This article on personality psychology and workplace behavior explores how individual differences in personality shape organizational dynamics within business psychology foundations. It examines trait theory’s role in job performance, the Big Five model’s predictive power, and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator’s application in business. Additional topics include emotional stability’s impact on success, conscientiousness’s link to productivity, and extraversion versus introversion’s effects on team dynamics. The discussion extends to agreeableness in relationships, openness to experience fostering creativity, and personality assessments aiding hiring and development. Dark Triad traits, personality fit with culture, and behavioral tendencies in decision-making further highlight personality’s influence. By synthesizing these insights, the article underscores how workplace behavior, driven by personality, enhances performance, collaboration, and organizational alignment.
Introduction
Personality psychology, the study of enduring individual traits and their behavioral manifestations, plays a pivotal role in understanding workplace behavior within business psychology foundations. Workplace behavior—encompassing performance, teamwork, decision-making, and interpersonal interactions—reflects the interplay of personality traits that employees bring to their roles. As organizations seek to optimize productivity, foster collaboration, and adapt to change, personality psychology provides a lens to predict, manage, and align these behaviors with strategic objectives.
The significance of personality in workplace behavior lies in its predictive and explanatory power. Traits like conscientiousness correlate with task efficiency, while extraversion influences leadership styles, offering actionable insights for hiring, team-building, and development. Misalignment—placing an introvert in a high-pressure sales role—can disrupt performance, underscoring the need for psychological understanding. By leveraging personality frameworks, businesses enhance individual contributions and collective outcomes, making this field a cornerstone of organizational success.
The scope of this exploration spans individual and organizational levels. A conscientious employee drives task completion, just as a team’s personality mix affects cohesion. By integrating these principles, businesses can tailor roles, enhance morale, and mitigate conflict, fostering environments where workplace behavior aligns with goals. This article serves as an authoritative resource, providing detailed insights into how personality psychology transforms organizational behavior, equipping stakeholders with strategies to optimize human potential and workplace efficacy.
Foundations of Personality in Workplace Behavior
Personality psychology provides foundational frameworks to understand workplace behavior, linking traits to performance and dynamics. This section examines trait theory, the Big Five, and Myers-Briggs as core lenses.
Trait Theory: Personality’s Role in Job Performance
Trait theory posits that stable personality characteristics predict workplace behavior, particularly job performance (Allport, 1961). Traits—enduring patterns like reliability or assertiveness—shape how employees approach tasks, interact with colleagues, and respond to challenges. Research shows traits account for up to 30% of performance variance, making them critical in business psychology (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
In practice, trait theory informs role suitability. A dependable employee excels in structured roles—e.g., accounting—while an ambitious one thrives in competitive sales, as traits align with demands (Hogan & Holland, 2003). Mismatches—placing a risk-averse individual in innovation—reduce efficacy, highlighting the need for trait-based selection. Workplace behavior thus reflects these inherent tendencies, guiding performance outcomes.
Trait stability enhances predictability. Unlike situational factors, traits persist, offering a reliable basis for long-term planning—e.g., grooming a persistent worker for leadership (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Regular trait assessments refine this, ensuring alignment with evolving roles. By leveraging trait theory, workplace behavior becomes a strategic asset, optimizing individual contributions.
Cultural context further shapes this link. In collaborative settings, traits like cooperation enhance performance, while individualistic traits suit autonomous roles. A firm adjusting expectations—e.g., valuing diligence over charisma—exemplifies this adaptability. Trait theory thus anchors workplace behavior in personality, driving organizational success.
Big Five Model: Predicting Workplace Behavior
The Big Five model—openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism—predicts workplace behavior with empirical rigor (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Each dimension influences distinct outcomes: conscientiousness boosts task completion, extraversion enhances leadership, and emotional stability (low neuroticism) ensures resilience. Meta-analyses confirm its validity, with traits explaining 25-40% of job performance variance (Barrick et al., 2001).
Applications include selection and development. High conscientiousness predicts success in detail-oriented roles—e.g., engineering—while extraversion suits sales, as seen in firms prioritizing these traits in hiring (Judge et al., 1999). Low agreeableness may disrupt teams, necessitating balance. Workplace behavior, shaped by these traits, guides organizational strategies, enhancing fit and productivity.
