Abstract

The effect of personality traits on job performance is an area that is being researched upon for a
considerably long time. This is fundamentally due to the importance it holds to the management
for analyzing organizational behavior. One of the methods for assessing personality is ‘The Big
Five Model’. In this paper the effect of personality, as assessed by the mentioned model, and job
satisfaction on the job performance of the employees of BASIC Bank is scrutinized. Academic
and scholarly literature is referred to as well for a more comprehensive analysis. Factors such as
extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, openness to experience and conscientiousness,
all being elements of the Model, and their individual effect on job performance are explained
based on the research findings. The explanations are given both in detailed form and
mathematical analyses in terms of correlation and other technicalities. The research was
conducted on the basis of a sample of a hundred employees of BASIC Bank. In compliance with
the contemporary and classic findings a relationship between personality and job performance is
found, as is elaborated in this paper. The paper finds strong correlation between some personality
factors and job satisfaction while in others the correlation is not that strong. However, there is
correlation nonetheless and eligible implications are drawn from them. Much research on
organizational behavior with which the academia is acquainted with is based on Western
contexts. This paper is, however, an analysis based in a Bangladeshi context. The paper
concludes with total integrity that there is an effect of personality on job performance.

1
1. INTRODUCTION

The term personality traits as defined by Robbins and Judge (2011) are enduring
characteristics that describe an individual’s behavior (p. 141). It can hence be said that
personality traits are consistent factors in determining individuality in a person and is important
in understanding a person in particular contexts. Research works have shown that personality
traits have an impact on an individual’s job performance to a great extent under certain
circumstances (O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007). A number of early efforts tried to identify the
primary traits that govern behavior (Allport & Odbert, 1936; Cattell, R.B., 1973). This shows the
importance personality traits and its relevance in determining and forecasting an individual’s
performance in the context of workplace and job. There are various methods to assess
personality of a person. One of the methods in order to assess personality is the Big Five Model.
An impressive body of research supports its thesis that five basic dimensions underlie all others
and encompass most of the significant variation in human personality (McCrae, 1992; Smith,
Hanges & Dickson, 2001). This paper investigates the effect of personality traits on performance
incorporating the Big Five Model. The five dimensions considered in this model are elaborated
as follows:

1.1. Extraversion:

This dimension is characterized by positive emotions, urgency, and the tendency to seek out
stimulation and the company of others. The trait is marked by pronounced engagement with the
external world. Extraverts enjoy being with people, and are often perceived as full of energy.
They tend to be enthusiastic, action-oriented individuals who are likely to say "Yes!" or "Let's
go!" to opportunities for excitement. In groups they like to talk, assert themselves, and draw
attention to themselves.

1.2. Emotional Stability:

Emotional Stability refers to the psychological consistency of mood and affect. Emotional
Stability is also responsible in affecting an employee’s job performance and job satisfaction.

2
1.3. Agreeableness:

Agreeableness dimension refers to an individual’s propensity to differ with others. Highly

agreeable people are co-operative, warm, and trusting. People who score low on agreeableness
are cold, disagreeable and antagonistic.

1.4. Openness to experience:

Openness to experience distinguishes imaginative people from down-to-earth, conventional

people. People who are open to experience are intellectually curious, appreciative of art, and
sensitive to beauty. They tend to be, compared to closed people, more creative and more aware
of their feelings. They are more likely to hold unconventional beliefs.

1.5. Conscientiousness:

It is understood as a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement. The
trait shows a preference for planned rather than spontaneous behavior. It influences the way in
which we control, regulate, and direct our impulses. Conscientiousness includes the factor
known as ‘Need for Achievement’.

1.6. Job Satisfaction:

As has been mentioned earlier, regarding the purpose of this paper, the effect of personality
traits on job performance is investigated here. The dependent variable is therefore job
performance while the independent variables include the five dimensions of the Big Five Model
and the variable ‘Job Satisfaction’. Job satisfaction refers to the how content an individual is with
his/her job. Along with personality traits this is important for determining job performance
because this can be an important indicator of how employees feel about their jobs and a predictor
of work behaviors such as organizational citizenship (Organ & Ryan, 1995), absenteeism
(Wegge, Schmidt & van Dick, 2007) and turnover (Saari & Judge, 2004). Hence, job satisfaction
is also an important determinant of job performance which is built up as a result of personality
traits. However, Bowling (2007) states that with regard to job performance employee personality
might be more important compared to job satisfaction. Taking this scholarly opinion in mind the
ratio of variables in this research where the number of variables is more skewed towards
personality traits is very much justified.

3
1.7. BASIC Bank:

This paper investigates the effect of personality traits on the job performance based on a survey
of 100 employees of BASIC Bank. BASIC Bank Limited (Bangladesh Small Industries and
Commerce Bank Limited) registered under the Companies Act 1913 on the 2nd of August, 1988,
started its operations from the 21st of January, 1989. It is governed by the Banking Companies
Act 1991. The Bank was established as the policy makers of the country felt the urgency for a
bank in the private sector for financing small scale Industries (SSIs). At the outset, the Bank
started as a joint venture enterprise of the BCC Foundation with 70 percent shares and the
Government of Bangladesh (GOB) with the remaining 30 percent shares. The BCC Foundation
being nonfunctional following the closure of the BCCI, the Government of Bangladesh took over
100 percent ownership of the bank on 4th June 1992. Thus, the Bank is state-owned. However,
the Bank is not nationalized; it operates like a private bank as before.

