THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY TRAITS AND [629311]

1
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY TRAITS AND
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIO UR OF MANAGERS

ABSTRACT
Nowadays, companies and their managers are increasingly pressured to achi eve certain results
and l evels of pe rformance in order to ensure the financial sustainabil ity of their companies and
to remain competitive in the markets. Sometimes these goals are somewhat ambitious and
difficult to achieve, which means that decision -make rs must have certain pers onality tra its in
order to show r esistance in dealing with obstac les and strengthen their capacity to solve
problems . This re search proposal assu mes that the personality traits of managers, namely
extroversion, pleasantness, neurot icism, conscientiousness, and openne ss to experience, will
have a relevant impact on decis ion making, which will be reflected in the company's
perform ance. In another per spective, this research proposal also aims to analyze what
characteristics of managers are underlying to the organizational behavior . More attention has
been given to the study of managers' behaviors and how their attitudes and decision -making
can define the achievement of the strategic objectives of organizations. Following this point of
view, this research propos al link s two scientific areas , namely Ma nagement and Psychology,
and presents itself as an extremely innovative approach, providing a new line of research that
is expected to be extremely useful for the knowledge of the performance of companies and the
decision -making process. Regarding the meth odology, the data will be collected through the
application of a questionnaire to evaluate the different dimensions of the proposed conceptual
model. In the treatment of quantitative data, a structural equations mode l will be used, to
investigate the possible relations between the different dimensions incorporated in the model.

Keywords: Company's performance , Decision -making process , Managers behaviors ,
Organizational behaviour , Personality t raits.

2
1. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, companies, and more precisely their managers, are increasingly pressured to
achieve certain results and levels of performance to ensure the financial sustainability of their
companies and to remain competitive in the markets, which are increasing ly aggressive and
complex. Sometimes these goals are somewhat ambitious and difficult to achieve, which means
that decision -makers must have certain characteristics in terms of their personality traits to show
resistance and resilience to deal with the obs tacles and problem -solving abilities in the day -to-
day business adversities, considering both the internal and external constraints inherent in the
business world.
In view of this framework, this research proposal assumes that the five main personality tra its
of managers, namely extroversion, pleasantness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness
to experience, will have a relevant impact on the decision -making process, which will be
reflected in the company's performance and the obj ectives achieved. Personality traits are
characteristics of individual behavior that allow for a better understanding of why people act
differently in similar situations ( Nga & Shamuganathan, 2010). These characteristics are
decis ive in achieving the defin ed objectives, and among the several examples, we can highlight
innovation capacity, proactive personality, generalized self -efficacy, self -control and attitude
towards risk.
In another perspective, in addition to analyzing these cause -and-effect relations hips with
organizations' performance, this research model also proposes to analyze what characteristics
are underlying to the various leadership styles, on the one hand, and on the other, their relation
to the adoption of innovati ve strategies. Considering that innovative strategies always reflect
some implicit risk, since the concept of innovation implies a more disruptive attitude to what is
already known, both in terms of new products or services provided by companies and the wa y
in which organizations o perate, at the level of their processes. For example, a risk -averse

3
manager may have more difficulty in making decisions that involve innovative strategies,
because he or she will have more difficulty in dealing with the consequen ces of the unknown.
In thi s way, this research proposal aims to relate two areas of enormous relevance, one of which
is Management Accounting, focusing on business performance affected by leadership styles,
and innovation strategies, and the other major ar ea, Psychology, in relatio n to the behaviors,
defined by the personality traits and styles of emotional leadership adopted by the managers of
the companies. In methodological terms, it is envisaged to carry out a qualitative study using
quantitative techni ques. The data will be obt ained through the application of a questionnaire
elaborated by the authors to evaluate the different dimensions of the proposed conceptual
model.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1. Relevance of the research
In organizations, people experience a wide range of affective states, and this applies also to
managers (Huy, 2002). In several academic researches, personality traits have become a topic
of great interest, especially when analyzing the relationships between the characteristics of
managers a nd their behavior and atti tudes in a professional environment. Effective leaders
promote effective organizational functioning, allowing individuals, teams , and organizations to
perform well (Bass, 1990).
In several investigations, the relations hip between personality traits and be haviors, attitudes and
performance in the workplace has been highlighted (Matzler et al., 2011). According to the
study by Kumar and Bakhshi (2010), the personality of individuals was associat ed with
commitment. In the conclusions of Bakker et al. (2002), personality traits were associated with
burnout. On the other hand, Matzler et al. (2011) found an association with knowledge sharing.