The model’s universality strengthens its utility. Across cultures, Big Five traits remain consistent, enabling global firms to predict behavior reliably—e.g., extraverts leading multicultural teams (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005). Regular profiling sustains this, adapting to shifts like remote work. Psychology in workplace behavior leverages the Big Five for precision, aligning traits with goals.
Dynamic interactions amplify its impact. A team blending high openness and conscientiousness innovates efficiently, while neuroticism risks burnout, requiring intervention. A firm optimizing this mix—e.g., pairing creative and diligent staff—exemplifies success. The Big Five thus provides a robust framework, predicting and shaping workplace behavior comprehensively.
Myers-Briggs in Business: Personality Typing at Work
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) categorizes personality into 16 types based on preferences—extraversion/introversion, sensing/intuition, thinking/feeling, judging/perceiving—shaping workplace behavior (Myers & Briggs, 1944). Though less empirically robust than the Big Five, MBTI’s accessibility aids business applications, as in team-building or career planning (Pittenger, 1993). It frames how employees process information and interact.
In practice, MBTI informs role assignment and communication. An INTJ (introverted, intuitive, thinking, judging) excels in strategic planning, while an ESFP (extraverted, sensing, feeling, perceiving) thrives in client-facing roles, as firms match types to tasks (Quenk, 2009). Misapplications—forcing types into unfit roles—disrupt behavior, underscoring contextual use. Workplace behavior reflects these preferences, guiding organizational fit.
Team dynamics benefit from MBTI insight. Pairing complementary types—e.g., a visionary INTP with a practical ESTJ—enhances collaboration, as seen in project teams balancing creativity and execution (Hammer, 1996). Training in type awareness reduces friction, aligning interactions. Psychology in workplace behavior uses MBTI to optimize group performance.
Limitations require caution. MBTI’s binary categories oversimplify, risking stereotypes—e.g., labeling introverts as unsociable—yet its practical focus endures. A firm adapting MBTI for flexible roles exemplifies nuanced use. By integrating this tool, workplace behavior aligns with personality, fostering tailored development.
Personality Traits and Workplace Behavior Outcomes
Specific traits within personality frameworks directly influence workplace behavior, affecting success, productivity, and dynamics. This section explores emotional stability, conscientiousness, and extraversion versus introversion.
Emotional Stability: Impact on Employee Success
Emotional stability, the inverse of neuroticism in the Big Five, influences workplace behavior by determining resilience and consistency (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Stable employees handle stress—e.g., tight deadlines—without panic, maintaining performance, while neuroticism risks emotional volatility, disrupting focus (Barrick et al., 2001). Studies link stability to 15-20% higher success rates across roles (Judge & Bono, 2001).
In high-pressure settings, stability shines. A stable manager navigates crises calmly, as in a firm retaining clients post-disruption, while instability—e.g., overreacting to feedback—undermines credibility (Eysenck, 1990). Interventions like mindfulness enhance stability, reducing absenteeism (Davidson et al., 2003). Workplace behavior reflects this trait, driving individual and team success.
Stability’s long-term impact includes retention and morale. Emotionally stable employees adapt to change, sustaining engagement, while volatility breeds turnover—e.g., 30% higher in unstable staff (Zimmerman, 2008). Psychology in workplace behavior leverages this for resilience, ensuring consistent contributions.
Cultural fit refines its role. In supportive cultures, stability thrives, while toxic environments amplify instability’s costs. A firm fostering well-being—e.g., stress support—maximizes this trait’s benefits. Emotional stability thus anchors workplace behavior, enhancing organizational stability.
Conscientiousness: Linking Personality to Productivity
Conscientiousness, a Big Five trait, links personality to productivity through diligence, organization, and goal orientation (Costa & McCrae, 1992). High conscientiousness predicts superior task completion—e.g., meeting quotas—across roles, with meta-analyses showing it as the strongest performance predictor (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Workplace behavior reflects this trait’s focus on reliability.
Applications optimize efficiency. Conscientious employees excel in structured tasks—e.g., project management—delivering 25% higher output, while low conscientiousness risks procrastination (Dudley et al., 2006). Development programs—e.g., time management training—enhance this, as in a firm boosting deadlines met by 20%. Psychology in workplace behavior harnesses conscientiousness for operational success.
Its developmental impact includes leadership and culture. Conscientious leaders model discipline, fostering accountability, while their absence—e.g., missed goals—erodes trust (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). Regular feedback sustains this trait, aligning it with goals. Workplace behavior driven by conscientiousness ensures consistent progress.