BASIC Bank Limited is unique in its objectives. It is a blend of development and commercial
banks. The Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Bank stipulate that 50 percent of its
funds allocated for loans shall be invested in small and cottage industries sector.

The topic of this paper is basically based on the employees of BASIC Bank. This research will
be very much beneficial in understanding the effect of personality traits on the job performance
of the employees of BASIC Bank. As BASIC Bank is a unique bank by its own characteristics
vis-à-vis the other banks operating in Bangladesh this paper has incurred a unique dimension in
the study of organizational behavior. As most of books on organizational behavior and human
resources in general are based on Western contexts and widely distributed and known research
works are primary focused on the European and New World understandings, this paper might be
very much helpful in understanding the organizational behavior in the Bangladeshi workplaces.
Moreover, BASIC Bank being a bank blending the philosophy of both private and State
ownership the area of study of its employees and their personality and job performances are
interesting aspects to probe into and hence justified to be subjected to research and findings.

4
2. SIGNIFICANCE AND OBJECTIVE OF THE TOPIC

Much has been mentioned about the significance of comprehending personality traits, for a
wide variety of reasons. It is not only ability by which job performance can be forecasted,
comprehended or analyzed as ability factors are not only responsible to account for individual
differences in success (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2006) although cognitive ability does
play a role in academic achievement (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997). Furthermore, the effect of
personality on job performance requires more research as it has been argued by Furnham and
Chamorro-Premuzic (2004) that where cognitive ability reflects what an individual can do,
personality traits reflect what an individual will do. Moreover, it has been called upon by
researchers in order to further the science of personnel selection to develop models of work
behavior that posit linkages among individual difference constructs and components of work
performance (Borman, White, Pulakos, & Oppler, 1991; Campbell, 1990; Schmidt & Hunter,
1992; Viswesvaren & Ones, 2000). Thus, it is very much important and significant to find out
about the relationship between personality traits and job performance and their effects on it.
Another very strong justification of this paper and its topic is that the globalizing tendency of the
present world has literally made it flat (Friedman, 2005). Friedman (2005) also states that
globalization has set and uniformed standards in every corporate and business field of the world.
Therefore, it can be rightly said that there is no meaning of the East or the West except for the
geographical sense. As has been mentioned earlier about the prevalence of Western, Eurocentric
and New World focused study of organizational behavior, the argument and tendency of
globalization requires studies to be conducted in undiscovered zones. Thus, this paper is very
much vital in comprehending the organizational behavior in the Bangladeshi context.

Having pointed out the significance of this paper, the objective of this paper is to evaluate
and study the effect of personality traits of the employees of BASIC Bank on their job
performance. Additionally this paper also has the objective to serve as future references for the
study of organizational behavior, human resources and personnel selection science in the
Bangladeshi context. The justifications and the objectives of the paper provide enough impetus
for our examination of the effect of personality traits on job performance among the employees
of BASIC Bank.

5
3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE & HYPOTHESIS BUILDING

3.1. Literature Review:

It is important for the readers of this paper to go through this section in order to understand
the literature went through and referred to in order to write this paper. An extensive selection of
relevant and referential literature has been gone through in order to give this paper a strong
scholastic and academic look and structure. The readers can refer to the complete list of
references in order to have a better picture and citations have been provided in the paper for
convenience.

As mentioned earlier that previous research works have indicated the presence of impact of
personality traits on an individual’s job performance (O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007) and that a
number of academic efforts have been made in order to identify these personality traits (Allport
& Odbert, 1936; Cattell, R.B., 1973) a lot of journal articles from both modern times and
relatively old period have been referred to in order to have clear idea about personality traits. The
Internet has been very useful in searching these journal articles. In fact a major portion of
referential literature of this paper consists of journal articles. Since, personality is more of a
psychological thing a lot of the journal articles that have been consulted are extracts from
psychology journals (i.e. Journal of Personality, Journal of Applied Psychology) or reviews on
the field of psychology concerning personality traits (i.e. Allport & Odbert (1936), Cattell
(1973)). Other journal articles, however, are texts and parts of journals concerning human
resources and organizational behavior (i.e. Journal of Vocational Behavior).

Nonetheless, some books have been consulted in order to justify and carry out a clearer
research on the topic. The one that can be named with the utmost priority is Organizational
Behavior (13th edition) by Robbins and Judge (2011). Other than that another book titled
Organizational Behavior (8th edition) authored by Robbins (1998) has also been referred to.
However, another book worth noting, that has been helpful in justifying the significance and
relevance of this paper is ‘The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century’ by
Thomas L. Friedman (2005). The North South University Library has been of a substantial help
in terms of provision of the online search, e-journals, journal articles and books. The website of
BASIC Bank has been surfed in order to get a more vivid idea about the organization. After all,

6
this paper basically centers on this organization and its employees whose data have been
gathered, analyzed and researched upon.

