1. The Five-Factor Model of Personality, Assessment and Job Performance
Andrew James Panneton
Student of Industrial/Organizational Applied Psychology
Sacred Heart University
April 17, 2015
Abstract
Personality Assessment has long been an area of interest within the applied researcher and
practitioner communities due to the utility and benefit that a universal, categorical taxonomy of
personality traits holds within the applied domain of Organizational Psychology, specifically
Personnel Selection. Personality Assessment has become a very common aspect of personnel
selection programs as an organizational tool aimed at identifying those potential candidates who
possess personality trait structures based on uniquely specific motivational needs which are
predicted to coalesce well with the specific characteristics of the available job position. The present
paperprovides a brief history ofMurray’s (1938) need-press theory and the most commonly utilized
taxonomy of personality trait structure: The five-factor model (FFM) of personality, also known as
the “Big Five.” First, a review of literature concerning the overall validity of the five-factor model
is presented, followed by a review of the cross cultural nature of the model and its’ overall
generalizability. Following this review of literature and the discussion of the FFM’s validity and
generalizability, the present paper reviews several meta-analytic findings from numerous studies
that have examined the unique relationship between personality, as defined by various inventories
based upon the FFM, and job performance. Finally, implications of the study findings from the
reviewed literature, and suggestions for further research on personality assessment as it relates to
the organizational and work environments, are provided and discussed.
The Five-Factor Model of Personality, Assessment, and Job Performance
Undoubtedly,the most influential aspect of Murray’s (1938) Explorations in Personality was his
alphabetical list of twenty manifest needs,as it has formed the basis for a variety of personality assessment
inventories, specifically the five-factor model (FFM) of personality originally proposed by Tupes and Christal
(1961) and Norman (1963) (as cited in Sanz, Gil, Garcia-Vera, & Barrasa, 2008). In fact several researchers have
recommended the FFM as the basis for an empirical taxonomy of personality traits (as cited in Costa & McCrae,
1988). Consequently,over the past fifteen years the five-factor model (FFM) of personality has become the most
recognized and widely used model and taxonomy of personality trait structures (McCrae & Costa, 1997).
According to McCrae and Costa (1997), factor analyses of the individual and specific terms used within the
taxonomy of personality traits as assessed by the FFM, and factor analyses of the scales from a variety of other
personality inventories have shown that the five dimensions included within the FFM, Neuroticism (N), or
emotional stability,Extraversion (E), Openness to Experience (O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscientousness(C),
“summarize and integrate the majority of personality traits based on the five-factor model in predicting job
performance, training criteria, and job satisfaction” (as cited in Sanz et al., 2008, p. 47).
As such,the FFM has been successfully utilized as an invaluable tool for personality assessment and
personnelselection within the applied domains of industrial and organizational psychology with a large body of
literature demonstrating the usefulness ofsuch a taxonomy of personality traits based upon the FFM (Barrick,
Mount,& Judge, 2001). As a result of this realization regarding the utility of the FFM, Costa and McCrae (1985)
developed one of the first personality inventories specifically formulated to assess the “Big Five:” the NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) (Costa & McCrae, 1985). In fact, both the NEO-PI and its revised and abbreviated
versions,the NEO-PI-R and the NEO-FFI, respectively, have become the industry standard for the assessment ofthe
FFM of personality (Sanz et al., 2008).
According to Costa and McCrae (1985, 1989, 1992), one of the key arguments of those who support the
adoption of this FFM model of personality as the dominant model for the meaningful organization of personality
traits is that the FFM integrates the main personality constructs proposed from theoretical standpoints as divergent
as Leary’s interpersonaltheory, Guilford’s temperamental theory,Jung’s typology,Eysenck’s psycho-biological
factor model, and of course the purely empirical perspective.
