Psychology Research, January 2023, Vol. 13, No.

1, 1-8
doi:10.17265/2159-5542/2023.01.001
D DAVID PUBLISHING

The Big Five Model in Relation to Job Performance:

A New Look at Organizational Psychology

Bafetis Alexandros, Michael Galanakis

Deree, The American College of Greece, Athens, Greece

The Big Five Theory is often regarded as psychology’s most influential personality theoretical approach. The goal of
this study is to examine the role of the Big Five Theory in the workplace, especially which personality qualities are
more likely to predict work success. Which traits should companies emphasize throughout the hiring and selection
processes? How can businesses use the Big Five personality model to locate employees that are more productive,
efficient, and devoted to the organization’s goals? A detailed assessment of existing recent research addresses the
aforementioned issues. Following a review of many current articles on the subject, it was established that using this
model had a positive influence on individual and group performance, working relationships, manager work
performance, and workplace innovation.

Keywords: organizational psychology, personality, Big Five Model, job performance

Introduction
In this research the contribution of the Big Five Model is evaluated under a specific context. The emphasis
is on the contribution and use of the Big Five Theory in the workplace, specifically on the performance of the
organization.
There is a substantial body of literature on the use of this idea in the workplace. A critical examination will
also be performed, as well as a scope for future study surrounding this theory for further growth.

Basic Concepts of Theory

Personality refers to the internal structures and tendencies of individuals that explain cognition, emotion,
and behavior patterns. Individual differences in various patterns of thought, emotion, and behavior are defined,
physical, and mental characteristics or characteristics that define an individual’s distinct character and identity.
The term “personality” refers to a person’s behavioral patterns as well as the underlying structures, dynamics,
processes, and inclinations (Hogan & Holland, 2003). While people may behave differently in different situations,
some researchers argue that personality traits are universal (McCrae & Costa, 1997), consistent (Boyle et al.,
2008), stable (Maltby et al., 2019), proximal to behavior (Gosling et al., 2003), and visible in the behavior of
others. Following on from Cattell’s (2008) earlier experiential effort, the Big Five Model demonstrates that the
human personality consists of five reasonably self-determining dimensions, providing a significant and complete
taxonomy for reviewing the individual’s differences and providing the actual core in human nature as a result of

Bafetis Alexandros, Deree, The American College of Greece, Athens, Greece.

Michael Galanakis, Psychology Professor, Ph.D., Master’s Program in Organizational Psychology, The American College of
Greece, Athens, Greece.
2 THE BIG FIVE MODEL IN RELATION TO JOB PERFORMANCE