3.2. Hypothesis Building:

This paper as have been mentioned multiple times before investigates the effect of
personality traits on the job performance. However, the dependent variable (i.e. job performance)
in this paper is considered to be determined or depended upon the personality traits incorporated
in the Big Five Model and job satisfaction in the additional sense. Therefore, the investigation is
basically on the hypotheses postulated about these variables vis-à-vis job performance. The
postulated hypotheses are elaborated as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Extraversion affects job performance in a positively correlated manner.

The first hypothesis that is mentioned indicates that the ones who score high in the extraversion
index tend to perform better in their jobs. Extraversion captures one’s comfort level with
relationships and extroverts tend to be gregarious, assertive and sociable (Robbins & Judge,
2011). Those scoring low in the extraversion (i.e. introverts) tend to be reserved. Finally,
extraversion is relatively strong predictor of leadership emergence in groups and extroverts are
more assertive than the introverts. (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007). Thus, from a theoretical point of
view extraversion does stimulate higher positive job performance. This is what is hypothesized
in this paper. One downside of extraversion is that extraverts are more impulsive than introverts;
they are more likely to be absent from work and engage in risky behavior such as unprotected
sex, drinking and other impulsive or sensation seeking acts (Speirling & Persaud, 2003).
However, extraversion is negatively correlated with job performance in that it appears to inspire
more absence, but only when combined with low levels of conscientiousness (Neubert, 2004).

7
Hypothesis 2: Emotional stability affects job performance in a positively correlated manner.

This hypothesized that those with higher scores in emotional stability are better performers in the
workplace and hence their jobs. People with positive emotional stability tend to be calm, self
confident and secure. Those with high negative score tend to be nervous, anxious, depressed, and
insecure (Robbins & Judge, 2011). People with low scores in emotional stability are hyper-
vigilant (Tamir & Robbinson, 2004). It can be stated drawing conclusions from these academic
opinions and findings that a certain form of paranoia prevails in such people and prevents them
from performing well in their jobs. High emotional stability characterizes someone as calm, self-
confident and secure. Furthermore, people with more emotional stability are more successful at
work (Stupak, 2004).

Hypothesis 3: Agreeableness positively affects job performance.

The dimension of agreeableness in the Big Five Model refers to the characteristic whereby an
individual is described to be good natured, cooperative and trusting (Robbins, 1998). Robbins
(1998) also states that high agreeable people value harmony more than they value having their or
their way (p. 55). Thus, it can be said that individuals with low scores in the agreeableness
dimension tend to carry things out in their own ways. Interpersonal deviance is negatively
correlated with high levels of agreeableness (Neubert, 2004). Agreeableness therefore is a
likeable characteristic is the organizational sense. Thus, agreeable people as a result of being
liked are hypothesized to perform better than the disagreeable ones.

Hypothesis 4: High openness to experience positively affects job performance.

Openness to experience is a personality dimension that characterizes someone in terms of

imaginativeness, artistic sensitivity and intellectualism (Robbins, 1998). The ones scoring high
on this dimension are therefore creative and willing to learn. One's openness to experience
should be indicative of creativity and originality; consequently, there may be a direct but
unobvious connection to job performance in terms of creating and trying new things that may
improve personal productivity or otherwise maybe even affect general productivity on a greater

8
scale (Sinha, 2004). Thus, one who is more open to experience is thought to be a good performer
in his/her respective job in the investigation of this paper.

Hypothesis 5: Conscientiousness is positively correlated with job performance.

In the Big Five Model, conscientiousness is the most predictive of job performance (Hurtz &
Donovan, 2000). Robbins (1998) describes conscientiousness to be the personality dimension
that describes someone who is responsible, dependable, persistent and achievement oriented. It is
postulated in this paper; the ones who score high in this dimension tend to perform better
whereas those who score low are not good performers.

Hypothesis 6: High job satisfaction leads to better job performance and vice versa.

OB researchers consider job satisfaction an important variable (Robbins, 1998). This is defined
to be the difference between the expected reward of an employee and his/her actual reward. In
this paper it is to investigate this important variable as a determinant of job performance with a
positive correlation. This is to say that an employee highly satisfied with his/her job tend to
perform better.

With these hypotheses this paper has constructed a comprehensive study based on the research of
a sample of a number of employees of BASIC Bank. The preponderance of evidence shows that
individuals who are dependable , reliable , careful, thorough , able to plan , organized , hard
working , persistent and achievement oriented tend to have higher job performance and job
satisfaction (Mount, Barrick & Strauss, 1994). The hypotheses, thus, have been built based on
scholarly and academic opinions in the field of organization behavior science and relevant
expertise fields.

9
4. Conceptual Model

The study of this paper (i.e. The effect of personality traits on job performance) along with
the review of literature and postulated hypotheses can be illustrated with the following model:

EMOTIONAL
EXTROVERSION STABILITY
AGREEABLENESS

JOB PERFORMANCE

OPENNESS TO JOB SATISFACTION

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
EXPERIENCE

According to the above diagram, we are trying to see whether all these independent variables
(extroversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, openness to experience, conscientiousness and
job satisfaction) are affecting an individual employer’s job performance or not. Each variable is
studied properly to find any significant relationship between all these personality traits and the
job performance.