This support for the FFM is of course,as previously mentioned, grounded in empirical research findings
which relate the NEO-PI, NEO-PI-R, and the NEO-FFI satisfactorily with the most commonly utilized personality
questionnaires currently used to operationalize these models: the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the Interpersonal

2. Adjective Scales-Revised, the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire,
and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory respectively (Sanz et al., 2008). Furthermore, many research
studies utilizing factor analytic methodological techniques have shown that the Big Five defined in all three NEO
inventories are present in the majority of the aforementioned personality questionnaires (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Finally, as discussed lateron in this review of literature, numerous studies have further verified that the
scales utilized in the main objective tests for the assessment and measurement of psychologicalneeds based on
Murray’s (1938) need-press theory,such as the Personality Research Form (PRF; Jackson, 1984), the Edwards
Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS; Edwards, 1959), and the Adjective Check List (ACL; Gough and Heilbrun,
1983), are empirically related with the five factors or dimensions within the FFM as assessed by the NEO
inventories, or may be neatly organized within the factorial space defined by these five factors within these
inventories” (Costa & McCrae, 1988, 1997; Sanz et al., 2008).
Validity of the Five-Factor Model of Personality
In an attempt to examine the overall effectiveness and validity of the five-factor model (FFM) as a
categorical classification of the Murray needs (1938), Costa and McCrae (1988) examined the relationship between
the scales of Form E of the Personality Research Form (PRF) and the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI). An
examination of the correspondences between the Murray (1938) needs and the five dimensions that compose the
FFM model of personality serves two purposes. First it further tests the overall comprehensive nature of the FFM
by evaluating the model’s ability to fully encompass individual differences identified through analyses of
motivational aspects ofpersonality, and second,if indeed clear correspondences between the Murray needs and the
domains of the FFM are found, the five factors could be utilized in further empirical research to classify the Murray
needs within a recognized framework of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1988).
Form E of Jackson’s (1984) Personality Research Form is a measure of needs derived explicitly from
Murray’s (1938) list. According to Wiggins and Broughton (1985) “on substantive,psychometric, and empirical
grounds,PRF scales appear to be the most promising measure of Murray’s needs” (as cited in Costa & McCrae,
1988). Similarly, the NEO-PI, designed specifically to measure the FFM, has also been validated against several
alternative formulations of the model utilizing different instruments and observers. Therefore, joint analysis of the
relationship between the PRF and the NEO-PI should allow for a reasonable determination of the level and degree of
correspondence between the FFM and the Murray needs (Costa & McCrae, 1988).
Costa and McCrae (1988) hypothesized there would be substantialagreement between the two instruments
due to previous research examining this concept. For example, Wiggins and Broughton (1985) performed research
revealing links between the FFM and Form E of the PRF on two dimensions: Extraversion (E) and Agreeableness
(A). Similarly, Skinner, Jackson, and Rampton (1976) found five factors with substantive correlations to the FFM
within Form E of the PRF, named Orientation Toward Work versus Play; Outgoing, Social Leadership; Dependence
versus Autonomy; Self-Protective versus Submissive Orientation; and Aesthetic-Intellectual. Similar factors were
also reported by Lei and Skinner (1982) using confirmatory maximum likelihood techniques,and also by Fowler
(1985) in a much smaller sample of undergraduate men and women (as cited in Costa & McCrae, 1988).
However, despite Costa and McCrae’s beliefs as to the probable convergence of these two scales,there is
one noticeable reason to expect divergence between the PRF and NEO-PI: both measures are derived from very
different theoretical approaches to the definition of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1988). Many personologists draw
a sharp demarcation between “needs” and “traits,” describing the former as goal-directed tendencies which require
thought and careful planning and the latter as routine behaviors,habits, or styles that occur automatically (Costa &
McCrae, 1988). According to Costa and McCrae, however, trait theorists blur this distinction as they see traits as
enduring dispositionalpatterns that may have motivational, affective, behavioral and attitudinal aspects; it was this
“trait theorist” perspective which guided the formulation of the NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae, 1988).
