Which of the following traits has been shown to exert the strongest impact on overall performance quizlet?

Although the MBTI has shown to have reliability
and validity as a measure of identifying Jung's personality types and predicting
occupational choice (e.g., those high on intuition tend to prefer careers in advertising, the arts, and teaching), there still is not enough research support to base selection decisions or predict job performance.

Whereas the Big Five has recently emerged from considerable basic research and has generally been demonstrated to significantly relate to job performance, the MBTI is based on a very old theory, has mixed at best research support, but is widely used and very popular in real-world career counseling, team building, conflict management, and analyzing management styles.

The physical senses are considered to be vision, hearing, touch, smell, and taste.

As one molecular biologist declares, "The nose doesn't smell—the brain does."In this way, the human being uses the senses to experience color, brightness, shape, loudness, pitch, heat, odor, and taste.

Tend to have an overall sense of well-being, to see themselves as pleasurably and effectively engaged, and to experience positive attitudes.

Whether PA is the bipolar opposite and independent of NA is still the subject of debate and interpretation of research results. People do not necessarily move between opposite mood states, but can be both happy and unhappy. However, most of the time there are swings in mood, that is, NA to PA or PA to NA.

Research finds that PAs tend to perform better, are less absent from work, and are more satisfied, whereas NAs may experience more stress.There is even evidence that teams with a positive affective tone (i.e., the average PA of members is high) are more effective than teams with a negative affective tone.

One's mood or affective disposition may become a self-fulfilling prophecy as far as organization outcomes are concerned.

Working conditions have a modest effect on job satisfaction. If the working conditions are good (clean, attractive surroundings, for instance), the personnel will find it easier to carry out their jobs. If the working conditions are poor (hot, noisy surroundings, for example), personnel will find it more difficult to get things done.

Effect of working conditions on job satisfaction is similar to that of the work group. If things are good, there may or may not be a job satisfaction problem; if things are poor, there very likely will be.

Most people do not give working conditions a great deal of thought unless they are extremely bad. Additionally, when there are complaints about working conditions, these sometimes are really nothing more than manifestations of other problems.

However, in recent years, because of the increased diversity of the workforce, working conditions have taken on new importance.

Although most people assume a positive relationship, the research to date has been mixed. Perhaps the best conclusion about satisfaction and performance is that there is definitely a positive relationship, but probably not as great as conventional wisdom assumed concerning happy workers as productive workers.

About 25 years ago, the studies assessed by a meta-analysis indicated a weak (.17 best-estimate correlation)
relationship between satisfaction and performance.122 However, conceptual, methodological, empirical, and practical analyses have questioned and argued against these weak results. So, more recently a sophisticated meta-analysis conducted by Tim Judge and his colleagues on 312 samples with a combined N of 54,417 found the mean true correlation to be .30.

This latest analysis thus shows a much stronger relationship between employee job satisfaction and performance, but still not greater than the Big Five personality trait of conscientiousness nor as great as the meta-analytic findings of other psychological constructs such as the relationship between self-efficacy (covered in Chapter 7) and performance (.38).

Low job satisfaction tends to both turnover and absenteeism, whereas high job satisfaction often results
in fewer on-the-job accidents and work grievances, less time needed to learn new job-related
tasks, and less stress.

1. Make jobs more fun. World-class companies such as Southwest Airlines have a fun culture for their employees. Southwest management makes it clear that irreverence is okay; it's okay to be yourself; and take the competition seriously, but not yourself. Having a fun culture may not make jobs themselves more satisfying, but it does break up boredom and lessen the chances of dissatisfaction.

2. Have fair pay, benefits, and promotion opportunities. These are obvious ways that
organizations typically try to keep their employees satisfied. Recent national surveys indicate that employees rank benefits and pay as very important to their job satisfaction. As Chapter 4 pointed out, an important way to make benefits more effective
would be to provide a flexible, so-called cafeteria approach. This allows employees to choose their own distribution of benefits within the budgeted amount available. This way there would be no discrepancies between what they want, because it's their choice.