the differences (Mount & Barrick, 1998). Organizational scholars in the field of personality have unanimously
concluded in recent years that the Big Five Model completely reflects the idea of personality traits. The five basic
personality elements described by the Big Five personality traits are extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness,
agreeableness, and openness to experience (Barrick & Mount, 1992; Goldberg, 1992; 1991). Extraverts are
expressive, sociable, companionable, gregarious, conversational, confident, and determined (Barrick & Mount,
1991). Extraverts are characterized by their ability to be spontaneous, talkative, energetic, cheerful, and
passionate (Goldberg, 1990; Watson & Clark, 1997). They crave praise, social recognition, power, and authority
(Costa & McCrae, 1992). Extraverts are entirely related with emotional commitment when compared to the other
five qualities (Erdheim, Wang, & Zickar, 2006). Extraverts can practice affirmative emotions, which leads to job
satisfaction (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000). Extraverts are emotionally strong and
certain, which is why they have a happy personality (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998), and this joyful personality is a
vital component of a fulfilled existence and work fulfillment (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997). According to
Hogan (1986), this dimension consists of two components: Ambition and Sociability.
The second factor is called Neuroticism. Neuroticism is defined as emotional instability and unevenness in
an individual’s predisposition to suffer (McCrae & John, 1992). Neurotics are anxious, tense, sulky, unsociable,
uneasy, ashamed, uncertain, skeptical, unconfident, fearful, and unhappy (Judge & Bono, 2000). Neurotics have
little faith or confidence in others (Goldberg, 1990), and they lack social skills to deal with situations in which
they pretend to be in control (Judge et al., 1997). Neurotics, once again, lack confidence and self-esteem (McCrae
& Costa, 1991). Negative affectivity is linked to neuroticism. Neurotics have more unpleasant emotions in life
than others. These two factors Extraversion and Neuroticism represent the “Big Two” described by Eysenk.
The third factor is Conscientiousness although it has also been called Conformity or Dependability (Fiske,
1949; Hogan, 1986). Additionally, it has been called Will to Achieve or Will (Digman, 1989; Smith, 1967;
Wiggings, Blackburn, & Hackman, 1969) Diligence, alertness, vigilance, comprehensiveness, responsibility,
systematization, and determination are traits of this personality type (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Conscientious
people are sensible, dependable, and risk avoiders (Goldberg, 1990). These individuals are responsible,
trustworthy, steadfast, cautious, and thorough, and they are focused on achievement, which is a vital characteristic
for carrying out professional tasks (Barrick & Mount, 1993). Therefore, across all attributes, conscientious
persons are most strongly connected with job satisfaction (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997) and job performance
(Barrick & Mount, 1991). There is much disagreement over the nature of this dimension. Others argue that it
shows dependability, while others argue that it also incorporates volitional characteristics such as diligence and
accomplishment oriented. The fourth factor is called Agreeableness, others have labeled it Friendliness (Guillford
& Zimermman, 1949) and others Social Conformity (Fiske, 1949). At one end of the scale, desirable
characteristics include self-sacrifice, helpfulness, nurturance, kindness, and emotional support; at the other,
disagreeable characteristics include antagonism, indifference to others, and self-interest (Digman, 1990). Polite,
flexible, naive, helpful, supportive, merciful, kind, and open-minded individuals are generous, calm, trustworthy,
truthful, and sincere (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge, Heller, & Mount 2002). Personality researchers believe that
agreeableness is the most divisive personality trait in the Big Five model of personality (McCrae & Costa, 1997).
The final factor is named Openness to Experience. Have an Open Mind “Technical and imaginative ability, a
flexible mindset, and political moderation are connected with openness to experience” (Judge et al., 1997, p. 151-
188). The social propensity frequently linked with Openness to Experience includes being creative, developed,
inquisitive, openminded, clever, with a desire for diversity, aesthetic, and sensitive (Goldberg, 1990; Digman,
 THE BIG FIVE MODEL IN RELATION TO JOB PERFORMANCE 3

