correlations ranged from
.12 to
.02. Given this, and that the average sample size for these nine correlations was relatively small (median of 60), sampling error may explain these results.6 Furthermore, the average correlation for Conscientiousness was distinguishable from zero, as was the effect in the regression analyses.

(...)

Drawing from the tripartite (cognitive, affective, and behavioral) categorization of attitudes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993), the Big Five traits may influence job satisfaction through each of these processes. Cognitively, these traits may influence how individuals interpret characteristics of their jobs, as is the case when individuals with positive core self-evaluations interpret intrinsic job characteristics more positively, even controlling for actual job complexity (Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000).

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(3), 530.

Tauseef, R. M., Abbas, T., Anees, R. T., & Mufti, A. A. (2024). Investigating the Link between Specific Personality Characteristics, Such As Conscientiousness and Extraversion, and Career Achievements and Job Satisfaction. The Critical Review of Social Sciences Studies, 2(2), 1016-1031.

Employee satisfaction or job satisfaction is one of the key goals of all Human Resource Management and Personnel Management since it contributes to ensuring the long-term efficiency and effectiveness of organizations in both public and private sector. (...) Overall, job satisfaction is considered a very important part of an employee’s lifecycle and a motivation to remain loyal and employed within an organization. (...) Numerous factors that affect job satisfaction at both the organizational and individual levels have been identified so far [2].

Many researchers pointed to various factors that affect job satisfaction, among these factors the Big Five personality dimensions or the personality traits of employees which identified as important factors that form the employees’ job satisfaction. Studies propose that the differences in the level of satisfaction amongst employees could be a consequence of employee’s personality, since that some of personality traits and satisfaction was found to be strongly associated, whilst others found to be strongly associated with dissatisfaction [9], [10].

According to the same study, personality factors have most obvious connections to job satisfaction with extraversion having positive correlation with job satisfaction and neuroticism being negatively associated. The results of this research suggest that individuals with extraversion personality trait get more satisfaction with their job because it provides them with chances to experience excitement, while workers with introverted personality have less satisfaction.

Subsequent meta-analyses [22], [24] solidified this status granted to personality, particularly regarding Conscientiousness. The results of a study [25] claimed Conscientiousness as one of the most valid predictors of performance for most jobs, second only to general intelligence.

A study [28] investigated the correlation between personality traits and job satisfaction of 300 police officers in Punjab, Pakistan. Results found that there is a negative correlation between personality traits, neuroticism, openness to experience and job satisfaction, while extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness are positively correlated with job satisfaction. 

Petasis, A., & Economides, O. (2020). The Big Five personality traits, occupational stress, and job satisfaction. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 5(4).

Extraversion.

Extraversion describes the extent to which individuals are assertive, active, enthusiastic, energetic and dominant (Costa and McCrea, 1992). Judge et al. (1999) pointed out that extraverts tend to be socially oriented (outgoing and gregarious), but also are ‘surgent’ (dominant and ambitious) and active (adventurous and assertive). On the one hand, social orientation can be viewed as an advantage of employees in most job environments. On the other, dominance and ambition can be seen as ambiguous.

In relation to job satisfaction, there appears to be a very strong correlation between extraversion and job satisfaction. For example, in a study of farmers by Brayfield and Marsh (1957) and a small but diverse sample study by Furnham and Zacherl (1986), extraversion is found to be strongly correlated with job satisfaction. In the meta-analysis of 163 independent samples and 334 correlations by Judge et al. (2002), there is a strong connection between extraversion and job satisfaction. In another meta-analysis, Ilies and Judge (2003) also found significant association between extraversion and job satisfaction. However, in a recent study of 202 full-time employees, Furnham et al. (2009) found that extraversion does not strongly correlate or provide evidence of an association with job satisfaction. It can be seen that although the relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction is inconsistent, the coefficient values tend to be significant.

Conscientiousness.

Conscientiousness refers to people’s level of organization, hard work and motivation in the pursuit of established goals (Zhao and Seibert, 2006). Furnham and Cheng (2015) showed that parental social status, childhood intelligence, education and occupation are all modestly but significantly associated with conscientiousness. Particularly, they also indicated that females tend to score higher in conscientiousness than males do. Conscientiousness is the most consistent personality predictor of success at work across all types of employment and occupations (Barrick et al., 2001; Judge et al., 1999). This may well explain why conscientiousness is positively related to job satisfaction (see more in Furnham et al., 2009; Ilies and Judge, 2003; Ilies et al., 2009; Judge et al., 2002).

Bui, H. T. (2017). Big Five personality traits and job satisfaction: Evidence from a national sample. Journal of General Management, 42(3), 21-30.

SDT and Dispositions

Underlying SDT is the process of general causality orientations, or causality orientations, which describes differences in individuals' tendency to orient to different regulatory processes of their behaviors which is believed  to effect work outcomes (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004).

> COs refer to the different ways people naturally regulate their behavior. In simple terms, people have different tendencies in how they motivate themselves and make decisions in various situations.

For example, individuals that are autonomy oriented tend to experience social environments as autonomy supportive and these individuals tend to have high self-esteem, satisfying relationships and be high in self-determination (Gagne et al., 2000).

Conversely, individuals who are control-oriented tend to experience environments as controlling and tend to be self-conscious and defensive, while individuals with an impersonal orientation have a tendency to experience social environments as non-influential toward any motivational inclinations and tend to believe that they do not have control over situational outcomes (Gagne et al., 2000).

Satisfaction of these basic needs were found to lead to increased job satisfaction, increased performance on contextual and creative tasks, increased organizational citizenship behavior and increased psychological wellbeing and adjustment (Baard, Deci, & Ryan,2004; Deci et al, 1989; Gagne, Koestner, & Zuckerman, 2000).