Contextual factors amplify its value. In fast-paced firms, conscientiousness prevents errors, while creative roles may over-rely on it, stifling flexibility. A firm balancing it with openness exemplifies success. Conscientiousness thus ties personality to productivity, a linchpin in workplace behavior.
Extraversion vs. Introversion: Effects on Team Dynamics
Extraversion and introversion, from both Big Five and MBTI, shape workplace behavior in team dynamics (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Myers & Briggs, 1944). Extraverts energize groups—e.g., leading discussions—while introverts contribute depth, as in analysis, with each influencing cohesion differently (Barrick et al., 1998). Research shows extraverts thrive in 40% more interactive roles (Judge et al., 2002).
Team performance hinges on balance. Extraverts drive collaboration—e.g., a sales team hitting targets—while introverts excel in reflection, as in R&D breakthroughs (Cain, 2012). Imbalance—e.g., all extraverts—risks groupthink, while all introverts slow decisions. Psychology in workplace behavior optimizes this mix, enhancing synergy.
Dynamics shift with context. Extraverts dominate in fast-paced settings, while introverts shine remotely, as seen in a firm leveraging both for hybrid success. Training in mutual appreciation—e.g., quiet time for introverts—reduces friction (Grant et al., 2011). Workplace behavior reflects this interplay, driving team efficacy.
Cultural norms refine their impact. In assertive cultures, extraversion aligns, while reserved ones favor introversion. A firm adapting roles—e.g., extraverts in client-facing, introverts in planning—maximizes both. Extraversion versus introversion thus shapes workplace behavior, balancing energy and focus in teams.
Interpersonal and Creative Influences of Personality on Workplace Behavior
Personality traits influence workplace behavior through relationships and creativity, enhancing collaboration and innovation. This section explores agreeableness and openness to experience.
Agreeableness: Personality and Workplace Relationships
Agreeableness, a Big Five trait, influences workplace behavior by fostering cooperation and positive relationships (Costa & McCrae, 1992). High agreeableness—empathy, trust—enhances teamwork, as in a cohesive support staff, while low agreeableness risks conflict, disrupting harmony (Graziano et al., 1996). Studies link it to 20% higher relational success (Mount et al., 1998).
In practice, agreeableness smooths interactions. Agreeable employees mediate disputes—e.g., resolving client issues—while less agreeable ones prioritize self-interest, as in a firm losing partnerships over rigidity (Barrick et al., 2001). Training in interpersonal skills boosts this, aligning behavior with collaboration. Workplace behavior reflects this trait, strengthening organizational bonds.
Its impact extends to leadership and morale. Agreeable leaders build trust—e.g., retaining staff post-restructure—while low agreeableness fosters resentment (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). Psychology in workplace behavior leverages this for relational health, ensuring supportive cultures.
Context moderates its effect. In competitive firms, high agreeableness may yield to assertiveness, while collaborative ones amplify it. A firm balancing both—e.g., firm but fair negotiations—exemplifies success. Agreeableness thus anchors workplace behavior in relationships, enhancing cooperation.
Openness to Experience: Creativity in Business Roles
Openness to experience, a Big Five trait, drives workplace behavior through creativity and adaptability (Costa & McCrae, 1992). High openness—imagination, curiosity—fuels innovation, as in a designer crafting novel solutions, while low openness favors routine, limiting flexibility (McCrae, 1996). Research ties it to 30% higher creative output (George & Zhou, 2001).
Applications enhance business roles. Open employees excel in dynamic tasks—e.g., marketing campaigns—delivering 25% more ideas, while closed-mindedness stalls progress, as in a firm missing trends (Feist, 1998). Development—e.g., brainstorming workshops—nurtures this, as seen in a tech firm’s product surge. Workplace behavior reflects this trait, driving innovation.
Creativity’s developmental role includes problem-solving and growth. Openness sparks adaptive strategies—e.g., pivoting during downturns—while its absence risks stagnation (Amabile, 1996). Psychology in workplace behavior fosters this through flexible cultures, ensuring organizational vitality.
Cultural fit shapes its efficacy. In rigid firms, openness may clash, while innovative ones amplify it. A firm encouraging experimentation—e.g., pilot projects—maximizes benefits. Openness thus ties personality to creativity, a key driver of workplace behavior and success.