Costa and McCrae (1988) through the use of factor and joint factor analyses,in addition to confirmatory
maximum likelihood techniques,such as rotating factors to maximize convergent and discriminant validity with a
series of external criteria including peer and spouse ratings and self and interviewer Q sorts,found that,despite
differences in theoretical orientation and scale construction techniques,there is a clear and strong relationship
between the NEO-PI and the PRF on both the individual level, and structurallevel of the scales (Costa & McCrae,
1988). The results confirm the convergent and discriminant validity of both the NEO-PI and PRF scales.
Furthermore, they strongly suggest the FFM, as measured by the NEO-PI, successfully encompasses the range of
needs measured by the PRF, thus lending further support to the concept that the FFM is an effective and
comprehensive personality taxonomy (Costa & McCrae, 1988).

3. Generalizability of the Five-Factor Model of Personality
In a study aimed at assessing the cross-culturalgeneralizability of the five-factor model, McCrae and Costa
(1997) compared data from studies using six translations of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R)
with the normative data for the NEO-PI-R; a representative sample of 500 men and 500 women aged 21 and over,
specifically selected to match U.S. Census projections with respect to age and race. The NEO-PI-R is a 240 item
questionnaire designed and formulated through rational and factor analytic methods to operationalize the FFM.
Utilizing congruence coefficients between varimax-rotated principal components,the factor similarity between each
translation and the original American scale were assessed (McCrae & Costa, 1997)
The results of McCrae and Costa’s (1997) study revealed that,when rotation was guided by a hypothesized
target, nearly identical personality construct structures were found in all seven language samples. The median cross
language factor congruence coefficients are as follows: 0.96, 0.95, 0.94, 0.96 and 0.96 for (N), (E), (O), (A), and
(C), respectively. Furthermore, only 2 of 105 coefficients failed to reach .90, the level at which a factor is
considered to have been replicated: both of these were 0.89. Further lending validity to these findings, congruence
coefficients were calculated for variables, as well as factors, and after a Procrustes rotation, 177 of the 180
comparisons with the American structure of the FFM were found to be significant. Therefore, an extremely similar,
and perhaps universal, structure of personality can be found in at least six distinct language families: families which
togetherconstitute the languages spoken by the majority of earth’s inhabitants (McCrae & Costa, 1997).
Although hardly an exhaustive language sample, the results of this study reveal that the five-factor structure
of personality seems to transcend language and may in fact be universal. It is important to note however that,
according to Bond and Forgas (1984), although the five factors can be found in different cultures, this does not mean
that they play the same role in each culture: naturally context is extremely important in determining the importance
and differentiation between factors amongst different cultures (as cited in McCrae & Costa, 1997).
Finally, it is extremely important in analyzing these findings to remember that equivalence of factor
structures does not by itself mean that different translations of the NEO-PI-R have parallel forms reliability. Scores
may have very different interpretations in varying cultures due to a number of factors (McCrae & Costa, 1997).
Results of such a study must be analyzed in respect to the context in which the results are found. So, it appears that
the FFM provides a solid beginning for the understanding ofpersonality trait dimensions everywhere, therefore,
there is now a universal personality trait taxonomy that psychologists can use globally to classify and assess
differences in individual personality trait structure (McCrae & Costa, 1997).
The Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job Performance
Salgado (1997) investigated the relationship between the FFM of personality and job performance within a
European sample utilizing a meta-analytical approach. Overall, 36 studies were chosen for the meta-analysis. These
studies were cross checked with those included in three prior meta-analyses conducted by Hough, Eaton, Dunnette,
Kamp, and McCloy (1990), Barrick and Mount (1991), and Tett, Jackson, and Rothstein (1991) respectively (as
cited in Salgado, 1997). The meta-analysis performed by Salgado had two specific objectives: firstly, to explore the
relation between the FFM and job performance using validity studies not included in the three previously mentio ned
meta-analyses, and secondly,to study the degree of validity generalization for personality measures by comparing
the findings of the previous reviews with the results of the current study conducted within the European Community.
