2008 The Authors [614652]

© 2008 The Authors
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing LtdSocial and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1982–2000, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.x
The Contributions of Personality to
Organizational Behavior and Psychology:
Findings, Criticisms, and Future Research
Directions
Timothy A. Judge1*, Ryan Klinger1, Lauren S. Simon1
and Irene Wen Fen Yang2
1Department of Management, University of Florida
2Institute of Business and Management, National Chiao-Tung UniversityAbstract
Skepticism regarding the importance of pe rsonality traits as predictors of organ-
izational behavior criteria has given way to an appreciation of the broad array of
work outcomes predicted by personality. Th is article considers the effects of the
five-factor model (‘Big Five’) personality traits on the following work outcomes:
(1) job performance; (2) work motivation; (3 ) job attitudes; (4) leadership; (5) power,
politics, and influence; (6) stress, adaptabili ty, and coping; (7) team effectiveness; (8)
counterproductive/deviant workplace behavi ors; (9) workplace accidents; and (10)
conflict and negotiation. T wo contemporary criticisms of personality research in
organizational behavior – that the validiti es are small and that faking undermines
the usefulness of personality inventories in employment contexts – are then evaluated.
Finally, a brief agenda for future research is provided which highlights neededareas of advancement.
Over the past 20 years, there is perhap s no area of psychology that has more
deeply and broadly influenced organizational behavior – defined as the field
of inquiry concerned with attitudes, de cision-making, interpersonal processes,
and individual and group behavior in work settings – than personality
psychology. Personality traits and other individual differences, of course, have
a long history in organizational behavior. However, prior to 20 years ago,
the inclusion of personalit y traits in organizational research was sufficiently
scattershot that little cumulative knowledge was generated. In 1989, an
influential article deemed personalit y effects in organizational behavior
to be more illusory than real, concluding that ‘dispositions are likely to
have only limited effects on attitudes and behavior inside organizations’
(Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989, p. 396).
For a time, this and other cautionary notes were influential. But like a war
in which losses in one ba ttle are washed away by gains on other fronts, such

© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1982–2000, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing LtdPersonality and Organizational Behavior 1983
criticisms quickly became overwhelmed by evidence. Three pieces of evidence
were especially influential. First, th e growth of meta-analysis allowed for
cumulation of results across studies. This development was particularly
important in the area of personality, given the myriad traits that had been
considered over decades of scientific research. Second, and related, the wide-
spread acceptance of the five-factor mo del (or the ‘Big Five’) of personality
(McCrae & Costa, 2003) provided a fr amework to organize the diverse set
of traits. Indeed, as we will note, whil e the gains from the five-factor model
have been considerable, its acceptance in organizational behavior is so wide-
spread that it threatens to ‘white out’ other potentially relevant traits. Third,
there was an accumulating body of evidence in personality psychology that
supported the enduring nature of personality traits (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner,
2005), their genetic origins (Johnson, McGue, & Krueger, 2005), and their
neuropsychological basis (Pickering & Gray, 1999).
From the vantage point of today, that personality has shown itself relevant
to individual attitudes and behavior as well as team and organizational
functioning seems an incontrovertible statement. Barrick and Mount (2005,
p. 361) flatly state: ‘Personality traits do matter at work’, and indeed, the data
appear to support their conclusion (Hogan, 2004). Though, as we will note,
the acceptance of personali ty traits as important predictors of employment
outcomes is far from universal, there is scarcely an area of organizational
behavior that has not been affected by personality research, sometimes
profoundly so.
In this article, we briefly review the work criteria for which personality
variables have demonstrated important effects. We first review the evidence
regarding personality effects on 10 core organizational behavior criteria (job
performance, work motivation, job atti tudes, leadership, power and politics,
stress and coping, team effectiveness, counterproductive/deviant workplace
behaviors, accidents, and conflict and negotiation). Table 1 provides a summary
of effect sizes for those criteria for which meta-analytic estimates are
available.
After reviewing what is known about the relationship of personality to
these 10 criteria, we then review two common criticisms of personality
research in organizational behavior: validities are meager and scores on
personality inventories are rendered useless by faking. We conclude with
a brief agenda for future research.
Evidence of the Relationship between Personality Traits and
Organizational Behavior
Job performance
Perhaps the most intensive application of personality research in organizational
settings, and arguably the most controve rsial, has been in relation to job
performance. One reason fo r this interest – and controversy – concerns the

1984 Personality and Organizational Behavior
© 2008 The AuthorsSocial and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1982–2000, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.xJournal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing LtdTable 1Available meta-analytic correlations between Big Five personality traits and criteriaCriterionBig Five TraitConscientiousness Agreeableness Neuroticism Openness ExtraversionrSDrrSDrrSDrrSDrrSDrJob satisfaction* 0.26 (0.22) 0.17 (0.16)−0.29 (0.16) 0.02 (0.21) 0.25 (0.15)Job performance† 0.28 (0.16) 0.13 (0.15)−0.16 (0.10) 0.08 (0.10) 0.07 (0.14)Leadership‡ 0.28 (0.17) 0.08 (0.17)−0.24 (0.18) 0.24 (0.11) 0.31 (0.17)Workplace deviance§−0.35 (−)−0.44 (−)0 . 2 6 (−)−0.08 (−)−0.03 (−)Workplace accidents¶−0.31 (0.29)−0.44 (0.05) 0.30 (0.22) 0.50 (0.63) 0.02 (0.33)Motivation (goal-setting)** 0.28 (0.07)−0.29 (0.21)−0.29 (0.06) 0.18 (0.00) 0.15 (0.00)Motivation (expectancy)** 0.23 (0.09) 0.13 (0.00)−0.29 (0.17)−0.08 (0.00) 0.10 (0.00)Motivation (self-efficacy)** 0.22 (0.15) 0.11 (0.17)−0.35 (0.18) 0.20 (0.04) 0.33 (0.16)Team effectiveness†† 0.11 (0.11) 0.12 (0.13)−0.04 (0.04) 0.05 (0.13) 0.09 (0.04)Notes. Correlations are based on the most recently published meta-analysis for the corresponding criterion. Dashes indicate unreported information. ρ= estimated true score correlations; SDρ= standard deviation of true score correlations. *Reported in Judge, Heller, and Mount (2002). †Reported in Salgado (2003). ‡Reported in Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002). §Reported in Berry, Ones, and Sackett (2007). ¶Reported in Clarke and Robertson (2008). **Reported in Judge and Ilies (2002). ††Reported in Bell (2007).

© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1982–2000, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing LtdPersonality and Organizational Behavior 1985
role of personality testing in hiring decisions (Hogan, Barrett, & Hogan, 2007).
The relationship of personality traits to job performance has generated
hundreds of articles and over three dozen separate meta-analyses since
Barrick and Mount’s (1991) influential inve stigation. In terms of the Big Five,
Barrick, Mount, and Judge (2001) pool ed validity estimates from 15 prior
meta-analyses and determined that one tr ait, conscientiousness, significantly
predicts job performance across different performance criteria and organiza-
tional settings. Emotional stability (o ften labeled by its opposite pole,
neuroticism) also predicts overall jo b performance, albeit generally more
weakly than conscientiou sness, and generalizes ac ross different occupations.
The final three Big Five traits (extra version, agreeableness, and openness),
though not predictive of all job performance criteria in all occupational
settings, do demonstrate sign ificant validity coefficien ts in certain conditions.
For instance, both extraversion and agreeableness predict teamwork
performance (where interpersonal relati onships are important) and openness,
which entails intellectual curiosity, predicts training performance.
Aside from the Big Five, another broad personality trait has been
shown to predict job performance. Core self-evaluations (CSE; Judge,
Locke, & Durham, 1997) is a higher-order factor representing the fundamental
evaluations people make about themselv es. CSE is conceptualized as a broad,
latent trait indicated by at least four specific traits (self-esteem, locus of
control, emotional stability, and gene ralized self-efficacy), though a direct
measure of CSE has been developed (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003).
Judge et al. (Judge & Bono, 2001; Ju dge et al., 2003) fo und evidence that
the higher order core self-evaluations tr ait is comparable in predictive validity
to conscientiousness and captures in cremental variance in job performance
over and above the Big Five.
Work motivation
Though different areas of psychology define and treat the concept of
motivation in vastly different ways (Miner, 2006), for our purposes, we
define work motivation as the direction (choice), intensity (effort), and
duration (persistence) of work beha vior (Locke & Latham, 2004). Before
the advent of the five-factor model, a plethora of traits had been related
to work motivation with relatively disappointing results. Locke, Shaw,
Saari, and Latham (1981) noted that ‘the only consistent thing about
studies of individual differences in goal setting is their inconsistency’
(p. 142). However, when Judge and Il ies (2002) organized the personality–
work motivation research using the five-factor model, and meta-analyzed
the relationship between the Big Five traits and various measures of
motivation (i.e., goal-setting motivation, self-efficacy, expectancy motivation),
they found that neuroticism and conscientiousness, respectively, displayed
strong negative and positive correlations with work motivation across
the three aforementioned measures.

1986 Personality and Organizational Behavior
© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1982–2000, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing LtdJob attitudes
Perhaps the two most commonly studied job attitudes are job satisfaction
and organizational commitment. In a me ta-analytic review, Judge, Heller, and
Mount (2002) found that extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism
were significant predictors of job sa tisfaction. Another meta-analysis linked
both positive and negative trait affect to job satisfaction (Thoresen, Kaplan,
Barsky, Warren, & de Chermont, 2003 ). A final meta-analysis (Judge &
Bono, 2001) suggested that traits in dicating core self-evaluations were
significantly related to job satisfaction. A comparative test of these three
frameworks suggested that core self-evaluations may be most important to
job satisfaction (Judge, Heller, & Klinger, 2008).
Compared with job satisfaction, there is a paucity of research investigating
the link between personality and organizational commitment. Erdheim, Wang,
and Zickar (2006) found that extraversi on was significantly related to various
aspects of commitment including affe ctive commitment (one’s emotional
attachment to the organization), co ntinuance commitment (perceived costs
and benefits of remaining an employee of the organization), and normative
commitment (one’s felt obligation to remain with the organization). Neu-
roticism, conscientiousness, and openness were related to continuance
commitment, while agreeableness wa s related to normative commitment.
Considering the strong correlations between organizational commitment
and job satisfaction, there is reason to believe that the relationships between
personality and organizational commit ment may be comparable to those
found for job satisfaction (see Table 1).
Leadership
The Victorian era historian Thomas Carlyle commented ‘the history of the
world is but the biography of great men’ (Carlyle, 1907, p. 18). This ‘great
man’ hypothesis – that history is shaped by the forces of extraordinary
leadership – gave rise to the trait theory of leadership. Like the great man
theory, trait theory assumed that leader ship depended on the personal qualities
of the leader. However, it did not nece ssarily assume that leadership resided
solely within the grasp of a few heroic men. Cowley (1931) summarized the
view of trait theorists in commenting that ‘the approach to the study of
leadership has usually been and perhaps must always be through the study
of traits’ (p. 144).
Despite this venerable tradition, several qualitative reviews of the lead-
ership literature concluded that the trait approach had fallen out of favor.
For instance, Zaccaro, Foti, and Kenny (1991) noted, ‘trait explanations of
leader emergence are generally regarded with little esteem b y leadership
theorists’ (p. 308). As in other areas, the application of meta-analysis coupled
with the organization of traits into the five-factor model lead to considerably
more optimism. Judge, Bono, Ilies, an d Gerhardt (2002) found that four of

© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1982–2000, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing LtdPersonality and Organizational Behavior 1987
the Big Five traits, extraversion, cons cientiousness, openness, and emotional
stability had non-zero correlations with the leadership criteria (leader
emergence and leader effectiveness). In addition, when individuals’ perceptions
of leader emergence and effectiveness were combined to create an overall
‘leadership’ factor, the Big Five framework, as a set, explained a considerable
amount of variance in leadership (multiple R=0 . 4 8 ) , i n d i c a t i n g s t r o n g
support for the leader trait perspective.
Power, politics, and influence
Relative to other organizational criteria, there is considerably less research
exploring the relationships between personality (particularly traits embodying
the five-factor model) and power, politics, and influence in organizations.
Although the empirical landscape fo r these domains remains somewhat
barren, research is turning deso late tract into fertile ground.
First, researchers have examined factors contributing to how often and
how flexibly individuals use influence tactics. For instance, need for power
is positively related to how often one employs influence tactics (Mowday,
1978), whereas Machiavellianism is positi vely linked to the flexible use of
influence tactics (Grams & Rogers, 199 0). In addition, extraversion, desire
for control, and self-monitoring (C aldwell & Burger, 1997; Snyder, 1974)
are positively related to both of thes e criteria. Second, scholars have examined
dispositional correlates of political skill. Findings point to conscientiousness
(Ferris et al., 2005), proactive personali ty (Liu et al., 2007), and extraversion
(Liu et al., 2007) as sign ificant predictors. Third, researchers have examined
how different personality traits corres pond to the use of specific influence
tactics. For instance, Cable and Judge ( 2003) found that extraverted individuals
were more likely to use inspirational appeal and ingratiation tactics whereas
conscientious individuals were more likely to rely on rational appeals to
influence their supervisors. Finally, of interest is who becomes powerful.
Within social groups, evidence suggest s that extraverts enjoy higher social
status, whereas neurotic individuals are typically afforded positions of lower
status (Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, 2001).
Stress, coping, and adaptability
As noted by Lee-Baggley, Preece, and DeLongis (2005), personality influences
every component of the stress and coping process, from stress proneness and
cognitive appraisal of stressors to co ping and health. Findings suggest that
neurotic individuals perceive greater amounts of stress regardless of actual
workload (Conard & Matthews, 2008), f eel more threatened by stressful
events (Gallagher, 1990), and use maladapt ive coping strategies in stressful
situations (David & Suls, 1999), while extraverts tend to exhibit opposite
patterns (Conard & Matthews, 2008; David & Suls, 1999; Gallagher, 1990).
Additionally, some evidence suggests th at dispositional factors moderate the

1988 Personality and Organizational Behavior
© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1982–2000, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltdrelationships between appraisals of stressors and the coping strategies one
employs (David & Suls, 1999).
Currently, researchers have begun to focus on understanding how Big
Five personality traits interact with one another to influence stress, coping,
and adaptability (e.g., Grant & Langan -Fox, 2006). Recent research endeavors
also explore how more broad personality traits, such as core self-evaluations,
impact stress, and coping (Kammeyer-Mueller, Scott, & Judge, 2008).
Team effectiveness
Aside from predicting individual-level job performance, personality traits have
also contributed to the prediction of team-level criteria. In a comprehensive
meta-analysis of the personality-team e ffectiveness literature, Bell (2007) found
each of the Big Five traits to significantly predict team effectiveness. However,
several important factors have been shown to moderate these relationships.
First, what is the best way to operat ionalize personality at the team level?
In terms of conscientiousness, Bell (2 007) found that the strongest effects
occurred when traits were operationa lized as the mean of team members’
scores. Agreeableness, on the other hand, was most strongly related to team
performance when operationalized as the lowest score of any team member,
suggesting that even one disagreeable member can disadvantage the team.
Furthermore, in terms of openness, homogenous groups, whether high or
low in openness, tended to outperform heterogeneous groups. Second, what
is the best technique fo r measuring team-level personality? While the most
common approach has been to aggregate individual-level responses to
individual-level personality scales, rese archers have shown that allowing teams
to work together to reach consensus on their personality ratings (Kirkman,
Te s l u k , & R o s e n , 2 0 0 1 ) a n d s h i f t i n g t h e p e r s o n a l i t y re f e re n t f ro m t h e i n d iv i d u a l
– to the team-level (Hofmann & Jone s, 2005) may increase personality-team
effectiveness relationships. Finally , situational factor s such as task interde-
pendence and reward interdependence have been shown to moderate these
relationships (Bell, 2007; Wageman, 1995).
Deviance and counterproductive behavior
Counterproductive work behaviors are defined as discretionary behaviors that
violate organizational norms and threat en the well-being of an organization,
its members, or both (CWB; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Some researchers
have examined personality in relation to discrete CWBs (e.g., absence, theft);
others have collapsed more discrete behaviors into broader categories (e.g.,
deviance); and still others have measured CWB as a unidimensional construct.
At the broadest level, findings suggest that conscientiousness, agreeableness,
and emotional stability ar e each negatively related to CWB (Berry, Ones,
& Sackett, 2007; Mount, Ilies, & Johns on, 2006). When the target of the
CWB is accounted for, agreeableness mo re strongly relates to interpersonal

© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1982–2000, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing LtdPersonality and Organizational Behavior 1989
deviance, whereas conscientiousness more strongly relates to deviance directed
toward the organization (Berry et al., 20 07). In considering traits in addition
to the Big Five, Roberts, Harms, Caspi, and Moffitt (2007) found that whereas
constraint negatively predicted CWBs even when the personality traits were
assessed prior to the participants entering the workforce and the CWBs
were assessed 8 years later.
Workplace accidents
Accidents are an important criterion in organizational behavior, given their
deleterious effects on individuals’ he alth and safety, and on organizational
health care and workers’ compensati on claim costs. Accident-proneness –
assuming that there are individual diffe rences in the propensity to experience
accidents – has long been a feature of the occupational health literature (see
McKenna, 1983). Lardent (1991 ), for example, found th at fighter pilots had
or had not experienced a crash could be correctly classifi ed in 70% of the
cases based on their scores on Cattell’ s 16 PF . Only recently, however, has
the link between personality and accidents taken shape. Clarke and Rob-
ertson (2008) performed a meta-analysis of the relationship between the
Big Five traits and workplace accidents. They found that, except for openness,
the Big Five traits were strongly associated with accidents, in particular
those with high levels of openness and neuroticism, and those with low
levels of agreeableness and conscienti ousness. They also found, however,
that with the exception of agreeablenes s, the variability in the correlations
was quite high.
Conflict and negotiation
Are certain people dispositionally bett er than others at getting what they
want? Historically, most negotiation research suggested that the answer to
this question was clearly ‘No’ (Rubin & Brown, 1975; Wall & Blum, 1991).
However, as has been the case in many other criteria domains, recent findings
have begun to challenge this assertion.
Because negotiation and conflict ar e social interactions, the two most
socially oriented Big Five traits – ex traversion and agreeableness – are often
hypothesized to be related to confli ct and negotiation processes. Findings
tend to support this supposition. For example, extraversion and agreeableness
are liabilities in distributive bargaini ng, due to the tendency of extraverted
and agreeable individuals to be disadvantageously forthcoming with infor-
mation (Barry & Friedman, 1998; Liu, Friedman, & Chi, 2005). Agreeable
individuals are also likely to be more distressed by interpersonal conflict, but
are less likely to engage in conflict in the first place (Suls, Martin, & David,
1998). When conflict does occur, agreeabl e individuals, along with extraverts,
are more likely to employ an integrative, or problem-solving, strategy
(Nauta & Sanders, 2000).