Practical Applications and Challenges of Personality
Personality psychology offers practical tools and addresses challenges in workplace behavior, optimizing fit and managing dysfunction. This section examines assessments, Dark Triad traits, and cultural alignment.
Personality Assessments: Tools for Hiring and Development
Personality assessments—e.g., Big Five inventories, MBTI—guide hiring and development by mapping traits to workplace behavior (Hogan & Hogan, 1992). Valid tools predict performance—e.g., conscientiousness in operations—reducing turnover by 15% (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Psychology in workplace behavior leverages these for strategic alignment.
In hiring, assessments match candidates to roles. A firm screening for extraversion in sales hires top performers, while development uses results—e.g., boosting agreeableness via training—to enhance skills (Furnham, 2008). Misuse—over-relying on scores—risks bias, necessitating validation (Morgeson et al., 2007). Workplace behavior aligns with traits through careful application.
Assessments’ developmental role includes team-building and growth. Profiling teams—e.g., balancing extraversion—optimizes dynamics, while career plans target weaknesses, as in a firm upskilling introverts for leadership. Psychology in workplace behavior ensures these tools enhance potential, driving organizational success.
Ethical use sustains efficacy. Transparent processes—explaining results—build trust, while regular updates refine accuracy. A firm integrating assessments with feedback exemplifies best practice. Personality assessments thus shape workplace behavior, aligning traits with organizational needs.
Dark Triad Traits: Managing Narcissism in the Workplace
Dark Triad traits—narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy—disrupt workplace behavior, posing management challenges (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Narcissists seek admiration, excelling in charisma—e.g., sales—but risk arrogance, alienating teams (Judge et al., 2006). Psychology in workplace behavior mitigates their impact.
Management strategies include oversight and boundaries. Channeling narcissism into visible roles—e.g., public speaking—harnesses strengths, while clear rules curb excess, as in a firm curbing a leader’s self-promotion (Furnham et al., 2013). Unchecked traits—e.g., 20% higher conflict rates—destabilize (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). Workplace behavior reflects this balance, requiring vigilance.
Their developmental cost includes morale and ethics. Narcissists erode trust—e.g., taking credit—while Machiavellianism manipulates, necessitating culture checks. Psychology in workplace behavior counters this with accountability—e.g., peer reviews—ensuring stability.
Cultural context shapes management. In hierarchical firms, Dark Triad traits may thrive unchecked, while flat structures limit them. A firm redirecting narcissism to mentorship exemplifies success. Dark Triad traits thus challenge workplace behavior, requiring strategic intervention.
Personality Fit: Aligning Traits with Organizational Culture
Personality fit aligns individual traits with organizational culture, enhancing workplace behavior and retention (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Conscientiousness suits methodical cultures—e.g., finance—while openness fits innovative ones, as in tech startups (Schneider, 1987). Misfit—e.g., extraverts in solitary roles—reduces satisfaction by 25% (Judge & Cable, 1997).
Fit enhances performance and cohesion. A firm matching agreeableness to teamwork cultures boosts collaboration, while misfit—e.g., introverts in aggressive sales—sparks turnover (O’Reilly et al., 1991). Assessments and onboarding refine this, aligning behavior with norms. Psychology in workplace behavior optimizes this synergy.
Fit’s developmental role includes adaptability and morale. Aligned employees thrive—e.g., open staff in creative firms—while misfit hinders growth, as in rigid hires stalling innovation. Psychology in workplace behavior sustains fit through cultural audits, ensuring long-term alignment.
Dynamic alignment ensures relevance. As cultures evolve—e.g., remote work—fit adjusts, with training bridging gaps. A firm realigning traits post-shift exemplifies success. Personality fit thus anchors workplace behavior, harmonizing individual and organizational identities.
Personality and Decision-Making
Personality influences workplace behavior through decision-making tendencies, shaping organizational outcomes. This section explores these behavioral links.
Behavioral Tendencies: Personality Influences on Decision-Making
Behavioral tendencies rooted in personality shape workplace decision-making, reflecting traits’ cognitive and emotional impact (Stanovich & West, 2000). Conscientiousness drives methodical choices—e.g., data-driven budgeting—while openness favors risk, as in innovative investments (LePine et al., 2000). Workplace behavior mirrors these tendencies, guiding strategic actions.