Salgado (1997) hypothesized that among the five factors, Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness to
Experience (O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C), only Conscientiousness (C) and Neuroticism (N),
also referred to as emotional stability,would be found to be valid predictors for all work performance criteria.
Moreover, Salgado (1997) hypothesized that Openness to Experience (O) would be found to be a valid predictor for
training criteria. Salgado’s hypotheseswere correct. The results of the current meta-analysis reveals that (C) (p =
.25) has the highest validity followed closely by (N) (p = .19) (Salgado, 1997).
The other three factors, (E) Extraversion, (O) Openness to Experience, and (A) Agreeableness,showlittle
to no validity. These results are consistent with Salgado’s (1997) hypotheses in that the aforementioned factors do
not generalize their validity across all occupationalgroups and job performance criterion. In contrast,(N) and (C)
were found to be valid predictors of personnel data and training criteria respectively. The (O) factor is also shown to
be a valid predictor of training criterion, however, it additionally shows validity generalization for personneldata.
The (A) factor was also found to be a valid predictor for training criterion. Although this last finding was not
hypothesized,it is consistent with findings reported by Barrick and Mount (1991) and Hough et al. (1990) using the
same predictor-criterion combination (as cited in Salgado, 1997).
In conclusion, similar to previous meta-analytic findings the results reveal that overall validity of the
personality constructs is small, with the exception of Neuroticism and Conscientiousness,which were found to be
generalizable to all occupationalcriteria. Moreover, Conscientiousness shows the highest estimated true validity
and was found to be generalizable for all occupations and all criteria, a finding similar to Barrick and Mount (1991)

4. and Hough et al. (1990), but divergent from Tett et al. (1991) (as cited in Salgado, 1997). Finally, the estimated true
validity for Neuroticism was found to be extremely close to that of Conscientiousness. As such,Neuroticism is also
generalizable across all occupations and criteria, a finding not reported in previous research and meta-analyses.
Despite both the Conscientiousness and Neuroticism factors being generalizable across all criteria and occupations
examined within the current study,Openness to Experience on the other hand was not found to be universally
generalizable, however was found to be a valid predictor for training proficiency (Salgado, 1997).
Therefore, the FFM appears to be a useful cross cultural taxonomy of traits for use in personnelselection
and prediction of job performance. Finally, of particular note is that Conscientiousness appears to be a valid
predictor for all criteria and occupations across multiple cultures within the European Community and within the
United States. Similar results were found in the present study for Openness to Experience and Agreeableness when
these factors were used to predict training performance, therefore a measure of Conscientiousness,Openness to
Experience, and Agreeableness may be beneficial in predicting job performance within personnelselection
programs (Salgado, 1997).
In a similar study which quantitatively summarizes the results of 15 prior meta-analytic studies all aimed at
investigating the relationship between personality and job performance, Barrick, Mount, and Judge (2001)
investigated the relationship between the FFM, i.e. personality traits, and job performance in order to summarize the
cumulative knowledge regarding personality and performance relations within the past century. The second -order
meta-analysis conducted by Barrick, Mount,and Judge reveals the significance of relationships between each of the
five factors, or dimensions, and different aspects ofwork performance amongst different occupations. The results of
the second-ordermeta-analysis are as follows.
Amongst the five factors within the FFM, Extraversion (E) was hypothesized,based upon previous
findings, to have higher significance scores in regards to two specific criteria: higher training proficiency and
teamwork. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that (E) would significantly predict work performance in two
occupations; sales and managerial jobs. The results showed mixed support for these hypotheses (Barrick et al.,
2001).
The Extraversion – teamwork and Extraversion – training performance relationships were supported with a
significance value of p = .28 and p = .21 respectively. Finally, (E) showed non-zero relationships for managerial
performance (p = .21) and police officer performance (p = .12), but not for sales positions. Emotional stability, i.e.