10
5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

5.1. Designing Questionnaire:

This paper is a project as per as the instruction of the course Organizational Behavior (MGT
321), section 2, under the tutelage of Mr. Mominul H. Talukdar. The questionnaire of this
research work was in fact provided by him. However, the questionnaire consisted of 7 structured
questions possessing 5 items each. Out of these 7 structured questions 6 were independent
variables and 1 was the dependent variable.

The items required the answerer to give his/her response in a Likert scale ranging from 1 to
5, where 1=highly disagree; 2=moderately disagree; 3=neutral; 4=moderately agree and
5=highly agree. However, the questionnaire in its end provide space for optional
opinions/suggestions or recommendations of the answerers.

5.2. Explain Dependent and Independent Variables:

5.2.A. Independent Variables:

• Extroversion: a personality dimension describing someone who is sociable, gregarious,

and assertive. Let us consider a question from one of the sample questionnaires: “When a
co-worker falls sick, I go to his home to check whether he is alright.” The employee
ranked this question number 4 which means moderately agree. Therefore, we can say that
this person is moderately extroverted. These employees tend to perform better in jobs that
require significant interpersonal interactions. Thus, it can be said that this employee of
BASIC Bank is moderately extrovert in this item.

• Emotional stability: characterizing someone as calm, self-confident, secure (positive)

versus nervous, depressed, and insecure (negative). Let’s take a question as a sample “I
always rely on my own decisions in work related problems and don’t consult my
superiors for every little problem.” This employee projected high emotional stability as
he highly agreed with this question. Emotional stability is most strongly related to life

11
 satisfaction, job satisfaction, and low stress levels. These employees are more likely to be
positive and optimistic in their decision making.

• Agreeableness: a personality dimension that describes someone who is good natures,

cooperative, and trusting. “Even though I personally hate my supervisor sometimes, I
don’t let that affect my work.” This employee scored high on agreeableness. Therefore,
this employee is more compliant and conforming. Agreeable people are expected to be
happier than disagreeable people and thus results in higher performance and low levels of
deviant behavior.

• Openness to experience: a personality trait that characterizes someone in terms of

imagination, sensitivity, and curiosity. For this we will again refer to a sample question
from the questionnaire. “I like to use my imagination and intuition to help me in my
decision making process.” This employee scored low in openness to experience because
he moderately disagreed with this question. People with low score are less creative and
flexible and not comfortable to change. Such employees are not perfectly adaptable to
organizations with changing context.

• Conscientiousness: a personality dimension that describes someone who is responsible,

dependable, persistent, and organized. Once again we will use a question from the
randomly selected questionnaire. “My superior trusts me and assigns me authority to
make certain decision.” This employee ranked this question 5 which projects that he/she
has high conscientiousness. These employees develop higher levels of job knowledge and
also exert greater levels of effort on their jobs. As a result higher job knowledge
eventually contributes to higher job performance.

• Job satisfaction: a positive feeling about one’s job resulting from the evaluation of his or
her characteristics. For instance let us take a sample question from our questionnaire: “I
work in favorable environment and like the work I do.” The concerned employee rated
this question with number 4 which indicates that he moderately agreed with the
statement.

12
5.2.B. Dependent Variable:

Job performance: accomplishment of work-related tasks or skills by an employee or trainee- may

refer to specific skills or to overall performance – this includes factors associated with success or
failure in job situations. Once again we selected a sample question from the questionnaire: “My
supervisor believes in my performance and assigns me important jobs readily.” The degree of
agreement of this employee for this question has been rated by number 5 which in other words
represents high agreement.

5.3. Organization of Research:

The research that we carried out is involved with visiting a company and filling up the
questionnaire by that company’s employees. So, we have chosen BASIC Bank for carrying out
our research work. As our sample size was 100, so this means that we had to create 100 copies of
the questionnaires for the 100 employees of the bank. We randomly chose our sample, which
was mainly male dominant and there age group ranged from 30 to 50. They kept our
questionnaire for a day and then provided us with their business cards so that if we have any sort
of questions or doubts regarding their inputs in the questionnaire then we can clear it out.
However, it was not possible for us to collect 100 visiting cards, so we collected those as much
as we could. Despite of their busy schedule, the employees of BASIC Bank has been very
cooperative to us in carrying out our research, by providing us with authentic information on
time. After we completed our data collection, we put our raw data to the statistics software called
SPSS. This software helped us to carry out specific tests such as, reliability test, computing the
mean and standard deviation, finding out the correlations, regression analysis, etc.

5.4. Discussion on Factor Analysis:

Factor analysis tries to identify the variables that explain the pattern of correlations
within a set of observed values. Here, we use the process of dimension reduction (data reduction)
to identify the variables which are mostly affecting each independent variable.

13
So, we were instructed to accept the personality traits which have got the alpha value greater
than 0.7 in the reliability test. But, after conducting the test we found out that extroversion has
got the alpha value of 0.38 which is a very low value in comparison to the required value. That’s
why we have carried out Factor Analysis on extroversion and removed question no. 1,2 and 3 as
those have got very low coefficient values.(see Appendix:1B) Then again we did a reliability
test. So, this time we found the alpha value to be 0.55 which is not above the required value but
still it can be accepted and considered reliable. For the other variables, the alpha value was
acceptable as the values were not that much low (see Appendix: 1A), so we did not carry out any
further factor analysis for those variables.