1990; McCrae & John, 1992). People who are especially receptive to new experiences tend to suit other elements
better. Openness to Experience is frequently referred to as a “two-edged sword” since it causes people to
experience both strong pleasurable and severe awful experiences (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). It demonstrates how
openness affects emotional reactions such as subjective well-being (Judge et al., 2002).
Because personality dimensions are the consequence of people’s personal attributes, they are used to
examine interpersonal connections and interactions (Kelly & Conley, 1987). Personality traits have been used to
define and predict attitudes (Ones et al., 2007), actions (Shuck & Reio, 2013), fit (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs,
1993; Halfill et al., 2005), results (Hogan & Holland, 2003), and performance in a variety of organizational
environments (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Meta-analytic studies have examined the five dimensions that have been
used in applied psychology (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2015), organizational psychology (Peeters et al., 2006), and
human resource management (Campion et al., 1993) to determine the relationship between personality and
multiple job outcomes (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Hogan & Holland, 2003; Barrick & Mount, 1991; Goldberg,
1990).
Productivity is a popular metric for measuring performance. In general, productivity is defined as the ratio
of a manufacturing process’s output to its inputs. Labor, time, equipment, materials, and energy are examples of
inputs. The number of things produced to a certain quality and standard is one of the outputs (Loosemore, 2014).
Productivity is classified into two types: single-factor productivity and multi-factor productivity (Crawford &
Vogl, 2006). A single factor evaluates one input (for example, labor), whereas a multi-factor analyzes two or
more elements (e.g. labor, equipment, materials). Furthermore, productivity may be measured at several levels
(Kenley, 2014), ranging from macroeconomic measures at the industry level that include projects (Nasir, Ahmed,
Haas, & Goodrum, 2014) to microeconomic measures at the project level that combine activities and at the
activity or task level (Meikle & Best, 2015). Work productivity refers to how much work a person completes in
a given length of time, as well as how efficient an employee is with the time and tasks assigned to him. When an
employee is assigned a task that he is comfortable with and has supportive conditions, his productivity increases;
yet, if the employee is not assigned work in his area of expertise, interest, or has other impediments in his work,
his production decreases. The relationship between productivity and personality is critical for any workplace’s
recruiting so that they have the individual with the personality that will have a good influence on productivity or
else difficulties will occur. Not only is the individual’s performance correlated with personality but also the group
performance. Group performance is crucial in any business since it represents the entire performance of the
organization. If a company’s personnel are unable to work together as a team, the organization’s financial and
operational performance will never be ideal. Because group efforts and collaboration are critical components of
every successful organization, it is critical to ensure that all group members’ personalities are compatible for
organizational goals to be met. Personality is a transformation process that pertains to an individual’s
psychological growth and development. Personality traits are crucial in today’s competitive corporate
environments. The “wrong” type of personality is frequently detrimental and produces unpleasant tensions and
anxiety in the workplace. Employee personalities may propel a firm to greater heights while poor personalities
can drive the organization down. Intelligence and emotional quotient, which essentially comprise an employee’s
personality type, must be balanced for the employee to perform efficiently and readily relate to his/her job and
other employees in a courteous manner. Workplace characteristics (Ailabouni et al., 2007), project characteristics
(Sanders & Thomas, 1991), resources (Thomas & Sudhakumar, 2013), management (Chih, Kiazad, Cheng,
4 THE BIG FIVE MODEL IN RELATION TO JOB PERFORMANCE

Lajom, & Restubog, 2017), and motivation are all factors that impact group productivity (Raoufi & Robinson
Fayek, 2018). Productivity is also affected by human factors and the interdependence of personnel in a group
(Dozzi & AbouRizk, 1993). Employees have a range of personality qualities, and the mixing of personalities has
an influence on group performance (Culp & Smith, 2001). Employees with compatible personalities are thought
to be more productive. Individual personalities mix when individuals create teams, and team building is consistent
with a psychological viewpoint. The goal of this strategy is to organize teams in order to enhance associated
results (Campion et al., 1993). As a result, while allocating individuals to teams, a manager must evaluate their
personality in order to assist the team achieve high performance (Culp & Smith, 2001; Regans et al., 2004). If
employees with complementary personalities are considered to perform well, a manager should staff teams with
an acceptable balance of personalities since the team has the potential to be extremely productive.
Within its framework, the Big Five Model spawned hundreds of personality studies across different nations
and cultures, with a diverse range of residents (Ackerman, 2021). According to 2015 research published in the
Academy of Management Journal, all of the qualities were “more predictive of work performance” when done in
an unstructured setting with the freedom to make decisions, and the traits also suggested how a person’s unique
attributes would function in a situation.

Methodology
In order to complete this essay, we conducted secondary research as well as qualitative analysis. The
influence and correlation of the Big Five Theory on the workplace specifically for job performance was assessed
in several articles (systematic-review). Furthermore, a large number of recent and different publications were
gathered in order to have a complete grasp of how this theory corresponds to job performance.