4
Evidence was also found in relation to performance motiva tions, such as goal setting,
expectancy, and motivation for self -efficacy (Judge et al., 2002), and academic performance
(Chamorro -Premuzic & Furnham, 2003). However, the greatest evidence was obtained in
relation to performance ( Kum ar & Bakhsh i 2010).
Personality refers to how the individual reacts, perceives, thinks, acts or behaves like a person
in their environment. Personality can be defined as a dynamic or set of characteristics held by
a person that influence cognition, motivation , and be havior in a variety of situations. For Robins
(2003), personality is a combi nation of psychological traits of an individual. Following other
perspectives, personality a sserts itself as the relatively stable pattern of consistent internal
behaviors and stat es that explain a person's behavioral tendencies (McShane & Von Glinow,
2000 ). Personality traits also influence performance and career directions ( Hough & Furnham,
2003).
According to Harbo ur (2008), organizational performance can be measured through the
implementation of a series of measures that represent the resul t of the org anization’s activity.
Other authors, namely Peterson et al. (2003), defined organizational performance as the ability
of organizations to use their resource s efficiently to produce results consistent with their
strategic objectives. Other studi es have cons idered organizational performance as something
that allows to evaluate the success of organizations and to achieve their success (Antunes et al.,
2018; Antunes et al., 2019) .
Although there are several models that focus on the study of personality traits, the Big Five
Model (McCrae, 1992) has been t he most widely used to analyze the individual personality
differences (Berglund et al., 2015). This model consists of five personality traits which are
Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness , and Openness to Experience.

5
Extraversion re presents assertiveness, sociability, energy, and positive emotions (Band et al.,
2014). Extroverted people are communicative, affectionate, active , and enthusiastic
(Paramanandam & Radhamani, 2014), also self -confident, dominant , and exciting, and able to
develop an interpersonal relationship with others and externalize their emotions.
According to Camps et al. (2016), neuroticism contrasts emotional stability and captures the
tende ncy to experience a variety of disruptive thoughts and emotions. On the other hand,
neuroticism can be characterized as the degree of some negative personality traits, such as
unhappiness, impulsivity, aggressiveness and anxiety (Berglund et al., 2015), si nce neurotic
people tend to be unhappy and they feel insecure about their life circumsta nces. Individuals
who are characterized as neurotic are insecure, anxious, and more susceptible to stress (Costa
& McCrae, 1992), as they are likely to interpret common situations as threatening.
Agreeableness includes such characteristics as altruism, tru st, and humility (John & Srivastava,
1999). In the evidence of Costa and McCrae (1995), people with this character istic are more
trustworthy than people who do not reveal this distinctive aspect, an d these people turn out to
be manipulative, pessimistic, a nd selfish. Kind people also strive to build and maintain harmony
and prefer to use compromising strategies to dea l with any conflict (Camps et al., 2016).
Conscientiousness identifies directed, pla nned, and organized task behavior, such as thinking
before acting, following norms, and prioritizing tasks (Oliver & Srivastava, 1999). Highly
conscious people are self -disciplined, trustworthy, ambitious, and efficient (Berglund et al.,
2015). Other autho rs, such as Costa et al. (1991) associate conscientiousnes s with self –
discipline, to the conquest of efforts, obedience, and competence, since their persistence and
self-discipline characteristics, enables them to accomplish tasks or achieve goals in a suc cessful
way.

6
Finally, openness to experience is characteri zed by receptivity to new ideas and flexibility. This
characteristic indicates the degree of intellectual curiosit y, creativity and the individual
tendency to learn, try new things, and consider new ideas. Individuals who reveal this
personality trait in a prominent way are imaginative, open -minded, without prejudice, and
curious (Berglund et al., 2015). Consequently, the Big Five Personality Traits have very
important effects, especially in terms of decision -making and leadership styles.
2.2. Big Five Personality Traits and Leadership Styles
Effective leadership promotes effective organizat ional functioning, leading emplo yees, teams,
and organizations to perform well. In this way, it is essential to anal yze the factors that can
influence the performance of managers ( Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Research es on this topic has
revealed that personality traits d ecisively influence people's motivations, behaviors , and
perceptions, including their values, social behav ior, and organizational behavior (Krueger et
al., 2002; Fischer & Boer, 201 5).
The definition of leadership focuses on two different perspectives. The se perspectives consist
of transactional leadership and transformational leadership (Harm & Credé, 2010). Essentially,
transactional leadership is a style of leadership more based on the goals and objectives of the
organizat ion itself, whereas transformati onal leadership is more geared more toward
challenging work teams and reaching common goals (Harm & Credé, 2010).
Burns (1978) and Bass (19 90) introduced the concept of transformational leadership as part of
full-scope leadership theory. Thi s theory includes three styles o f leadership, namely,
transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and the lais sez-faire concept.
Transactional leadership consists of three dimensions, which are contingent rewards, active
management by exception, and passive management by excep tion. Although the concept of
laissez -faire has some characteristics in common with passi ve-by-exception management, it has

