The Concurrent Role of Personality Traits and Self

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

COPY RIGHT © 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 316

MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

The Concurrent Role of Personality Traits and Self-Efficacy on Employees’ Work

Satisfaction: A Review

HomaKhorasaniEsmaeili PhD University Student

International Business School University Technology of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur City Camus

West Malaysia

HamedTahsildari (Corresponding Author) PhD University Student

Research Assistance, International Business School University Technology of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur City Camus

West Malaysia

MohdTaibHashim Professor Dato’ Dr.MohdTaibHashim

Lecturer, International Business School University Technology of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur City Camus

West Malaysia

Rosmini Omar Associate Professor Dr. Rosmini Omar Lecturer, International Business School

University Technology of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur City Camus West Malaysia

Adjunct, College of Business, Minot State University, North Dokata, USA Adjunct, Helsinki School of Business, Helsinki, Finland

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to review published approaches of personality traits and self-

efficacy regarding employees‘ work satisfaction. This study focuses on Big Five Model

encompassed by dimensions of agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness,

neuroticism, openness to experience. There is still lack of research investigating the

concurrent role of the Five Factor Model of personality and self- efficacy as dispositional

source to provide comprehensive taxonomy to organize traits relevant to employees‘

work satisfaction. Literature review highlights relevant sources which are synthesized

and evidence the effectiveness of Big Five model and self-efficacy via separated

approaches in predicting work satisfaction. However, the contribution of the current

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

study is to identify a generic framework for the concurrent role of the Big Five model and

self-efficacy to make a stronger effect on employees‘ work satisfaction in privatised

organization. Combing these variables together increases the level employees‘

satisfaction in the workplace. This paper presents that high level of self-efficacy has a

positive effect on work satisfaction among employees. Individuals with high levels of

self-efficacy are more satisfied in their work. Thus, high extraverted, more agreeable,

high rate of conscientious, less neuroticism and high openness to experience people

enhance work satisfaction.

Key Words Self-Efficacy, Personality Traits, Employees‘ Workplace Satisfaction

1. Introduction

Major scholars since the mid-1980s have been focusing their dispositional

approach to work satisfaction(House, Shane, & Herold, 1996). The researches reveal that

employees‘ work satisfaction is crucial for an organisation‘s prosperity. Thus, work

satisfaction is an important issue in measuring of how employees sense about their works,

in addition as a predictor of work behaviour like organisational citizenship(Organ &

Ryan, 1995), absenteeism (Wegge, Schmidt, Parkes, & Dick, 2007), and more probably

that employees stay in their work which reduce organisation‘s turnover intentions(Saari

& Judge, 2004). Atchison (1998), declares that majority of organisations make much

efforts the first step on employees‘ satisfaction after that strive to enhance organisations‘

productivity to help organisations succeed. Also in some researches state that satisfied

workers are more innovative and loyal, due to increased work satisfaction that lead to

enhance worker morality which lead to worker productivity(Karatepe, Uludag, Menevis,

Hadzimehmedagic, & Baddar, 2006; Pettijohn, Pettijohn, & Taylor, 2008).

Camp (1994) believes that employees with low level of work satisfaction are the

result undesirable behaviours. Dissatisfied workers would undertake personal duties as

moonlighting, thus robbing the organisation‘s resources. Workers could also withdraws

psychologically from the work, demonstrating unprofessional acts such as skipping

meetings, wandering around and pretending to be busy or drinking on the work.

Eventually the workers that are dissatisfied from their work may either guide behaviours

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

to change the work situation or work transfer as well (Mattila, 2006). Workers disposed

to be not satisfied, and are probably not happy with the most aspects of their lives

comprising their job (Ilies & Judge, 2003). Personality traits is the key components of

work satisfaction (Brief & Weiss, 2002; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002), and self-efficacy

as a variety of self-related cognitions (Duffy & Lent, 2009).

According to Locke (1976) a classic definition of work satisfaction is consistent

as an emotional state. Scholars strived to capture the affective dispositions basic work

satisfaction with enormous diversity of personality measures. Work attitudes are not only

the product of situational factors, but also both literature and practitioners should more

take into account through the variables which may contribute to the value with the

purpose of enhancing satisfaction of work (Ilies & Judge, 2003).

The individual differences diagnosis has been studied in job satisfaction since

long(Weitz, 1952), that work satisfaction has been formally considered(Ilies & Judge,

2003).Therefore, the process of work satisfaction from the individual differences cannot

be distinguished. In this regard, the Big Five theory (Goldberg, 1990) refers to individual

differences as the five-factor model of personality to provide a comprehensive taxonomy

to organize traits relevant to job satisfaction(Judge et al., 2002). Researches on

dispositional causes of job satisfaction have utilized different approaches to providing an

estimate of the effectiveness of personality dispositions on satisfaction of work. In

industrial/ organisational psychology and counselling psychology both, scholars and

practitioners having bent on comprehensive understanding of the antecedent dimensions

which impress working satisfaction.These psychological specialties have produced

theoretical models that are able to illustrate the reasons why certain employees are more

or less satisfied with their works.