Results
As previously mentioned, our focus was not only to see how the Big Five Theory Model is correlated to an
individual’s performance but also for group performance. Personality traits have been studied to see how they
affect group performance. According to the findings of a study, when the Big Five Personality Traits are
positively portrayed in the workplace, group performance increases. More precisely, the Big Five Theory traits
have been found to be highly related to group performance. According to findings, openness to experience is
75%, conscientiousness is 73%, extroversion is 83%, agreeableness is 95%, and neuroticism is 90% associated
with group performance (Aremu, Olaonipekun, & Mu’azu, 2018). These percentages are high, which shows a
strong correlation between these factors. This is similar with prior research by Colquitt, Le-Pine, and Wesson,
M. (2009) and Organ and Ligl (1995), which found a significant relationship between the top five personality
traits and employee performance. Two hypothesis tests revealed that the Big Five personalities had a significant
impact on group performance. Similarly, all the independent variables are strongly related to the dependent
variable. As a result, the independent variables statistically represent the components of the Big Five personality
traits. There is a strong relationship between the Big Five personality traits and group performance. Because of
the preceding research, employees that match the Big Five requirements may be highly productive and efficient
group performers.
According to another study (Lebowitz, 2016), “leaders who understand how different people’s personalities
are, can use this understanding to boost their leadership effectiveness and lead to improved employee job
performance.” (p. 199-205). Leaders may use the Big Five Theory to review their own behaviors and educate
 THE BIG FIVE MODEL IN RELATION TO JOB PERFORMANCE 5

staff how to not only optimize their strengths/skills, but also learn from their shortcomings as they drive the
company to success and continue to assess firm behavior. Additional findings indicate that HRM practices and
CEO personality traits impact corporate innovation performance and should be seen as complements rather than
substitutes (Hasso, 2013). Furthermore, Barrick and Mount (1991) discovered that conscientiousness
demonstrated consistent relationships with all job performance criteria across all occupational groups studied
when they investigated the relationship of the Big Five personality dimensions to three job performance criteria
(personnel data, job proficiency, and training proficiency). Individuals who demonstrate attributes related with a
strong sense of purpose, commitment, and persistence outperform those who do not. Lastly, Fang et al. (2015)
identified that personality could predict work performance and career success.

Discussion of the Results

Many studies have been conducted with that specific theme, with many variations and providing either
similar or different results. Unquestionably the Big Five theory is the most well-known and most researched
theory in today’s literature. The previously mentioned studies made clear that the employee’s personality is
critical for a successful organization. Personality evaluation can be used to categorize a candidate’s personality
based on his capability and adaptation to the organization’s criteria. Furthermore, when an organization employs
someone, it searches for specific traits in that individual that will allow him or her to work successfully and
contribute to the growth of the organization. The Big Five theory includes all the characteristics that will be seen
on the job, such as interacting with coworkers, controlling emotions in stressful situations, and being open to new
ideas, being self-aware or helpful to coworkers. As a result, the results from the use of the theory can provide the
information needed to anticipate a person’s productivity. As for group performance, the interrelationships of a
group have been demonstrated to affect productivity. Employees have a variety of personality qualities, and the
mix or combination of these traits influences group performance. Employees with compatible personalities are
thought to be more productive.
We can’t overlook though some limitations that were observed during the study of this research. The first
limitation is that most research has a small sample size. The sample size may be inadequate to make broad
conclusions in general, specifically about the relationship between compatibility and productivity. Many of them
employed a tiny sample size, which might raise concerns. The second constraint stems from, as previously said,
the generalization of results. The third is that in the research studied it was not taken into account the potential of
moderating effects. These moderators, such as age, professional and social background might affect the results
and should be assessed individually.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Human resources are the most important resources and assets that businesses can boast of in the twenty-first
century workplace since they are governed and guided by people. People are in charge of creating goals and
attaining them (Ibikunle, 2015). As a result, the performance of an organization is defined by the sum of its
members’ performances. In today’s global and competitive economy, it is widely assumed that corporations that
rely on diversity outperform organizations that do not profit from variety. This diverse workforce must work in
groups and teams and develop a feeling of commitment which is a vital part of organizational citizenship. When
employees demonstrate positive personality traits, the overall performance of the organization increases.
Organizations should continually employ the best human resource techniques, such as successful recruiting and
6 THE BIG FIVE MODEL IN RELATION TO JOB PERFORMANCE

selection, to attract the best individuals who exhibit positive characteristics that may successfully build team
spirit, task coherence, and the achievement of the organization’s vision and mission.
Other human-related aspects that influence group productivity, such as skills, motivation, and capabilities,
could be investigated alongside the Big Five theory to develop a more complete group productivity function. We
also applaud studies which will aim at developing a more thorough multivariate model of the personality-job
performance link. Finally, as for future recommendations even though psychologists’ agreement on the validity
and utility of the Big Five component model is not universal, we support research that attempts to demonstrate
the link between personality and economic outcomes by delving inside traits for dimensions of personality.