It is suggested that individuals higher in core self-evaluations (CSE), or overall positive self-appraisals have increased levels of context-specific self-efficacy, set more challenging goals; remain more committed to goal fulfillment and have increased levels of motivational and emotional control (Kim, Oh, Chiaburu, & Brown, 2012).

As it is suggested that individuals who have satisfied the need for competency, autonomy, and relatedness are autonomously oriented (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004), it can be argued that individuals with high CSE will also have their psychological needs of competency, autonomy, and relatedness satisfied. Conversely, it is also suggestive that individuals who have low CSE, are control or impersonally oriented, have unmet psychological needs and therefore do not feel satisfied with their job, thus, they will withhold rather than contribute valuable inputs in their work roles (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006).

SDT

SDT, a theory of motivation, maintains that human impetus (human motivation) is based in an innate need to satisfy three basic psychological needs for: competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Unlike other motivation theories, a critical issue in SDT is that the effects of goal pursuit and attainment relies on the degree to which people satisfy their basic psychological needs through their own volition or through control-motivated causality-orientation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Under SDT, it is assumed that everyone has these three basic psychological needs and the degree of a person's need satisfaction is thought to predict that person's positive work outcome.

Self-determination theory motivation model for the workplace

Figure 1 shows these core elements of SDT as applied to the work domain, depicting the general SDT model of work motivation. This model begins with two primary sets of independent variables: social context variables and individual difference variables. The predominant social context variables are the organizational supports versus thwarts of employees' basic psychological needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy, and they are viewed as being strongly influenced by managerial styles. Supports of the three needs are often used as a composite, although many studies have examined just autonomy support.

(...)

The most typical individual difference variables used in SDT studies have been the employees' general causality orientations (Deci & Ryan, 1985b). Underlying the measure are three motivational orientations that employees can generally experience -- an autonomy orientation that is proactive and interested, a controlled orientation that is focused on external contingencies to guide behaviors, and an impersonal orientation that lacks intentionality and is concerned with avoiding assessments and failures. Each of these can be differentially salient to employees, and in some research such orientations have been primed in individuals (e.g., Weinstein et al. 2010). Another measure of individual differences in SDT is extrinsic versus intrinsic aspirations or goals (e.g., Kasser & Ryan 1996), as is discussed below in the section on Employee Aspirations, have also been used in some studies of workplace motivation and satisfaction (e.g., Sheldon & Krieger 2014).

Research on this general model, shown schematically in Figure 1, has had two types of mediating variables: first, satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs, typically used as a composite (Baard et al. 2004), but sometimes analyzed with each need separately (e.g., Richer et al. 2002), and second, autonomous and/or controlled motivation (e.g., Fernet et al. 2012a, Williams et al. 2014), sometimes supplemented by perceived competence, especially in studies of health behavior change among adults (e.g., Williams et al. 2004). 

Summary

The passage highlights two key psychological factors influencing motivation and behavior. Autonomous vs. controlled motivation is an important research area, especially in health-related behavior. Perceived competence is sometimes included because feeling capable enhances motivation, especially for long-term behavior change.

Consequences of autonomous motivation

Autonomous motivation is a central SDT variable for predicting workplace outcomes. It is comprised of employees’ reports of both intrinsic motivation and well-internalized extrinsic motivation. The theory assumes that when people can identify with the value and importance of their work they will show enhanced qualities of work motivation.

Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior, 4(1), 19-43.

Causality orientations are different from those of personality traits 

When concerned with integrative personality psychology, one aim has been to separate the domain of characteristic adaptations from dispositional traits (McAdams & Pals, 2006). The current study investigates whether individual differences in general causality orientations, which are conceptualized as tendencies towards degrees of internalized self-regulation (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000), can be distinguished from individual differences in dispositional personality traits (McCrae & Costa, 2008). Notably, it has been suggested that causality orientations are characteristic adaptations (Olesen, Thomsen, Schnieber, & Tønnesvang, 2010). That is, causality orientations can be viewed in terms of motivational, social-cognitive, and developmental adaptations of dispositional traits, and thus to a greater extent than traits, they are shaped by contingencies in psychosocial contexts.

General causality orientations originate in the motivational self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985). Central to SDT are claims that human growth and activity potentials are inherent and that they are achieved through satisfaction of basic psychological needs for experiencing autonomy, competence and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

The theory could be characterized as predominantly a social psychological theory, due to its strong emphasis on contextual determinants of need satisfaction experiences and emotions that in turn ensure internalization and self-regulation of behavior. Nonetheless, SDT proponents argue that these experiences and regulations develop, although they are influenced by facilitating and thwarting aspects of psychosocial environments, into consistent individual differences in personality (Deci & Ryan, 2000). These individual differences are conceptualized by the following three dimensions of general causality orientations: (1) autonomy orientation (autonomy), referring to a tendency towards high degrees of internalized self-regulation, such as experiencing behavior and choices as free and volitional and in accordance with one’s own standards and beliefs; (2) control orientation (control), referring to a tendency towards low degrees of internalized self-regulation, such as experiencing behavior and choices as conflicted and pressured by imperatives in social norms and cultural values; (3) impersonal orientation (impersonal), referring to lacking degrees of internalized self-regulation, such as experiencing behavior and choices as inefficient, incomprehensible, and beyond intentional control (Deci & Ryan, 1985)

Olesen, M. H. (2011). General causality orientations are distinct from but related to dispositional traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(4), 460-465.

Olesen, M. H., Thomsen, D. K., Schnieber, A., & Tønnesvang, J. (2010). Distinguishing general causality orientations from personality traits. Personality and individual differences, 48(5), 538-543.