Self-efficacy is one of the components of work satisfaction, defined to people‘s

belief that is able of performing specific behaviours consisting necessities to obtain

particular target. Self-efficacy is defined as the confidence of being capable to arrange

and set up the executive courses of action required to produce given attainments, so it

refers to one‘s beliefs to practice control over the quality and their life‘s

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

direction(Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy directly and positively associated to work

satisfaction as proven by previous research as (Bandura, 1997; L Borgogni, Dello Russo,

Miraglia, & Vecchione, 2012; Judge & Bono, 2001). Consistent with social cognitive

theory, self-efficacy is likely to act as a factor that boosts job satisfaction. In fact, people

high in self-efficacy proactively shape their work environment, managing problematic

situations with colleagues and dealing effectively with the emotions elicited in the

workplace (Judge & Bono, 2001).Some recent numbers of researches along with working

adults (Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003; Judge

et al., 2002); Judge, Bono, Erez, and Locke, 2005) have discovered that generalized self-

efficacy has direct relationship to job satisfaction, also in a meta-analysis by Judge &

Bono‘s (2001) found that out the average correlation was .38 across 12 studies.

The model of Lent and Brown (2006) proposes that the link between self-efficacy and

work satisfaction is most pronounced when self-efficacy is measured in job or goal-

specific terms. Even if problematic situations at work, self-efficacious employees would

not withdraw their job due to employee‘s confidence in generating effective action-plans,

discovering the paths and trajectories to practice control and to handle tough as to duties

and relationships between employees in the workplace, manage their feelings and

emotions, anxiety and stress, keep calmness and a good mood (Bandura, 2012).

Personality traits variables can be significantly concerned to employees work

satisfaction(A. Furnham, Eracleous, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2009). Truthfully, work

satisfaction has been connected with antecedents of personality traits as Big five model in

a wide range(Judge et al., 2002; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 2003; Punnett,

Greenidge, & Ramsey, 2007). In addition, research has proved that self-efficacy is

explicitly associated to work satisfaction (Bandura, 1997; L Borgogni et al., 2012; Judge

& Bono, 2001).

This study attempts to cover the lack of research investigating the concurrent role

of self-efficacy and personality traits in their relation to employees‘ workplace

satisfaction in private organisations. In this regard, the present study focuses on

individual characteristics which are supported by previous studies to propose the level of

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

work satisfaction. Few researches have been done considering the relation of Big five

traits and self-efficacy simultaneously and their influences on employees work

satisfaction. Hence, our contribution is to consider the concurrent role of individual and

psychological characteristics which involve personality traits and self-efficacy on

employees work satisfaction especially in private sectors.

This paper encompasses five parts including introduction, reviewing previous

studies, related conceptual framework, discussion and finally conclusion. Next section

discusses literature on work satisfaction.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Work Satisfaction

Work satisfaction is considered as one of the best-researched concepts in

organisational psychology. According to Hackman & Oldham (1980), work satisfaction

is relevant issue for all those who are interested in the subjective evaluation of working

conditions such as responsibility, communication requirements, or task variety, job

satisfaction is supposed to be strongly caused by such conditions. The enormity of

researches, in the recent few decades, have been undertakes extensively on employees‘

job satisfaction. Originally, a large study was driven by a desire to prove that work

satisfaction plays a vital role due to its effectiveness on productivity towards

organisation‘s profit and success as well as private organisations.

Thus in discussing, work satisfaction, this approach, is consistent with the

improved prominence of humanistic psychology. A large number of scholars and

practitioners have strived to elaborate the issue of job satisfaction as this phenomenon

describes to industrial and organisational psychology, apart from the social services

(Clarke, 2007; Grigg, 2009; Mobley, 1977; Nadiri & Tanova, 2010; Yang, 2008).

Locke (1976) expresses some satisfaction‘s elements that may encompass as job,

pay, promotion recognition, working at conditions, and fringe benefits which are

illustrated as work‘s incidents. Locke argued that there are some components that are

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

known as the other parts of work satisfaction such as management and organisation, co-

workers and supervision which, typically elaborated as agents(Locke, 1976). Many

studies have assessed employee‘s overall work satisfaction (Scott, Swortzel, & Taylor,

2005; Spector, 2008). Overall work satisfaction appraisal has been associated contrary to

employees changing situations (Castillo (Castillo & Cano, 1999; Spector, 1985).