In practice, tendencies vary by role. Extraverts decide quickly—e.g., in sales negotiations—while introverts deliberate, excelling in analysis, as seen in a firm’s cautious expansion (Hampson et al., 2006). Emotional stability ensures consistency, while neuroticism risks impulsivity—e.g., panic cuts (Roccas et al., 2002). Psychology in workplace behavior balances these for optimal outcomes.
Decision-making impacts development through efficiency and innovation. Conscientious choices stabilize—e.g., cost controls—while open ones drive growth, as in a startup’s bold pivot. Psychology in workplace behavior refines this via training—e.g., structured tools for extraverts—enhancing decision quality.
Team and cultural factors refine this. Agreeable decisions prioritize consensus, while Dark Triad traits skew self-interest—e.g., a narcissist’s risky merger. A firm blending traits—e.g., open vision, conscientious execution—exemplifies success. Behavioral tendencies thus tie personality to workplace behavior, shaping organizational trajectories.
Conclusion
Personality psychology profoundly shapes workplace behavior within business psychology foundations, integrating traits with performance, relationships, and decisions. This article has demonstrated how trait theory, the Big Five, and Myers-Briggs predict and guide behavior, while emotional stability, conscientiousness, and extraversion versus introversion influence success, productivity, and team dynamics. Agreeableness and openness enhance collaboration and creativity, complemented by assessments, Dark Triad management, and cultural fit optimizing alignment. Behavioral tendencies in decision-making further tie personality to organizational outcomes.
These insights yield transformative effects. By leveraging emotional stability and conscientiousness, firms ensure resilience and efficiency; by balancing extraversion and introversion, they foster cohesive teams. Creativity and fairness, driven by openness and agreeableness, fuel innovation and trust, while assessments and fit align behavior with goals. Managing Dark Triad traits and decision tendencies mitigates risks, enhancing stability. Workplace behavior, rooted in personality, thus becomes a strategic lever for success.
As organizations face evolving demands—diversity, remote work, competition—personality psychology offers timeless tools, aligning with trends toward human-centric management. This comprehensive exploration provides a definitive guide, empowering stakeholders to harness workplace behavior for sustained organizational excellence, ensuring personality drives both individual and collective thriving.
References
[1] Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
[2] Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Westview Press.
[3] Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
[4] 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(1-2), 9-30.
[5] Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377-391.
[6] Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking. Crown Publishing.
[7] Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
[8] Davidson, R. J., Kabat-Zinn, J., Schumacher, J., Rosenkranz, M., Muller, D., Santorelli, S. F., … & Sheridan, J. F. (2003). Alterations in brain and immune function produced by mindfulness meditation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(4), 564-570.
[9] Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 40-57.
[10] Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Biological dimensions of personality. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 244-276). Guilford Press.
[11] Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290-309.
[12] Furnham, A. (2008). Personality and intelligence at work: Exploring and explaining individual differences. Routledge.
[13] Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10-year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199-216.
[14] George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 513-524.
[15] Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 528-550.
[16] Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 820-835.
[17] Hammer, A. L. (1996). MBTI applications: A decade of research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychologists Press.
[18] Hampson, S. E., Goldberg, L. R., & John, O. P. (2006). Personality trait development and change: A longitudinal perspective. European Journal of Personality, 20(1), 1-19.
[19] Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1992). Hogan Personality Inventory manual. Hogan Assessment Systems.
[20] Hogan, R., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 100-112.
[21] Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 169-180.
[22] 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), 80-92.
[23] Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 359-394.
[24] 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), 530-541.
[25] Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 621-652.
[26] Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self- and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 762-776.
[27] 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(2), 281-342.
[28] LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2000). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 52-65.
[29] McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 323-337.
[30] McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509-516.
[31] McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: Data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 547-561.
[32] Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Are we getting fooled again? Coming to terms with limitations in the use of personality tests for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 1029-1049.
[33] Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11(2-3), 145-165.
[34] Myers, I. B., & Briggs, K. C. (1944). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator manual. Consulting Psychologists Press.
[35] O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487-516.
[36] Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-563.
[37] Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 467-488.
[38] Quenk, N. L. (2009). Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessment (2nd ed.). Wiley.
[39] Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five personality factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 789-801.
[40] Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.
[41] Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437-453.
[42] Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645-665.
[43] Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions: A meta-analytic path model. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 309-348.