1990 Personality and Organizational Behavior
© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1982–2000, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing LtdCriticisms of Personality Assessment in
Organizational Settings
The foregoing review shows that much has been learned about the disposi-
tional basis of organizational behavior. Though there is general acceptance
that personality predicts most broad organizational attitu des and behaviors,
not all scholars are convinced of the usefulness of personality measures in
organizational research. T wo of the most frequently advanced criticisms
are: (a) that the validities are sufficiently weak as to question the usefulness
of personality measures in predicting organizational criteria, particularly
job performance; and (b) that beca use items on self-report personality
measures are socially desirable (i.e., th e ‘right’ response is transparent), faking
undermines the usefulness of personal ity measures. We evaluate each of
these criticisms in turn.
Meager validities
The meta-analytic accumulation of evid ence concerning relationships between
personality and organizational criteria has led some researchers to assert
‘personality plays a meaningful role in nearly all facets of work … ’ (Barrick
& Mount, 2005, p. 363) and ‘t he controversy over whether personality tests
can be useful for the prediction of employee performance is no longer
pertinent’ (Kanfer, Ackerman, Murtha, & Goff, 1995, p. 597). However, critics
of the literature suggest that many statistically significant relationships are
too low to be of much practical sign ificance, especially in the domain of
personnel selection (e.g., Morgeson et al., 2007a; Murphy & Dzieweczynski,
2005). For instance, critics are usually quick to point out that the average
validity of the Big Five in predicting job performance ( ρ=0 . 1 3 ; B a r r i c k
et al., 2001) or the validity of the sing le best predictor, conscientiousness
(ρ=0 . 2 3 ; B a r r i c k e ta l . , 2 0 0 1 ) , i s m u c h l o wer than the validity of the ‘gold-
standard’ individual diff erence predictor – intelligence or general mental
ability ( ρ=0 . 5 1 ; H u n t e r , 1 9 8 0 ) .
However, to dismiss personality research on such grounds of low validity
evidence is specious for several reasons. First, there is no theoretical reason
to suggest that all personality traits should predict all performance criteria
across all occupations. Thus, merely averaging Big Five validity estimates is
a rather mindless enterprise, producin g misleading results. A more appro-
priate means of assessing the validity of personality would be to compute
the multiple correlation between the Big Five, as a set, and performance
(e.g., Ones, Viswesvaran, & Dilchert, 2005). When this is done, most studies
indicate that the multiple correlati on between the set of Big Five traits
and broad criteria is between R=0 . 4 0 a n d R=0 . 5 0 – h a r d l y a t r i v i a l r e s u l t .
In addition, when meta-analyses are restricted to include only hypothe-
sized relationships between traits and performance criteria (either based
on theoretical grounds or job analyses), personality validities increase

© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1982–2000, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing LtdPersonality and Organizational Behavior 1991
substantially (Hogan & Holland, 2003; T e tt, Jackson, Rothstein, & Reddon,
1999).
Personality inventories can be ‘faked’
If applicants for jobs in organization s are selected based on their scores on
personality tests, there is an incentive for applicants to enhance or ‘fak e’
their scores. Judging from ongoing de bates (see Morgeson et al., 2007a,b;
Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Judge, 2007; T ett & Christiansen, 2007), answers
to four questions are required to evaluate this potential problem: (1) Can
personality inventories be faked?; (2) Does faking occur?; (3) What impact
does faking have on validity?; and (4) How can faking be alleviated?
To a s s e s s w h e t h e r p e r s o n a l i t y i nve n t o r i e s c a n b e f a ke d , re s e a rc h e r s g e n e r a l l y
ask groups of participants to complete personality inventories under two
conditions: to respond ‘honestly’ and to ‘fake-good’. If the observed scores
for desirable traits in the ‘fake-good’ condition are higher than in the ‘honesty’
condition, then one can conclude that participants have the ability to fake on
personality tests. A meta-analysis of 51 such studies supports the notion that
individuals can, if prompted, distort their ‘honest’ responses in favorable manners
(Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999). However, showing that individuals can fake does
not mean that individuals do fake in organizational settings. T o test the degree
of faking in actual selection contexts, researchers generally compare groups
of participants with a motivation to fa ke (e.g., job applic ants or candidates
for promotion) with participants lacking such motivation (e.g., students or job
incumbents). Here, results are less consis tent. Several studies report significant
changes in the predictive validity of personality tests be tween job applicants
and job incumbents (e.g., Rosse, Stecher, Miller, & Levin, 1998), whereas other
studies fail to find such effects (e.g., Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998). Thus, though
it seems clear that faking can occur, whether most applicants do fake and
whether faking impacts the validity of personality testing is less clear.
Methods for ‘fixing’ faking generally fall under two categories – proactive
and reactive. Proactive measures involve incorporating procedures designed
to decrease respondents’ ability or desi re to fake. For instance, forced-choice
personality inventories instruct respondents to select between multiple options
that are equal in terms of social desira bility but unequal in terms of predictive
validity (e.g., Rust, 1999). Conditional re asoning measures assess respondents’
underlying logical processes used to make decisions under the assumption
that different logical processes are indi cative of differen t personality traits
(James, 1998). Because these measures do not asses personality directly, it
is very difficult for respondents to intentionally distort their personality profiles.
To d e c re a s e re s p o n d e n t s ’ d e s i re t o f a ke, researchers have suggested warning
respondents not to fake (Dwight & Donovan, 2003) or requiring respondents
to elaborate on their responses (Schmitt & Kunce, 2002).
As an alternative to preventing faking, several reactive methods exist to
identify and rectify proble ms associated with faking after it has occurred.