Overall job satisfaction is allocated by a combination of all of satisfaction

emotions facets which numerous practitioners of work satisfaction has conversed

about(Lim, 2008; Liu, Liu, & Hu, 2010; Strand & Dore, 2009). Accordingly, overall

work satisfaction is appointed by the diagnostic among all what an individual feel that

must acquire from its job and all what he/she indeed perceived. Some of the work

satisfaction factors plays significant role and execute great contributions to overall

satisfaction rather than other factors. Overall work satisfaction, by satisfaction with the

work itself, satisfaction with supervision and satisfaction with pay has been intensively

influenced for most employees (Staw & Cohen‐Charash, 2005). Furthermore, in

industrial-organisational (I/O) psychology, work satisfaction considering as central and

underlying criteria, relating to the traits that the most existent research have been focused

on it (Bono & Judge, 2003). Satisfaction of work as an ambiguous term (Evans, 1997)

and as an overall construct has been studied by (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009).

Generally, work satisfaction can be equated as employee‘s attitudes toward the

job and work situation. Spector (1997) offers a definition of work satisfaction as ―the

degree to which people like their jobs.‖ Hence, some persons enjoy from their job and as

an underlying part of their lives investigate it, while other persons do the work only due

to the fact that they have to.According to Hoppock (1935) work satisfaction is a

significant matter of national interest and concern, and also a research interest.

Correspondingly, he elaborated that, satisfaction of work consists of psychological,

physiological and environmental circumstances. Job satisfaction is thus defined as ―a

collection of feelings that an individual holds towards his or her job‖ (Robbins, 2005).

Therefore, this infers that the people who have a high level of satisfaction will keep

positive feelings about their work, and the people who have a low level of satisfaction

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

will keep negative feelings of their work. Locke (1976) as cited by Cooper and Locke

(2000) expresses job satisfaction‘s definition as a ―pleasurable or positive emotional state

resulting from the appraisal of one‘s job or job experiences.‖ Dissatisfied employees of

work seem to be similar to the negative attitudes and conceptually, satisfied employees

are corresponding to positive treatment in the conducting of their work(Vroom & Jago,

2007).

A cognitive appraisal and an appreciation of sense of conceit, accomplishment,

and completion of the job by individuals, who take pleasure in their work, are consistent

with job satisfaction. In other words, work satisfaction centres on employee‗s treatment

toward the work, and it proposes the measure to which individuals contented of their job

and discontented of it. Job satisfaction conversed that is called, the cognitive evaluation

and an employee‘s attitude, which are impressing perception convictions and

behaviour(Weiss, 2002). Work satisfaction is defined in terms of equity as well.

2.2 Personality Traits

In this paper, personality is conceptually meant as a set of characteristics and

behaviours, that are quite steady over time, which it makes distinction among individuals

and they encourage finding sense of proneness to act in a more or less coherent manner in

different conditions with exclusive behaviour(Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005).

Pervin& John (2001) admit to a corresponding definition which personality indicates

those characteristics and traits of a person, which take consideration for coherent forms of

feeling, thinking, and behaving.

Personality traits have been comprehended, from diversity of theoretical

viewpoint, at different levels of abstract idea or width (John, Hampson, & Goldberg,

1991; McAdams, 1995). Every one of these levels has composed a singular contribution

for perception of discrepancies an individual in its experience and behaviour. Numerous

scholars of personality had expected that they may construct the structure which makes

the Babel transformation to a community speaking a common language. Nonetheless,

such merging by any one practitioners or not theoretical view was to be acquired. As

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

Allport (1958) put it, ―each assessor has his own pet units and uses a pet battery of

diagnostic devices‖.

Accordingly, a general taxonomy of personality traits accepted that greatly

promote communication and collecting of empirical findings. After passing decades of

study about personality traits, had been adhered on a general taxonomy of personality

traits as the ―Big Five‖ personality dimensions. These Big Five dimensions do not

indicate a particular theoretical overview, but the dimensions were extracted of analysing

the natural- language of people for describing themselves and others. In comparison with

previous taxonomies, the Big Five model taxonomy serves as an entire function, due to

the fact that it able to represent diversity of personality description in a common

framework. Therefore, the Big Five model may provide a way to commencing intensive

research and develop a theory that in the end would lead to an expression and serving to

describe about taxonomy in casual and dynamic terms.

Previous researches have recognized characteristics and behaviours of individual

in taxonomy of traits. These traits constitute the basis of constituent elements of human

beings personality. Chamorro-Premuzic&Furnham (2005) were of the views that, it is

usual to elaborate the characteristics and behaviours of others regarding the personality

traits of adjectives as an example of, selfish, introverted (solitary), timid. A trait

illustrates to characteristics of a person‘s behaviours. It gives varieties to degree of one

person to another person and they may be grouped under the degree by which individuals

have each one of these traits as property (McCrae & Costa, 1991).