14
6. RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1. Reliability Test:

Reliability Test is the first statistical test that we have done to each of the variables (both
independent and dependant) that was included in our survey. This test mainly shows us the
Cronbach’s alpha value which helps us to find the internal consistencies in each of the variables.
That means that it helps us to find the consistencies of results across the items within a test. (See
Appendix: 1A) So, the statistics that we found out by using the reliability test, using the SPSS
software are given below:

VARIABLES CRONBACH’S ALPHA

Extroversion .380
Emotional Stability .532
Agreeableness .698
Openness To Experience .608
Conscientiousness .628
Job Satisfaction .678
Job Performance .731

The Reliability Test found for Extraversion:

From the above table we see that, for extraversion we got .380 as the alpha value, which is very
low. Our required alpha value is 0.7 or more than that in order to prove that there is internal
consistency across the questions based on extraversion. So, the reliability test statistics show that
the value is considered to be very insignificant to conclude that extroversion is not that much
reliable to measure the performance, because this value means that some employees scored very
high in some questions and some employees scored very low though all the questions have been
used to measure the extraversion of the employees. Thus, this personality trait can be considered
as unreliable for measuring job performance

15
The Reliability Test found for Emotional Stability:

The reliability test found that, for emotional stability, the alpha value is .532, which is greater
than the alpha value of extraversion. This means that it is more reliable than the personality trait
of extraversion but still this trait is considered to be unreliable because the alpha value for
emotional stability is still less than the required value, i.e. 0.7. Thus, this trait is also considered
as unreliable.

The Reliability Test found for Agreeableness:

The reliability test on agreeableness gives us an alpha value of 0.698 which is very close to the
required alpha value. Thus, it indicates an internal consistency among all the questions based on
this particular trait and it is reliable to use this trait.

The Reliability Test found for Openness to Experience:

The reliability test on openness to experience gives us an alpha value of 0.608 which is also very
close to the required alpha value. Thus, it indicates an internal consistency among all the
questions based on this particular trait and it is reliable to use this trait.

The Reliability Test found for Conscientiousness:

The reliability test for conscientiousness gives us the alpha value of .628 which is also very close
to 0.7, the required value. Thus, this trait can also be considered as a reliable variable in our test.

The Reliability Test found for Job Satisfaction:

The reliability test for job satisfaction gives us the alpha value of .678 which is also very close to
0.7, the required value. Thus, this trait can also be considered as a reliable variable in our test.

16
The Reliability Test found for Job Performance:

Finally we conducted the reliability test on the questions based on job performance. It is the first
variable where we found the alpha value that is above the required value, i.e. 0.613 under this
variable. This allows us to lawfully conclude that the questions under this particular variable are
internally consistent or reliable.

6.2. Descriptive Statistics (Correlation Matrix):

Standard Mean Extroversion Emotional Agreeableness Openness Conscien

Deviation Stability to
experience
Extroversion .81116 4.0600
Emotional .65582 3.8140 .168
Stability
Agreeableness .54000 4.4460 .106 .280**
Openness to .57620 4.0540 .215* .598** .402**
experience
Conscientiousness .52639 4.2780 .081 .417** .418** .601
Job Satisfaction .70064 3.9040 .129 .401** .238** .543** .473**
Job Performance .66539 4.0780 .170 .368** .480** .581** .545**

*Correlation significant at 0.05 level

**Correlation significant at 0.01 level

Extraversion and Job Satisfaction: The correlation between extroversion and job satisfaction is
.129, this shows a positive relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction, but the
correlation value is very low. This means that their relationship is not that significant. According

17
to Neubert (2004), extroversion is positively correlated with job satisfaction. So our result
matches with our hypothesis.

Emotional Stability and Job Satisfaction: The correlation between emotional stability and job
satisfaction is .401, this shows a positive relationship between these two variables, but the
correlation value is also very low here.

Agreeableness and Job Satisfaction: The correlation between agreeableness and job
satisfaction is .238, this shows a positive relationship between these two variables, but the
correlation value is also very low here.

Openness to experience and Job Satisfaction: The correlation between openness to experience
and job satisfaction is .543, this shows a positive relationship between these two variables, and
the correlation value is also low but comparatively higher than the other variables.

Conscientiousness and Job Satisfaction: The correlation between conscientiousness and job
satisfaction is .473, this shows a positive relationship between these two variables, but the
correlation value is also very low here.

Extraversion and Job Performance: The correlation between extraversion and job
performance is .170, this shows a positive relationship between these two variables, but the
correlation value is very low here. This can be justified by the work of Foti and Hauenstein
(2007) and Robbins and Judge (2011).

Emotional Stability and Job Performance: The correlation between emotional stability and
job performance is .368, this shows a positive relationship between these two variables, but the
correlation value is also very low here. This can be backed up by the opinions given by Stupak
(2004).