1992 Personality and Organizational Behavior
© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1982–2000, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing LtdFor instance, social desirability and lie scales may be included within the
personality inventory. Respondents who endorse items on these scales are
assumed to be faking on focal personali ty items, and their scores may either
be adjusted or eliminated from the re sponse set. Alternatively, researchers
have suggested exploring item response latencies in order to identify fakers
under the assumption that the longer it takes to answer an item, the more
likely the respondent is answering untruthfully (Holden & Hibbs, 1995).
In all, none of the proactive or reactive methods are without limitations
and each has had only limited empiri cal success (Ones et al., 2007). Thus,
future research is required to explore conditions in which faking is an issue
and, subsequently, techniques for mitigating the issue.
Our focus, thus far, has been on reduci ng faking of self-reported personality.
It must be noted that when possible, researchers may lessen the effects
of faking by drawing on alternatives to self-report measures of personality
(Connolly, Kavanagh, & Viswesvaran, 2007; Van Iddekinge, Raymark, & Roth,
2005). For instance, observer ratings of personality, either by significant others
(Connolly, Kavanagh, & Viswesvaran, 2007), coworkers and supervisors
(Small & Diefendorff, 2006), or tr ained psychologists (Judge, Higgins,
Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999), have been shown to predict performance over
and above self-report measures, especi ally when assessments are aggregated
across multiple observers (Judge et al., 1999). However, an interesting paradox
of observer ratings of personality is th at although increased familiarity between
the focal individual and the observer increases the ability of the observer to
accurately rate the focal individual, familiarity also increases the motivation
of the observer to provide biased personality estimates (Viswesvaran,
Deller, & Ones, 2007).
Future Research
Though laying out a full research agenda is beyond the scope of this review,
we highlight four areas involving pe rsonality and organizational behavior
that we believe are most in need of researchers’ further attention.
Broad and narrow traits
We can often be victims of our ow n success. Organizational behavior
researchers’ focus on the broad Big Fi ve traits clearly has paid dividends.
One wonders, however, whether this focus will reach a dead-end where
there is little new to be learned, and, related, whether th e extant validities
might be augmented by a focus on other traits. For example, narcissism,
impulsivity, and trait hostility are specif ic traits and each has been the subject
of hundreds of studies in psychology. However, their study by organizational
behavior researchers is virtually non-existent.
One of the problems, unless we regress back to the ‘pet’ stage of personality
psychology (Allport, 1958), is to agree on which specific traits should be

© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1982–2000, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing LtdPersonality and Organizational Behavior 1993
studied. One potentially useful investigation was recently completed by
DeY oung, Quilty, and Peterson (2007) . These authors undertook a compre-
hensive analysis to determine whethe r lower-order traits could be housed
within the Big Five framework. In thei r analysis, extraversion is comprised
of enthusiasm and assertiveness; agreeableness, of compassion and politeness;
conscientiousness, of industriousness and orderliness; neuroticism, of volatility
and withdrawal; and openness to experience, of intellect and openness.
Likewise, Roberts, Chernyshenko, Star k, and Goldberg (2005) identified
six subfacets of conscientiousness, and Chernyshenko, Stark, Woo, and Conz
(2008) identified six subf acets of openness to experience. It is too early
to tell whether these analyses will prove useful to organizational behavior
scholars, but we encourage such efforts.
Dark side of functional traits
As would be expected and as predicte d by an evolutionary perspective on
personality, many traits have broad ad aptive properties. If one selected a
broad range of work and life outcomes, for example, few people would
choose to be less conscientious. Howe ver, every one of the Big Five traits
appears to have certain maladaptive pr operties for certain specific criteria.
As Nettle (2006) noted, ‘Behavioral alternatives can be considered as trade-
offs, with a particular trait producing not unalloyed advantage but a mixture
of costs and benefits such that the optimal value for fitness may depend on
very specific local circumstances’ (p. 625). Thus, a more nuanced view of the
importance of personality to behavior would recognize that even generally
desirable traits likely involve trade-offs associated with particular criteria.
For example, despite its widespread benefits, conscienti ousness does have
disadvantages (Judge & LePine, 2007). Conscientious individuals may learn
less in the early stages of skill acquisition (Martocc hio & Judge, 1997) perhaps
because they are self-deceptive about th eir abilities or are overly focused on
performing well (vs. learning more). There is also evidence that conscientious
individuals are less adaptable (LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000). Extraversion,
though having positive relations with many organizational criteria, may be
related to increased levels of impulsiv e or risk-seeking behaviors, resulting
in increased accident and absenteei sm rates (Judge & LePine, 2007).
We should not be so enamored with the general desirability of certain
traits that we are blinded to the cases in which they are maladaptive. Nor
should we ignore the possible benefits of some ‘dark side’ traits. Moreover,
where traits are deemed functional, we should not assume th at more is always
better. Extremely conscientious indivi duals, for instance, might not always
perform better (LaHuis, Martin, & Avis , 2005) and, in some cases, may
perform worse (Cucina & Vasilopoulos, 2005) than moderately conscientious
individuals. More research is needed to identify which levels of which
traits are functional under what conditions. T ett et al.s’ trait activation theory
(TAT; T ett & Burnett, 2003; T ett & Guterman, 2000) and Mischel and Shoda’s

1994 Personality and Organizational Behavior
© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1982–2000, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltdcognitive-affective personality system theory (CAPS; Mischel & Shoda, 1995,
1998) are two examples of personality theories that ma y guide fruitful
explorations of this frontier.
Personality change and variability
Personality traits show significant levels of rank-order consistency, even if
the interval between the time period s is substantial (Caspi et al., 2005;
Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). However, evidence also clearly suggests that
scores on personality inventories change over time; for example, individuals
become more conscientious and less open over time (Roberts, Walton, &
Viechtbauer, 2006). Although, thanks to the work of Roberts et al. (e.g.,
Helson, Roberts, & Agronick, 1995; Roberts, 1997; Ro berts & Chapman,
2000; Roberts, Caspi, & Mo ffitt, 2003), as well as ot hers (e.g., Clausen &
Gilens, 1990; Scollon & Diener, 2006), we have learned a great deal about
personality change, much remain rema ins to be known about the role work
plays in changes on personality. Is the increase of conscientiousness and
decrease of openness over time, for example, a result of a context-free aging
process, or might the experience of work play a role in making individuals
more conscientious and less open? Similarly, since women’s neuroticism scores
decline over time, serving to virtually eliminate their heig htened neuroticism
scores as young women (Roberts & De lVecchio, 2000), does this narrowing
of the ‘gender gap’ vary by women’ s labor force experiences (see Roberts,
1997)? Finally, certain organizational cultures may reinforce personalities
(Schneider, 1987). W e know that individu als, to some degree, chose organi-
zational cultures based on their person ality (e.g., open job seekers are more
likely to choose to work in organizational cultures they perceive as innovative,
agreeable job seekers are less attracted to cultures they see as aggressive or
outcome-oriented; Judge & Cable, 1997). Once an individual has joined an
organization, do organizations with ‘strong cultures’ shape employees’ person-
alities? More research is needed to answer these interesting and important
questions.
Personality processes
Finally, in organizational behavior, personality research continues to be virtually
synonymous with trait research. This stands in stark contrast to personality
psychology as a field, where research covers a much more expansive domain,
including, for instance, the study of personality processes such as self-
determination and self-concordance (S heldon, 2002), positive psychological
states such as gratitude (McCullough, Tsang, & Emmons, 2004) and forgiveness
(Maio, Thomas, Fincham, & Carnelley, 2008), and negative psychological
states such as depression (Brink mann & Gendolla, 20 08) and rumination
(Ray, Wilhelm, & Gross, 2008). The overwhelming focus on trait psychology
to the virtual exclusion of personali ty processes is unfortunate because

© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1982–2000, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing LtdPersonality and Organizational Behavior 1995
organizations are a dynamic setting in which personality pr ocesses (such
as power, emotions, intrinsic motivation, and other processes) actively play
out. Personality psychology is more than trait psychology, and organizational
behavior research can and should do a better job of drawing from, and
contributing to, personality processes.
Conclusion
Personality research in organizational behavior is vibrant – diverse, complex,
and even controversial. It has proven its centrality to organizational behavior
by the range of criteria it has predic ted and the oftentimes impressive effect
sizes it has shown. Appreciating the gains that have been made, future
organizational behavior research would benefit by considering other (lower-
order or more finely grained) traits, by focusing on both the bright and the
dark sides of traits, and by a greater appreciation of a br oad, process-based
definition of personality.
Short Biographies
Timothy A. Judge conducts research in the areas of personality, leadership,
job attitudes, and moods and emotio ns. His research has appeared in Journal
of Applied Psychology , Personnel Psychology , Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology , and Psychological Bulletin . Tim has been program chair and chair
of the scientific affairs committees fo r Div. 14 of the American Psychological
Association (Society for In dustrial and Organizational Psychology). He is a
fellow of the Academy of Management, the American Psychological
Association, and the American Psycholo gical Society. Tim has held faculty
appointments at Cornell University, th e University of Iowa, and, presently,
the University of Florida. He holds a bachelor’s degree from the University
of Iowa and master’s and doctoral de grees from the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign.
Ryan L. Klinger’s research focuses on personality and personnel selection.
His other interests include job attitude s, moods and emotions, and affective
forecasting. Ryan Klinger earned a bachelor’s degree in Psychology and a
master’s degree in Business Administ ration with a concentration in Man-
agement. Ryan Klinger is currently pursuing his doctorate in Business
Administration at the University of Florida.
Lauren S. Simon is a doctoral stud ent in Organizati onal Behavior com-
pleting her studies under the supervis ion of Timothy A. Judge. She earned
bachelor’s degrees in both Psychology and Business Administration from
the University of Florida. Her research interests include personality, mood
and emotions, abusive supervis ion, and ethical leadership.
Irene Wen Fen Yang is a PhD candidat e of the Institute of Business and
Management at National Chiao Tung Un iversity. Her current research focuses
on corporate image, selection interviews , personality, and moods and emotions.

1996 Personality and Organizational Behavior
© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1982–2000, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing LtdEndnote
*C o r r e s p o n d e n c e a d d r e s s : D e p a r t m e n t o f M a n a g e m e n t , U n i v e r s i t y o f F l o r i d a , P . O . B o x
11765, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. Email: timothy.judge@cba.ufl.edu
References
Allport, G. W . (1958). What units shall we employ? In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Assessment of Human
Motives (pp. 238–260). New Y ork, NY: Rinehart.
Anderson, C., John, O. P ., Keltner, D., & Krin g, A. M. (2001). Who attains social status?:
Effects of personality on physical attractiveness in social groups. Personality Processes and
Individual Differences , 81, 116–132.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance:
A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology , 44, 1–26.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2005). Y es, pe rsonality matters: Moving on to more important
matters. Human Performance , 18, 359–372.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. ( 2 0 0 1 ) . P e rs o n a l i t y a n d p e r f o rm a n c e a t t h e
beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International
Journal of Selection and Assessment , 9, 9–30.
Barry, B., & Friedman, R. (1998). Bargainer ch aracteristics in distri butive and integrative
negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74, 345–359.
Bell, S. (2007). Deep-level composition variable s as predictors of team performance: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92, 595–615.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P . R. ( 2007). Interpersonal deviance , organizational devi-
ance, and their common correlates : A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology ,
92, 410–424.
Brinkmann, K., & Gendolla, G. H. E. (2008). Does depression inte rfere with effort mobilization?
Effects of dysphoria and task diffi culty on cardiovascular response. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology , 94, 146–157.
Cable, D., & Judge, T. (2003). Managers’ upward influence tactic strategies: The role of manager
personality and supervisor leadership style. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 24, 197–214.
Caldwell, D., & Burger, J. (1997). Personality an d social influence strate gies in the workplace.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 23, 1003–1012.
Carlyle, T. (1907). On Heroes, Hero-worship, and the Heroic in History . Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W ., & Shiner, R. L. (2 005). Personality develo pment: Stability and
change. Annual Review of Psychology , 56, 453–484.
Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S. E., Woo, S. E., & Conz, G. (2008). Openness to experience:
Its facet structure, measurement, and usefulne ss in predicting important organizational out-
comes. In F . L. Oswald (Chair) & T. Rench (Chair) (Eds.), Face It: The Predictive Validity of
Personality Facets , Symposium conducted at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.
Clarke, S., & Robertson, I. (2008). An examination of the role of personality in work accidents
using meta-analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review , 57, 94–108.
Clausen, J. A., & Gilens, M. (1990). Personality and labor force participation across the life
course: A longitudinal study of women’s careers. Sociological Forum , 5, 595–618.
Conard, M., & Matthews, R. (2008). Modeling the stress process: Personality eclipses dysfunctional
cognitions and workload in predicting stress. Personality and Individual Differences , 44, 171–181.
Connolly, J. J., Kavanagh, E. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). The convergent validity between
self and observer ratings of pe rsonality: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment , 15, 110–117.
Cowley, W . H. (1931). Three distin ctions in the study of leaders. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology , 26, 304–313.
Cucina, J. M., & Vasilopoulos, N. L. (2005). Nonlinear personality-performance relationships
and the spurious moderating effects of traitedness. Journal of Personality , 73, 227–260.

© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1982–2000, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing LtdPersonality and Organizational Behavior 1997
David, J., & Suls, J. (1999). Coping efforts in daily life: Role of Big Five traits and problem
appraisals. Journal of Personality , 67, 265–294.
Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in
organizational research. Academy of Management Review , 14, 385–400.
DeY oung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10
aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 93, 880–896.
Dwight, S. A., & Donovan, J. J. (2003). Do warnings not to fake reduce faking? Human
Performance , 16, 1–23.
Erdheim, J., Wang, M., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). Linking the Big Five personality constructs to
organizational commitment. Personality and Individual Differences , 41, 959–970.
Ferris, G., Treadway, D., Kolodinsky, R., Hochwarter, W ., Kacmar, C., Douglas, C., et al.
(2005). Development and validation of the Political Skill Inventory. Journal of Management ,
31, 126–152.
Gallagher, D. J. (1990). Extraversion, neuroticism, and appraisal of stressful academic events.
Personality and Individual Differences , 11, 1053–1057.
Grams, W ., & Rogers, R. (1990). Power and personality: Effects of Machiavellianism, need for
approval, and motivation on use of influence tactics. Journal of General Psychology , 117, 71–82.
Grant, S., & Langan-Fox, J. (2006). Occupational stress, coping and strain: The combined/
interactive effect of the Big Five traits. Personality and Individual Differences , 41, 719–732.
Helson, R., Roberts, B. W ., & Agronick, G. (1995). Enduringness and change in creative
personality and the prediction of occupational creativity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology , 69, 1173–1183.
Hofmann, D. A., & Jones, L. M. (2005). Leadership, collective personality, and performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology , 90, 509–522.
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance
relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88, 100–112.
Hogan, J., Barrett, P ., & Hogan, R. (2007). Personality measurement, faking, and employment
selection. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92, 1270–1285.
Hogan, R. (2004). Personality psychology for or ganizational researchers. In B. Schneider &
D. B. Smith (Eds.), Personality and Organizations (pp. 3–21). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Holden, R. R., & Hibbs, N. (1995). Incremental validity of response latencies for detecting
fakers on a personality test. Journal of Research in Personality , 29, 362–372.
Hunter, J. E. (1980). Test Validation for 12,000 Jo bs: An Applic ation of Synthetic V alidity and V alidity
Generalization to the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Labor.
James, L. R. (1998). Measurement of personality via conditional reasoning. Organizational
Research Methods , 1, 131–163.
Johnson, W., McGue, M., & Krueger, R. F . (2005) . Personality stability in late adulthood: A
behavioral genetic analysis. Journal of Personality , 73, 523–551.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of cor e self-e v aluations traits – self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, an d emotional stability – with job satisfaction and
job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86, 80–92.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applican t personality, organizational culture, and organ-
ization attraction. Personnel Psychology , 50, 359–394.
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A
meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87, 797–807.
Judge, T. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). The bright and dark sides of personality: Implications for
personnel selection and team configuration. In J . Langan-F o x, C . Coo per , & R. Klimos ki
(Eds.), Research Companion to the Dysfunctional Workplace: Management Challenges and Symptoms
(pp. 332–355). Cheltenham, UK : Edward Elgar Publishing.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhar dt, M. W . (2002). Personality and leadership: A
qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87, 765–780.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale:
Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology , 56, 303–331.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Klinger, R. (2008). The dispositional sources of job satisfaction: A
comparative test. Applied Psychology: An International Review , 57, 261–272.

1998 Personality and Organizational Behavior
© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1982–2000, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing LtdJudge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87, 530–541.
Judge, T. A., 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,
621–652.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction:
A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior , 19, 151–188.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (forthcoming). The role of core self-
evaluations in the coping process: Testing an integrative model .
Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P . L., Murtha, T., & Go ff, M. (1995). Personality and intelligence in
industrial and organizational psychology. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International
Handbook of Personal ity and Intelligence (pp. 577–602). New Y ork, NY: Plenum Press.
Kirkman, B. L., T esluk, P . E., & Rosen, B. (2 001). Assessing the incremental validity of team
consensus ratings over aggregation of individual -level data in predicting team effectiveness.
Personnel Psychology , 54, 645–667.
LaHuis, D. M., Martin, N. R., & Avis, J. M. (2005). Investigating nonlinear conscientiousness-
job performance relations for clerical employees. Human Performance , 18, 199–212.
Lardent, C. L. (1991). Pilots who crash: Personality constructs underlying accident prone
behavior of fighter pilots. Multivariate Experimental Clinical Research , 10, 1–25.
Lee-Baggley, D., Preece, M., & DeLongis, A. (2005). Coping With Interpersonal Stress: Role
of Big Five Traits. Journal of Personality , 73, 1141–1180.
LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects
of general cognitive ability, conscien tiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology ,
53, 563–593.
Liu, L., Friedman, R., & Chi, S. (2005). ‘Ren Qing’ versus the ‘Big Five’: The role of
culturally sensitive measures of individual difference in distributive negotiations. Management
and Organization Review , 1, 225–247.
Liu, Y ., Ferris, G., Zinko, R., Perrewé, P ., Weitz, B., & Xu, J. (2007). Dispositional antecedents
and outcomes of political skill in organizations : A four-study investigation with convergence.
Journal of Vocational Behavior , 71, 146–165.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P . (2004). What should we do about motivation theory? Six
recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review , 29, 388–403.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P . (1981). Goal setting and task
performance: 1968–1980. Psychological Bulletin , 90, 125–152.
Maio, G. R., Thomas, G., Fincham, F . D., & Carnelley, K. B. (2008). Unraveling the role of
forgiveness in family relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 94, 307–319.
Martocchio, J. J., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Relationship between conscientiousness and learning
in employee training: Mediating influences o f s e l f – d e c e p t i o n a n d s e l f – e f f i c a c y . Journal of
Applied Psychology , 82, 764–773.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P . T. Jr. (2003). Personality in adul thood: A five-factor theory perspective
(2nd ed.). New Y ork, NY: Guilford Press.
McCullough, M. E., Tsang, J., & Emmons, R. A. (2004). Gratitude in intermediate affectiv e
terrain: Links of grateful moods to individual differences and daily emotional experience.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 86, 295–309.
McKenna, F . P . (1983). Accident proneness: A conceptual analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention ,
15, 65–71.
Miner, J. B. (2006). Role motivation theories. In J. C. Thomas, D. L. Segal, & M. Hersen
(Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Pe rsonality and Psychopathology (V ol. 1, pp. 233–250). Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Mischel, W ., & Shoda, Y . (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Recon-
ceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics , and invariance in personality structure. Psycho-
logical Review , 102, 246–268.
Mischel, W ., & Shoda, Y . (1998). Reconciling pr ocessing dynamics and personality dispositions.
Annual Review of Psychology , 49, 229–258.
Morgeson, F . P ., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt,
N. (2007a). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts.
Personnel Psychology , 60, 683–729.

© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1982–2000, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing LtdPersonality and Organizational Behavior 1999
Morgeson, F . P ., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt,
N. (2007b). Are we getting fooled again? Co ming to terms with limitations in the use of
personality tests for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology , 60, 1029–1049.
Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Rela tionship of personality traits and counterpro-
ductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology , 59,
591–622.
Mowday, R. (1978). The exercise of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Science
Quarterly , 23, 40–64.
Murphy, K. R., & Dzieweczynski, J. L. (2005). Why don’t measures of broad dimensions of
personality perform better as pr edictors of job performance? Human Performance , 18, 343–357.
Nauta, A., & Sanders, K. (2000). Interdepartm ental negotiation behavior in manufacturing
organizations. International Journal of Conflict Management , 11, 135–161.
Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personali ty variation in humans and other animals. American
Psychologist , 61, 622–631.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). The effe cts of social desirability and faking on person-
ality and integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance , 11, 245–269.
Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality
assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology , 60, 995–1027.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Dilchert, S. (2005). Personality at work: Raising awareness and
correcting misconceptions. Human Performance , 18, 389–404.
Pickering, A. D., & Gray, J. A. (1999). The neur oscience of personality. In L. A. P ervin &
O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (2nd ed., pp. 277–299). New
Yo r k , N Y : G u i l f o rd P r e s s .
Ray, R. D., Wilhelm, F . H., & Gross, J. J. (2008). All in the mind’s eye? Anger rumination and
reappraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 94, 133–145.
Roberts, B. W . (1997). Plaster or plasticity: Ar e work experiences associated with personality
change in women? Journal of Personality , 65, 205–232.
Roberts, B. W ., & Chapman, C. (2000). Change in dispositional well-being and its relation to
role quality: A 30-year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality , 34, 26–41.
Roberts, B. W ., & DelVecchio, W . F . (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality from
childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin , 126,
3–25.
Roberts, B. W ., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. (2003). Work Experiences and personality development
in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 84, 582–593.
Roberts, B. W ., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). The structure of
conscientiousness: An empirical investigation ba sed on seven major personality questionnaires.
Personnel Psychology , 58, 103–139.
Roberts, B. W ., Harms, P . D., Caspi, A., & Moffitt , T. E. (2007). Predicti ng the counterproductive
employee in a child-to-adult prospective study. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92, 1427–1436.
Roberts, B. W ., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. ( 2 0 0 6 ) . P a t t e r n s o f m e a n – l e ve l c h a n g e i n
personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological
Bulletin , 132, 1–25.
Robinson, S., & Bennett, R. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidi-
mensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal , 38, 555–572.
Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L., & Levin, R. A. (1998). The impact of response
distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied
Psychology , 83, 634–644.
Rubin, J., & Brown, B. (1975). The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation . New Y ork,
NY: Academic Press.
Rust, J. (1999). The validity of the Giotto integrity test. Personality and Indi vidual Differences ,
27, 755–769.
Salgado, J. F . (2003). Predicting job perfor mance using FFM and non-FF M personality measures.
Journal of Occupational an d Organizational Psychology , 76, 323–346.
Schmitt, N., & Kunce, C. (2002). The effects of required elaboration of answers to biodata
questions. Personnel Psychology , 55, 569–587.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology , 40, 437–453.

2000 Personality and Organizational Behavior
© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1982–2000, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing LtdScollon, C. N., & Diener, E. (2006). Love, wo rk, and changes in extraversion and neuroticism
over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 91, 1152–1165.
Sheldon, K. M. (2002). The self-concordance mo del of healthy goal striving: When personal
goals correctly represent the person. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of Self-
determination research (pp. 65–86). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Small, E. E., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2006). The impact of contextual self-ratings and observer
ratings of personality on the personality-performance relationship. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology , 36, 297–320.
Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology , 30, 526–537.
Suls, J., Martin, R., & David, J. (1998). Person-environment fit and its limits: Agreeableness,
neuroticism, and emotional reactivity to interpersonal conflict. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin , 24, 88–98.
Te t t , R . P. , & B u r n e t t , D. ( 2 0 0 3 ) . A p e r s o n a l i t y t r ait-based Interactionist model of job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology , 88, 500–517.
Te t t , R . P. , & C h r i s t i a n s e n , N. D. ( 2 0 0 7 ) . Pe r s o n a l i t y t e s t s a t t h e c ro s s ro a d s : A re s p o n s e t o
Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt (2007). Personnel Psychology ,
60, 967–993.
Te t t , R . P. , & G u t e r m a n , H . A . ( 2 0 0 0 ) . S i t u a t i o n t r a i t re l eva n c e, t r a i t e x p re s s i o n , a n d c ro s s –
situational consistency: T esting a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality ,
34, 397–423.
Te t t , R . P. , Ja c k s o n , D. N. , R o t h s t e i n , M . , & R e ddon, J. R. (1999). Meta-a nalysis of bidirectional
relations in personality-job performance research. Human Performance , 12, 1–29.
Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P ., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The
affective underpinnings of job perceptions and at titudes: A meta-analytic review and integration.
Psychological Bulletin , 129, 914–945.
Van Iddekinge, C. H., Raymark, P. H., & Roth, P. L. (2005). Assessing per sonality with a
structured employment interview: Construct-re lated validity and susceptibility to response
inflation. Journal of Applied Psychology , 90, 536–552.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analys es of fakability estimates: Implications for
personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 59, 197–210.
Viswesvaran, C., Deller, J., & Ones, D. S. (2007). Personality measures in personnel selection:
Some new contributions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 15, 354–358.
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdepen dence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly ,
40, 145–180.
Wall, J., & Blum, M. (1991). Negotiations. Journal of Management , 17, 273–303.
Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1991). Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in
leadership: An investigation of leader flex ibility across multiple group situations. Journal of
Applied Psychology , 76, 308–315.