Thus, the model in this paper is defined through the Big Five, as a five-factor

model of personality. This conceptualisation model of personality has been increasingly

reviewed and validated in the scientific literature (Costa Jr & McCrae, 1995; Costa &

McCrae, 1992a, 1992b; De Raad, 1996; A. Furnham, 1996; A. F. Furnham, 1997; John,

Naumann, & Soto, 2008). Based on the Big Five model, personality trait is via by five

factors which each factor is categorised by six groups of intercorrelated traits known as

facets, extraversion (warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking,

and positive emotions), agreeableness (straightforwardness, altruism, trust, compliance,

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

modesty, and tender-mindedness), conscientiousness (competence, order, dutifulness,

achievement-striving, self-discipline, and deliberation), neuroticism or emotional

instability (anxiety, anger, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and

vulnerability) and openness to experience (fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas,

and values), and Costa and McCrae (1992a) provide extensive descriptions for each of

the Big Five personality factors.

2.2.1 Extraversion

Being sociable, assertive, active, talkative, and people-oriented are considered for high

extraverted people. They are interested in interacting with others and can maintain

interpersonal relationships. These people are defined very energetic and are fine with

challenges. Being reserved, task-oriented and quiet are considered forhigh introverted

people (Costa & McCrae, 1992a). Extraversion is widely construed as sociability.

Extraversion, as a construct originally revised by Eysenck (1990), can broadly construed

as sociability. Extrovert‘s people are known as more talkative, active, and assertive than

their introverted counterparts.

2.2.2 Agreeableness

Altruisticpeople are mainly high by agreeable and would prefer to cooperate with others

and are always interestedin helping. The individual that are less agreeable are known as

egocentric, sceptical about the intentions of others, and also competitive, rather than

cooperative (Costa & McCrae, 1992a).

2.2.3 Conscientiousness

Individualthat rate high on conscientiousness are known as tidy, self-disciplined and

determined. They preferto perform well in their work. They are also known as

scrupulous, punctual and reliable. Low conscientious individuals are unreliable, lazy, lax,

weak-willed, and hedonistic (Costa & McCrae, 1992a). Personal competence, dutifulness,

self-discipline, and deliberation characterised by conscientiousness. Conscientious people

are frequently described as purposeful, strong willed, determined, punctual, and reliable.

The notion of self-control is regarded as a key component of conscientiousness (Costa

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

and McCrae, 1992). Because of their achievement orientation, conscientious people are

motivated to perform on the job.

2.2.4 Neuroticism

Neuroticism is generally about a lack of positive psychological adjustment and emotional

stability. Individuals scoring high on measures of neuroticism are frequently

characterised as fearful, anxious, and depressed. These tendencies might make employees

that are high on neuroticism more likely to engage in withdrawal behaviours, for example

failing to come to work on a frequent basis. These traits are most widely found in

psychology (Judge & Bono, 2001). Collectively, self-esteem, locus of control, and

neuroticismis thesubject of more than 50000 studies. Conceptually, these traits contribute

strong similarities (Bono & Judge, 2003).

2.2.5 Openness to Experience

The individualsthat rate high on openness to experience appreciate art and aesthetics.

These peopleare interested in variety and are intellectually curious. They can appreciate

new experiences, tolerate uncertainty, and explore. These people are not conventional in

their ideas, their values and beliefs. Low open to experience people are conventional and

show narrow interests (Costa & McCrae, 1992a).

2.3 Self-Efficacy

Begins within Bandura‘s (1977) social learning theory was revised as social

cognitive theory in 1986. Self-efficacy is one of Bandura‘s major concepts. Based on

theory and research (Bandura, 1995), self-efficacy places a difference in how people feel,

think, behave, and motivate themselves. Relating to feeling, a low sense of self-efficacy

is associated with stress, depression, anxiety, and helplessness. Individuals with low self-

esteem often become pessimistic about their accomplishments and personal development.

About thinking, a strong sense of efficacy facilitates cognitive processes and performance

in a variety of settings with quality of decision making and academic achievement. When

it arrives to behaving, self-efficacy can influence people‘s choice of activities. Self-

efficacy levels can increase or hamper motivation. People with high self-efficacy

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

approach difficult tasks as challenges and do not try to avoid them. ―People‘s self-

efficacy beliefs identify their level of motivation, as reflected in how much effort they

will exert in an endeavour and how long they will persevere in the face of obstacles‖

(Bandura, 1989).

Bandura (1989) presents the high value of self-efficacy as beliefs that act as ―an

important set of proximal determinants of human motivation, affect, and action. These

mentioned beliefs organize a form of action via motivational, cognitive, and affective

intervening processes. An instance of a cognitive process relates to setting personal aims.