Agreeableness and Job Performance: The correlation between agreeableness and job
performance is .480; this shows a positive relationship between these two variables, this value is
also low but comparatively higher than the others. So, it might not be considered as that much
insignificant. The insignificance of agreeableness as far as job performance is concerned has
been pointed out by O’Connor and Paunonen (2007).

18
Openness to experience and Job Performance: The correlation between openness to
experience and job performance is .581; this shows a positive relationship between these two
variables. This means that the correlation value is significant over here as the value is close
to0.6, so this trait can have a significant impact on the job performance. The significance of this
dimension has been cited by Sinha (2004).

Conscientiousness and Job Performance: The correlation between openness to experience and
job performance is .545; this also shows a positive relationship between these two variables. This
means that the correlation value is significant over here as the value is close to0.6, so this trait
can also have a significant impact on the job performance. This is sync with the opinions of
Hurtz and Donovan (2000).

6.3. Regression Analysis:

Regression Analysis is the final statistical element of our research. This final constituent involves
the use of SPSS software to carry out the ANOVA test which helps us determine the significance
and magnitude of the predictability of our independent variables in measuring the dependant
variables. In other words the analysis will help us determine the extent to which the findings of
our research are acceptable.

Independent Factors affecting the Job Satisfaction:

From the ANOVA table (see Appendix:3) of extraversion and job satisfaction, we see that the F
value is 1.647. This value is higher than the Significance value of .202. Since the F value is less
than the value under the column titled „Significance‟, we can conclude that our research results
are not adequate. This means that extroversion is not an acceptable predictor of job satisfaction.
Moreover as you can see from the Coefficients table, the Beta value is 0.129, which also
indicates that extroversion affects job satisfaction but does not have any significant impact on it.

From the ANOVA test tables (See Appendix 3) we see that the F value of 18.810 for emotional
stability is notably larger than the value of significance which is 0.000. Since the value of „F‟ is
larger than the value of Significance we can say that the findings of our research are up to the
standard, and therefore, we can conclude that the independent variables in our research are good

19
forecaster of the dependent variable job satisfaction. Hence the ANOVA test for these two
dependent variables helps us to acknowledge with the fact that our research results are adequate
enough to prove that the independent factors are good predictors of both job satisfaction.

The ANOVA table for the regression analysis between agreeableness and job satisfaction (See
Appendix 3) shows that the F value is 5.894. Since this value is higher than the value of
significance of .017 it is safe to conclude that the predictability of job satisfaction by the trait
agreeableness is quite strong. From the Coefficients table it is evident that the Beta value is 0.238
which indicates that agreeableness affects job satisfaction to a moderate extent.

For Openness to Experience and Job Satisfaction (See Appendix 3) the F value is 41.065 - a
value which is notably larger than that of the level of significance of .000. Therefore we can
arrive at the conclusion that the predictability is acceptable. Moreover the Coefficient table also
shows the Beta value to be 0.543 which implies that openness to experience plays somewhat a
significant role in affecting job satisfaction.

Last but not the least, we ran the regression analysis to obtain the relationship between
Conscientiousness and Job Satisfaction. The results in the ANOVA table (See Appendix 3)
show that the F value 28.239 is significantly higher than the significance level (.000). This shows
that conscientiousness is a strong predictor of job satisfaction and the values we obtained are
quite acceptable. Our regression analysis is further reinforced by the fact that we also obtained a
Beta value 0.473. This proves that the level or extent to which conscientiousness affects job
satisfaction is highly significant and thus acceptable.

Independent Factors affecting the Job Performance:

From the ANOVA table (see Appendix:3) of extraversion and job performance, we see that the F
value is 2.926. This value is higher than the Significance value of .090. Since the F value is
greater than the value under the column titled „Significance‟, we can conclude that our research

20
results are adequate. This means that extroversion is an acceptable predictor of job performance.
Moreover as you can see from the Coefficients table, the Beta value is 0.170, which also
indicates that extroversion moderately affects job performance.

From the ANOVA test tables (See Appendix 3) we see that the F value of 15.334 for emotional
stability is notably larger than the value of significance which is 0.000. Since the value of „F‟ is
larger than the value of Significance we can say that the findings of our research are up to the
standard, and therefore, we can conclude that the independent variables in our research are good
forecaster of the dependent variable job performance. Hence the ANOVA test for these two
dependent variables helps us to acknowledge with the fact that our research results are adequate
enough to prove that the independent factors are good predictors of both job performance.

The ANOVA table for the regression analysis between agreeableness and job performance (See
Appendix 3) shows that the F value is 29.369. Since this value is much higher than the value of
significance of .000 it is safe to conclude that the predictability of job performance by the trait
agreeableness is quite strong. From the Coefficients table it is evident that the Beta value is 0.480
which indicates that agreeableness highly affects job performance.

For Openness to Experience and Job Performance (See Appendix 3) the F value is 49.981 - a
value which is notably larger than that of the level of significance of .000. Therefore we can
arrive at the conclusion that the predictability is acceptable. Moreover the Coefficient table also
shows the Beta value to be 0.581 which implies that openness to experience plays somewhat a
significant role in affecting job performance.