7
been argued that laissez -faire leadership must be treated differently from transactional
leadership, since in its essence this repre sents the absence of leadership (Bass, 1998; Judge &
Piccolo, 2004). Therefore, it is imp ortant to analyze the relationship between the different
personality traits, and their relationship with leadership styles.
One of these traits is extroversion , that is a characteristic marked by a pronounced involvement
with the outside world and is relat ed to the level of sociability of the individual. It includes
features such as affectivity, enthusiasm, persistence, reliability, r igor, and responsibility.
Extroverte d individuals tend to be enthusiastic, they are action -oriented, they like to talk and
assert themselves, that is, the traits of activity and level of energy, sociability , and emotional
expressiveness are strongly emphas ized. On the other hand, introverted individuals tend to be
calm, discrete, and less dependent on the social world and simply need less stimulation than an
extrovert individual (Costa & McCrae, 1995). Extroverted leaders are socially dominant (Depue
& Coll ins, 1999) and highly expressive in their social interactions (McCrae & Costa, 1987).
People who are more extroverted are pro bably more comfortable setting goals and as a result
are more likely to be considered as references or role models ( Watson & Clark, 1997), as wel l
as to create motivation inspiring. Moreover, extroversion may be positively linked to
intellectual stimulatio n, since extroverted people are more receptive to change (Bono & Judge,
2004).
Another personality trait is conscientiousness, which measures the degree to which an
individual is oriented to the duty and responsibility and encompasses impulse control and goal-
directed behavior. It includes the preferences of the individual to follow rules and schedules
and to what extent individuals are diligent, organized, self-disciplined, achievement -orient ed.
Salgado (1997) identified conscientiousness as a strong pred ictor of success and his research
showed that conscientiousness was positively correlated with work proficiency, proficiency
training, and high academic ach ievement . This is on e of the most commonly investigated traits

8
at work and organizational psychology (Bono & Judge, 2004). Individuals with a high level of
conscientiousness tend to work hard and have a great sense of self -discipline (Costa & McCrae,
1992). People who have a relatively high score on conscientiousness are highly structured and
linear in t heir way of working, wh ich helps them to avoid deviations and to spend more time
than necessary in solving problems.
Regarding pleasantness, this dimension concerns the degree of sympathy, courtesy, good
nature, cooperation, consideration, forgi veness, al truism, reliability, help, and trust that an
individual has. Pleasantness reflects the tendency for the person to be warm, gene rous and
gentle , as well as being also confident and modest and avoi ding conflicts ( Graziano et al. , 1996).
Nice leaders are frie ndly, kind and want the best for their followers. They are therefore likely
to care about the needs and interests of others. This personality trait also denotes the degree t o
which people believe that others they deal with have good intentions. People who are
appreciated by others for their sympathy, similari ty, or kindness have a greater influence on
their followers than people who are not seen as friendly ( Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1989). Pleasant
leaders show these positive traits, and it is therefore likely that followers wil l be more attracted
to these leaders and more likely to accept them as exemplary role models. In addition, highly
pleas ant people can express positive visions because of their kindness, that is, show
inspirational motivation (Bono & Judg e, 2004).
Neuroticism is the tendency for negative emoti onal experience and expresses the degree to
which the individual demonstrates anger, anxiety, or depression rather than calm, self-
confident , and security. Digman (1990) reported that individuals wi th neuroticism looked upon
danger and suffered more because of their own anxiety, fear, and imagination. High scores
regarding personality trait neuroticism can also be troublin g in many risk environments
(Fenton -O'Creev y et al., 2007). Neuroticism and its opposite pole, emotional stability, reflect
the tendency to emotional adjustment. Individuals with high levels of neuroticism have a strong