Where there is a high level of perceived self-efficacy; accordingly, there can be found

higher levels of objectivesindividuals set for themselvesthatresults to a higher level of

commitment to the objectives. Another instanceregarding the high value of self-efficacy

relates to an experiment by Collins (1982, cited in Bandura, 1986). However, there is the

possibility that having too high an estimate of one‘s beliefs can leadto physical injury as

well. For instance, an individual may overestimate its ability to perform a marathon but

receives injuresdue tothe shortage of proper training. However, it is suggested by

Bandura (1986)to overestimatecapabilities and thoughts in order to achieve success.

3. Conceptual Framework

3.1 The Relationship between the Big Five Traits and Work Satisfaction

One of the important aspects relating to work satisfaction is focusingon the

relationship of personality variables and unexpected work behaviours(Mount, Ilies, &

Johnson, 2006). The correlations between the Big Five Traits and work satisfaction are

taken via Judge et al. (2002). In addition, the model turned as an appropriate basis from

which early scholarsenhancework satisfaction theories (Rutherford, Boles, Hamwi,

Madupalli, & Rutherford, 2009). Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience,

Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness are the dimensions of the five-factor model. Judge

et al. (2002) utilized the five-factor model to cumulate the findings of previous

contributionswhichanalysedthe relationships between personality traits and job

satisfaction by means of meta-analysis. In the perspective, that the Big Five traits are

different in their relevance to work satisfaction. Judge et al. (2002) stated that organizing

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

personality traits basedon the five-factor model results in substantial support for the

dispositional source of work satisfaction.

There is an increasing body of literature that focuses on the relationships among

some of psychology‘s most studied traits such as neuroticism, self-esteem, and locus of

control. Core self-evaluation theory places a conceptual and empirical relationship

between these traits and work satisfaction. In this regards,core self-evaluation theory

examines the empirical evidence documenting a relationship between these traits and the

central criteria of interest to industrial/ organisational psychologists—work satisfaction

and the Big Five personality traits (Bono & Judge, 2003). Consistent the intrests in the

personality literature on overall life satisfaction, organisational psychologists have

demonstrated increasing trends in the extent to which work satisfaction may be related to

dispositional factors like the Big Five personality factors (Judge et al., 2002).

Organisational researchers have also started improving models which are

designed to integrate affective-dispositional and situational influences on work

satisfaction (Brief, 1998; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). In this perspective, it would lead

to more advantages to further this integrative momentum via considering how additional

variables such as social-cognitive and behavioural elements have performed along with

affective, trait, and situational/job condition factors in promoting (or reducing) work

satisfaction (Lent & Brown, 2006). Several meta-analyses have stimulated a kind of

serious reconsideration regarding the role of personality traits known as the Big Five

factors for playing relative to work and life satisfaction (Lent & Brown, 2006). For

instance, Judge et al. (2002) demonstrated correlations of, neuroticism, extraversion and

conscientiousness to work satisfaction. There have been numerous self-evaluation

researches which address issues ranging from the construct validity of the trait to its role

in explaining and predicting work satisfaction (Bono & Judge, 2003).

Work satisfaction has, in fact, been linked with an antecedent, such as personality

(Judge et al., 2002; Ones et al., 2003; Punnett et al., 2007). It has also been linked with

other outcomes such as career success (Burke, 2001) and life satisfaction (Lent & Brown,

2006; Rode, 2004)Lent and Brown (2006) posit that several types of personality or

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

affective traits are linked to work satisfaction and most prior tests of their model in non-

work domains have focused on trait positive affect, which refers to an individual‘s

tendency to experience a positive state of emotion (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).

3.2 The Relationship between Self-Efficacy and Work Satisfaction

In organisations, work task-related self-efficacy correlates strongly with work

satisfaction (Chen, Chang, & Yeh, 2004). Academic goal self-efficacy also relates

strongly to academic work satisfaction (Lent et al., 2005; Lent, Singley, Sheu, Schmidt,

& Schmidt, 2007).In addition, in the research by Borgogni et al. (2012) the role of

predicting work satisfaction via self- efficacy wasdeeply investigated. In this respective, a

sample including 1160 white-collars workers from the main privatized delivery company

in Italy was taken to measure self-efficacy and work satisfaction.

An effect may operate on work satisfaction through self-efficacy which

Consistent with Social Cognitive Theory Bandura, (1997), highly efficacious employees

act transformative on their organisational context and they are more able to regulate their

emotions and behaviours, even in the face of interpersonal conflicts or difficulties, and to

manage problematic situations at work (Bandura, 1997; Gist & Mitchell, 1992). This

results in more successful work experiences and in more positive perceptions of the work

environment that, in turn, enhancework satisfaction (Laura Borgogni, Dello Russo,

Petitta, & Vecchione, 2010; Judge & Bono, 2001). In addition, self-efficacious

employees construe a better fit with the organisation, because they contribute to shape

and adjust the context to their preferences and characteristics. According to person-

organisation (P-O) fit theory (Kristof, 1996), when a fit is engendered, work satisfaction

increases (Caldwell & O'Reilly, 1990; Kristof‐Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005;

Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003). In other words, they contribute to adjust the work

environment and the relationships to their individual characteristics, and they are more

likely to create the conditions for their needs, goals and preferences to be met. As

postulated by the P-O fit theory (Kristof, 1996), this results in a better fit and increases

work satisfaction, impacting organisational behaviours(Caldwell & O'Reilly, 1990;

Kristof‐Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003).