3. Match people with jobs that fit their interests and skills. Getting the right fit is one of the most important, but overlooked, ways to have satisfied employees. This, of course, assumes that the organization knows what those interests and skills are. Effective human resource management firms such as Disney, Southwest Airlines, Google, and Microsoft put considerable effort into finding out interests and skills of potential new hires, as well as existing employees, in order to make the match or fit with the right job.

4. Design jobs to make them exciting and satisfying. Instead of finding people to fit the
job as in point 3, this approach suggests designing jobs to fit the people.

Most people do not find boring, repetitive work very satisfying. For example, the Canadian aerospace firm Nordavionics was losing too many of their talented engineers. They found that they could increase job satisfaction and reduce turnover by being more sensitive to and providing their engineers with more challenging work and professional growth.

Unfortunately, too many jobs today are boring and should be changed or eliminated as much as possible. Improvements include providing more responsibility and building in more variety, significance, identity, autonomy, and feedback.

Personal (age, tenure in the organization, career adaptability, and dispositions such as positive or negative affectivity, or internal or external control attributions)

Organizational (the job design, values, support, procedural fairness, and the leadership style of one's supervisor) variables.

Nonorganizational, such as the availability of alternatives after making the initial choice to join an organization, will affect subsequent commitment.

As is the case with job satisfaction, there are mixed outcomes of organizational commitment.

Both early and more recent research studies do show support of a positive relationship between organizational commitment and desirable outcomes such as high performance, low turnover, and low absenteeism.

There is also evidence that employee commitment relates to other desirable outcomes, such as the perception of a warm, supportive organizational climate and being a good team member willing to help.

On balance, however, most researchers would agree that the organizational commitment attitude as defined here may be a better predictor of desirable outcome variables than is job satisfaction and thus deserves management's attention.

Yet, as with satisfaction, there are some studies that do not show strong relationships between commitment
and outcome variables and others where there are moderating effects between organizational commitment and performance.

For example, one study found a stronger relationship between organizational commitment and performance for those with low financial needs than for those with high ones, and another study found that the more tenure the employees had on the job and with the employing organization, the less impact their
commitment had on performance.

Herzberg's two-factor theory provided a new light on the content of work motivation.Up to this point, management had generally concentrated on the hygiene factors. When faced with a morale problem, the typical solution was higher pay, more fringe benefits, and better working conditions. However, as has been pointed out, this simplistic solution did not really work.

Herzberg would be the first to say that the hygiene factors are absolutely necessary to maintain the human resources of an organization. However, as in the Maslow sense, once "the belly is full" of hygiene factors, which is the case in most modern organizations, dangling any more in front of employees will not really motivate them.

The tendency for people to assume that they either have control or do not have control over events and consequences in their lives

Skill versus chance environments differentially affect behavior.

One study found that internally controlled
employees are generally more satisfied with their jobs, are more likely to be in managerial positions, and are more satisfied with a participatory management style than employees who perceive external control.

Other studies have found that internally controlled managers are better performers, are more considerate of subordinates, tend not to burn out, follow a more strategic style of executive action, have improved attitudes over a long period of time following promotions, and present the most positive impression in a recruiting interview.

In addition, the attribution process has been shown to play a role in coalition formation in the political process of organizations. In particular, coalition members
made stronger internal attributions, such as ability and desire, and nonmembers made stronger external attributions, such as luck.

The implication of these studies and many others is that internally controlled managers are somehow better than externally controlled managers. However, such generalizations are not yet warranted because there is some contradictory evidence. For example, one study concluded that the ideal manager may have an external orientation because the results indicated that externally controlled managers were perceived as initiating more structure and consideration than internally controlled managers.

Which of the big five personality traits has the greatest effect on job performance?

Which dimension has the biggest influence on job performance?

Which of the big five personality traits allows people to have more solid trusting relationships?

Which Big Five personality trait captures an individual's ability to be counted on to get things done?