For Conscientiousness and Job Performance (See Appendix 3) the F value is 41.492 - a value
which is notably larger than that of the level of significance of .000. Therefore we can arrive at
the conclusion that the predictability is acceptable. Moreover the Coefficient table also shows the
Beta value to be 0.545 which implies that conscientiousness plays somewhat a significant role in
affecting job performance.

21
7. Conclusions and Implications

The gathering and analysis of the data and the review of literature relevant to this study
provide us with a clear compatibility. Personality traits do have an effect on the job performance
of the employees in an organization.

The analysis of the data gathered indicates that the variables taken into consideration are
positively correlated with the independent variable. However, it is worth noting that some
variables are weakly correlated while some are not. The major reason that can be thought of for
this phenomenon is the small sample. As the survey was conducted on a sample size of 100 the
correlation may not have proved to be as strong as suggested by scholarly academicians and
researchers whose works have been frequently referred to and cited in this paper. If a further
study is conducted with a larger sample the analysis of this paper can be understood better and
the comprehension can be enhanced. For instance the study found dimensions like extraversion
and emotional stability are weakly but positively correlated with job performance while others
are quite strongly correlated. The most strongly correlated dimension of the Model with job
performance is perceived to be openness to experience.

Last but not the least, the implications and suggestions that this paper would keep in front of
the authority of BASIC Bank, on whose employees this research is based upon, that it should
manage the dimensions of the Big Five Model of its employees and their job satisfaction in order
to get a better job performance out of them. This is because this study does conclude that
personality traits are important determinants of job satisfaction. The hypotheses postulated by
this paper have been accepted to a considerable extent.

22
8. REFERENCES

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E.D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for
overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.

Allport, G.W., & Odbert, H.S. (1936). Trait Names, A Psychological Study. Psychological
Monographs, 47.

Borman, W.C., White, L.A., Pulakos, E.B., Oppler, S.H. (1991). Models of supervisory job
performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 863–872.

Bowling, N.A. (2007). Is the Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship Spurious: A Meta-
Analytic Examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 167-185.

Campbell JP. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and
organizational psychology. In Dunnette MD, Hough L (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 687–732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.

Cattell, R.B. (1973). Personality Pinned Down. Psychology Today, 40-46.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006). Intellectual competence and the intelligent
personality: A third way in differential psychology. Review of General Psychology, 10, 251–267.

Foti, R.J, and Hauenstein, M.A. (2007). Pattern and variable approaches in leadership emergence
and effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology , March, pp 347-355.

Friedman, T.L. (2005). The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. Farrar,
Straus & Giroux.

23
Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004). Personality and intelligence as predictors of
statistics examination grades. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 943–955.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879.

McCrae, R.R. (1992). Special Issue: The Five Factor Model: Issues and Applications. Journal of
Personality.

Mount, M.R., Barrick and Strauss, J.P. (1994). Validity of observer ratings of the big five
personality factors. Journal of applied psychology, p- 272.

Neubert, S.P. (2004). The Five-Factor Model of Personality in the workplace. Rochester Institute
of Technology.

O’Connor, M.C., & Paunonen, S.V. (2007). Big Five personality predictors of post-secondary
academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 971-990.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802.

Robbins, S.P. (1998). Organizational Behavior (8th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International,
Inc.

Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2011). Organizational Behavior (13th ed.). Pearson Education
International.

Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource
Management, 43, 395-407.

24
Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. (1992). Causal modeling of processes determining job performance.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 89–92.

Sinha, K. (2004). The Five-Factor Model of Personality in the workplace. Rochester Institute of
Technology.

Smith, D.B., Hanges, P.J., & Dickson, M.W. (2001). Personnel Selection and the Five Factor
Model: Reexamining the Effects of Applicant’s Frame of Reference. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 304-315.

Spierling, L.I and Persaud, R. (2003). Extraversion as a risk factor. Journal of the American
academy of child and adolescent psychiatry ,42 ,2, p-130.

Stupak, N.J. (2004). The Five-Factor Model of Personality in the workplace. Rochester Institute
of Technology.

Tamir, M., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Knowing good from bad: The paradox of neuroticism,
negative affect, and evaluative processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87,
913-925.

Viswesvaren C., & Ones D.S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 216–226.

Wegge, J., Schmidt, K., Parkes, C., & van Dick, K. (2007). ‘Taking a sickie’: Job satisfaction
and job involvement as interactive predictors of absenteeism in a public organization. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 77-89.

25
APPENDIX: 1A

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.380 5

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.532 5

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.698 5

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.608 5

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.628 5

26
 Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.678 5

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.731 5

Appendix: 1B

Factor Analysis: Extraversion : Rotated Component Matrix

Component Matrixa

Component

4.Whatever job my superior .830

asks me to do, I do it pretty
well

5.I like to receive help from .830

my colleagues in my project I
am assigned

Extraction Method: Principal Component

Analysis.

a. 1 components extracted.