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

Where, employees low in self-efficacy are less likely to succeed in creating a fit with the

environment; a misfit between a person and an organisation decreases work satisfaction

(Wheeler, Buckley, Halbesleben, Brouer, & Ferris, 2005; Wheeler, Gallagher, Brouer, &

Sablynski, 2007). According to theTheory of Social Cognitive Bandura, (1997) a training

aimed at improving individual beliefs in one‘s own capabilities to exercise control over

circumstances in the workplace can lead to a better fit and to higher work satisfaction.

Previous contributions have evidenced the effectiveness of Big Five model and

self-efficacy in predicting work satisfaction. However, these two major dimensions are

studied separately. What is the impact of work satisfaction when both models are

combined together? Which among the two better explain work satisfaction? Are

employees‘ personality traits or self-efficacy which determines work satisfaction more?

Our study suggests that the concurrent role of Big Five model and self-efficacy could

have a stronger effect on work satisfaction. In this regard our conceptual frame work in

Figure 1 provides a big picture regarding the concurrent role of Big Five model and self-

efficacy on work satisfaction.

Figure1: Conceptual Framework

4. Discussion

Many studies have made efforts to explain on overall work satisfaction as this issue

describes to the social services, industrial and organisational psychology. In this regard,

former studies showed that there is a positive relationship between personality traits and

Personality

Traits Employees

Work

Satisfaction

Self-

Efficacy

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

employees work satisfaction in organisations. Personality trait as the Big Five model can

be described by five factors including extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,

neuroticism or emotional instability and openness to experience. Employees who have

high extraverted features are more sociable, assertive and active than their introverted

counterparts. The employees with high agreeableness are more cooperative and altruistic

as well. Low conscientious employees in organisations are not reliable; in fact they are

hedonistic, lazy, lax and weak-willed. Meanwhile, personal competence, dutifulness, self-

discipline, and deliberation are characterised by conscientiousness. Neuroticism are

characterised as fearful, anxious, and depressed. Employees with low openness to

experience have narrow interests about exploration.

In addition, high level of self-efficacy has a positive impact on work satisfaction

among employees. Self-efficacy levels enhance motivation among employees. Stress,

depression, anxiety, and helplessness appear in the organisations in sense of low self-

efficacy of employees and lead to being pessimistic about their accomplishments and

personal development. Thus organisations need to face difficult tasks as challenges by

employees who have high self-efficacy. However, based on the presented conceptual

framework in Fig. 1, this study focused on the simultaneously influence of both

personality traits and self-efficacy on work satisfaction among employees.

5. Conclusion

Research has shown that employees‘ work satisfaction leads to organisation‘s

success. Numerousorganisations invest on employee satisfaction initiatives for the

purpose of improving productivity and helping organisations succeed. Many theoretical

perspectives from individual differences of abstraction have been applied regarding

conceptualizing personality traits. Individual levels have composed unique contributions

to our perception about related aspects in behaviour and experiences. There is a positive

relationship between individual differences and the process of employees‘ work

satisfaction. In this perspective, (Goldberg, 1990) in the Big Five theory as the five-

factor model of personality traits describes individual differences for providing a

comprehensive taxonomy to employees‘ work satisfaction.

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

When there is a high level of perceived self-efficacy among employees in

organisations, accordingly the employees‘ commitment will be increased which

eventually lead to employees‘ satisfaction. Bandura (1986) states the significance of self-

efficacy among various organisations. Employees‘ work satisfaction is boosted by self-

efficacy via social cognitive theory. Self-efficacy helps employees to form their work

environment, manage crisis and face in an effective way with the elicited emotions in

organisations.

Many scholars have proved that both the Big Five model and self-efficacy are

effective on employees‘ work satisfaction. However, this study is of the views that the

simultaneously role of the Big Five model and self-efficacy can make a stronger impact

on employees‘ work satisfaction. Thus, combing these variables together increases the

level employees‘ satisfaction in the workplace.

Future research could focus on the topics that are relevant to the concurrent role

of Big Five model and self-efficacy in a quantitative method. In addition, further

researches could consider the relationship between Big Five model and self-efficacy

regarding their influences on work satisfaction.

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

References

Allport, G. W. (1958). Werden der Persönlichkeit.