9
predisposition to experience emotion al instability, including feelings of fear, sadness, self –
defense, insecurity , and guilt, while emotionally stable people are relaxed and temperate ( Costa
& McCrae, 1992). Northouse ( 2016 ) argue d that self -confidence is a prerequisite for leadership
behavior. In this way, highly neurotic individuals are likely to avoid responsibiliti es and
leadership roles and are less likely to engage in the efforts of their followers and the ir needs
(Bono & Judge, 2004).
Finally, openness to experience is related to intellectual curiosity, as well as a predisposition to
experiment with different act ivities or to consider unconventional ideas. People who are open
to experience can be described as creative, autonomous, uncon ventional, curious, flexible, and
thoughtful. It includes the breadth, complexity, and depth of an individual's life (McCrae &
Costa, 1997). Individuals with a high degree of openness to experience are usually creative and
will try different or innovative approaches to their professional activity. There are people with
a high tolerance for uncertainty and the search for change, and f or this reason, this dimension
is characteristic of the tendency to search for sensations and p redisposition to take risks
(McCrae & Costa, 1997). Having an open mindset can lead individuals to perceive more
individual differences in other people, leading to less restrictive and unprejudiced treatment
(Flynn, 2005 ). Based on the theoretical framework of these subjects, five research hypotheses
are defined with the aim to respond to th e possible relationship between the five personality
traits with leaders hip styles adopt ed by managers.
H1: "Extroversion" influences the leadership style adopted by managers.
H2: "Conscientiousness" influences the leadership style adopted by managers.
H3: “Pleasantness" influences the leadership style adopted by managers.
H4: “Neuroticism" influences the leadership style adopted by managers.
H5: “Openness to experience" influences the leadership style adopted by managers.

10
2.3. Big Five Personality Traits and Innovative Stategies
Innovation is an introduction of new products, proces ses or services and the application of
distinct administrative systems that influence business performance (Bulut & Yilmaz, 2008).
Innovative performanc e can be defined as a company's tendency to present novelties in the
product and production process, to support new ideas, and to explore a creative solution to
issues that are more complex (Raghuvanshi & Garg, 2018). In another perspective, innovation
performance comprises introducing n ew products, looking for unique methods and work
techniques, exploring n ew ideas to solve complex problems, identifying performance gaps,
mobilizing foundations for innovative ideas and turning innovative ideas into useful a ctions
(Yeoh & Mahmood, 2013).
Several studies have focused on the role and importance of innovation in the success of
organizations (Martins & Terblanche, 2003). Several authors, such as Calantone et al. (2002),
Salaman and Storey (2002), and Thornhill (2006) identified innovation as the main determinant
of organizational success and competitiveness. Today , organizations pay more attention to their
human resources, encouraging them to adopt innovative behaviors, as the innovations that are
deve loped and implemented in organizations derive from the ideas developed by individuals in
the workplace . In this way , the behavior of each employee based on an innovative attitude is
considered by most companies as a great pillar for a good performance of organizations
(Carmeli et al., 2006).
In any case, studies that show how the characteristics of managers affect com pany innovation
are still scarce (Rauch & Frese, 2 007). Innovation is influenced by certain characteristics of the
manager , such as risk appetite, optimism, logical mind, higher education, past professional
experience and field experience. Kickul and Gundr y (2002) have shown that proactive
personality, th at is, the ability to identify opportunities, take initiatives , and act along wit h a

11
strategic orientation, allow the identification of opportunities for the development of new
products or markets. These ch aracteristics also facilitate the company's growth and success
through changes and transformations within organizational structures and ultimately will
promote economic growth (Mucharreira & Antunes, 2015).
Brandstätter (2011) argues that the entrepreneuri al role is strongly influenced by the personality
of managers , as it shows that emotional stability has an i mpact on the creation of new ventures.
On the other hand, openness to experience allows managers to find new opportunities and ways
of structuring a nd developing companies. Also, the achievement motivation, that is, a
component of conscientiousness, which allows managers to work hard and be persistent in
pursuit of their goal. Extroversion is fundamen tal in the establishment of a social network, and,
finally, the propensity to risk, that is, a combination of emotional stability, openness, and
extraversion, which allows the risk of failure.
In this context, it is important to highlight some evidence fou nd in the literature on the
relationship between pe rsonality traits and innovative strategies. Starting with neuroticism,
individuals with a high incidence in this personality trait lack self -confidence and self -esteem,
and they hardly want to take respons ibility, since they are more likely to be anxious, fearful,
depressed and moody ( Zhao et al., 2010). Managers who reveal a pessimistic atti tude and
negative thoughts may compromise performance and success in their decision making and ma y
even reveal difficulties in relationships that facilitate the organiz ation's long -term success
(Ciavarella et al., 2004).
In the case of extroversion, it manifests itself in the tendency to be self -confident, dominant,
active and e xciting. Extroverts reflect positive emotions, a greater frequency , and intensity of
personal interactions, and a greater need for stimulation (Bakker et al., 2002), and this is of
relevance because to innovate, individuals need to relate to and interact w ith other individuals,