References
Ackerman, C. E. (2021). Big five personality traits: The OCEAN model explained. Positive Psychology. Retrieved from
https://positivepsychology.com/big-five-personality-theory/
Ailabouni, N., Painting, N., & Ashton, P. (2010). Factors affecting employee productivity in the UAE construction industry
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Brighton).
Aremu, M. A., & Olodo, H. B. (2014). Introduction to human resource management. In M. A. Aremu & S. B. Isiaka (Eds.),
Contemporary issues in human resources management (pp. 1-10). Ilorin, Nigeria: Published by Department of Business
Administration, College of Management Sciences, Al-Hikmah University.
Aremu, M. A., Olaonipekun, W. D., & Ku’aiba, L. M. (July-December, 2018). Effects of big five personality traits on group
performance in AL-HIKMAH. Amity Business Review, 9(2), 11.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the big five personality dimensions
and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111-118.
Boyle, G. J., Matthews, G., & Saklofske, D. H. (2008). Personality theories and models: An overview. Personality theory and
assessment. Personality theories and models, 1, 1-29.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness
implications for designing effective work groups. Pers. Psychol., 46, 823-850.
Castillo, T., Alarcon, L. F., & Pellicer, E. (2018). Influence of organizational characteristics on construction project performance
using corporate social networks. J. Manage. Eng., 34(4), 63-71.
Cattell, H. E., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16PF). Sage Publications, Inc.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Von Stumm, S., & Furnham, A. (Eds.). (2015). The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences.
John Wiley & Sons.
Chandel, P. K., & Shahi, S. (July 2017). A study to find out the relationship between personality and work productivity. Psyber
News, 8(1&2), 13-21.
Chih, Y. Y., Kiazad, K., Cheng, D., Lajom, J. A. L., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2017). Feeling positive and productive: Role of
supervisor-worker relationship in predicting construction workers’ performance in the Philippines. J. Constr. Eng. Manage,
143(8), 80-96.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive
suite. Journal of management, 23(3), 239-290.
Colquitt, J., Le-Pine, J., & Wesson, M. (2009). Organizational behavior: Improving performance and commitment in the workplace.
New York: McGraw-Hill, Irwin.
Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual
Differences, 29, 265-281.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory and NP1O five-factor inventory professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Crawford, P., & Vogl, B. (2006). Measuring productivity in the construction industry. Buil. Res. and Inf., 34(3), 208-219.
Cubel, M., Nuevo-Chiquero, A., Sanchez-Pages, S., & VidalFernandez, M. (May 2016). Do personality traits affect productivity?
Evidence from the laboratory. The Economic Journal, 126(592), 654-681.
Culp, G., & Smith, A. (2001). Understanding psychological type to improve project team performance. J. Manage. Eng., 17(1), 24-33.
 THE BIG FIVE MODEL IN RELATION TO JOB PERFORMANCE 7

DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being.
Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197-229.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-40.
Digman, J. M. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility. Journal of personality, 57(2), 195-214.
Dozzi, S. P., & AbouRizk, S. (1993). Productivity in construction. Ottawa, ON: Institute for Research in Construction, National
Research Council.
Erdheim, J., Wang, M., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). Linking the Big Five personality constructs to organizational commitment.
Personality and individual differences, 41(5), 959-970.
Fang, R., Landis, B., Zhang, Z., Anderson, M. H., Shaw, J. D., & Kilduff, M. (2015). Integrating personality and social networks:
A meta-analysis of personality, network position, and work outcomes in organizations. Organization science, 26(4), 1243-
1260.
Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different resources. Journal of Abnormal
Social Psychology, 44, 329-344.
Florez, L., Armstrong, P., & Cortissoz, J. C. (2022). Does compatibility of personality affect productivity? Exploratory study with
construction crews. Journal of Management in Engineering, 36(5), 1-14.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big five factor structure assessment: The example of the MMPI-2.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 4(1), 26-42.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann Jr, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of
Research in personality, 37(6), 504-528.
Guilford, J. P., & Zimmermann, W. S. (1949). Temperament survey.
Halfhill, T., Sundstrom, E., Lahner, J., Calderone, W., & Nielsen, T. M. (2005). Group personality composition and group
effectiveness: An integrative review of empirical research. Small group research, 36(1), 83-105.
Hasso, R. (2013). The impact of CEO’s personality traits (Big 5) and human resources management practices on the innovation
performance in SMEs. University of Twente. Retrieved from https://essay.utwente.nl/63740/
Hogan, R. (1986). Manual for the hogan personality inventory. Minneapolis: Mineapolis National Computer System.
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: a socioanalytic perspective.
Journal of applied psychology, 88(1).
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The big five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85(6), 869-879.
Ibikunle, O. H. (2015). Performance appraisal: Methods, processes and problems. In M. A. Aremu & S. B. Isiaka (Eds.),
Contemporary issues in human resources management (pp. 97-110). Ilorin: Doja Press.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review.
Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 765.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85(5), 751-765.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 530-541.
Judge, T. A., Locke, A. E., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151-188.
Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: a prospective analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(1), 27.
Kenley, R. (2014). Productivity improvement in the construction process. Constr. Manage. Econ., 32(6), 489-494.
Kinicki, A. (2008). Organizational behavior: Core concepts. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Lebowitz, M. S. (2016). Stigmatization of ADHD: A developmental review. J Atten Disord., 20(3), 199-205.
doi:10.1177/1087054712475211
Loosemore, M. (2014). Improving construction productivity: A subcontractor’s perspective. Eng. Constr. and Arch. Manage., 21(3),
245-260.
Maltby, J., Day, L., Flowe, H. D., Vostanis, P., & Chivers, S. (2019). Psychological trait resilience within ecological systems theory:
The resilient systems scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(1), 44-53.
8 THE BIG FIVE MODEL IN RELATION TO JOB PERFORMANCE

McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American psychologist, 52(5), 509.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2),
175-215.
McCrae, R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). The full five-factor model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(2),
227-232.
Meikle, J., & Best, R. (2015). Measuring construction: Prices, output and productivity. London: Routledge.
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1998). Five reasons why the “big five” article has been frequently cited. Personnel Psychology,
51, 849-858.
Nasir, H., Ahmed, H., Haas, C., & Goodrum, P. M. (2014). An analysis of construction productivity differences between Canada
and the United States. Constr. Manage. Econ., 32(6), 595-607.
Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings.
Personnel psychology, 60(4), 995-1027.
Ojokuku, R. M (2012). Human resource management demands and challenges in small and medium scale enterprises. International
Journal of Economic Development Research and Investment, 3(3), 1-10.
Organ, D. W., & Lingl, A. (1995). Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Social Psychology,
135, 339-350.
Peeters, M. A., Van Tuijl, H. F., Rutte, C. G., & Reymen, I. M. (2006). Personality and team performance: a meta‐analysis. European
journal of personality, 20(5), 377-396.
Raoufi, M., & Robinson Fayek, A. (2018). Key moderators of the relationship between construction crew motivation and
performance. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 144(6), 936-964.
Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E., & McEvily, B. (2004). How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing
effective teams. Administrative science quarterly, 49(1), 101-133.
Sanders, S. R., & Thomas, H. R. (1991). Factors affecting masonry labor productivity. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 117(4), 626-643.
Shuck, A. L., Shuck, B., & Reio Jr, T. G. (2013). Emotional labor and performance in the field of child life: Initial model exploration
and implications for practice. Children's Health Care, 42(2), 168-190.
Thomas, A. V., & Sudhakumar, J. (2013). Critical analysis of the key factors affecting construction labour productivity—An Indian
perspective. Int. J. of Constr. Manage., 13(4), 103-125.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767-
793). Academic Press.