Atchison, T. A. (1998). The myths of employee satisfaction. Healthcare Executive, 14(2),

18-23.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy.

Developmental psychology, 25(5), 729.

Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies: Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control: New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited.

Journal of Management, 38(1), 9-44.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self‐evaluations: A review of the trait and its

role in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality,

17(S1), S5-S18.

Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., Miraglia, M., & Vecchione, M. (2012). The role of self-

efficacy and job satisfaction on absences from work. Revue Européenne de

Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology.

Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., Petitta, L., & Vecchione, M. (2010). Predicting job

satisfaction and job performance in a privatized organisation. International Public

Management Journal, 13(3), 275-296.

Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organisations (Vol. 9): Sage.

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organisational behaviour: Affect in the workplace.

Annual review of psychology, 53(1), 279-307.

Burke, R. J. (2001). Managerial women‘s career experiences, satisfaction and well-being:

A five country study. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal,

8(3/4), 117-133.

Caldwell, D. F., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1990). Measuring person-job fit with a profile-

comparison process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 648.

Camp, S. D. (1994). Assessing the effects of organisational commitment and job

satisfaction on turnover: An event history approach. The Prison Journal, 74(3),

279-305.

Castillo, J. X., & Cano, J. (1999). A Comparative Analysis of Ohio Agriculture Teachers'

Level of Job Satisfaction. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40(4), 67-79.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Personality and intellectual competence:

Psychology Press.

Chen, T.-Y., Chang, P.-L., & Yeh, C.-W. (2004). A study of career needs, career

development programs, job satisfaction and the turnover intentions of R&D

personnel. Career Development International, 9(4), 424-437.

Clarke, S. P. (2007). Job satisfaction survey report. Nursing2012, 37(12), 43-47.

Cooper, C. L., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Industrial and organisational psychology: Linking

theory with practice (Vol. 1): Wiley-Blackwell.

Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality

assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of personality

assessment, 64(1), 21-50.

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Professional manual: revised NEO personality

inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Revised neo personality inventory (neo pi-r) and

neo five-factor inventory (neo-ffi): Psychological Assessment Resources Odessa,

FL.

De Raad, B. (1996). Personality traits in learning and education. European Journal of

Personality, 10(3), 185-200.

Duffy, R. D., & Lent, R. W. (2009). Test of a social cognitive model of work satisfaction

in teachers. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 75(2), 212-223.

Evans, L. (1997). Understanding teacher morale and job satisfaction. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 13(8), 831-845.

Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Genetic and environmental contributions to individual differences:

The three major dimensions of personality. Journal of personality, 58(1), 245-

261.

Furnham, A. (1996). The big five versus the big four: the relationship between the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor model of

personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(2), 303-307.

Furnham, A., Eracleous, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Personality, motivation

and job satisfaction: Hertzberg meets the Big Five. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 24(8), 765-779.

Furnham, A. F. (1997). Knowing and faking one's five-factor personality score. Journal

of personality assessment, 69(1), 229-243.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its

determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative" description of personality": the big-five factor

structure. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 59(6), 1216.

Grigg, J. (2009). Particulate matter exposure in children: relevance to chronic obstructive

pulmonary disease. Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society, 6(7), 564-569.

Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction.

House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. (1996). Rumors of the death of dispositional

research are vastly exaggerated. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 203-

224.

Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). On the heritability of job satisfaction: The mediating role

of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 750.

John, O. P., Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (1991). The basic level in personality-

trait hierarchies: studies of trait use and accessibility in different contexts. Journal

of Personality and social Psychology, 60(3), 348.

John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big

five trait taxonomy. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 3, 114-158.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-

esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with

job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86(1), 80.

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job

and life satisfaction: the role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 90(2), 257.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self‐evaluations

scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303-331.

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.

Karatepe, O. M., Uludag, O., Menevis, I., Hadzimehmedagic, L., & Baddar, L. (2006).

The effects of selected individual characteristics on frontline employee

performance and job satisfaction. Tourism Management, 27(4), 547-560.

Kristof‐Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). CONSEQUENCES

OF INDIVIDUALS'FIT AT WORK: A META‐ANALYSIS OF PERSON–JOB,

PERSON–ORGANISATION, PERSON–GROUP, AND PERSON–

SUPERVISOR FIT. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-342.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person‐organisation fit: An integrative review of its

conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1),

1-49.

Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2006). On conceptualizing and assessing social cognitive

constructs in career research: A measurement guide. Journal of Career

Assessment, 14(1), 12-35.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Sheu, H.-B., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B. R., Gloster, C. S., . . .

Treistman, D. (2005). Social Cognitive Predictors of Academic Interests and

Goals in Engineering: Utility for Women and Students at Historically Black

Universities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(1), 84.