12
whether within or outside the organization or in other contexts, hence the importance of
communication skills, articulation , and social networks. According to Batey and Furnham
(2006), extroversion is a good predictor of creativity a nd innovation. People with a high level
of extroversion are dominant in social situations, opt imistic and inspire positive feelings
(Brandstätter, 2011).
Another personalit y trait is openness to experience, manifested by intelligence and curiosity
(Bakker et al., 2002). These auth ors observed that people with a great openness to experience
reflect a more flexible, imaginative and intellectually curious approach in situations
characterized by stress. These authors also noted that openness to experience is the most salient
personalit y dimension to predict the propensity for innovation. According to C hang et al.
(2014), openness to experience represents the tendency of the indiv idual to be creative,
imaginative, intelligent, and perceptive. People with a high level of openness tend to be
unconventional and have new ethical, social, and political ideas (Rothmann & Coetzer, 2003).
Pleasantness is the tendency to be kind, selfless, confident and modest (Zhao et al., 2010).
Pleasantness involves living with others in pleasant and satisfying relationships (Matzler et al.,
2011). A pleasant person demonstrat es sympathy, cares about the needs of others, and attempts
to restore peace in the event of disputes (Rothmann & Coetzer, 2003). Many authors argue that
this personality trait is negatively related to business performance because managers must be
able to b enefit from unique opportunities, think first in their own interests and manipulate
situations to allow the su rvival and growth of their company (Zhao et al., 2010 ). However,
Ciavarella et al. (2004) show another perspective, saying that manag ers who have good
relationships of trust, show flexibility and courtesy to customers and their employees, provide
greate r profitability to their organization.

13
Finally, it is important to mention the fifth personality trait, conscientiousness. Individuals with
great co nscientiousness are trustworthy, responsible, organized, work -oriented, and
achievement -oriented (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Matzler et al. (2011) argued that people with
great conscientiousness commit themselves in the effort to share their knowledge with ot hers
and contribute to organizational success. On the other hand, Kumar and Bakhshi (2010) have
stated that conscientiousness reflects a strong sense of purpose, self -discipline, obedience,
obligation , and persis tence, leading to hard work. The main charac teristics of the managers that
reveal this personality trait are dedication focused on the accomplishment of their tasks,
orientation towards the objectives to be achieved and perseverance in their actions (Zhao et al.,
2010). This allows the manager to ob tain greater productivity, benefiting the company of
greater efficiency and effectiveness (Ciavarella et al., 2004).
Based on the several researches carried out on these subjects, five research hypotheses are now
presented with the aim to respond to the p ossible relationship between the five personality and
innovative strategies.
H6: "Extroversion" i nfluences the strategies of innovation adopted by managers.
H7: "Conscientiousness" influences the strategies of innovation adopted by managers.
H8: "P leasantn ess" influences the strategies of innovation adopted by managers.
H9: "Neuroticism" influences the strategies of innovation adopted by managers.
H10: "Openness to experience" influences the strategies of innovation adopted by managers.
Completed th e descri ption of the fundamentals that led to the construction of the initial issues
based on literature review, it is now presented to the proposed research model as illustrated in
the Figure 1:

14
Figure 1 – Conceptual Model and Research Hypotheses

3. METHODOLOGY
Regarding to metho dology, t his research is of a qualitative nature, although using quantitative
techniques, being the data obtained through the application of a survey elaborated by the authors
to evaluate the different dimensions of the proposed conceptual model. The sampl e will co nsist
of managers of Portuguese corporations, in differe nt sectors and activities. In the treatment of
quantitative data, a model of structural equations (SEM) will be used, to investigate the possible
relations between the different dimensions in corporate d in the model. The questionnaire will
be designed with closed questions, using a Likert scale of five points for the evaluation of the
opinions of respondents about the considered dimensions. For the characterization of the
respondents and organi zations, nominal and ordinal scales will be used.

4. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
This research, that is still in development, is of great relevance because it assumes a
combination of two important areas of knowledge, namely, Management and Psychology,

15
which is an i nnovative approach, since there are only a few references in the literature that link
these two areas of expertise.
Although there are many factors to consider when it is intended to study the viability and the
success of organizations in highly competiti ve market s, the effects of decision -making by
managers, determin ed by their personality traits and the human behavior , cannot be ignored at
all. In the same way, also the emotional states of managers will have a determining effect on
the results achieved b y their o rganizations. An individual's personality refers to the way he or
she reacts, perceives, thinks, and behaves as a single person and an individual in his or her
environment. So, the way managers deal with and solve problems, how they make their
decisions, o r even how they deal with adversity, will undoubtedly c ontribute to determining the
organization's success.
Following a corporate approach, we think that this field of study will bring a great enrichment
for the knowledge of organizations behavior , because , increasingly, the behavioral and
cognitive component cannot be neglected in the analysis of the results of the companies,
because the managers are the people who make the decisions and have to constantly seek to
develop their capacities of resis tance, re silience and look for the best strategies to solve
problems.
This research is justified by the observation of a reality still relatively little studied at the level
of organizational behavior, particularly about the perspective of personality trai ts and em otional
states of managers and how these dynamics might have influence on making decisions and their
attitudes and, consequently, what kind of relationship can we find between this psychology
perspective and corporate performance. It is intended a lso to an alyze these dimensions with
innovative st rategies and leadership styles because we believe that some evidence might be
found between these dimensions.

16
REFERENCES
Antunes, M. G., P. R. Mucharreira, M. R. Justino and J. Texeira Quirós, 2019 ‘The relationship between
learning organizations and organizatio nal performance in portuguese higher education institutions
(HEI) ’, INTED 2019 Proceedings – Exploring New Frontiers in Education . Valencia, Spain: IATED
Academy, 2723 -2730.
Antunes, M. G., P. R. Mucharreira, M. R. Justino and J. Texeira Quirós , 2018 ‘The Role of TQM,
Innovation and Internationalization Strategies on the Financial Sustainability of Higher Education
Institutions (HEIS) ’, ICERI 2018 Proceedings – Meeting the Challenges of 21st Century Learning .
Seville, Spain: IATED Academy, 9778 -9787.
Bakker, A. B., K. I. Van Der Zee, K. A. Lewig and M. F. Dollard, 2002 ‘The Relationship Between the
Big Five Personality Factors and Burnou t: A Study Among Volunteer Counselors’, The Journal of
Social Psychology , 135 , 5: 1-20.
Band, G., R. Sao and A. Dalal, 2014 ‘Study and Impact of Gender on Personality Traits’, Int. Journal
of Organizational Behaviour & Management Perspectives , 3, 2: 873-879.
Barrick, M. R. and M. K. Mount, 1991 ‘The big five personality dimensions and job performan ce: a
meta ‐analysis’, Personnel psychology , 44, 1: 1-26.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership . New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact .
Mahw ah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Batey, M. and A. Furnham, 2006 ‘Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the
scattered liter ature’, Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs , 132 : 455 929.
Berglund, V., I. Seva and M. Strandh, 2015 ‘Subjec tive well -being and job satisfaction among self –
employed and regular employees: Does personality matter differently?’, Journal of Small Business &
Entrepreneurship , 28, 1: 55-73.
Bono, J. E. and T. A. Judge, 2004 ‘Personality and Transformational and Transactional Lead ership: A
Meta -Analysis’, Journal of Applied Psychology , 89, 5: 901-910.
Brandstätter, H. (2011) ‘Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A l ook at five meta -analyses ’,
Personality and Individual Differences , 51, 3: 222-230.
Bulut, C. and C. Yilmaz, 2008 ‘Innovative performance impacts of corporate entrepreneurship: an
empirical research in Turkey ’, Proceedings of Academy of Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Conference , Beijing, 414-417.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership . New Y ork: Harper & Row.
Calantone, R. J., S. T. Cavusgil and Y. Zhao, 2002 ‘Learning orientation, firm innovation capability,
and firm perf ormance ’, Industrial Marketing Management , 31: 515-524.
Camps, J., J. Stouten and M. Euwema, 2016 ‘The Relation Between Supervisors’ Big Five Personality
Traits and Employees’ Experiences of Abusive Supervision’, Frontiers in Psychology , 7, 112: 1-11.
Carmeli, A., R. Meitar and J. Weisberg, 2006 ‘Self -leadership skills and innovative behavior at work’,
Intern ational Journal of Manpower , 27, 1: 75-90.