27
Reliabilty Statistics after Factor Analysis:

Extroversion: after omitting question 1,2 and 3

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.550 2

28
APPENDIX2 Correlation:

Correlations

extrv emo agree open cnscn jsts jpr

extrv Pearson Correlation 1 .055 -.009 .155 -.068 .051 .100

Sig. (2-tailed) .584 .932 .123 .502 .614 .323

N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

emo Pearson Correlation .055 1 .280** .598** .417** .401** .368**

Sig. (2-tailed) .584 .005 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

agree Pearson Correlation -.009 .280** 1 .402** .418** .238* .480**

Sig. (2-tailed) .932 .005 .000 .000 .017 .000

N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

open Pearson Correlation .155 .598** .402** 1 .601** .543** .581**

Sig. (2-tailed) .123 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

cnscn Pearson Correlation -.068 .417** .418** .601** 1 .473** .545**

Sig. (2-tailed) .502 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

jsts Pearson Correlation .051 .401** .238* .543** .473** 1 .672**

Sig. (2-tailed) .614 .000 .017 .000 .000 .000

N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

jpr Pearson Correlation .100 .368** .480** .581** .545** .672** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .323 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

29
 APENDIX:3 Regression Analysis:

Extroversion and Job Performance:

Model Summary

Change Statistics

Std. Error of the Sig. F

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Estimate R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Change

1 .100a .010 .000 .66544 .010 .986 1 98 .323

a. Predictors: (Constant), extrv

ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression .436 1 .436 .986 .323a

Residual 43.395 98 .443

Total 43.832 99

a. Predictors: (Constant), extrv

b. Dependent Variable: jpr

Coefficientsa

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 3.746 .341 10.975 .000

extrv .082 .082 .100 .993 .323

a. Dependent Variable: jpr

30
 Emotional stability and Job Performance:

Model Summary

Change Statistics

Adjusted R Std. Error of the R Square Sig. F

dModel R R Square Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change

1 .368a .135 .126 .62189 .135 15.334 1 98 .000

a. Predictors: (Constant), emo

ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 5.930 1 5.930 15.334 .000a

Residual 37.901 98 .387

Total 43.832 99

a. Predictors: (Constant), emo

b. Dependent Variable: jpr

Coefficientsa

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 2.655 .369 7.199 .000

emo .373 .095 .368 3.916 .000

a. Dependent Variable: jpr

31
 Agreeableness and Job Performance:

Model Summary

Change Statistics

Adjusted R Std. Error of the R Square Sig. F

Model R R Square Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change

1 .480a .231 .223 .58663 .231 29.369 1 98 .000

a. Predictors: (Constant), agree

ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 10.107 1 10.107 29.369 .000a

Residual 33.725 98 .344

Total 43.832 99

a. Predictors: (Constant), agree

b. Dependent Variable: jpr

Coefficientsa

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 1.447 .489 2.960 .004

agree .592 .109 .480 5.419 .000

a. Dependent Variable: jpr

32
 Openness to experience and Job Performance:

Model Summary

Change Statistics

Std. Error of the Sig. F

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Estimate R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Change

1 .581a .338 .331 .54424 .338 49.981 1 98 .000

a. Predictors: (Constant), open

ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 14.804 1 14.804 49.981 .000a

Residual 29.027 98 .296

Total 43.832 99

a. Predictors: (Constant), open

b. Dependent Variable: jpr

Coefficientsa

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 1.357 .389 3.492 .001

open .671 .095 .581 7.070 .000

a. Dependent Variable: jpr

33
 Conscientiousness and Job Performance:

Model Summary

Change Statistics

Std. Error of the Sig. F

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Estimate R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Change

1 .545a .297 .290 .56056 .297 41.492 1 98 .000

a. Predictors: (Constant), cnscn

ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 13.038 1 13.038 41.492 .000a

Residual 30.794 98 .314

Total 43.832 99

a. Predictors: (Constant), cnscn

b. Dependent Variable: jpr

Coefficientsa

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 1.129 .461 2.447 .016

cnscn .689 .107 .545 6.441 .000

a. Dependent Variable: jpr

34
 Job Satisfaction and Job Performance:

Model Summary

Change Statistics

Adjusted R Std. Error of the R Square Sig. F

Model R R Square Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change

1 .672a .452 .446 .49508 .452 80.826 1 98 .000

a. Predictors: (Constant), jsts

ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 19.811 1 19.811 80.826 .000a

Residual 24.021 98 .245

Total 43.832 99

a. Predictors: (Constant), jsts

b. Dependent Variable: jpr

Coefficientsa

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 1.585 .282 5.629 .000

jsts .638 .071 .672 8.990 .000

a. Dependent Variable: jpr

35
6.2. Descriptive Statistics (Correlation Matrix):

Standar Mean Extrovers Emotion Agreeablen Openne Conscient Job

d ion al ess ss to iousness Satisfaction
Deviati Stability experie
on nce
Extroversion .81116 4.060
Emotional .65582 3.814 .055
Stability
Agreeablene .54000 4.446 -.009 .280**
ss
Openness to .57620 4.054 .155 .598** .402**
experience
Conscientiou .52639 4.278 -.068 .417** .418** .601
sness
Job .70064 3.904 .051 .401** .238* .543** .473**
Satisfaction
Job .66539 4.078 .100 .368** .480** .581** .545** .672**
Performance

*Correlation significant at 0.05 level

**Correlation significant at 0.01 level

36