Neuroticism (N), was found to be a valid predictor of work performance across all occupations (p = .13). (N) was
also found to be a valid predictor of teamwork (p = .22). Overall when considering the individual occupations,(N)
was related to performance in some occupations,such as police, skilled, or semi-skilled, but not all occupations.
Agreeableness (A), as hypothesized,displayed a weak correlation with work performance criterion: the relationship
was indistinguishable from zero. Although (A) was found to predict teamwork (p = .34), the number of studies (K)
and total sample size (N) of the analysis was not very large (K = 17 and N = 1,820). Furthermore, (A) was not
found to be strongly related to any other criterion or occupationalgroup. Similar to results found in Salgado’s
(1997) meta-analytic study,Conscientiousness (C) was found to be a valid predictor of job performance across all
criterion types and occupationalgroups. Therefore, as predicted, (C) was found to be universally related to work
performance (p = .27), teamwork (p = .27), and training performance (p = .27). Openness to Experience (O), as
predicted, was found to have little significance to any specific work criterion. Consequently,both (O) and (A) were
found to have the lowest average true score correlations across criteria and occupationalgroups (Barrick et al.,
2001). This last finding differs greatly from the study results reported by Salgado (1997).
Overall, the second-ordermeta-analysis conducted by Barrick, Mount, & Judge (2001) found that
independently conducted meta-analytic studies are relatively consistent in their findings, perhaps even more than
previously suggested. However, similar to Salgado’s (1997) findings within his meta-analytic study,the exception
to this statement is the Tett et al. (1991) study,which revealed true score validities for (A), (N), and (O) exceeding
the 90% credibility value: this finding was not supported in any of the studies included within the meta-analytic
review (Barrick et al., 2001).
In conclusion, the results of this second-ordermeta-analytic study suggest that the only true universal factor within
the FFM that generalizes across all criterion types and occupations is Conscientiousness. This finding contradicts
previous research by Salgado (1997) which posited that perhaps Openness to Experience and Agreeableness could
be beneficial in predicting job performance within personnelselection programs across all criterion types and
occupations as well. Rather, this exhaustive meta-analytic review reveals clearly that Conscientiousness is the sole
factor which can be utilized within personnelselection programs as a reliable and valid predictor of job performance
across all criterion types and occupations.

5. Discussionof Research Findings and Implications for Further Research
Providing an explanation for the underlying mechanisms and reasons as to why individuals do what they do
at work has been a primary goal of behavioral research for nearly 100 years. As mentioned in this purposive
sampling of literature on the FFM, personality assessment,and its’ implications for the prediction of job
performance in such applied domains as personnelselection, much of what the research community has learned over
the past century has come from Murray’s (1938) need-press theory and motivational theory. Although the present
paper is focused on how the FFM accommodates a plethora of divergent theoretical standpoints regarding the
categorical representation of personality within an easy to understand taxonomy, it is important to note that
behavioral science has focused on two major sets ofdistal determinants when attempting to explain an individual’s
motivations and their connection to the manifestation of uniquely individualized personality trait structures as they
relate to behavioral work performance.
For example, as previously discussed,there is a large amount of empirical research that demonstrates that
individual differences in personality traits play an extremely important role in predicting and explaining employee
motivation and behavior (Barrick, Mount,& Judge, 2001; Salgado, 1997). Likewise, there are a number of studies
that have shown that individual differences in characteristics of the specific work situation plan a pivotal role in
impacting employee motivation and overall employee behavior within the organizational workplace environment
(Barrick, Mount,& Li, 2013). It is therefore difficult to conceptualize the role of personality trait structure as it
relates to the organizational workplace environment without a consideration of the joint and interactive influences of
these two individual, yet intrinsically connected,factors (Barrick, Mount,& Judge, 2001). As is the case with many
domains of psychology,context is extremely important when examining a construct of interest, and thus an
examination of personality structure and assessment ofsuch structures for applied settings,such as the prediction of
job performance for utilization in personnelselection programs, requires consideration of the contextual nature in
which the construct occurs:In this case personality as assessed by the FFM of personality. In essence,it is
important to maintain a relational perspective.