17
Chamorro -Premuzic, T. and A. Furnham, 2003 ‘Personality traits and academic examination
performance’, European Journal of Personality , 17, 3: 237-250.
Chang , J.J., K. P. Hung and M. J. J. Lin, 2014 ‘Know ledge creation and new product performance: the
role of creativity ’, R&D Management , 44, 2: 107-123.
Ciavarella , M.A., A. K. Buchholtz , C. M. Riordan , R. D. Gatewood and G. S. Stokes , 2004 ‘The Big
Five and ventur e survival: Is there a linkage? ’, Journal of Business Venturing , 19, 4: 465-483.
Costa, P. T. and R. R. McCrae, 1992 . Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO -PIR) and NEO Five
Factor Inventory (NEO -FFI) professional manual, Psychological Assessment Resources . Odessa, FL.
Costa, P. T. and R. R. McCrae, 1995 ‘Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using
the Revised NEO Personality Inventory’, Journal of Personality Assessment , 64: 21–50.
Costa, P. T., R. R. McCrae and D. A. Dye, 1991 ‘Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness:
A revision of the N EO Personality Inventory’, Personality and Individual Differences , 12: 887–898.
Depue, R. A. an d P. F. Collins, 1999 ‘Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine,
facilitation of incentive motivati on, and extraversion’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 22: 491–517.
Digman, J. M. , 1990 ‘Higher -order factors of the Big -Five’. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology ’, 73: 1246 -1256.
Dirks, K.T. and D. L. Ferrin , 2002 ‘Trust in Leadership: Meta-Analytic Findings and Implications for
Research and Practice’, Journal of Applied Psychology , 87: 611.
Fenton -O'Creevy, M., N. Nicholson, E. Soane and P. Willman, 2007 . Traders, managing risks and
decisions in financial markets . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fischer, R. and D. Boer, 2015 ‘Motivational basis of personality traits: A meta -analysis of value –
personality correlations’, Journal of Personality , 83, 5: 491-510.
Flynn, F. J. , 2005 ‘Having an open mind: The impact of openness to experience on int erracial attitudes
and impression formation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 88: 816–826.
Graziano, W. G., L. A. Jensen -Campbell and E. C. Hair, 1996 ‘Perceiving interpersona l conflict and
reacting to it: The case for agreeableness’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70: 820–835.
Harbour, J. L., 2008 . The performance paradox: Understanding the real drivers that critically affect
outcomes . Boca Raton: CRC Pres s.
Hinkin, T. R. and C. A. Schriesheim, 1989 ‘Development and application of new scales to measure the
French and Raven (1959) bases of social power’, Journal of Applied Psychology , 74: 561–567.
Hough, L. M. and A. Furnham, 2003 , Use of personality variables in work settings. Handbook o f
psychology . New York: Free Press.
Huy, Q. , 2002 ‘Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution
of middlem anagers’, Administrative Science Quarterly , 47: 31–69.
John, O. and S. Srivast ava, 1999 “The big -five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical
Perspectives ”. In Pervin, L. and John, O.P. (Eds), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research ,
Guilford, New York, 102-139.