Lent, R. W., Singley, D., Sheu, H.-B., Schmidt, J. A., & Schmidt, L. C. (2007). Relation

of social-cognitive factors to academic satisfaction in engineering students.

Journal of Career Assessment, 15(1), 87-97.

Lim, S. (2008). Job satisfaction of information technology workers in academic libraries.

Library & Information Science Research, 30(2), 115-121.

Liu, B., Liu, J., & Hu, J. (2010). Person-organisation fit, job satisfaction, and turnover

intention: An empirical study in the Chinese public sector. Social Behaviour and

Personality: an international journal, 38(5), 615-625.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction1.

Mattila, A. S. (2006). The power of explanations in mitigating the ill-effects of service

failures. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(7), 422-428.

McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person? Journal of

personality, 63(3), 365-396.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). The NEO Personality Inventory: Using the

Five‐Factor ModeI in Counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 69(4),

367-372.

Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction

and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 237.

Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and

counterproductive work behaviours: The mediating effects of job satisfaction.

Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 591-622.

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

Nadiri, H., & Tanova, C. (2010). An investigation of the role of justice in turnover

intentions, job satisfaction, and organisational citizenship behaviour in hospitality

industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1), 33-41.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (2003). Personality and absenteeism: a

meta‐analysis of integrity tests. European Journal of Personality, 17(S1), S19-

S38.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta‐analttic review of attitudinal and dispositional

predictors of organisational citizenship behaviour. Personnel Psychology, 48(4),

775-802.

Pervin, L. A. John. OP (2001). Personality theory and research.

Pettijohn, C., Pettijohn, L., & Taylor, A. J. (2008). Salesperson perceptions of ethical

behaviours: Their influence on job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Journal of

Business Ethics, 78(4), 547-557.

Punnett, B. J., Greenidge, D., & Ramsey, J. (2007). Job attitudes and absenteeism: A

study in the English speaking Caribbean. Journal of World Business, 42(2), 214-

227.

Robbins, S. P. (2005). Essentials of Organisational Behaviour: Издательский дом

Вильямс.

Rode, J. C. (2004). Job satisfaction and life satisfaction revisited: A longitudinal test of

an integrated model. Human Relations, 57(9), 1205-1230.

Rutherford, B., Boles, J., Hamwi, G. A., Madupalli, R., & Rutherford, L. (2009). The role

of the seven dimensions of job satisfaction in salesperson's attitudes and

behaviours. Journal of Business Research, 62(11), 1146-1151.

Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human

resource management, 43(4), 395-407.

Scott, M., Swortzel, K. A., & Taylor, W. N. (2005). The relationships between selected

demographic factors and the level of job satisfaction of extension agents. Journal

of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 55(1), 102-115.

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Does school context matter? Relations with

teacher burnout and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(3),

518-524.

Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of

the Job Satisfaction Survey. American journal of community psychology, 13(6),

693-713.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and

consequences (Vol. 3): Sage.

Spector, P. E. (2008). Industrial and organisational psychology: Wiley.

Staw, B. M., & Cohen‐Charash, Y. (2005). The dispositional approach to job satisfaction:

More than a mirage, but not yet an oasis. Journal of Organisational Behaviour,

26(1), 59-78.

Strand, V. C., & Dore, M. M. (2009). Job satisfaction in a stable state child welfare

workforce: Implications for staff retention. Children and Youth Services Review,

31(3), 391-397.

Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations

between person–organisation fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational

Behaviour, 63(3), 473-489.

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2014

VOL 5, NO 11

Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American

psychologist, 62(1), 17.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief

measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of

Personality and social Psychology, 54(6), 1063.

Wegge, J., Schmidt, K. H., Parkes, C., & Dick, R. (2007). Taking a sickie: Job

satisfaction and job involvement as interactive predictors of absenteeism in a

public organisation. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology,

80(1), 77-89.

Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and

affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 173-194.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective Events Theory: A theoretical

discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at

work.

Weitz, J. (1952). A neglected concept in the study of job satisfaction. Personnel

Psychology, 5(3), 201-205.

Wheeler, A. R., Buckley, M. R., Halbesleben, J. R., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2005).

―The elusive criterion of fit‖ revisited: Toward an integrative theory of

multidimensional fit. Research in personnel and human resources management,

24, 265-304.

Wheeler, A. R., Gallagher, V. C., Brouer, R. L., & Sablynski, C. J. (2007). When person-

organisation (mis) fit and (dis) satisfaction lead to turnover: The moderating role

of perceived job mobility. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(2), 203-219.

Yang, J.-T. (2008). Effect of newcomer socialisation on organisational commitment, job

satisfaction, and turnover intention in the hotel industry. The Service Industries

Journal, 28(4), 429-443.

Documents

The Concurrent Role of Personality Traits and Self