Thus,it is surprising that most behavioral research on personality as assessed via the FFM, and its’
implications for the organizational workplace environment, have examined aspects ofmotivation and personality
(models based on Murray’s need-press theory)separately from the specific contextual nature of different
organizational work environments. Consequently,very little research has been conducted on the joint and
interactive processes ofboth motivational dispositions,represented by the tenets of motivational theory based upon
the FFM and Murray’s (1938) needs,and specific taskor environmental contexts.
After all, Murray’s need-press theory posits that a “need” is a construct representing a force within the
brain that organizes processes such as perception and purposefulaction so as to change an unsatisfactory condition.
Likewise, Murray defined a “press” as an environmental stimulus, person,or situation that arouses a psychogenic or
viscerogenic (i.e. basic physiological) need. In essence,Murray’s theory posits that the “need-press” pattern
explains a behavioral dynamic. That is to say that our basic motivations (needs) manifest themselves as a response
to arousal from specific situations or stimuli (presses). The very motivational nature of his need-press theory
suggests a joint and interactive functioning of our basic personality traits/needs,and the contextual situation in
which these traits emerge.
Consequently,it is suggested that furtherresearch pertaining to personality assessment as it relates to job
performance and personnel selection focus on the dynamic interplay of both the motivational traits and the
contextual environment. Furthermore, as evidenced by the results of the meta-analytic reviews included in the
present paper, it would be beneficial in future research to focus on lower level constructs within the FFM. The
results of these meta-analytic studies reveal very little information that can be universally applied. Therefore,
further examination of the lower orders and facets of the Big Five and their relation to individual aspects and work
performance criterion would yield more applicable researching findings. For example, Costa and McCrae’s (1992)
NEO-PI includes thirty facets of personality within the five domains; six facets per factor. Furthermore, according
to Viswesvaran (1993), recent research has identified ten job performance dimensions that togetherrepresent a
comprehensive understanding ofjob performance across all occupations and organizational domains. They are
overall performance, job performance or productivity, quality, leadership, communication competence,
administrative competence, effort, interpersonal competence, job knowledge, and compliance with or acceptance of
authority (as cited in Barrick et al., 2001). This taxonomy of job performance dimensions could be useful in such an
examination of lower order facets of the FFM of personality.
Finally, it is of particular importance in further research to understand that the classification of needs in
terms of an universally accepted trait taxonomy, such as the FFM, is not intended to be an exercise in reductionism:
Sadly, this has been the outcome in much of the research on the relationships between the five domains within the
FFM and their unique relationship to aspects ofjob performance. Rather, the FFM is intended to be a general

6. framework which can be utilized across all domains for a more complete understanding ofpersonality. The model is
not meant to be a substitute for individual scales, inventories,or assessments which also measure Murray’s needs,
such as the PRF, ACL or EPPS. Although research, as reviewed in this purposive sample, has proven that individual
scales, inventories,and assessments such as the PRF, ACL, and EPPS meaningfully fit within the factorial space
defined by the FFM as measured by the NEO inventories, this is not intended to suggest that the five-factor model is
meant to take the place of these scales and assessments. Rather, the FFM is intended to supplement such scales. In
research it is always best to focus on the specific first, and then if possible,generalize findings to broader
understandings orconceptualframeworks. However, exclusion of the original scales that the FFM successfully
encompasses would indeed be an act in reductionism and subsequently take away from the efficacy of such
assessment procedures and have detrimental effects on the research and applied practitioner communities. In order
to betterserve the purposes ofadvancing personnelselection as a domain of organizational psychology,the
aforementioned considerations must be addressed and considered in the conduction of future research on this most
relevant and important topic.