18
Judge, T. A., J. E. Bono, R. Ilies and M. W. Gerhardt, 2002 ‘Persona lity and leadership: A qualitative
and quantitative review’, Journal of Appli ed Psychology , 87: 765–780.
Judge, T. A. and R. F. Piccolo, 2004 ‘Transformation al and transactional leadership: A meta -analytic
test of their relative validity’, Journal of Applie d Psychology , 89: 755–768.
Kickul, J. and L. Gundry, 2002 ‘Prospecting for strategic advantage: the proactive entrepreneurial
personality and small fi rm innovation ’, Journal of Small Business Management , 40, 2: 85-97.
Krueger, R. F., B. M. Hicks , C. J. Patrick, S. R. Carlson, W. G. Iacono and M. McGue, 2002 ‘Etiologic
connections among substance dependence, antisocial behavior, and personality: Modeling the
externalizing spectrum’, Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 111: 411–424.
Kuma r, K. and A. Bakhshi, 2010 ‘The Five -Factor Model of Personality and Organizational
Commitment: Is There Any Relationship? ”, Humanity and Social Sciences Journa l, 5, 1: 25-34.
Martins, E.C. and F. Terblanche, 2003 ‘Building organizational culture t hat stimu lates creativity and
innovation ’, European Journal of Innovation Management , 6, 1: 64-74.
Matzler, K., B. Renzl, T. Mooradian, G. Von Krogh and J. Mueller, 2011 ‘Personality traits, affective
commitment, documentation of knowledge, and kn owledge s haring’, The International Journal of
Human Resource M anagement , 22, 2: 296-310.
McCrae, R. R. , 1992 ‘The five -factor model and its assessment in clinical settings’, Journal of
Personality Assessment , 57: 399-414.
McCrae, R. R. and P. T. Costa , 1987 ‘Validation of the five -factor model of personality across
instruments and observers’, Journal of Personality a nd Social Psychology , 52: 81–90.
McCrae, R. R. and P. T. Costa, 1997 , Concept ions and correlates of openness to experie nce. In R.
Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 826-847). San
Diego CA: Academic Press.
McShane, S.L. and M. A. Von Glinow, 2000 , Organisational behavior . McGraw -Hill Companies, New
York.
Mucharreira, P. R. and M. G. Antunes, 2015 ‘Os efeitos d as variáveis macroeconómicas no desempenho
das organizações: Evidência das pequenas e médias empresas em Portugal ’, Contabilidade & Gestão –
Portuguese Journal of Accounting and Management – Revista Científica da Orde m dos Contabilistas
Certificados , 17: 113-143.
Nga, J. K. H. and G. Shamuganathan , 2010 ‘The influence of personality traits and demographic factors
on social entrepreneurship start up intentions’, Journal of Business Ethics , 95, 2: 259-282.
Northouse, P. G. , 2016 , Leadership: theory and practice . Western Michigan University: Sage
Publications Inc.
Oliver, J. and S. Srivastava, 1999 , The Big -Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measuremen t, and
Theoretical Perspectives . Retrieved from: http://moityca.com.br/pdfs/bigfive_John.pdf .
Paramanandam, P. and R. Radhamani, 2014 ‘Big Five Personality and Occupational Stress Among the
Managerial Personnel of Automobile Industry’, Pratibimba , 14, 1: 23 -30.
Peterson, W., G. Gijsbers and M. Wilks, 2003 , An organizatio nal performance assessment system for
agricultural research organizations: Concepts, methods, and procedures . The Hague: International
Service for National Agricultural Research .

19
Raghuvanshi, J. and C. P. Garg, 2018 ‘Time to get into the action: unveiling the unknown of innovation
capability in Indian MSMEs ’, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 12, 3: 279-299.
Rauch, A. and M. Frese, 2007 ‘Let's put th e person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta -analysis
on the relationsh ip between business owners' personality traits, business creation, and success’,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 16, 4: 353-385.
Rothmann , S. and E. Coetzer, 2003 ‘The big five personality dimensions and job performance ’, Journal
of Industrial Psychology , 29, 1: 68-74.
Salaman, J.G. and J. Storey, 2002 ‘Managers' theories about the process of innovation ’, Journal of
Management Studies , 39, 2: 147-165.
Salgado, J. F. , 1997 ‘The five -factor model of personality and job performance in the European
community’, Journal of Applied Psychology , 82: 30-43.
Thornhill, S. , 2006 ‘Knowledge, innovation and firm performance in high -and low -technolo gy regim es’,
Journal of Business Venturing , 21, 5: 687-703.
Watson, D. and L. A. Clark, 1997 . Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. A.
Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Hand book of personality psychology (pp. 767 –793). San Diego , CA:
Academic Press.
Yeoh, K.K. and R. Mahmood, 2013 ‘The relationship between pro -innovation organizational climate,
leader -member exchange and innovative work behavior: a study among the knowledge workers of the
knowledge intensive bus iness services i n Malaysia ’, Business Management Dynamics , 2, 8: 15-30.
Zhao , H., S. E. Seibert and G. T. Lumpkin , 2010 ‘The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial
intentions and performance: A meta -analytic review ’, Journal of Management , 36, 2: 381-404.